Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-2007 Planning Commission Packet:. Septemb'er 12, 2007 - - hl p:\fomis and procedures\speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME c�NrJ�d �iOi2 /Z ADDRESS 1 t �d -3 ?4 Ink- R, SUBJECT !�' 191 A/i Vn 946:k�S AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 DATE v i TELEPHONE NO. C27 % TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: pm / (Please read instructions on reverse side) p: \fours and procedures\speaker slips ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING. COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. pMomis and procedures speaker slips NAME `—J CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION I ADDRESS 71 S _ L%f!" ,qd. / W SUBJECT 6-4'°x/ J { / (l Prttr AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE , TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: —7 4�2, 61/1� (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will, be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. pAfomis and procedures speaker slips Val ADDRESS o2o CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION w SUBJECT & fk� - 4' t-u3�s Slz� L AGENDA ITEM NO _ DATE 74,2-12,00=t TELEPHONE NO. 4(5- S-3I " Z41 Z(O TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: ( -0-V (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the, subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRES THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ADDRESS ,R1 D -M SUBJECT pif/(l AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE I v l TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT:/ (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. i • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 Approximately 3:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #07 -262 2. APPLICATION #07 -259 13601 Saratoga Avenue Saint Andrews Parish and School 14078 Alta Vista Avenue Castro The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The, committee conducts site visits to properties that are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is a fact - finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. P:\PC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2007 \TEMPLATE.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION . STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2007. APPLICATION ZOA07 -0003 (City -Wide) - Proposed Blight Ordinance: The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance to set standards for the minimum level of maintenance of private property in Saratoga. The ordinance would establish standards for (1) general property maintenance (e.g., overgrown vegetation, unsecured structures, or conditions of deterioration or disrepair that creates a substantial adverse impact on neighboring properties), (2) single family residential use landscaping, (3) multifamily residential use landscaping, and (4) parkstrips between sidewalks and City streets. The ordinance would also specify enforcement and appeals procedures. The Study Session is a fact - finding. meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on, the proposed project or other matters. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed proj ect. Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John F. Livingstone, CDD —t_ MEETING DATE: September 12, 2007 v SUBJECT: Blighted Property Ordinance STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: The Study Session is a fact - finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed projector other matters. No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed Blighted Property Ordinance and provide input to staff. DISCUSSION TOPICS: • Enforcement • Economic Hardship • Landscape Requirements FUTURE PROCESS: Continue this item for another study session or to a Planning Commission Public Hearing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. California Life Line Low Income Standards 3. Enforcement Information 0 1 Attachment 1 • ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 7 -50 TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO BLIGHTED PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption. Article 7 -50 is added to the Saratoga City Code to read: -7- 50.010 Purpose of Article The purpose of this Article is to promote the public health, safety and welfare by requiring a minimum level of maintenance of private property to protect the livability, appearance and social and economic stability of the City and, to protect the public from the health and safety hazards and the impairments of property values that result from the neglect and deterioration of property. 7- 50.015 Calamity or Disaster Exemption Blight in violation of this Article shall not be based on the condition of property which is the result of damage or destruction from fire, flood, earthquake, or other soil movement, an act of God or other calamity or. disaster. 7- 50.020 Definitions For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Section, unless the context or.the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Decorative Landscaping means decorative non -live materials used to cover dirt in a garden or yard, such as rocks, or bark and does not include pavement with asphalt, cement or other similar products. (b) Landscaping means live trees, shrubs, lawns, other live plant materials (including native and drought tolerant plants) or Decorative Landscaping. (c) Native Plants means plants that are indigenous to California. (d) Parkstrip means the area between the property line and edge of the roadway not including a sidewalk or pathway. (e) Polluted Water means water that contains any bacterial growth, including algae, remains of rubbish, fecal matter, untreated sewage, refuse, debris, papers, or any other foreign matter or -1- material that, because of its nature or location, constitutes an unhealthy or unsafe condition. • 7- 50.030 Public Nuisance Any property upon which there exists property blight as set forth in the provisions of this Article is hereby declared and determined to be a public nuisance. 7- 50.040 Prohibition of Property Blight. (a) No person, whether as owner, agent, manager, operator, lessee, tenant, sublessee, or occupant in possession of a property, shall maintain a blighted property or cause or permit property to be maintained as a blighted property. (b) No person, whether as owner, agent, manager, operator, lessee, sublessee, tenant or occupant of a property, shall take any action or allow ariyaction to be taken at that-property in-violation of any provision of this Article or any order issued pursuant to the provisions of this Article. 7- 50.050 General Conditions The presence of any one or more of the following conditions on property constitutes property blight: (a) Any condition that is detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or that, constitutes a public nuisance as defined in California Civil Code Section 3480; (b) Any building or structure that is unsecured constitutes property blight. A building or structure is unsecured when any of the following conditions exist: (1) The building or, structure is inhabited, occupied or used without the consent of the owner or the agent of the owner; or (2) Unauthorized persons can readily gain entry to the building or structure without the consent of the owner or the agent of the owner or (3) There is the potential for the harboring of rats, vermin, vector, or other similar nuisances. (c) A partially constructed, reconstructed or demolished building or structure upon which work has been abandoned constitutes property blight. Work is'deemed abandoned when there is no valid current building or demolition permit for the work or when there has not been any substantial work on the.building or structure for a period of six (6) months or more. (d) Any building that is unsecured or a harbor for vagrants, criminals or other unauthorized persons, or is in a condition such that persons can resort thereto for the purpose of committing a nuisance or unlawful act, constitutes property blight. (e) Any building or structure that is in a state of disrepair. A building or structure is in a state of -2- disrepair when any of the following conditions exist and are visible from the street or neighboring properties: 1) Exterior walls or roof coverings have become deteriorated, do not provide adequate weather protection, or show evidence of the presence of termite infestation or dry rot; or 2) Broken or missing windows or doors that create a hazardous condition or a potential attraction to trespassers; or 3) Building exteriors, paint, walls, fences, retaining walls, driveways, or walkways that are broken or substantially deteriorated to the extent that the disrepair is visible from the front or exterior side setback areas visible from the street. (f) The property contains overgrown weeds or other vegetation or garbage or debris that: 1) Constitutes a fire hazard or other condition that is dangerous to the public health, safety, welfare; or 2) Creates the potential for the harboring of rats, vermin, vector; or other similar nuisances. . 3) Is overgrown onto a public right -of -way at least twelve (12) inches; or 4) Is completely dead, over twelve (12) inches in height, and covers more than fifty percent (50 %) of the front or exterior side setback areas visible from the street. (g) Failure to meet landscaping and/or maintenance requirements established by Section 77 50.060. (h) The existence of any other, condition defined as blight by any provision of this Code. 7- 50.060 Landscaping Requirements (a) A developed property shall have. landscaping installed andmaintained in the portions of the front and exterior side setback areas that are visible from the street and not used as a driveway, walkway, or sidewalk, provided, however, that this requirement may, in the discretion of the City Manager not apply or apply only to a portion of the property if the City Manager determines that adequate landscaping is present to prevent blight: 1) in any Agricultural District; 2) in any Agricultural Preserve Open Space Overlay District; 3) in any Residential Open Space District; 4) to any land with a slope greater than 40 %; 5) to any land that is the subject of an open space easement dedicated to the City of Saratoga; 6) within any creek protection setback established pursuant to this Code; or 7) to any property owned by a person with a financial hardship demonstrated by showing that he or she qualifies and has been accepted for the lifeline telephone service rate pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 873, 874 and 876, as they may be amended from time to time. • -3- (b) An undeveloped property be maintained in the portions of the front and exterior side setback areas that are visible from the street, provided, however, that. this requirement may, in the discretion of the City Manager not apply or apply only to a portion of the property if the City Manager determines that adequate maintenance has been performed to prevent blight. (c) If only Decorative Landscaping is used to meet the requirements of this section, a weed block that is permeable (including but not limited to tan bark) shall also be used and shall be maintained or replaced as necessary to prevent the . emergence of vegetation into the Decorative Landscaping. (d) Undeveloped property may be maintained by annual discing satisfactory to the City Manager. (e) Landscaping shall. be protective of area wildlife and utilize native plants to the extent feasible. (f) Failure to meet the landscaping and/or maintenance requirements of this Section constitutes property blight. 7- 50.070 1 Parkstrips Any property with a Parkstrip shall have landscaping installed in the nonpaved portions of the Parkstrip. Failure to meet the landscaping requirements of this section constitutes property blight. 7-50.080" Abatement Actions Whenever the City Manager determines that property blight exists on a property, the City Manager may require or take any necessary abatement or other enforcement actions to cause the property blight to be abated in accordance with the provisions of this Code, or by any other lawful means. The City Manager may determine that - temporary corrective measures are required prior to the time that permanent abatement or other enforcement actions .are instituted. Costs for any abatement performed by or on behalf of the City are authorized to be recovered by the City in the City Manager's discretion. If the City Manager proceeds under the Nuisance Abatement provisions of Article 3 -15 or 3 -20, the cost of abatement maybe either (1) caused to be a lien to be charged against. the parcel or (2) transmitted as a City Council approved report of costs together with a copy of the resolution confirming the same to the County Tax Collector, who shall add the amount of abatement costs, or unpaid portion thereof, to the next regular tax bill as a special assessment, for municipal purposes, against such parcel. The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner as ordinary municipal taxes. If such assessment is delinquent, the amount shall be subject to the same interest and penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary in taxes and the property may be sold after three years by the tax collector for. unpaid delinquent assessments. The City Manager shall elect whether or not to seek, as a. part of abatement costs, reasonable attorney's fees incurred in abating the nuisance. The notice of the date of hearing by the City Council on the ' abatement costs shall indicate whether the City Manager intends to seek reasonable attorney's fees as part of the abatement costs and shall indicate that if the City Manager elects to seek reasonable attorney's fees, the prevailing party may be entitled to reimbursement of -4- • reasonable and necessarily incurred attorney's fees. 7- 50.090 Imminent Danger (a) Any condition of property blight which is reasonably believed by the City Manager to be imminently dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the property or to the public may be summarily abated by the City Manager, in accordance with Article 3 of this Code. (b) Actions taken to abate imminently dangerous conditions may include, but are not limited to, repair or removal of the condition creating the danger and/or the restriction from use or occupancy of the property on which the dangerous condition exists and/or any other abatement action determined by the City Manager. (c) If there exists on a blighted- property any condition reasonably believed by the City Manager to be imminently dangerous to life, limb, health, or safety should such property be occupied . or used by human beings, the City Manager may order the immediate restriction from use or occupancy of the blighted property in accordance with this Code. In addition to restricting use or occupan cy, the order may require that other abatement actions be taken. 7- 50.110 Procedures of This Article — Cumulative Procedures used and actions taken for the abatement of property blight are not limited by this Article. Procedures and actions under this Article may be utilized in conjunction with or in addition to any other procedure applicable to the regulation of buildings or structures or property. All property blight conditions which the City requires to be abated pursuant to the provisions and permit requirements of this Article shall be subject to all provisions of this Code including, but not limited to building construction, repair or demolition and to all of property improvement, and zoning, and all other applicable local, state, and federal laws. Nothing in this. Article shall be construed to limit any, right or remedy otherwise available in law or equity to any party harmed by a blighted property, nor shall this Article in any way limit the City's right to enforcement under any other provision of this Code or create a duty or obligation on the part of the City to enforce this Article. Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (the amendment is exempt because it assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the.environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA). Section 3. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general • circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. -5- The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the _ day of , 2007, and was adopted by the following vote.following a second reading on the _ day of , 2007: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I i SIGNED: ATTEST: Aileen Kao, Cathleen Boyer, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY_ OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY • 10 .T &T - Low-income Phone Service - California http:// www02. sbc. com /Products_Services/Residential/ 1 „68 - -1 -3- 3,00... En.Espanol Other._Lanquages I • • ID 8/22/2007 3:46 PM t. J4 at &t >> Home >> Residential >>CA>> Products and Services AT &T - Low - income Phone Service - California User ID _ California California I Select a Different State Find Products and Services Password ' View Cart I My Services ❑ Remember User ID Forgot User ID Residential California LifeLine Secure Login Page Low- income phone service Small Business Need answers fast? Enterprise Solutions AT &T California is committed to increasing telephone service availability for all Ask Allie@ Customer. Support. Californians. California LifeLine (sometimes referred to as "ULTS" or "Lifeline ") keeps Corporate Information low- Income households connected. at half the cost of basic residence service. (Example: How do I pay If you, or someone you know, is without telephone service and may qualify for my bill ?) California LifeLine, please call 1- 800 -288 -2020 to learn more. California LifeLine Question Tips — provides a- discount -on- telephone connection- charges and a discount on the monthly 0 telephone service charge. Refine Search What types, of Dhns are "available ?. How do I qualify? How do I order Lifeline? Types of California LifeLine Sign-up and Savel For qualifying households, connection and monthly charges for California LifeLine Exclusive offers and service are 50% less than for basic residence service. Other than price, the service is. helpful tips from our monthly up2speed the same service provided to all AT &T California customers. Additional discounts are email newsletter. available to qualifying customers who live on Tribal Lands or have a deaf or hearing Register.) Update impaired member of the household. Profile California LifeLine customers do not pay certain monthly surcharges and fees, such as the "Federal Subscriber Line Charge ". Choose the plan that fits you best: Universal LifeLine Plans Plans Who May,Benefit Features Cost California Qualifying low Provides unlimited 50% of AT &T LifeLine - Flat income customers local calling California's Rate* who make 3 or. applicable tariffed MORE local calls a monthly rate day ($5.34 per month for most exchanges; higher charges may apply in certain territories) $10.00 one -time connection fee for new service, or to, change existing service California Qualifying low Provides 60 50% of AT &T LifeLine - income customers untimed local calls California's Measured Rate* who generally applicable tariffed make LESS than 3 monthly rate local calls a day ($2.85 per month for most exchanges; higher charges may apply in certain territories) Additional untimed calls are 84 each $10.00 one -time connection fee for new service, or to change existing service • • ID 8/22/2007 3:46 PM • • * Usage charges may apply. Local Directory Assistance allows three (3) free calls per month, additional calls are 46 cents each. ** For qualified California residents who live on reservation or tribal land (as defined in Title 25 — Code of Federal Regulations, Section 20.1, Paragraph (v)). California LifeLine Flat. Rate Service You pay the same each month no matter how much you call within your local area. For local toll calls (made outside of the local area but that are not far enough away to be billed as long distance), charges are based upon Zone Usage Measurement (ZUM), or how far away you call and what time of day you calla Long distance calls are not included in the California LifeLine Flat Rate Service charge. California LifeLine Measured Rate Service Measured Rate Service provides a reduced monthly rate for residential customers who don't make many local calls. Customers are charged per call for local calls in excess of a per -month allowance. It generally makes most sense for customers who make fewer than three local calls per day. For local toll calls made outside of the local area, charges are based upon Zone Usage Measurement (ZUM) or how far away you call and what time of day you call.. Long distance calls are not included in the California LifeLine Measured Rate Service charge. Do You Qualify for California Lifeline? To qualify for California LifeLine service, you need to meet the following three requirements: 1. You must participate in an approved benefit program, oryour gross annual household income (the income you pay before taxes) must not be more than the California LifeLine service income limits. You may qualify for California LifeLine under either Method 1 program Based OR Method 2 Income Based. Method 1 Program Based: you qualify for California LifeLine if you or another person in your household is enrolled in any one of the following public assistance programs: Qualified Public Assistance Programs Medicaid /Medi -Cal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Food Stamps Healthy Families Category A Tribal TANF Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Federal Public Housing Assistance or Section 8 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) National School Lunch's FREE Lunch Program (NSL) Women, Infant and Children Program (WIC) Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance Method 2 Income - Based: You qualify for California LifeLine if your total household income is at or less than the California LifeLine income maximums. California LifeLine Service Income Limits 8/22/2007 3:46 PM http: / /www02.sbc.com/ Products /ResidentiaUl „68 - -1 -3- 3,00.:. '7' &T - Low- income Phone Service - California _Services ' Plans Who.May Benefit Features Cost Tribal Lands Qualifying low Same as California $1.00 per month LifeLine ** income customers Lifeline flat or $10.00 one -time fee for living on tribal measured plans connection lands above new service, or to change existing service California Qualifying low Permits California Same as California LifeLine Flat or income customers Lifeline discount on LifeLine Flat or measured plans Measured - with a household a second line' second line member using a above TTY device • • * Usage charges may apply. Local Directory Assistance allows three (3) free calls per month, additional calls are 46 cents each. ** For qualified California residents who live on reservation or tribal land (as defined in Title 25 — Code of Federal Regulations, Section 20.1, Paragraph (v)). California LifeLine Flat. Rate Service You pay the same each month no matter how much you call within your local area. For local toll calls (made outside of the local area but that are not far enough away to be billed as long distance), charges are based upon Zone Usage Measurement (ZUM), or how far away you call and what time of day you calla Long distance calls are not included in the California LifeLine Flat Rate Service charge. California LifeLine Measured Rate Service Measured Rate Service provides a reduced monthly rate for residential customers who don't make many local calls. Customers are charged per call for local calls in excess of a per -month allowance. It generally makes most sense for customers who make fewer than three local calls per day. For local toll calls made outside of the local area, charges are based upon Zone Usage Measurement (ZUM) or how far away you call and what time of day you call.. Long distance calls are not included in the California LifeLine Measured Rate Service charge. Do You Qualify for California Lifeline? To qualify for California LifeLine service, you need to meet the following three requirements: 1. You must participate in an approved benefit program, oryour gross annual household income (the income you pay before taxes) must not be more than the California LifeLine service income limits. You may qualify for California LifeLine under either Method 1 program Based OR Method 2 Income Based. Method 1 Program Based: you qualify for California LifeLine if you or another person in your household is enrolled in any one of the following public assistance programs: Qualified Public Assistance Programs Medicaid /Medi -Cal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Food Stamps Healthy Families Category A Tribal TANF Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Federal Public Housing Assistance or Section 8 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) National School Lunch's FREE Lunch Program (NSL) Women, Infant and Children Program (WIC) Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance Method 2 Income - Based: You qualify for California LifeLine if your total household income is at or less than the California LifeLine income maximums. California LifeLine Service Income Limits 8/22/2007 3:46 PM T &T - Low - income Phone Service - California http:HwwwO2.sbc. corn/ Products_ Services /Residential /1;,68 - -1 -3- 3,00...' Size of Houshold Maximum Annual Income 1 - 2 members $22,000 3 members $25,900 4 members $31,200 5 members $36,500 For each additional member after 5 $5,300 members, add Household Income is defined as all revenues received by everyone in your - household, whether taxable or non - taxable, including, but not limited to: wages, salaries, interest, dividends, spousal support and child support, grants, gifts, allowances, stipends, public- assistance payments, social security and pensions, rental income, Income from self - employment and cash payments from other sources, and all employment - related, non -cash income. To qualify under Method 2 Income - Based, you must also provide documents proving that,your total household income is at or below the California Lifeline income maximum. Acceptable income documents are: Prior Yea r'sstate;:federal, or tribal -tax return; or Any of the following income documents that represent your total household income: Income statements or paycheck stubs for three consecutive months within the calendar year Statement of Benefits from Social Security, Veterans Administration, retirement/pension, unemployment compensation, and /or workmen's compensation A divorce decree Child support document Other Official documents 2. The household in which you are applying for California Llfel-ine must be your primary residence. Additionally, your household may not already have California LifeLine service. 3. You cannot be claimed as a dependent on someone else's income tax return. Getting certified After you have ordered. California Lifeline, you'll receive an eligibility certification form from the California Lifeline Program that you must sign and return to the Lifeline Program by the due date printed on the form. If you don't return the form or you otherwise do not qualify, your telephone service will be changed to basic residential service. All California LifeLine discounts you received will be reversed and billed to' your account, and you will also incur a one-time service charge to change from California Lifeline service to basic residential service. Every year you'll receive a California Lifeline eligibility verification notice mailed directly to your home. If you still qualify for California LifeLine,.you must sign and return the form to the California Lifeline Program to continue to receive California Lifeline. Each year, the California LifeLine income eligibility levels are adjusted for inflation. At any time, the California Public Utilities Commission or Commission's Agent may check to see if you meet all of the California Lifeline requirements. How to order California LifeLine service New AT &T California Customers If you qualify for California LifeLine, contact us to request new service. If you are not already a customer of AT &T California, there is a one -time $10.00 connection charge when you establish California LifeLine telephone service. Existing AT &T California Customers If you already have regular residential Measured or Flat Rate Service with AT &T California, there is a one -time charge of $10.00 for changing your existing service to California LifeLine. The changeover takes effect on the day you request it, and the charge will appear on your next bill. If you currently have California LifeLine telephone service,. there is a charge of $10.00 to change from one California LifeLine plan to another (for example, from California LifeLine Measured Rate to California LifeLine Flat Rate). If you are either enrolling in the California LifeLine program for the first time and found ineligible or an existing California Lifeline customer but no longer meet the • .41 8/22/2007 3:46 PM T &T - Low- income Phone Service - California http: / /www02.sbc.com/ Products_ Services /Residential/l „68 - -1 -3- 3,00... eligibility requirements, there is no charge to change from California Life Line to basic residential Flat Rate or Measured Rate service. Ordering Call us toll -free at 1- 800 -288 -2020 weekdays 8 am to 6 pm and Saturday from 8:30 am to 5 pm (Pacific) from anywhere in the United States. Accessibility Resources Center: Customers who are hearing, pe 8 am to 5:30 pmblFor impaired can call 1- 800 - 772 -3140 Monday through Friday, TTY access, dial 1 -800- 651 -5111 Information in,other. languag es. . All rates, terms and conditions are subject to change without notice. AT &T California provides service within a service area. Where services are provided across service area boundaries, AT &T California works with the long distance company of your choice. Please ask for terms, conditions and exclusions of the Wire Pro service plan. Under state law, landlords, and not tenants, are responsible for repair to and maintenance of inside telephone wire. This law only applies to one working jack. When repairing your standard inside wire, you have options. You can repair it yourself, hire AT &T California to repair it on a per visit basis, or hire someone else to repair it. Removal of 900 /976 Blocking requires written approval and a fee may apply. The charge to install the first jack or to activate existing jacks and wiring is $125.00. If you have existing jacks and wiring that are reusable, they can be reactivated for $125.00. Any additional jacks and wiring can be installed for $50.00 each. Costs are per visit, per billed customer, e installer premises. Additional charges for inside wire, jacks, or other materials may apply. . will give you an estimate before beginning the work. AT &T local service is provided by AT &T California. Continue Shopping ca 2003 -2007 AT &T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy YELLOWPAGES.COM • • 8/22/2007 3:46 PM t tachment 3 • • : WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP, Jonathan Wittwer 147 SOUTH RIVER STREET, SUITE 221 William P. Parkin SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060 PARALEGAL Brett W. Bennett TELEPHONE: (831) 429 -4055 Miriam Celia Gordon FACSIMILE: (831) 429 -4057 E -MAIL: office@wittwerparkin.com September 5, 2007 Planning Commission City of Saratoga c/o City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Administrative Penalties for Violations of City Code Dear Commissioners: At the August 22, 2007 meeting of the Planning Commission, a member of the public spoke at oral communications and referred to the enforcement by the City of San Jose of its Community Preservation Ordinance as an example of how enforcement can be made effective because the City of San Jose provides significant monetary sanctions for non - compliance with this Ordinance. The Commission requested that the Assistant City Attorney investigate whether the City of Saratoga could establish a similar enforcement mechanism. Initially, there is a significant difference between the City of Saratoga and the City of San Jose which is important to note with regard to means of enforcement. Charter cities can enact ordinances which provide for different penalties as long as the penalties do not exceed those listed in the charter. County of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (1963) 219 Cal. App. 2d 838, 844. Based on the ability to legislate its own "municipal affairs," the City of San Jose as a charter city may (and has) established enforcement penalties higher than those allowed under State statutes. The City of San Jose has done so through its Administrative Citation and Remedies procedures, which provide for an alternative means of enforcement against violations of the San Jose Municipal Code and for the ability to establish alternative remedies apart from infractions, misdemeanors and nuisance abatement. The City of Saratoga, as a general law city, has not adopted such administrative citation and penalties provisions. The City of Saratoga could establish such administrative enforcement procedures, but it would remain bound by those penalties established in State law. That is because Government Code Section 53069.4 provides as follows: The legislative body of a local agency ... may by ordinance make any violation of any ordinance enacted by the local agency subject to an administrative fine or penalty. The local agency shall set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review by the local agency of those administrative fines or penalties. Where the violation . would otherwise be an infraction, the administrative fine or penalty shall not Planning Commission Enforcement by Administrative Penalties September 5, 2007 Page 2 exceed the maximum fine or penalty amounts for infractions set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 25132 and subdivision (b) of Section 36900. The current maximum penalty amounts in Government Code Section 36900(b) and Saratoga City Code Section 3705.010(e) are for a first conviction not more than one hundred dollars, for a second conviction of the same ordinance within a period of one year not more than five hundred dollars, and fora third or any subsequent conviction of the same ordinance within a period of one year not more than one thousand dollars. However, City Code Section 3- 05.010(.) does provide that "[e]ach such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, and shall be punishable - accordingly." In addition to requiring amendment of the Saratoga City Code, the establishment of administrative penalty procedures requires the use of an administrative hearing officer, which is an added expense for the enforcement of the City's regulations. It does not cost the City anything to have a court administer, the enforcement of violations. If the Commission is interested in having the City establish an administrative penalty procedure, investigation should be undertaken to ascertain the experience of other jurisdictions in obtaining penalties for multiple days of violation. If it is favorable as compared to Court imposed penalties, then perhaps a recommendation to the City Council would be warranted. The penalties established by the City of San Jose through its administrative citation and remedies procedures are indeed higher than those enforceable by the City of Saratoga. A violation of the Community Preservation Ordinance is punishable with a fine of $250.00 for the first violation, $500.00 for the second violation and $1,000.00 for the third violation. - . Misdemeanor enforcement (rather than infraction enforcement) can result in similar penalties to those imposed by the. City of San Jose, but entitles the alleged violator to a jury trial. I will be attending the Study Session on this subject on September 12, 2007. Please advise if you have further questions in this regard. Very truly yours WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP Jonathan Wittwer Assistant City Attorney 2 I. • NOTICE OF ARCHITECTURAL TRAINING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following architectural training on Tuesday, the 11 th day of September at 5:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. I. 40 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair Joyce Hlava PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 22, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATION: 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 6, 2007 REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS: If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Cleric 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. Applicants /Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant /Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. APPLICATION #07 -259 (397 -28 -041) Castro, 14078 Alta Vista Avenue; - The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct an approximately 2,432 square foot, single- family residence with a basement and a attached garage. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26- feet. The net lot size of the parcel is approximately 6,027 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Chris Riordan) 2. APPLICATION #07 -262 (393 -25- 027,028)) Saint Andrews Parish and School, 13601 Saratoga Avenue; - The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct three new buildings on the site totaling approximately 49,920 square feet. The three buildings will include a three -story administration /classroom wing, two -story north classroom wing, and three -story clergy offices. The project includes a request for Variation from Standards to exceed the maximum allowable floor area P: \PC Agendas\2007\Agn 091207.doc and lot coverage allowed in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. These three buildings were originally approved in May 2003. Planning entitlements have a three -year expiration date. Building permits were not secured for these buildings in that time period and the entitlement have expired. The net-lot size is approximately 5- acres and the site is located in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 46.020. (Chris Riordan) DIRECTORS ITEM: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, September 26, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868 -1269 or ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 6, 2007 at the office of the City of Saratoga; 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato�wa.ca.us ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planninp,(asaratoea.ca.us NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us • PAPC Agendas\2007Wgn 091207.doc • \ O R T MINUTES. SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Heather Bradley, City Arborist Kate Bear and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of August 8, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of August 8, 2007, were adopted with a correction to pages 4,6,9,10,11,13,14 and 16. (6- 0 -0 -1; Commissioner Kumar abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. ORAL COMMUNICATION Ms. Nancy Kundtz, Resident on Heber Way: • Stressed the need for enforcement language to make ordnances easier to enforce and have more clout. • Stated that there is a lack of resources for enforcement. • Asked that the City focus time and energy to make enforcement easier. Chair Hlava asked the Commission what direction, if any, should be given to staff to make enforcement easier and to enforce fines quickly. Commissioner Rodgers said that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to determine how enforcement will occur. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 2 Commissioner Kundtz said if the authority does not fall with the Commission staff could be asked to follow through on this issue with Council. Director John Livingstone agreed that Council is the ultimate authority on the issue of how ordinances are to be enforced. He pointed out that there are two ordinances_ before this Commission on tonight's agenda that Council has asked the Commission to evaluate. The aspect of enforcement can be considered as part of that discussion. . REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2007. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent items. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hlava 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). PUBLIC HEARING. ITEM NO. 1 Application #07 -342 (APN 386 -10 -043) McDonald's USA, LLC, 18578 Prospect Road: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval and modification to a previously - approved Conditional Use Permit for a McDonald's restaurant with a 24 hour operation to occupy an existing. 4,090 square foot vacant commercial building previously occupied by Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Design Review approval is 'necessary to allow minor exterior modifications to the building. The lot size is 2.14 acres and the site is zoned CN (Commercial Neighborhood). (Heather Bradley) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that an additional email was received late this afternoon from Karen Mack with the City of San Jose's Public Works Department and is being distributed this evening as a table item. • Explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit that includes Design Review approval for minor changes to the . exterior of the building and a signage request. • Described the zoning as Commercial Neighborhood and the tenant space on site is closest to the Prospect/Lawrence intersection. • Said that the colors remain unchanged but the existing drive -up window will be relocated and a second added. The interior will be completely remodeled with seating for 65. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 3 • Said that an additional menu board would be installed outside and the applicant contacted staff regarding the possibility for additional signs including a corporate flag. • Advised that a consultant to the applicant prepared a transportation impact analysis that was subsequently_ peer reviewed and accepted by the City of Saratoga, City of San Jose, Roads District and the high school district. It was determined that there would be no increase in traffic. • Recommended an amendment to Condition 14 to read, "The applicant or property owner shall work with the City of San Jose to assess the need for a fair share contribution to the cost of future median improvements so deemed necessary by the City of San Jose. If deemed necessary by the City of San Jose, the applicant or property owner shall enter into a deferral agreement or other agreement satisfactory to the City of San Jose to make their fair share contribution at the time it is requested." • Provided other proposed minor changes to the resolution. In Condition 9, the text should be added, "as dated July 9, 2007, and peer reviewed by follow up report dated July 25, 2007. Condition 11 should include the text, "subject to the Public Works Director's approval. Condition 13, line 4, should replace the word "conditions" with "standards." • Informed that staff finds this proposal to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA and recommends that the Planning Commission approval this application. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the proposed 6 x 5 sign is wood and, if not, had a wood sign been discussed with the applicant. Planner Heather Bradley replied no, it is plastic, and no discussion of a wood sign.took place. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the flag is a new addition.. Planner Heather Bradley said that the American flag is not new but the addition of the McDonald's flag is a new element. Commissioner Cappello asked if the McDonald's flag would fly on the same flagpole Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked how large the two flags would be. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Sign Ordinance covers the flying of.the American flag. Planner Heather Bradley clarified that the flying of the American flag is acceptable but the flying of the McDonald's flag is to be considered as a form of signage. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the flag would be lit from the bottom up as required. Planner Heather Bradley deferred this detail to the applicant. Chair Hlava asked if there was a master sign program for this shopping center. Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 4 Chair Hlava asked staff how many signs Krispy Kreme had. Planner Heather Bradley said that Krispy Kreme had one wall sign and signs in the windows that were not counted in total sign area. Commissioner Kumar asked if the inclusion of the McDonald's flag is incorporated into the draft resolution. Planner. Heather Bradley replied that the flagpole and the. American flag are, included on Exhibit A. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the McDonald's flag is currently not depicted on that exhibit. Pla.nner Heather Bradley said that is correct. Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Jolie Houston, Attorney for McDonald's: • Stated that there are a few things that she wanted to clarify. • : Assured that the American flag is properly lighted. • Said that the addition of the McDonald's flag is a desired addition but not mandatory. • Said that if it is allowed, the McDonald's flag could either be the same size as the American flag or it could be a lot smaller. They are just asking because the City's standards can be varied during the Use Permit process. • Asked that Condition 8 be modified to include the McDonald's flag. • Pointed out that this represents the relocation of an existing McDonald's from a site across the street to this new site. It will include 65 inside seats and the continued use of 16 outdoor seats as originally approved for Krispy Kreme. • Stated that they are in agreement with the revisions to.. Condition 14 regarding fair share contribution to the median. • Said that other comments have been received from the school district and other tenants, which are no problem to the applicant. • Advised that other representatives are here. tonight including Jeff Elia from Hexagon Transportation Consultants; Kate O'Reilly - Grumley, the project manager; the franchisee', and Diane Zimmerman from McDonald's USA, LLC. • Informed that the 36 square foot plastic sign is internally illuminated. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the total of 65 seats includes both interior and exterior seating. Planner Heather `Bradley said that the architect advised her of 65 seats. They may not have included the outdoor seats but the applicant can clarify that fact. Ms. Kate O'Reilly- Grumley, Construction Manager for McDonald's, said that the 65 seats indicated by the architect are the interior seats with the assumption that the �previously- approved 16 outdoor seats would continued to be allowed to be used. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 5 • Commissioner Nagpal asked how many interior seats Krispy Kreme had. Was it 65. Planner Heather Bradley said that she believed they had fewer interior seats. Commissioner Kundtz questioned the impact on parking and traffic with 65 interior and 16 exterior seats for this use. Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that she believes the City likes the inclusion of outdoor seating. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley. if she could accept a maximum number of seats allowed. Ms. Kate O'Reilly- Grumley replied yes. Mr. Jeff Elia; Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., said that the traffic analysis was based upon 82 seats. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the outdoor seating would take up any of the existing parking spaces, Chair Hlava pointed out that with 16 outdoor seats and 65 indoor seats, the total is 81. She asked if the outdoor seats would be on the existing paved patio area. Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley replied yes. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested revising Exhibit A to depict the outdoor seating. Commissioner Nagpal said that she would like to see a wood sign- considered using the same colors and logo. Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that their sign was modeled after what was there previously for Krispy Kreme. She said that if the Commission were open to external illumination of a wood sign, they could consider one. Commissioner Cappello asked staff if it is safe to assume that the traffic study, which was peer reviewed by City staff, used 82. seats when evaluating this site. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked if 82 seats were within ordinance limits for a restaurant. Planner Heather Bradley said that while site parking does not meet standards, upon analysis it 0 has been determined that adequate parking is available based on the criteria used. She added that the Commission is able to approve an exception to the parking standards. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 6 Commissioner Zhao said that the outside seating area is pretty small and asked how many tables would be there. Ms. Jolie Houston said that there would be four tables with four seats at each as was used by Krispy Kreme. She assured that there is room for that number as well as a nice landscaping area. Commissioner Cappello asked if the umbrellas would include any corporate logos.. Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that the tables are a fiberglass material that is weighed down with concrete so as not to be stolen. She assured that there are no logos on the umbrellas. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a finding -to make to support the parking exception. She also asked if this application includes Design Review too. Planner Heather Bradley said that the drive up window, new roof and trellis location are design issues. The parking exception is mentioned in the Parking /Circulation section of the report. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the resolution. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised. that Code allows a variation from standards and that no specific finding is required for a parking exception. Ms. Jolie Houston asked Mr. Jeff Elia to present the traffic analysis overview. Mr. Jeff Elia, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.: • Said that the original study had the assumption of a maximum of 82 seats, including outdoor. • Said that the parking demand was calculated and included a surplus of 15 spaces in the current lot. With that surplus, 38 additional seats could be allowed for a maximum of 119 before there is a parking shortage. • Assured that the worse case scenario was considered. Commissioner Cappello asked if the analysis took a look at the existing McDonald's location and the parking demands there. Mr. Jeff Elia replied no. He added that that is a shared parking site with no true parking demand. Planner Heather Bradley said that the City's Traffic Consultant asked for a traffic count for an hour at peak time at the existing location. Commissioner Nagpal asked what is the peak time for McDonald's. Mr. Jeff Elia replied between 12 and 2- p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 7 iCommissioner Nagpal asked if there are other restaurants serving lunch on this site,. Mr. Jeff Elia said that the middle of the day is the peak time and the count was done at that time. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jeff Elia if he has seen the email from City of San Jose. Mr. Jeff Elia replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the extension of the median island and how they would work with the City on this. Mr. Jeff Elia said he couldn't answer that. He added that the impacts are not caused by this project rather they are already there. They are perhaps adding one car to an already long que. He said that a fair share allocation is the fairest alternative. Commissioner Kumar said that Krispy Kreme had no drive -thru. Mr. Jeff Elia said that they did indeed also have a drive -thru. Chair Hlava asked if drive -thru traffic would be served faster with two windows. Mr. Jeff Elia replied yes. Commissioner Kumar said that it is not clear whether McDonald's wants the flag sign Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that it was an afterthought and she does not want it to hold up what they are asking for here. It is not a dire thing they have to have but rather something that would be nice to have if possible. Commissioner Zhao questioned the use of two windows with one lane. Ms. Kate O'Reilly - Grumley said that one window is the pay window and the next is the pick up window. Ms. Jolie Houston added that there would also be two order stations before the pay and pickup windows. Mr. Chuck Soontag, Resident on Paseo Cerro: • Stated that he used to go to Krispy Kreme and found that the drive -thru was not used that much. • Pointed out that one already has to wait to get out of this parking lot. • Said that McDonald's has more drive -thru traffic. Ms. Marti Foster, Resident on Saratoga Avenue: • Stated her tendency to frequent only businesses located in her community. • Said that she has seen no problem getting in or out of this site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 8 • Stated that she has no problem with the size of the American flag. . Chair Hlava clarified that the American flag is not at issue but rather the corporate McDonald' flag proposed to fly below it. Ms. Marti Foster said she has no problem with the corporate flag Ms. Jolie Houston said that they are conditioned to paint the curb red to disallow parking along Prospect so visibility entering and leaving the site will be improved. Mr. Jeff Elia said that 82 seats was the original assumption but parking data shows a surplus of parking that could serve up to 119 seats. He added that there is a different parking dynamic for fast food versus a typical sit -down restaurant. Fast food turns over many more cars in a shorter period of time. Commissioner Zhao asked what is the restaurant parking standard for Saratoga. Planner Heather Bradley said that it is based on the total floor area requiring one parking space per 400 square feet in tenant space. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he has no issue with the outdoor seating and could support language "not to exceed 81 seats." • Said that as for the sign being made of wood, if this site were close to the Village, he would be more concerned with the illuminated plastic sign proposed. However, since Krispy Kreme had a backlit plastic sign, he has no issue with McDonald's having one too. He said it is possible that a wood sign could look better and he is curious as to what the other Commissioners might have to say on the issue: • Added that if the McDonald's flag flying below the American flag supports. their business, he thinks that is good. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said he agrees about the flag. • Added that he feels more strongly in support of a wood sign that could offer a softer look and still incorporate the corporate colors and external gooseneck lighting. • Stated he is fine with the proposed number of seats. Commissioner Kumar: • Said that he finds outside seating to be more vibrant. • Added that he likes the idea of the flag. • Said that he loves the idea of requiring a wood sign, which is more of a Saratoga feel. Commissioner Nagpal: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 9 • Said that she is excited that McDonald's will retain the existing exterior. It will be a nice look for them. • Added that they are spending time and money on the interior. • Said that the parking and traffic study was a decent one. • Expressed support for a maximum of 81 seats to be split however they want to between indoor and outdoor seats. • Said that a wood sign would look nice and is her preference. It is nicer for the architectural appearance. • Stated that she is in support of the American flag. While the McDonald's flag was not in the original request, if it is consistent with signage limitations she can support it. • Stressed that there be no logos on the umbrellas. Commissioner Zhao: • Said that either a plastic or wood sign is fine. • Said that the seating should not exceed the 82 used in the traffic study. • Stated that she can support the inclusion of the McDonald's flag as it would be visible from Lawrence and help people find this location. • Advised that she can make the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit findings to support this application. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she is delighted that McDonald's is going into this corner. • Stated that she can make the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit findings. • Agreed that her preference for the sign would be wood. She pointed out that Starbucks used a wood sign at the Village location, which looks classy, as would this one for McDonald's. • Pointed out that the flagpole is 30 -feet tall. If the McDonald's flag were as large as the 8 x 12 American flag, half of that 30 -foot flagpole would be covered. • Admitted that she is concerned about allowing an exception to parking standards. Chair Hlava: • Said that she can make the Design Review and Use Permit findings. • Stated that she would like to keep the maximum seating close to 82 but giving them flexibility on the number of tables. • Suggested that the McDonald's flag be 2/3 the size of the American flag. • Said that requiring them to use a wood sign instead of the. internally illuminated sign penalizes them and is not a good idea especially since Krispy Kreme had an illuminated sign on this site. • Added that everyone knows the McDonald's sign and noted that there is a lot of sign pollution in this area and the sign needs to be easily seen. • Agreed that the umbrellas must match the building and not look like a circus.with yellow tables and red umbrellas. • Stressed that no signs or logos be included on the umbrellas. Commissioner g mmissioner Na al said that a wood sign would result in a unique McDonald's. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 10 Commissioner Cappello said that all the other signs in this center are plastic and back lit. • Having this one sign be wood could end up looking odd. Chair Hlava said that there appears to be consensus for a motion and asked about- the proposed maximum number of seats. Commissioner Nagpal suggested 70 interior seats and 15 exterior seats. Commissioner Rodgers said that more parking would be required. Commissioner Nagpal suggested. staying below 82 but letting them split as they see appropriate. Chair Hlava asked if the 2/3 size McDonald's flag seems reasonable. Commissioner Cappello proposed leaving that detail to staff. Commissioner Hlava asked about the issue of wood sign versus plastic. Commissioner Nagpal. said that if the rest of the center has lit plastic signs she is.willing to have an open mind. Commissioner Kundtz stated that the flag is what would draw customers to this location. Commissioner Kumar said that this is a very contemporary designed McDonald's and a wood sign would be very fitting. Ms. Diane Zimmerman, McDonald's USA, LLC, said that they prefer the illuminated sign. The Commission informally discussed plastic versus a wood sign. Commissioner Nagpal said that if the applicant prefers the illuminated plastic sign she is willing to support their preference. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review and Use Permit Approvals (Application #07 -342) for a McDonald's restaurant with 24 -hour operation on property located at 18578 Prospect Road, with the following amendments: • Seats not to exceed 82; • No logos on any outdoor furniture and /or umbrellas; • Outdoor furniture subject to approval by the Community Development Director; and • The size of the McDonald's flag subject to approval by the Community Development. Director; by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 11 AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: Kundtz ABSENT: None ABSTAIN:, None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.2 APPLICATION #07 -397 (APN 386 -34 -053) Makhiiani, 12576 Scully Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review approval to add a second floor to the existing single -story resident. The addition includes approximately 148 square feet to the existing first floor and a new approximately 1,146 square foot second story to the existing 2,755 square foot single -story residence. The total proposed floor area would be approximately 4,049 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 55 percent of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 14,184 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Heather Bradley) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow a 1,150 square foot second story addition to an existing single -story residence as well as a 150 square foot first floor addition. Described the site as being approximately 14,000 square feet located on the corner of Scully and Largemont. Advised that a balcony is proposed that faces Largemont and one neighbor has expressed concerns about that balcony. Reported that the applicant is proposing additional landscape screening to alleviate that neighbor's privacy concerns. o Stated that there are no trees being impacted by this project and that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Advised that the.Design Review findings can be made. • Distributed a materials board. . Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Seema Mittel, Project Architect: • Stated that this project has been well defined in the staff report. • Advised that her clients have been very responsible in the design that they wanted and worked hard with their neighbor over the concern raised. • Advised that they are willing to plant two large trees right away. Mr. Makhijani, Applicant and Property Owner: • Reported that his family has resided in this house for six years and they love the house, neighbors and schools in this community. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 12 • Distributed some photographs and explained that he asked his builder to climb up on the .roof to take these photographs of the view from their proposed balcony. • Reminded that there are lots of mature trees in their backyard. No trees are impacted and he likes having them there. • Said that they have taken care to design their house to look like an original house and not like a remodeled house. • Informed that his wife, Nita, went to a nursery and they recommended the planting of black - stemmed pitas Porum, which is an evergreen that is intended to serve as a screening hedge. It grows up to between 15 and 20 feet high and between 10 and 12 feet wide. This would do a good job screening the.view of his neighbor's windows. Mrs. Nita Makhijani explained that while her son is off to college, her daughter is now a junior in high school and she wants her to be able to enjoy living in the new house before she too goes off to college. She added that it is likely that parents will move into their home some timein the future. ._ - - Commissioner Rodgers asked about adding lattice on the side between this home and the neighbor's on the balcony. Mr. Makhijani said he would prefer not as he wants to be able to look onto his pool.. He assured that the trees should grow quickly. However, if the . Commission feels that the temporary use of lattice is necessary, he would.work with this neighbor. Commissioner Kundtz complimented the Makhi'ani's on their se to their neighbor's p J Y g privacy concerns. He added that this privacy goes both ways. Commissioner Zhao asked how long it would take the screening to reach 15 to 20 feet in height. Mr. Makhijani said that they grow about two feet per year. He added that a couple of feet_ above the fence is all that is needed to adequately screen this area. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Kumar said that he liked the PhotoShop rendition. He said that he is in support of the Design Review findings. Commissioner Cappello: • Agreed.and said he too can make the findings. • Added that the view and privacy concerns have clearly been addressed and that he has the sense that the neighbor is more comfortable. • Said he would support this project. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that the screening landscaping be planted as soon as possible. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 13 Planner Heather Bradley reported that the applicant wants to retain and reuse their existing garage door. It is aluminum painted to match and is depicted on plan sheet A5 -1. Mr. Makhijani explained that the first thing he did when he moved in was to put in a garage door so it is still relatively new. It is the same type of door used by other homes in this neighborhood. He added that a wood door is more unusual in this neighborhood. Commissioner Cappello said that he supports a requirement to include a carriage style door. Chair Hlava said that this owner has a less than six - year -old door and she hates to have him replace it. Commissioner Nagpal said she couldn't specifically recall their existing garage door. Mr. Makhijani pointed out that they are not replacing the entire house here. The garage itself is not being touched. He added that 18 of 20 homes.in his neighborhood have the. same door. He added that he wants to save the unnecessary expense of replacing this door and would appreciate it if they could keep what they have. Commissioner Cappello suggested leaving this issue to the discretion of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Rodgers said that the Director could look at other garage doors in the area to see what is consistent. She agreed that this is a remodel and not a new house. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff for any comment on this issue. Director John Livingstone said that his recommendation is to upgrade the door, as this would be a brand new house. Commissioner Cappello said that a carriage door is a beautiful door and is typically asked for. Commissioner Kundtz asked the project architect for her opinion. Ms. Seema Mittel said that with a remodel of this scale she usually loves to see a new garage door but she is also sensitive to the client's budget and there are others in the neighborhood just like this. She said. while a new door would be nice, the current door does match and it saves $6,000. Chair Hlava said that she used to live in this neighborhood. It is not a fancy neighborhood. She said that it is not fair to replace an almost new garage door. It doesn't seem right. She asked for additional comments on this requirement.. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is what the Director is suggesting. She said while she is sensitive to cost, this new door would also add value. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 14 Commissioner Rodgers said that this is a lovely area of Saratoga. It is a quality neighborhood and would be an upgrade. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval to allow a first and second story addition to an existing single -story residence on property located at 12576 Scully Avenue, with the requirement to change to a carriage style garage door as approved by the Community Development Director as well as the planting of two screening shrubs-as soon as possible, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao. NOES: Hlava and Kundtz ABSENT:. None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hlava explained that she voted no because she'did not feel the requirement to change the garage door was fair. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that it is unnecessary to change the existing garage door. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 . APPLICATION #APT07 -0001 (APN 386 -11 -035) WU, 12571 Paseo Cerro: The applicant is appealing the denial of a tree removal permit application. (HTRP07 -200) and conditions of Administrative Design Review approval ( #07 -255) that require he retain a coast redwood tree in the front yard of the property.. Pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 90.010, applicants can appeal the denial of a tree removal permit and conditions of Administrative Design Review approval to the Planning Commission. (Kate Bear) City Arborist Kate Bear presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant handed her two letters this evening for the Commission. • Reported.that the appellant is in the process of building a new home on his property and the original home has been demolished. • Explained that the appellant wants to remove a redwood tree that he feels is too large and a danger to his home. It is also lined up directly with the front door and he feels that it is not possible to develop around this tree. • Informed that staff was not able to make the findings to allow this tree removal as the criteria was not met. The redwood tree is not in eminent danger of falling. It is not interfering with utilities. It is. in fair health and does not appear diseased.. It does not threaten damage to the house. • Stated that the appellant dug a trench near the house and took out two -inch roots. • Said that the lot is flat so erosion is not a concern. • Pointed out that this redwood is one of only two trees on this property, the other being. an orange tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 15 • Said that removal of this tree would create a significant loss with respect to shade and landscaping on the property. The tree is in fair health, and the property can handle the addition of a number of trees. • Said that during the design stage of the project, the house could have been designed with the front door offset from the redwood tree or in another. location. In fact, the .previous house did have the front door in another location that was not directly opposite the redwood tree. • Added that a landscape could have been designed around the redwood tree using it as a focal point. The landscape plan submitted showed one small tree to replace the redwood that he wanted to remove. • Reiterated that removal of this tree is not required, as alternatives do exist. • Said that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution denying the removal of the redwood tree and implementing the recommendations from his arborist's report. • Proposed two minor changes to the draft resolution. One is to delete the second line of the description reading, "and denying modifications to approved plans." The appellant never requested modification of the conditions of approval. The second change, at the end of the. resolution add the following text to the final NOW THEREFORE sentence to read, "The redwood tree shall be retained and the appeal of the tree removal permit shall be denied." Commissioner Cappello asked whether the excavation of the trench and cutting of roots was done in the context of determining whether the tree's roots were causing damage to the foundation and /or whether the cuts to the roots is jeopardizing the health of the tree going forward. City Arborist Kate Bear said that the appellant told her that he felt the tree was threatening his foundation. She added that she told him that she needed more information and he should have a structural engineer or somebody look under the house at the foundation. Instead he dug the trench and as a part of that cut the roots that were headed toward the house. Commissioner Cappello asked if those removed roots would not have become a threat to the foundation of the new house going forward. City Arborist Kate Bear replied that she is not finding a problem at this time. However, she added that she would not say that in the future there would not be a problem. Commissioner Cappello asked if she believes a problem is unlikely. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she won't say it is unlikely because roots will grow from the end of the cut root and it might be years and years and years before there is any issue. Redwood trees can cause problems to foundations but small roots don't cause problems. Commissioner Cappello asked what about two -inch roots. Bear said that the could become six -inch roots in time. City Arborist Kate Be y Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 16 . Commissioner Cappello asked City Arborist Kate Bear if the health of the tree is jeopardized and becomes an issue in her opinion. City Arborist Kate Bear said that the roots cut were approximately 15 feet from the trunk so she was not that concerned. She was a .little surprised but. not overly concerned because the trench was filled in right away. Commissioner Nagpal said she has questions about, the possibility of, improving the condition of the tree. She said that it doesn't appear to be the best looking tree and. appears to have suffered some stress. She asked if implementing the recommendations in the arborist's report would help improve the condition of this tree. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she had asked the appellant to. implement the recommendations of his arborist and evaluate the tree one year down the line. If nothing had improved, then reconsideration of the situation could occur. She said that she did not believe. he had implemented the recommendations but is not sure that he has not. Chair Hlava: • Pointed out that in his arborist's report, she speculates that this is a big tree that grew quickly due to access to .ground water and that ground water supply_ seems to be going away. She asked City Arborist Kate Bear if she agrees with that assessment. City Arborist Kate Bear said that it is a very large redwood but that she hesitates to speculate about the groundwater situation. She agreed that redwood trees need a lot of water and you can see 40 to 50 year old redwood trees that are not as large as this one is. Chair Hlava: • Said that while the Commission was on its site visit, the tree looked like a nice, .healthy tree when up close. However, when they looked back at it as they were driving away, it did not look so good. It looks sparse with branches falling off. • She asked if a "25 of 100 ranking represents a tree in fair condition. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she identified it as being in fair health while Debbie Ellis, the appellant's arborist; said it was in poor health. She added that she agrees that the tree is not in good health. Commissioner Rodgers recounted that when they were driving away, they turned around and looked at it. Commissioner Nagpal said that obviously it didn't look great but this has been a construction site. She said that from her perspective, the question is what are the chances of success if the recommendations are followed. She asked City Arborist Kate Bear to verify that. her recommendation is to implement the suggested conditions and evaluate the tree after ,one year. City Arborist Kate Bear said that is correct. She said that she did not think that anyone should have to wait five years to see if this tree turns around. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 17 Commissioner Nag pal said that the conditions likely need to be implemented right away. City Arborist Kate Bear said that at the very least the tree needs to be watered. Commissioner Rodgers asked City Arborist Kate Bear if she knows if the water table in Saratoga is increasing or decreasing and whether that makes a difference in the life of a tree if the water table fluctuates over 10 years. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she is not familiar with the water table in Saratoga. She said that if trees can tap into a relatively high groundwater source, that's an asset for them.. She added that redwoods like a lot of water and would take advantage of that if that were the case. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is about a 40- year -old tree. City Arborist Kate Bear said that 90 percent of the roots for most trees are located in the top two to three feet of soil. She added that it doesn't mean that they won't tap into a water source down 15 feet. It's a possibility. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is evidence that it has been trimmed in the past. She asked if the needles on the interior of a branch ever re -grow and how does this affect the health of the tree. City Arborist Kate Bear said that it definitely affects the health of the tree. She said that the tree does have the appearance of having been trimmed a little excessively on the interior. She added that she has not noticed that the tree is sending off any new growth. Commissioner Rodgers reported that she heard that in the past someone anchored.the tree to a neighbor's tree during a storm as it was swaying so much. Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Charlie Wu, Appellant and Property Owner: • Explained that he bought this property in 2000 and this tree was there. • Said that the tree has always been like it is. There has been no change. • Said that when the house was originally built, the door was in the front and was later moved to the side. • Reported that people always comment to him, "you have a big, ugly tree!" • Said that about five years ago his neighbor asked him, 'When are you going to take down that tree ?" • Said that it was at the beginning of this year that they decided to rebuild their house. • Added that even if they had remodeled instead of rebuilding, they would have relocated the front door to the front. • Informed that they applied for a tree removal permit and were denied. . • Said that when his expert arborist, Ms. Debbie Ellis, saw the tree her first comment was that there was something wrong with the tree. It is in poor health. . • Stated that over the years he has asked how -to make this tree healthier and no one know. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 18 • Reiterated that the key point is that this tree is in poor health. • Pointed out that even City rborist Kate Bear gave a rating of 25 out of a possible 100. Y 9 g p • Said that this is a big and ugly tree that is not healthy. It is also a hazard due to its size and proximity to the house. It is just 12 to 15 feet from the front door.. It is huge and it is ` close. This tree is, five times the height of the house. • Said that he has a letter from his neighbor, John, who lived in the neighborhood since the 1960's and even before this tree was planted. • Reported that on windy days they can hear small branches falling on their roof.. One branch almost landed on their neighbor's car. • Advised that lie spoke with City:Arborist Kate Bear regarding the trench and the tree two- inch roots that he cut. He added that you could see roots 30 feet into the foundation. • Added that they have a letter from a structural engineer that states in their opinion any root growing underneath a house would eventually impact the structural integrity of the foundation. It may not happen now but it could 20 to 30 years down the road. • Reminded .that no one from the neighborhood likes this tree. It blocks visibility to .the house. It doesn't match the house or the neighborhood. It is the tallest tree in this neighborhood. • Added that he proposes to replace it with three to five new and healthy trees to match the new house and the neighborhood. • Said that one cost is the personal liability as his neighbors are worried about, potential damage to their property. • Suggested that the health and condition of this tree, is not likely to improve. • Advised that it is easier to remove this tree now, before the construction of the new house. • • Reminded that he has 15 signatures. of support from the neighborhood and three of his neighbors are here tonight. Chair Hlava asked if there are questions for Mr. Charlie Wu. Commissioner Cappello asked how far away the neighbor'who wrote the letter is located - Mr. Charlie Wu said right next to his house. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Charlie-Wu if he has an` estimate of the cost to take this tree down. Mr. Charlie Wu replied no. Commissioner. Kundtz said he imagined it would cost a lot. Mr. Charlie Wu said that he would do what it takes. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Charlie Wu if his arborist is here tonight. Mr. Charlie Wu replied yes. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 19 Commissioner Nagpal said that the Commission must look at nine criteria, including removal for physical or threatened damage. She asked if there is any damage yet. Mr. Charlie Wu replied not anything significant that he can recall although there is threatened damage with falling branches. Commissioner Nagpal asked 'Mr. Charlie Wu when he bought the property. Mr. Charlie Wu said that he bought the home "as is." He added that he had no plans to rebuild the house at that time. He said that the original owner agrees that the tree is too big for the lot it is on. It was only six -feet tall when it was planted. Commissioner Nagpal asked about positioning the new home away from the tree and pointed out that City Arborist Kate Bear is recommending that the tree be looked at again one year from now. Mr. Charlie Wu said that it is very unlikely that the condition of the tree would improve. It would be even more costly to take this tree down when the new home is in place. Mrs. Wu assured that the tree is watered all year round with. irrigation. She added that no matter where the door is placed, this tree is in the way. Mr. Charlie Wu agreed that they have watered this tree. Chair Hlava. asked Mr. Charlie Wu to verify his understanding that it would be easier to cut this tree now rather than later. Mr. Charlie Wu said that is correct. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Charlie Wu, why not move the'door to one side or the other or move the house back. Mr. Charlie Wu said that it would look awkward if the house is 15 feet deeper on their lot than are the homes of his neighbors. He added. it is his understanding that this goes against the recommendations of the residential design guidelines. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Mr. Charlie Wu has made the decision to locate the house where it is. Chair Hlava asked staff to comment on the issue of whether a house should be located the same distance from the front property line as the surrounding homes. Director John Livingstone disagreed and said that varying front setbacks somewhat is desirable. • Chair Hlava asked about pushing the house back further on this 1ot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 20 Director John Livingstone said that it looks like this house is maximized on.this lot. . Chair Hlava said if it were smaller it could be moved further back. Commissioner Rodgers added that a second story is possible. Director John Livingstone said that since the original house was demolished, there is a clean slate here and the options are endless. Commissioner Kumar said that there .is some confusion as to whether the roots are encroaching on this house in a way that could lead to an unsafe foundation in the future Mr. Charlie Wu said that he found three , larger roots that eventually would impact his foundation. Commissioner Cappello asked about the landscape plan submitted that retained this redwood. Mr. Charlie Wu said that it is just a simple schematic. His original submittal showed the removal of the redwood tree but he had to retain it on the plan in order to proceed with the process forthe house approval. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Charlie Wu if he would move forward with his landscaping immediately were this tree be allowed to be removed. Mr. Charlie Wu assured that he would be willing to install landscaping that is acceptable to the City and his neighbors. He added that this is a part of the requirements prior to occupancy. Mr. Chuck Soontag, Resident on,Paseo Cerro: Reported that he lives right across the street. • Assured that he loves trees but it is time, even past time, to remove this tree. • Said that it should be taken out due to its health problems of which there has been no change over the last three years. • Said that he once heard the noise from inside his house when a big branch -fell from this tree. • Opined that this is a "weird looking tree" that does not provide much shade. • . Said that the site needs more I amiable street.trees. They don't want a 100 -foot -high tree by itself that is only ranked 25 out of a possible 100. • Advised that his wife is afraid if it falls it would fall onto their house. • . Recounted that a fallen tree killed a friend after landing on his. car. • Stated that this tree is past its prime and it is time to put some good.trees in there. Ms. Dorothy Bookman, Resident on Paseo Cerro: Said that she is the immediate next -door, neighbor with two large maple, trees on her. property. • Agreed that this tree does not. provide shade and represents a constant worry to her. • • Said that she wants to support the Wu's. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 21 • Reported that she has resided here 40 years and was there when this tree was planted. • Recounted that 10 years ago, the tree was swaying badly and the neighbor at the time asked if he could anchor this tree to their tree. • Assured that the previous neighbors took care of this tree as have the Wu's. • Asked the Commission to please allow the removal of this tree so the neighbors can all feel better. Ms. Marti Foster, Resident on Saratoga Avenue: • Stated that the redwood is a deep- rooted tree.. • Reported that she has an even larger one in her yard. • Said that she does not see that this.tree is being taken care of. • Added that these owners have designed a house that encroaches on this tree. ..__ Suggested that if one does not like trees, one should not move onto a property with trees. • Said that cutting roots is not the way to check root systems. • Recounted that California has the oldest living redwoods. • Stated that this tree should not be cut because they don't like it. It needs to be taken care of. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Marti Foster for the location of her house in relation to this one. Ms. Marti Foster said that she is located kitty corner from this house. Ms. Debbie Ellis, Arborist for the Wu's: • Explained that she has been in business for 24 years and is a resident of Saratoga Commissioner Nagpal pointed out to Ms. Debbie Ellis that nine findings must be evaluated. She asked about the condition of this tree and advised that City Arborist Kate Bear is recommending the implementation of the conditions Ms. Ellis has developed and have this tree evaluated again in a year. Ms. Debbie Ellis said that this tree is in very poor condition and it is reasonable to allow its removal because it is diseased and dying. She added that it is not worth saving in this location. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the conditions recommended are followed, could this tree survive. Ms. Debbie Ellis said there is a very low possibility of survival and she said that in her report. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Debbie Ellis to outline her credentials. Ms. Debbie Ellis: 0 . Advised that she has . a four -year degree in Horticulture; a Master's; is a California agricultural advisor and a certified horticulturalist. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 1 . Page 22 Ms. Donna Dittrich, resident of Verde Moore Court, asked the City Attorney who assumes liability in the event that this .tree were to fall. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that liability is the responsibility of the owner of the tree. There is immunity offered to cities for their Planning decisions. Ms. Donna Dittrich questioned why the City.would not be liable if they will not give permission to remove this tree. Commissioner Rodgers asked if a score of 25 for a. tree means that it is 25 percent safe. City Arborist Kate Bear said it means it is 25 percent healthy. Commissioner Nagpal asked.if it means it is`in fair condition. City Arborist Kate Bear replied yes. Mr. Charlie Wu: • Recounted that when he was in school a score of 25 percent was to fail. • Said that he had consulted an, attorney on this issue of this tree who advised him that even if the City rejects his tree removal request they are still not responsible for his tree legally. • Reminded that he had an arborist look at this tree that says that it is not healthy. • Questioned why he should have to retain liability in the event this tree causes damages since he believes that smaller and healthier trees would be better for his. house and his neighborhood. • Added that new trees would grow and blend into the neighborhood. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that on the issue of safety, a ranking of 25 does not mean the tree is only 25 percent safe or has a 75. percent chance of falling.. It represents fair condition according to the City Arborist. • Stated that the tree needs to be cared for. • Reminded that the tree canopy has value for the community. • Pointed out that the owners knew this tree was. there and could, have designed the new house around the tree. • Advised that the City has a strong tree policy. • Assured that she would not ask anyone to retain a tree that. is not safe and that she trusts the City Arborist's expertise. • Added that she does not consider this tree to be ugly and would. vote to retain it, as there are no grounds to remove it under the ordinance. Commissioner Zhao said that while she respects City Arborist, Kate Bear she does not. agree with her recommendation. She said that the threat of damage is possible. She asked. if all nine findings must be made or. is one enough. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 23 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that just one will do but all nine should be considered. Commissioner Zhao said that she finds that per Condition 8, there is a threat to public health and safety and a potential hazard with this tree. She said that she could support removal. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that this is a difficult decision. • Reported that she was involved in putting the Tree.Ordinance together. • Said that the City tries to accommodate trees, especially mature trees, as they are difficult to replace. • Stated her agreement with City Arborist Kate Bear and said that there is no evidence compelling enough to change her view. Reminded that City Arborist Kate Bear has not said no outright but rather requires further evaluation of the tree in one year. • Stated her support for denial and said it is best to give this tree more care and evaluate its health again in one year. Chair Hlava: • Said that her inclination was to wait a year and see. • Added that she prefers to defer to City Arborist Kate Bear and is normally against tree removals. Pointed out that tonight there are several in the neighborhood who support this removal. People who have been there a longtime are saying this tree is dangerous. Fifteen of them signed a petition. • Said that the Commission must give fair and serious consideration to this request. • Advised that she does not always vote with neighbors but in this case the tree is not doing well and meets the definition of being diseased. • Added that the whole front yard is not available for any other landscaping due to the extreme size of this tree. - • Said that there can't be any other trees due to the size of this one. • Stated that there is no big advantage to wait another year when there is so much evidence from neighbors over a long period of time. • Said that the diseased tree results in a public safety issue. • Advised that she can make findings to support the appellant's request to removal this tree. Commissioner Kundtz: • Stated that he. is sure City Arborist Kate Bear knows how much she is respected as is Ms. Debbie Ellis. Said that safety is the biggest concern. • Added that Mr. Wu makes the point that it is better to plant new and better trees now. • Described the redwood as a big old tree that sticks out and looks out of sorts. Oe Agreed that there is disclaimer language that protects the City of Saratoga from liability. • Said that he is sensitive to the neighborhood's safety concern and supports the reversal of the tree removal permit denial. • Asked Mr. Wu to do a really good job with replacements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 24 Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he agrees with the conditions in the report but takes issue with Condition 2. However, if the house were designed different, this could be met. • Stated that good points have been made including seeing what happens in one year. • Added that if no new house were proposed, he could see giving the tree that year to see what happens. • Said that because the house is being completely rebuilt and landscaping is going in on this site, he would rather not wait one year. • Suggested that he would rather see action taken today allowing the removal of this tree . and allowing the Wu project to move forward including a more pleasing landscape. • Opined that eventually, this tree would cause damage to this home either by. branch or by roots. • . Stated that he cannot make Finding 2, which he feels is the overwhelming condition. Commissioner Kumar said he agrees with Commissioner Cappello that action should be taken today rather than waiting a year: It. is in the best interest of everyone to have this tree removed. He stated his support to reverse the denial and to allow the removal of this tree. Chair Hlava asked if the Commission has to agree on the findings. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Said that it appears the majority can agree on Finding 2 and Finding 8. • Suggested that the Commission direct staff to revise the resolution as there needs to be come conditions imposed. • Said that either the Community Development Director can ' determine the number of replacement trees or the Commission can decide tonight. Chair Hlava asked if all supporting the reversal agree on Findings 2 and 8. Commissioner Kumar said he supports using Findings-2, 4 and 8. Commissioner Cappello said only Finding 2 works for him. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that he could only use Finding 2 to support his position. Chair- Hlava said that; if possible, using Finding 8 too is better as it gives an overall sense of what the Commission. is saying. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that as many as possible would be nice but using only Finding 2 is fine. Commissioner Zhao said she could use Findings 2, 4 and 8. Commissioner Cappello said Finding 2 is a strong criterion for this appeal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 25 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission GRANTED an appeal ( #APT07 -0001) of the denial of a tree removal permit (HTRP07 -200) to allow the removal a coast redwood tree in the front yard, on property located at 12571 Paseo Cerro, based on Finding #2 and directed staff to work with the applicant on the number of proposed replacement trees, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz and Zhao NOES: Nagpal and Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -- PUBLIC'HEARINGG=- 1TEM-NO. -4 - APPLICATION ZOA -07 -0003 (City Wide) Proposed Blight Ordinance: The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance to set standards for the minimum level of maintenance on private property in Saratoga. The ordinance would establish standards for 1) general property maintenance .(e.g., overgrown vegetation, unsecured structures or conditions of deterioration or disrepair that creates a substantial adverse impact on neighboring properties); 2) single family residential use landscaping; 3) multi - family residential use landscaping; and 4) park strips between sidewalks and City streets. The ordinance would also specify enforcement and appeals procedures. (Jana Rinaldi) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that at it's April meeting, Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission on an ordinance that would require property owners to keep their properties free of blighted conditions. • Said that Code Enforcement staff does receive complaints from residents regarding blighted conditions on properties that are overgrown with weeds, deed or dying trees or poorly maintained homes. • Stated that City Code currently prohibits property owners from maintaining clear risks to public health and safety or that violate specific Codes but do not deal with blighted properties that are a risk to public health and safety. • Said that the attached ordinance would expand the definition of nuisance to include properties that the City finds to be blighted and to allow the City to respond to complaints of property conditions that create aesthetic impacts to the neighborhood. • Said that existing ordinances provide tools to address fire hazards and weed abatement through the Fire District and County Vector Control on issues of rodents, mosquitoes and other pests of that nature. However, if the situation is not far enough along to require the Fire District to abate weeds and /or if large piles of brush do not yet house rodents, there is no action available. • Said that the new ordinance would allow the City to enforce those types of issues and avoid conditions such as unsecured buildings, buildings in a state of disrepair and /or overgrown weeds or other vegetation. • Added that the ordinance would impose landscape maintenance requirements as well as requiring that property owners maintain the park strip in front of their home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 26 • Said that staff has also added the comments received at the Study Session from the Planning Commission as well as from the audience. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer presented a few proposed amendments as follows: • Section 7- 50.050b — add, "... if there is the potential of harboring rats, vermin, vector or other similar nuisances in the building or structure." • Section 7- 50.050e(3) replace "and" with "or." • Section 7- 50.060a — the question is whether to apply this to vacant parcels. If 'not, the text should be modified to replace "shall" with "may" not apply, which leaves some discretion for the City Manager. • Section 7- 50.060b — it is better not to call out specifically Weed Block as the only weed barrier alternative as other permeable options such as tan bark could work too. • Section 7- 50.080 — the last line should replace "shall" with "are authorized to be recovered." • Section 7- 50.090b — last phrase replace "or" to "and /or." • Section 7 -50 -120 should be combined with Section 7.50.110.. Chair .Hlava said that text should. be added that reads, "Failure to meet the landscaping requirements constitutes blight." Commissioner Kundtz:. • Asked if it is intended that Section 7- 50.060 include vacant parcels. • Suggested that the answer is yes as vacant parcels can get overgrown and become safety hazards. Vacant parcels should be required to be maintained but not landscaped. • Said that proposed language regarding enforcement should be included. • Reported that San Jose sends out a letter, imposes a find. If no correction takes .place, the owner if fined more. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that specific language about enforcement is probably valuable when a case is taken to court. He said that per Section 7- 50.030, once a property is deemed to be blighted, all other enforcement tools come into play. He said that Council would have to determine if they want to set up an Administrative fine approach. Commissioner Rodgers said that although she does not feel her property has any blight, there are conditions on her hillside property that could be considered blight under this draft ordinance. She asked if she should recuse herself on this item. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied no, the ordinance applies to all Saratoga property owners so she doesn't have to recuse herself. .Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Ms. Donna Dittrich, Resident on Verde Moor Court: • Distributed some photographs. • Stated that she is very glad to see this issue being addressed. .7 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 27 • Reported that she attended the Study Session and was happy to be there. This has been too long in coming: • Said that she has lived for 26 years in the same house in a small cul de sac. About 20 years ago, a new owner came in at the entrance to this cul de sac. Conditions on that property have continued to deteriorate from the beginning. Described that property as having siding boards that are peeling back, a house that is in desperate need of paint, a yard that is overgrown with weeds and black plastic hanging feet beyond where stones were piled up. i. • Added that a realtor in the neighborhood refers this house as looking like a crack house. • Said that this condition diminishes the values of the other homes in this neighborhood. • Stated that it is embarrassing to have visitors come to the neighborhood with this house that is an eyesore: • Said that she believes the City has the right to enforce changes with this ordinance. She added that it is unfortunate that it has come to this but owners have to have enough pride in ownership. • Thanked the Commission. Mr. E.L. Vincent, Resident on Westover Drive: • Said that he does not know who initiated this blight ordinance but commended the Commission and Council for opening the issue for discussion and the approval of an ordinance on blight. • Said that he agrees with the comments so far. • Agreed that the City has the right to require abatement of weeds but not how to do it, as there are other options available in addition to Weed Block. • Recommended that specific requirements for enforcement including penalties be spelled out in the ordinance. • Said that staff needs to be insulated from a violator and his anger. • Said that he would like to. see immediate pain for violators. • Suggested that a tax lien could be one enforcement inducement, one that owners are most likely to comply with. • Said that using a Notice of Code Violation would require an owner to clean up before sale of their property, it is not much of an inducement if they have no immediate plans to sell. Mr. Doug Diemer, Resident on Wardell Road: • Said that he was not at the Study Session. • Suggested that some people may simply not be able to afford landscaping. Chair Hlava said that there are provisions in Code for exceptions for those with financial hardship. Commissioner Rodgers listed out a number of existing programs that would also qualify homeowners to be exempted from the requirements of this.ordinance. Mr. Doug Diemer: • Asked _how people can be expected to plant landscaping if they can't -even afford health care. Saratoga Planning. Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 28 • Stated that he and his wife can barely make it on what he is paid. • Added that they are worried that they will be layered with one more problem that makes it impossible for them to live here. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Chair Hlava said that more specific requirements and penalties need to be incorporated into the draft ordinance. She said that the issue of affordability must also be taken into account, as exempting people doesn't catch everyone. Commissioner Rodgers aid that there is also an income level standard. Commissioner. Nagpal cautioned that that amount is only $22,000 for a household with two members. Chair Hlava said that penalties and specific requirements should outline the procedure from the initial letter, time for correction, fine and discretion of the City Manager. Commissioner Kundtz questioned whether there is the time available tonight to craft specific language for a progressive penalty process. He suggested tabling the issue of enforcement to a future Study Session for process that is both fair and enforceable. Chair Hlava asked if others agreed with that approach. Commissioner Cappello said he did. He added that specifying enforcement in the ordinance might be difficult. Chair Hlava said that the process could begin with a letter with a 60 -day compliance period. If nothing is done, a $100 to $200 fine could be imposed. The next level fine could be at the discretion of the City. Manager. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the administrative fine approach is used by San Jose. There are limits for a general. law city to the amounts listed in Code. `San Jose is a charter city. He said a first offense fine could be $100, a second offense fine could be $200 and a third offense fine be $500. However, it is not always possible to get a judge to award.. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the City is empowered to assess fines City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested either holding out the enforcement portion or continuing this item to a future meeting. He said. that this Commission is looking for the strongest enforcement it can impose. He suggested that staff be given some direction and come back with a report on specifics of enforcement. Chair Hlava pointed out that this item didn't even have to come to this Commission. - Council sent it to us for advice and input. We could still go ahead and send it to Council with the suggestion of including specific enforcement processes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 29 Commissioner Nagpal said that there are other things to be talked about too. Commissioner Rodgers reported that she lives on a hillside property with a 40 percent slope, which exempts it from this ordinance. She added that critters are a part of a hillside property. Commissioner Nagpal said that as for expectations for vacant parcels, they should not require landscaping but should require weed maintenance. Therefore she agrees with the amendment to read "developed" properties. Commissioner Cappello said he agrees but said that more than weeds can mar a vacant parcel if items are dumped there or cars stored there. Commissioner Nagpal said that some properties are not landscaped to the very edge but - rather are just disked--for-weeds. Commissioner Rodgers agreed. Commissioner Nagpal said that those on agriculturally zoned parcels, properties with 40 percent slope and /or financial hardship are exempt. Commissioner Kundtz said that the ordinance is particularly important to cover homes located in dense neighborhoods. Commissioner Nagpal stated that what is considered blight in one neighborhood is not blight in another. Commissioner Rodgers said that the point has appropriately been made that some cannot afford expensive landscaping. They can be held to the standard of keeping their property clean with the weeds down. Commissioner Nagpal said that expectation on landscaping needs to be made very clear. Commissioner Rodgers said it appears the standard is simply no dirt yards. Chair Hlava said that it is unfair to neighbors to not have some sort of property landscaping even if it is weed block with tan bark instead of dirt. Commissioner Nagpal reiterated that the standards depend upon the neighborhood. Commissioner Zhao said that having different standards for different neighborhoods causes concern. Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that most neighborhoods have specific CC &R's. The first thing that Code Enforcement could ask a reporting party is if their neighborhood has CC &R's. If the answer is yes, they can be directed to work with their HOA to enforce their CC &R's. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007. Page 30 Chair Hlava said that it is not easy to enforce CC &R's and some neighborhoods no longer have functioning HOA's. Director John Livingstone said that the City Attorney has made several corrections to the draft. Under landscape requirements, the work "shall" has been edited to read, "may. This change gives the City Manager more discretion. Commissioner Cappello said that it really comes down to the discretion of the City Manager, as they cannot write. every potential type of case into the Code. Commissioner Nagpal said that financial hardship issue needs to be looked at further too.. She added that there are different areas of the community with different people. There is the wildlife issue that exists in certain habitats. There is the issue of native landscaping. She said there needs to be some way to allow property owners to disk and have a clean appearance but no landscaping. Commissioner Kundtz said that the tighter and more specific the enforcement procedures the better enforcement will be. He agreed'that one. size does not fit all circumstances. . Commissioner Nagpal agreed that ordinances are difficult to craft and they last' a long time once adopted. She said she would rather look at this ordinance further, perhaps in a Study Session. Commissioner Rodgers said that Council wanted the Commission's analysis and input.. She stated the importance of building in some common sense to deal with hardship cases. Commissioner Nagpal said that the need for. a blight ordinance must also 'be weighed against some people's economic issues. Chair HI.ava said that.the Commission is not ready to make a decision tonight. This item can be continued either to a Study'Session or to another Public Hearing. She suggested that the staff come back with a clean copy of the draft that reflects the changes made to this point; a staff report that deals with hardship and how landscape requirements apply throughout the City and enforcement processes. Commissioner Kundtz said that the difference between a charter versus general law city must also be made clear. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is any urgency on Council's part. Director John Livingstone said this ordinance has not yet been scheduled for Council. Chair Hlava said that the sooner the better. Council needs to adopt the.news rack ordinance, fence ordinance and this blight ordinance in order to make time for the sign ordinance. Commissioner Rodgers said there are still things in this ordinance that worry her including the concern that one issue on a property can equal blight. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007, Page 31 i that enforcement is based on complaint and always will- be. Chair Hlava said p y Commissioner Rodgers said that her property has exterior walls with signs of past termite infestation. She has a cracked driveway. She questioned if there would be any exception for natural disasters and /or earthquakes. She added that the misdemeanor criminal penalties seem inconsistent. . Commissioner Nagpal asked if the draft ordinance could be provided to each Commissioner in Word format to allow individual editing that could be brought back to the next meeting. Director John Livingstone said that he could provide that document. Chair Hlava asked if this item would not require further noticing if it were to be continued either to a date certain Study Session or date certain Public Hearing. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said yes. Director John Livingstone said that it appears that a Study.Session is the preferred venue. Commissioner Cappello said it depends on the level of staff comfort with the input provided this evening. If staff can edit the draft based on tonight's comments perhaps it can be brought back directly to a Public Hearing. Commissioner Nagpal said she is okay with a Public Hearing. Commissioner Kundtz said . that a Study Session might suit the Commission's work style better. Commissioner Kumar said that there are a lot of missing links here. just yet and a Study Session might be better. Commissioner Rodgers said that she still has lots of notes that have not yet been discussed so she too prefers a Study Session format. Commissioner Zhao said she could support either. Commissioner Nagpal said she would support a Study Session too. Chair Hlava asked for a specific date. Is September 11 th too soon? Director John. Livingstone said that there is already some architectural training scheduled for 5 p.m. on September 11th. He suggested that another option might be prior to the September 12th regular meeting. He said that a Study Session on the Fence Ordinance is set for September 26th but perhaps that could be pushed into October. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 32 Chair Hlava asked for a preference between September 12th at 5 p.m. and September 26th at . 5 p.m. Director John Livingstone said either is fine and that no additional noticing would be required if continued.to a date specific. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that this item might not have to go back to a Planning Commission Public Hearing after the Study Session. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of a draft blight ordinance to a Study Session to beheld at 5 p.m: on September 11, 2007, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and.Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION ZOA -07 -002 (City Wide) Proposed News Rack Ordinance: The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance to regulate the placement of news racks on public property in the City of Saratoga. The ordinance would establish permit requirements and procedures, news rack design standards, placement specifications, maintenance requirements and enforcement and appeals procedures.' (Jana Rinaldi) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that Council asked the. Planning Commission to review.a proposed news rack ordinance to require permits for the placement of news racks on City streets. • Said that often news rack placements can be a nuisance to pedestrians. • Said that in August a Study Session on this issue was held. • Advised that while news racks are protected activities under the .United States Constitution, cities are allowed to regulate placements with a reasonable ordinance. • Reported that this draft has been based upon existing ordinances from other, communities including Los Gatos, Los Altos and Carmel. Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Paul Hernandez, Resident on La Vista Drive: • Said that he has been affiliated with Saratoga Oaks Lodge since 1955. • Expressed his surprise that there are not more people here tonight on this item. • Said that it is very appropriate to condition placement of newspaper racks. Some are rightly considered to be blight. • Said that he very much minds having to dodge those that are in the way of pedestrians on the sidewalk. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 33 db0 Pointed out that some are located so close to the curb that passengers are unable to exit vehicles parked along that portion of the curb. • Stated that lots of thought has gone into the design guidelines and would represent a big improvement over big metal boxes. • Advised that he is familiar with laws requiring the provision of space for publications. • Asked if rents are collected for placement of these racks in the public right -of -way. If not, why not since space is not free. Mr. Tomas V, circulation manager for Saratoga News, said that while space is not free speech is. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Chair Hlava expressed concern that the design standards not be so restrictive that only one company can provide said racks. They should have to . be "substantially equivalent to the other stands named." Director John Livingstone said that they are all very close in size and shape so the ordinance description covers it fairly well. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said the term "substantially equivalent" equals flexibility. * Commissioner Cappello said that basically these racks need to be able to fit into the enclosure. Commissioner Rodgers asked why these enclosures are 11 feet long. Director John Livingstone said that was taken from the other cities' ordinances. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is comfortable sending this along to Council. Commissioner Zhao asked if there is an existing News Rack Appeals Officer. Director John Livingstone replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked why not use the Planning Commission or Council to consider appeals. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that if might end up being the existing hearing officer.. He said that due process is required.. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed news rack ordinance (ZOA -07 -0002) to regulate the placement of news racks on public property in the City of Saratoga, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 22, 2007 Page 34 AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:41 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND.SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk 0 • • • Item 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 07- 259/14078 Alta Vista Avenue Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Archisculpture Architects (Applicant) Ana and Armando Castro (Owner) n Staff Planner: Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner Date: September 12, 2007 APN: 397 -28 -041 Department Head: John Livingstone, 16CP, Director Subject: 14078 Alta Vista Avenue ��� "`- � 4P PCL / -t•� 10 7 /. APN: 397-28-041 r oS� r e LoT 1 a .r� /o, 500' Radius .. ;� , . -• r:• „ / ax Ac an. r •�5� 4 PROPOSED Sr. q/ 911 .11 a s tt9 1.46 AC. PLAN. PCL. C PCL. 8 �`'" GF 0.48 Ac. w, /..y 366.46 _ 6 ~ 61 19a D3 22-62 Z014Z 0.476 / 7x�--Y OT 5 2zoi� 112565 rcda o xo ,'0.35 A 'LOT ,3� .'P . - :ca ' J •^ : �:ass Aa oa 12 i m 5 i m 18 19 20 2 60.2o 6 % A.- 0.35 Aa da: S° T a 5z n g7 r 58 2—al 4 32 ; I° Y y Ac. /ER. Se,!•- .?J.J�i ,\l� bi \ .d'^ nm-co � n,-m � 1� r ` p °g'• r 0.48 Ac tdc. x so w 50 /`8 27 - Ti0 r •p.' `' :t ••`\ r!� \ �o r° ,,. :o.sr scw+10 1c m.n 10 m»r ' mxs —xsrs \N 0� n r AVENUE 50 // `g;GVi i // +? \Y3/ \`` ,` �•0 +5 �, AZ 49 'o 1J�� 15�n�8 'n54;�55�i78g19'ag��'Za °'.a. y..�5(,•`•+ -L b� \ �1 °4i �� \, -- - -- ---- • ^•. Zp. / \\ / ,� f ^♦ 33 ' 3 31 i 30 29 28 27 26 ;_2 pq "' _- -_ - -- ACAarc \,, / y 36 3 38 39 110 41 os3 Ae. e Qp P! { Q� 42 Cdo y��i `x �� Odh.` / ,�c.••r '�•r. 'S� =% \. ,. G�\, o ✓° 4 b� >`'�1'52 �;�2�; 1 ,5 3_•'.'•\P ^0� n• u. 0 ;3 ^'`' O�y° v� 1 t.'• 24 44 44 /$' ,.,;,� x • ss so >, x / °o - a1s" . r /' CT K w �,O 01.23 s.c.u.w.L.43/ crort� A E. cswlir0. Z6 •/ i `!•r, �! ` -5. .,'� .•• ^,, =t♦ / , 9 I••(.. • 114 W. ,'°•��g`, .•',^.J.'Ba+ 4c '+s OR lr'6 wL __. _tv tir �'•,° '% t,-.``vL Y, ... �A✓ '4 \� t•'�44y0 ^\ LZ PROJECT HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 02/16/07 08/17/07 08/29/07 08/27/07 08/06/07 • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new 2,432 square foot one - story single - family residence with a basement and an attached garage. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not exceed 26 -feet. The gross lot size is approximately 11,161 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review Application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment 1). Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. • • 2 • Application No. 07- 259/14078 Alta Vista Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10. (Medium Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 11,161 sq. ft. (gross) and 6,027 sq. ft. (net) (gross - 54% reduction for slope adjustment) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 27.9% GRADING REQUIRED: 65.0 CY of fill (81.5 CY of cut within the building footprint for the construction of the basement is not included) PRlITP.CT DATA- R- 1- 10,000 Zoning Proposal Code Requirements Site Coverage: Building 2,432 sq. ft Maximum Allowable = Driveway 733 sq. ft 6,697 sq. ft. (60 %) Hardscape /Stairs/Decks 439 sq. ft TOTAL Site Coverage 3,604 sq. ft. Floor Area: Main Floor 2,432 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable = Basement Area (not FAR): [1,992 sq. ft.] 2,720 sq. ft. TOTAL Floor Area 2,432 sq. ft. Setbacks: i Front (west) 25 ft 25 ft. Rear (east) 113 ft 25 ft. Left Side (north) 6 ft 6 ft.' Right Side (south) 6 ft 6 ft.2 Height Lowest Elevation Pt. 406 Maximum Height = Highest Elevation Pt. 416.5 437.25 (26 Feet) Average Elevation Pt. 411.25 Proposed Topmost Pt. 435 (20.75 ft) • Parcel is 49.6 feet in width and does not conform to 85 foot minimum lot width for the R -1- 10,000 zone district. Side setback shall be not less than 10% of lot width (4.96 feet) or six feet, whichever is greater. z Ibid 3 Application No. 07-259114078 Alta Vista Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL DETERNUNATION: The proposal is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences. PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Characteristics and Project Description The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to demolish an existing approximately 1,200 square feet, one -story, single - family residence and construct a new 2,432 square foot single - family residence. The project has a 1,992 square foot "walk out" basement which is not included in the total floor area because more than 80% of the basement area is less than 42 inches above grade. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be approximately 21 feet tall and will be located in the R -1- 10,000 zone district (The Project). Design Review approval is required by the Planning Commission for any new single -story structure or addition to a single -story structure over eighteen feet in height. The project consists of a new single -story structure that exceeds eighteen feet in height; therefore, Planning Commission review is required prior to issuance-of building permits. The project is located at the intersection of Alta Vista Avenue and Williams Avenue. The playing fields for Saratoga High School are located across the street and approximately 100 yards to the north of the project. Mature oak, pine, and cedar trees line both sides of Alta Vista Avenue. The homes on either side of the project and across the street are two stories as are the majority of the homes in the neighborhood: The front part of the site is level with a drop in grade change at the rear of the site of approximately 53 feet. The lower half of the site is characterized by dense native vegetation . that includes oak, pine, and bay.trees., Saratoga Creek is located at the bottom of the site along the east property line. Project Design Characteristics As viewed from Alta Vista Avenue, the project will appear to be an approximately 19 feet tall one -story house. The height of the project would be lower and/or consistent with the height of neighboring houses. The project architect has identified the proposed architectural style of the residence as Craftsman. Architectural features will include a low - pitched front gabled roof covered with lightweight gold and gray colored concrete tiles. Roof details will include both wooden brackets and decorative false. wood beams at the gabled ends and gabled dormers on both sides of the structure to provide visual interest, breaking up the mass of both side. elevations. The exterior of the front elevation will be covered with shingles and a light beige colored sand finished stucco exterior will be used on the side and rear elevations. The lower half of the front elevation will be covered with light colored stone accents and the same stone will also be used for the exterior surface of both chimneys. The vinyl windows will have wood trim and both will be "taupe" in color. Both the front . door and sectional garage door will be made of wood and will be brown and taupe in color, 0 Application No. 07- 259114078 Alta Vista Avenue respectively. Ten skylight windows will be located on the top of the roof running from front to back to bring natural light and passive heating into the house. The front entry is appropriately scaled and proportional to the building and in scale with those of adjacent homes. Utilization of both arched and square windows, wood shingles, stucco, and stone lends interest and architectural integrity to the structure. The two -car garage will feature a high quality "carnage style" wooden door. Staff finds the design of the project to be well articulated and consistent across facades and sufficiently detailed with high quality materials. The varied rooflines and architectural elements such as wood shingles, stone cladding, gable details, and setting back the upper portion of the house behind the front and garage architectural projection will help to break up the massing and bulk of the structure. Additionally, the structure will be one -story as viewed from the street and has been designed to accommodate the existing topography of the site. Neighbor Review The applicant has informed neighbors of the project and notification letters with comments from neighbors have been attached to this staff report to reflect these efforts. The neighbor. at 14054 Alta Vista Avenue (the home to the left of the project) noted a concern that the project could potentially negatively impact a mature redwood tree in his rear yard. The City Arborist has included measures in the arborist report to provide protection for the redwood tree during construction. All other written comments from neighbors have been positive and no additional negative comments have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. Trees The City Arborist has reviewed the trees on the site as well as the redwood tree on the adjacent neighbor's property that would be potentially impacted by the construction of the project. This report included the initial report dated March 15, 2007 as well as two addendum reports dated May 23 and June 6, 2007. The March 15, 2007 report evaluated four coast live oaks that would be potentially impacted. These include a 24" oak (tree #1) located near the front of the site along the north property line, a 30" oak (tree #2) located within the footprint of the proposed garage, a 83" oak (tree #3) located near the proposed rear deck, and a 36" oak (tree #4) located near the rear of the project and on the adjacent neighbors property. The report recommends removal of the 30" oak tree (tree #2) located within the footprint of the garage because the home as designed cannot be constructed without removing the tree and it would be most likely damaged during demolition and construction if the home was redesigned around the tree. The report contains recommended building foundation and retaining wall construction method to avoid damaging tree #'s 3 -4. These trees are to be fenced and a tree protection bond of $88,070 is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The project includes a condition that four 36" box trees be planted to replace tree #2. These trees are to be planted prior to building permit final. 5 Application No. 07- 259114078 Alta Vista Avenue The May 23, 2007 report addendum addressed the project's potential impacts on the adjacent neighbor's 28" redwood tree (tree #5), located at 14054 Alta Vista Avenue. The report states that the tree is in reasonably good health with a: canopy spread of approximately 20 feet but has been topped and has large sections of the trunk free of any lateral limbs. The appraised value of the tree is $5,700. The report recommends that no construction occur within 15 feet of the trunk of the tree. The report also modified the recommended tree protection measures for tree #'s 3 -4 from the previous report and states that excavation for the basement should not occur within 20 feet from these trees. The property owner had concerns with the recommendation that the basement excavation be located 20 feet from the oak trees as it would impact the design of the project. and potentially reduce the square footage of the structure. The project applicant agreed to contract with a consulting certified arborist, with approval by the City Arborist, to supervise and monitor the excavation of the basement to ensure that the roots of the oak trees would not be severely damaged. Based on the applicant's proposal, on June 6, 2007; the City Arborist prepared another report addendum that modified the recommendations from.the May 23, 2007 report, which recommended approval to construct the project within 12 feet from the oaks and 10 feet from the redwood on the neighbor's property. Energy Efficiency The project will include energy conserving measures that would include 1) upgraded floor, wall, and ceiling insulation, 2) solar panels installed on the roof, 3) ten skylights that will provide both natural light and passive heating, into, the house and 4) the use of double glazed windows. Geotechnical Clearance Hallenbeck/Allwest Associates prepared a. Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project, dated March 12, 2007, which was reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. As conditioned, the proposal has received geotechnical clearance to proceed. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 2.0 — Conserve natural vegetation and significant topographic features which exist in Saratoga and its Sphere ofI fluence. The project is proposing to remove one 30" oak tree that would be in conflict with the location of the proposed structure. To mitigate the loss of this one tree, the applicant is required to plant four 36" box trees on the site. Acceptable replacement tree species would include coast live oak; blue oak, valley oak, black oak, big leaf maple, California buckeye, Douglas fir, and coast redwood. The other trees on the site potentially impacted by the construction will be protected by fencing. The majority of the natural vegetation is located in the rear half of the lot that slopes down to Saratoga Creek and will it will not be impacted by the construction. • R Application No. 07- 259/14078 Alta Vista Avenue Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Proposed building materials that face the street would be natural materials such as shingle siding, wood trim, and wood doors. The front fagade that faces. the street will be painted in muted colors and would be approximately 19 feet in height to reduce its visual impact on the street and not detract from the rural atmosphere of the area. The new structure is proposed in the same general location as the existing residence. In addition, the proposal.is well under the impervious coverage allowed for the parcel. Land Use Element Goal 1.0 - Maintain the predominaby small -town residential character of Sarato ,-a which includes semi -rural and open space areas. The proposed building is a one -story single family home that is . most indicative of a "small- town" residential character. It will be constructed of natural materials and will be approximately 19 feet in height as viewed from the street. This reduced height, varied roof lines, and architectural details will reduce the visual mass of the structure and will not overwhelm or dominate the adjacent structures or the semi -rural character of the narrow tree lined street. Land Use Element Goal 13 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with .the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the findings required for Design Approval. The home is well designed and is not visually massive; the architectural details and features and the use of natural materials compliment the Craftsman architectural style which is an architectural design that is used throughout the neighborhood. The design will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings contained in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home is predominantly a one -story structure and will not adversely affect the privacy of the adjacent neighbors or their views of Saratoga Creek; views from side windows will be screened by the existing wood fence and vegetation; the rear of the lot is heavily vegetated with tall trees and views from the rear to neighboring properties are limited; the balcony at the rear of the residence will offer views of the lower portion of the site and Saratoga Creek and the potential privacy impact to the neighbor on the right is limited since their house is located forward of the proposed house thereby reducing views into windows and living areas. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will be constructed in the approximate location as the existing structure; grading is limited to the construction of the basement and no grading or topographic changes will occur in the front yard and minimal grading will occur beyond the rear. of the building footprint that could impact the existing landscaping; only one 7 Application No. 07- 259114078 Alta Vista Avenue existing oak tree will be removed by the construction, and the trees that could potentially be effected by the project will be protected throughout the construction process with fencing; and so impacts on existing landscaping will be minimal. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that all the Arborists' recommendations have been made conditions of project approval to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site; existing trees will be protected. during the construction process by the presence of an onsite certified arborist and with tree protective fencing; and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the applicant is limiting the structure to one -story as viewed from the street, a neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim, doors, and roofmg materials is proposed; varying rooflines, architectural details, and arched windows to reduce the perception of excessive bulk have been incorporated into the design of the building. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that; residences in the area are predominantly, two story, are larger in size, and are taller_ than proposed residence as viewed from the street; the proposed structure is compatible in bulk and height with other homes located in the area; and the home has been designed to follow the topography of the site in order to minimize excessive bulk. (1) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the applicant submitted a grading and drainage plan, which incorporates appropriate grading and erosion control methods; the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards; and the proposed construction is in the general area of the existing residence so required grading to construct the project will be kept to a minimum. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. The project_ will include energy conserving measures that would include 1) upgraded floor, wall, and ceiling insulation, 2) solar panels installed on the roof, 3) ten skylights that will provide both natural light and passive heating into the house and 3) the use of double glazed windows. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. 3 • • Application No. 07- 259114078 Alta Vista Avenue STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffs recommends the Planning Commission find this Application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review with required findings. and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review. 2. Project description letter, prepared by the applicant. 3. Neighbor review letters. 4. City Arborist Report dated March 15, 2007 and report addendums dated May 23 and June 26, 2007. 5. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." 9 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -259 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Castro; 14078 Alta Vista Avenue . WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a one -story single - family residence in the R -1- 10,000 zone district. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be taller than 26 -feet. The gross lot size is approximately 11,161 square feet. WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060 states any new single -story structure or addition to a single -story structure over eighteen feet in height, new multi -story structure, or whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square -feet Design Review approval is required by the Planning Commission. The proposal consists of a new single -story structure that exceeds eighteen feet in height; therefore, Planning Commission review is required prior to issuance of building permits; 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 proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This. exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 2.0 — Conserve natural vegetation and significant topographic features which exist in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence. The project is only proposing to remove one 30" oak tree that would be in conflict with the location of the proposed structure. To mitigate the loss of this one tree, the applicant is required to plant four 36" box trees on the site. Acceptable replacement tree species would include coast live oak, blue oak, valley oak, black oak, big leaf maple, California buckeye, Douglas fir, and coast redwood. The other trees on the site potentially impacted by the construction will be protected by fencing. The majority of the natural vegetation is located in the rear half of the lot that slopes down to Saratoga Creek and will it will not be impacted by the construction. Application No. 07-259114078 Alta Vista Avenue LI Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Proposed building materials that face the street would be natural materials such as shingle siding, wood trim, and wood doors. The front fagade that faces the street will be painted in muted colors and would be approximately 19 feet in height to reduce its visual impact on the street and not detract from the rural atmosphere of the area. The new structure is proposed in the same general location as the existing residence. In addition, the proposal is well under the impervious coverage allowed for the parcel. Land Use Element Goal 1 0 — Maintain the predominaby small -town residential character ofSaratoza which includes semi -rural and open space areas. The proposed building is a one -story single family home that is most indicative of a "small- town" residential character. It- will be constructed of natural materials and will be approximately -19 feet in height as viewed from the street. This reduced height, varied roof lines, and architectural details will reduce the visual mass of the structure and will not overwhelm or dominate the adjacent structures or the semi -rural character of the narrow tree lined street. Land Use Element Goal 13 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the findings required for Design Approval. The home is well designed and is not visually massive, the architectural details and features and the use of natural materials compliment the Craftsman architectural style which is an architectural design that is used throughout the neighborhood. The design will not adversely impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. 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: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home is predominantly a one -story structure and will not adversely affect the privacy of the adjacent neighbors or their views of Saratoga Creek; views from side windows will be screened by the existing wood fence and vegetation; the rear of the lot is heavily vegetated with tall trees and views from the rear to neighboring properties are limited; the balcony at the rear of the residence will offer views of the lower portion of the site and, Saratoga Creek and the potential privacy impact to the neighbor on the right is limited since their house is located forward of the proposed house thereby reducing views into windows and living areas. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will be constructed in the approximate location as the existing structure; grading is limited to the construction of the basement and no grading or topographic changes will occur in the front yard and minimal grading will occur beyond the rear of the building footprint that could impact the existing landscaping; only one existing oak tree will be removed by the construction, and the trees that could potentially be 2 Application No. 07- 259114078 Alta Vista Avenue • effected by the project will be protected throughout the .construction process with fencing; and so impacts on existing landscaping will be minimal. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that all the Arborists' recommendations have been made conditions of project approval to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site; existing trees will be protected during the construction process by the presence of an onsite certified arborist and with tree protective fencing; and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the applicant is limiting the structure to one -story as viewed from the street, a neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim, doors, and roofing materials is proposed; varying rooflines, architectural details, and arched windows to reduce the perception of excessive bulk have been incorporated into the design of the building. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that; residences in the area are predominantly two story, are larger in size, and are taller than proposed residence as viewed from the street; the proposed structure is compatible in bulk and height with other homes located in the area; and the home has been designed to follow the topography of the site in order to minimize excessive bulk. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the applicant submitted a grading and drainage plan, which incorporates appropriate grading and erosion control methods; the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards; and the proposed construction is in the general area of the existing residence so required grading to construct the project will be kept to a minimum. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. The project will include energy conserving measures that would include 1) upgraded floor, wall, and ceiling insulation, 2) solar panels installed on the roof, 3) ten skylights that will provide both natural light and passive heating into the house, and 4) the use of double glazed windows 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, the application for Design Review approval are hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 3 Application No. 07- 259114078 Alta Vista Avenue PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL — None CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped August 29, 2007, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and .are, subject to the Community Development. Director's approval. 2. The project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board received February 16, 2007: 3. The following shall be required and/or included as to the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. The following note shall be included: "A maximum of one wood - burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning." c. The following note shall be included verifying building setback: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved plans." 4. A storm water retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval 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. 5. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 6. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 7. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape areas. ! 0 Application No. 07- 259114078 Alta Vista Avenue • 8. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 9. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground ,cover, if. applicable, shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 10. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. 11. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500.00 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00. 12. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 13. The complete arborist report and adendums shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. FIRE DISTRICT 14. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire Department conditions. PUBLIC WORKS 15. Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect current site conditions, update site mapping, review revised development plans, perform any appropriate supplemental exploratory investigation, and update recommended geotechnical design criteria relating to grading, foundation, basement, retaining walls, and site drainage. Investigation and geotechnical design criteria recommendation shall be prepared for all proposed structures. Appropriate documentation to address the above shall be submitted to the City for review by the City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of permits for project construction. 16. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site 5 Application No. 07- 259114078 Alta Vista Avenue drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 17. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 18. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 19. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 20. Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to. be the liability of City'in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court;, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 31 Application No. 07- 259114078 Alta Vista Avenue . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of September 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Joyce Hlava - Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP 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 terns 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 • VA • Castro Residence 14078 Alta Vista Avenue Saratoga, CA Detailed explanation of Building meets intent of Municipal Code Section 15-45 080. A) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. • This building is a one story residence with a basement located to sit down into the site. Square footage is severely restricted because of the hillside site. • The residence is located in a position that it does not interfere with the views and/or privacy of either neighboring property and the primary views of this house are of the hillside of their own property • Both neighbors depend heavily on this properties view as their primary view of the creek. The design of this building does not change that. B) Preserve natural landscape. • . The building is sited in relatively the. same location of the existing residence that is to be demolished. • The primary views and value of the property are the hillside. The residence is sited to preserve these and the native landscape at the hillside and the creek are left untouched. C) Preserve native and heritage trees • The major live oak is to be retained and the build was designed around this tree, using it as the major site feature and using its canopy to shade and cool the house in late summer and the fall. • Because of site constraints brought about by the hillside site, one live oak is to be removed. A tree of similar value, selected by the City Arborist will be added, sited to mask the large collection of utility wires that are a major eyesore at the utility pole in the front yard. D) Minimize perception bulk • The building is a one story building • The basement was located so that the rear wall was well down the site and out of the view corridors of the neighboring properties. E) Compatible Bulk and Height • The house is smaller that either neighboring property and appears to be the. smallest property in the neighborhood. • The neighboring properties impact more on the aspects of this point on the new house than this residence intrudes on their property. F) Current grading and erosion control methods • The hillside of this property is eroding at present because the non conforming residence has no foundation system. • Adding a basement and using engineered fill at the pad will stabilize the portion of the hill that is eroding. This stabilization will not affect the lower severely sloped portion of the properties • The addition of this basement will not only solve the problems of this site, this stabilization will prevent erosion and/ or sliding that would affect the neighboring properties. G) Design policies and techniques • The design meets the intent of all the Sections cited from the Design policies Handbook. View considerations have been given careful consideration in this design and no major views are directed at neighboring properties. • The residence is built around a major heritage tree to provide privacy from neighbors and to prevent views to their property • The fireplace at the rear of the property was located to afford property to this property and avoid any views to the neighboring property. • • • I * 10 Attachment 3 1 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: 140 i(8 )kLTA Yt� Nr Deco Neighbor, 1 c1.171 proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to pi -oWde you with an opporlunity, to i•eviel-r the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the pi•operw are being provided this notice as a c•ow-lest, in advance of the Slandard City Notice which mill be sent out prior to a decision being made on the pi-gjeci. I ask that you faiiiiliari=e yow•se.lf rt,ilh the preliminaly plans for the projeci. ' These pkms al -e PRELIMINARY OAT Ycn7d may be changed as the prgject moves forlrard ) ou may contact the City ofSai•atoga'.s• Planning Division ail any time to revreiv an), changes- that 711x11:' UL'C ?!r. The C itv of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City 'of Saratoga at 408 -868 -1222 and speak. with the assigned project planner: My signature below certifies that 1 am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name h f C a ,,VO Date: 4*Q — Si-nature: Neighbo Address: - /! �D Z121) ra Uls r� S4 94 IOw4- CbL Neighbor Phone #: X071 If I have anv initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the totlowine (please attach additional sheets if necessary): . S �-1&, Applicant Name: AVA : �FQt'1Pd%Dc Ct�Sj`1t.cc Date: Application Number:_ O -7 — 2S`� C.'irr q /3'urc�iogu Ph.inning Department Revised 101241-06 P:1Forms ce Procerlm •eslNeighbor ;woti/ic•aiion Form UpdatedOC-1 2006 doc 0. • • • • Cite of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS:- f'�t'C1� Vje�!;fN p�06 Dear Neighbor, 1 am proposing a project at the above slated address and tirould like to provide you with an .opporlt.nzity_ to reviei•r• the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street jroun the property ca•e being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice ►rhich ivill be sent out prior to a decision being made on the prgjecl. 1 ask that your faniiliarize yourself with the preliminary plans -for the project: These plans are PRELIA1'IIVARY ONL Y ctrtd nuay be chai7ged as the project mopes• forii,circi 1'ou nlay Contact the trip Of .S'aratoga's Planning Division [N ant' lime to revieiv any changes that The City of Saratoga asks that this lorm and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 - 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that 1 am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: J2 mac_ H �� Cf T 2 Date: x y g ®c, Si-nature: Neighbor Address: _/ t {c, t-1- _111_ 'rtea. __ I= rZ4 'ate ci Neighbor Phone #: ` 06 - E56'i - If] have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: L�k6 t A�HAL) p CAC-,'rA.0 Date: Zj Application Number: 0-7 Z C.'it'r qI Saratoga Planning Department Revised 10;'2.1,,06 P. (Forms cr I'rocedures'IA'eighbor tVolilication Form Updated Uc•t 2006.doc• City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: 1401 j bq'-VJk V1cj-j-�. P<iil✓ EC H VEP APR 30LUU7 CITY OF SARATOGA Dear Neighbor, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I ain proposing 'a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you rnith an opportunity to t•evieir the groposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the propert>> are being provided this 1706CO as a c•oui-fe.ry in advance of the standard City Nolic•e iMieh frill be sent out prior to a decision being made on 'the project. 1 ask thal yozr fcanilicrri. e yourself itriih the prelimintiiyl-7larts•for the project. These plans are PRELIMINAR P OAT Y and tray be changed as the project moves fbi-ivard. - ou may contact the City- of Saratoga 's• Planning Division al any lime to review any changes that. may r;cxtr!. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed. by -each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the, project you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 - 863 -1222 and speak with the assigned _project planner: MN Si--nature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed proiect and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Date: Signature:_ Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: If I have any initial concerns with the proiect I may list them below.. II-1), concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):. Applicant Name:AA thkIl "O C yA-,-D Date: Z F v Application Number 0 -7- 25 _ -- -- C'in qJ Snrcrtogcr Phin rind Depco-nneni Revised 10124.:06 P: lTornrs & 1'roceeinr-eslNeighbor ;voiilic•ution Form Updated Oc•t7006.doc• C� • • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: 11-4 VkS` AaJlF Dear Neighbor, 1 ann proposing a project at the abode stated address and would like to provide you iviih an opportunity to revieiv the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the properly are being provided this notice as a c•ourlesy in advance of the standard City Notice which mill be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. 1 ask that your fcimiliarize yourself ivith the prelimincuy plans, for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONL Yard cony be changed cis the project moves for•rvard You may contact the City of Saraloga's Planning Division at any lime to review, any changes that rrrm t;c cur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. if you have further interest in the project. you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 -868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that 1 am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor NameN� R 'f tDate: 4-� g 07 I V-Ijl� Signature: Neighbor Address: j-_ V 19 T —. Neighbor Phone lf' I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below 1=011oNvina (please attach additional sheets if necessary): �tlllo -W'AO );Imun ..ndh1A L- A "i Applicant Name: ,Application Number:_ C.'itr gl'Saratoga Revised 10;;24..;'06 P: l Forms cV- Procedrir, My concerns are the AJ(J� 4Q;W)WO, -, AN'4W • • • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Califomia 95070 14078 Alta Vista ARBORIST REPORT APN 397 -28 -041 Owner: Ana and Armando Castro INTRODUCTION E Application #: 07 -259 March 15, 2007 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist OW Phone (408) 868 -1276 The property owner of 14078 Alta Vista has submitted plans to the city to demolish their existing house and replace it with a new single story house and basement with walkout at lower grade. Four trees protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried .for this project. Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Tree locations are noted on the attached copy of the Site Survey. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet A -1, Site Plan, Sheet A -1.1, Grading Plan, Sheet A -3, Lower Level Floor Plan, Sheets A -5 and A -6, Elevation Plans, dated February 14, 2007 by Archisculpture. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Four coast live oaks are potentially impacted by construction ( #1— 4). Tree #2 is.not shown on the plans and should be surveyed an included in the revised plans. It should be shown to be removed. Tree #2 is within the footprint of the proposed home and the new house cannot be constructed as designed without removing it. Given its very close proximity to the foundation of the existing house, it is likely to be damaged during demolition even if it were possible to design and build the new home around it. *It is therefore acceptable to remove this tree to construct the proposed house. A landscape plan should be provided for review prior to submitting for building division permits. The grading plan should clearly identify existing and proposed grade changes so they can be evaluated for impacts to trees. The existing grading plan is not labeled and there is no legend to explain the different types of lines. No grading should occur under the canopy of trees #3 or 4. Pier and beam construction should be used for the retaining walls and portions of the house that are underneath these oak trees. Methods of constructing the deck should be used that do not require anyone to go within the protective fencing for this tree once it had been installed. Holes for footings should be hand dug for the first three feet and should be at least twelve feet from the trunk of tree #3. If roots measuring two inches or larger are found when digging holes, the holes for footings should be adjusted to avoid them. Roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning instrument. It is not clear from the plans where the footings are in relation to the tree and what methods and materials will be used to build the retaining walls. This information is needed to better evaluate impacts to the oak. Page 1 of 3 14078 Alta Vista Locations of all utilities, including water, sewer, gas and electric, should be drawn on the revised plans for review of potential impacts to trees. Gas, water and sewer lines should be capped outside of the drip line of any protected tree when preparing for demolition. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount of $89,000, which is equal to .100% of the total appraised value of trees #3 and 4, is required. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 91h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and the map showing location of tree and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. 2. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Tree protective fencing shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to obtaining building division permits. 3. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, in the amount of $89,000, prior to obtaining building division permits. 4. City Arborist shall approve any grading or trenching under a tree's canopy prior to performing work. If approved, it shall be done manually using shovels. Any roots measuring two inches or larger shall be retained and tunneled under; roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning instrument. 5. Plans shall show locations for all utilities and trenching including electrical, drainage, water, sewer and gas lines and irrigation lines. 6. Utility lines shall be capped outside of the drip line of tree canopies of any protected tree when preparing for demolition. 7. Unless otherwise. approved, all construction, activities must be .conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. Landscape plans should be designed as follows: a. Design irrigation main and lateral lines to remain outside of tree canopies. Show lateral I ines on irrigation plan. b. _Drip irrigation on top of grade may be used under oak trees in the outer 20% of the canopy. c. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. Locate valve boxes and controllers outside tree canopies. 0 d. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. Page 2 of 3 • 14078 Alta Vista e. Design lawns so that there is at least two feet between them and the trunk of any tree; confine lawn areas to the outside 20% of the area under the canopy. Do not plant lawn under any oak tree. f. Plant only drought tolerant plants compatible with oaks under oak trees. g. Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from the. trunks of retained trees and 6 inches from the trunks of new trees. I recommend placing mulch under the oaks. h. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees' canopies, including for weed control. i. Establish bender board or other edging material proposed beneath tree canopies on top of existing soil grade (such as by using stakes). 9. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed by a licensed tree contractor under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 10. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. Additionally, fuel shall not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 20 feet of the tree's trunks. 11. Herbicides shall not be applied beneath the tree canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachment: Tree Inventory Table Map Showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing Page 3 of 3 • TREE INVENTORY TABLE Coast live oak a o II °o 1 Quercus a ri olia 21.5 a�i 50 50 Good High 4 o X $15,700 "¢ �^ 0 y �+ O O yN b4 t, .. 75 Good H.i h 1 X X O 0 w >r U O r 3 y .O 3 b 0 �» `~ "Cl c 3 a b s. o II Uo II �o U � o 50 - 3 0 0 � 2 b o j� O U is p 00 .2''t° x a O U v TREE No TREE NAME a H c7 `� w .. N x� �.� > o �x :; !! �" o SQ o z o a Total Appraised Value $114,000 Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. Address: March 15, 2007 14078 Alta Vista • Coast live oak 1 Quercus a ri olia 21.5 30 50 50 Good High 4 X $15,700 Coast live oak 2 Quercus a ri olia 30 45 75 75 Good H.i h 1 X X $9,200 Coast live oak 21.5, 3 Quercus a ri olia 29, 32.5 80 50 50 Good High 2 $47,000 Coast live oak 4 Quercus a ri olia 36 80 50 50 Good High 1 3 1 1 X $42,100 Total Appraised Value $114,000 Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. Address: March 15, 2007 14078 Alta Vista • • C� Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Califomia 95070 14078 Alta Vista ARBORIST REPORT APN 397 -28 -041 Owner: Ana and Armando Castro INTRODUCTION 0 Application #: 07 -259 May 22, 2007 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Phone (408) 868 -1276 This is an addendum to the arborist report dated March 15, 2007, and includes additional information for the project. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION One additional tree was inventoried for the project, a coast redwood ( #5) that measures 28 inches in diameter and is located on the adjacent property. The tree is in reasonably good health, but has been topped at about 20 feet and has large sections of the trunk free of any lateral limbs. Its canopy spread is approximately 20 feet and extends to the edge of the existing house at 14078 Alta Vista..Its appraised value is $5,700. It has been drawn in its approximate location on the attached map, but. should be surveyed and included in the final plan set. No excavation for the proposed basement should occur within fifteen feet of the trunk of redwood tree #5 or within 20 feet of oak trees #3 or 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This entire report, in addition to the previous report dated March 15, 2007, shall be incorporated into the final set of building plans. 2. Tree #5 shall be surveyed and included on the plans. 3. No excavation shall occur within 15 feet of the trunk of redwood #5 for the proposed basement. 4. No excavation shall occur within 20 feet of the trunks of oaks #3 and 4 for the proposed basement. Attachment: Revised Map Showing Tree Locations Page 1 of 1 Ll Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 14078 Alta Vista ARBORIST REPORT APN 397 -28 -041 Owner: Ana and Armando Castro INTRODUCTION • • Application #. 07 -259 June 6, 2007:.'` Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist . Phone (408) 868 -1276 This is an addendum to the arborist reports dated March 15, 2007 and May 22, 2007. It includes additional information for the project. All three reports -should be included-in the final building plans, with the exception that the recommendations from the May 22 report should be deleted, as they are replaced by recommendations below. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL: DISCUSSION Oak trees #3 and 4 are currently about 12 feet from the existing house and retaining wall. Redwood tree #5 is approximately 10 feet from the existing house. Previously, I required no excavation within 20 feet of the trees, which reduces the size of the basement to about half of the proposed design. The owner has agreed to hire a certified arborist, who will be approved by the City Arborist, to supervise excavation of the basement and ensure that no roots measuring two inches or larger are cut to construct the basement. Because the existing house is only 12 feet from the trees and the excavation for the basement will be supervised by an arborist, it is acceptable to allow excavation up to 12 feet from the oaks and up to 10 feet from the redwood. Oak #2 should be replaced with new trees following construction. Acceptable species are listed below. RECOMMENDATIONS This entire report, in addition to the previous reports dated March 15, 2007 and May 22, 2007, shall be incorporated into the final set of building plans. 2. Tree #5 shall be surveyed- and included on the plans. 3. Excavation for the proposed basement shall remain at least 10 feet from the trunk of redwood. #5 and 12 feet from oaks #3 and 4. 4. Excavation for the basement shall be supervised by an ISA certified arborist approved by the City Arborist. Roots measuring two inches or larger shall be retained. Any footings for the foundation shall be adjusted.to miss roots of this size. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut with a sharp pruning tool. Page l of 2 14078 Alta Vista 6. Owner shall plant four 36 inch box trees to replace oak tree #2. Acceptable species include the following: coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglasiana), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). 0 is Page 2 of 2 Att.achm-ent 5 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 12th day of September 12, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: DR 07 -259 / 14078 Alta Vista Avenue APPLICANT /OWNER: Ana and Armando Castro APN: 397 -28 -041 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new single- family dwelling with a basement. The dwelling will consist of approximately 2,432 square feet of floor area. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26 -foot height limitation. The net lot size is approximately 6,027 acres and the site is located in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the, Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. 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 for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, September 3, 2007. 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. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Senior Planner (408) 868 -1235 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar , 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 27 ST day of August 2007, that I deposited 66 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing 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 described as: APN: 397 -28 -041 Address: 14078 Alta Vista Avenue that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above.. 0 � • • t Denise Kaspar� Advanced Listing Services • • kugust 27, 2007 ;00' Ownership Listing 'repared for: ;97 -28 -041 ,ANDRA L CHANG 4078 ALTA VISTA AVE. ; ARATOGA CA 95070 97 -25 -048 iARY M & FIONA RODRIGUES )R CURRENT OWNER 4098 LOMA RIO DR ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5413 97 -25 -060 :ICHARD L & ANNE SANQUINI )R CURRENT OWNER 4087 LOMA RIO DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -5412 . 97 -25 =063 397 -27 -026 397 -28 -030 CVWD 750 Almaden Exp an Jose CA 95118 97 -26 -018 JENDIE E WEISMAN iR CURRENT OWNER 4147 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN ARATOGA CA 95070 -5417 97 -26 -021 HRISTINE & JAE CHO iR CURRENT OWNER 4173 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN ARA-TOGA CA 95070 -5417 397 -25 -058 YUAN LIU OR CURRENT OWNER 14075 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -541:2 397 -25 -061 JOHN B & MARY CALLAGHAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14093 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5412 397 -26 -016 ROBERTS & JOAN SEIPEL OR CURRENT OWNER 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5417 397 -26 -019 KOON - CHEUNG 400 ESTHER AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 -1251 397 -26 -022 POLK & ANNE LAFFOON OR CURRENT OWNER 14191 SQUIRREL HOLLOW. LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5417 97 -26 -024 397 -26 -025 [OHAMMAD & FARIMAH MASSOUMI SU CHIA FEI & HUELLING ,R CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 4215 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN 114204 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN ARATOGA CA 95070 -5417. SARATOGA CA 95070 -5418 )7 -26 -027 HOMAS T & AININ EDMAN R CURRENT OWNER 4170 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN ARATOGA CA 95070 -5418 397 -26 -028 JAY M & PAULA BLOOM OR CURRENT OWNER 14150 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5418 , 397 -25 -059 HENRY H & SALLY CHU 19247 ALLENDALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5137 397 -25 -062 C & SARA ALLEN OR CURRENT OWNER 14101 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5412 397 -26 -017 GARY J & PATRICIA VICK OR CURRENT OWNER 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5417 397 -26 -020 DAVID N & ROBEN MARTIN OR CURRENT OWNER 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5417 397 -26 -023 . ALLEN J & CYNTHIA RUBY OR CURRENT OWNER 14205 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5417 397 -26 -026 SUBRAMANYAM S & MAMMA TALLAK OR CURRENT OWNER 14190 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5418 397 -26 -029 . DONA R TOBIASON OR CURRENT OWNER 14130 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN. SARATOGA CA 95070 -5418 )7 -26 -058 397 -26 -059 397-27 -019 PATAKY STEVEN & G AMUEL B & LOETA FISHER TABER & TINA SMITH � BOX 3385 1737 N 1ST ST 110 OR CURRENT OWNER kRATOGA CA 95070 -1385 SAN JOSE CA 95112 -4522 R VICTOR 9 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5425 • • • 397 -27 -020 EkIK FRIEDBERG )R CURRENT OWNER ?WALNUT AVE i OGA CA 95070 -5447 )97 -28 -002 STEVEN C & FLORA HOFFMAN )R CURRENT OWNER '.0431 WALNUT AVE ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5426 X97 -28 -015 3LORIA FELCYN )R CURRENT OWNER :0440 WILLIAMS AVE ; ARATOGA CA 95070 -5428 97 -28 -019 ;UBRAMANIAN & CHARUMATHY 7ANESAN )R CURRENT OWNER 0470 WILLIAMS AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5428 97 -28 -022 RANCES C,MILLER 4600 WILD OAK WAY ARATOGA CA 95070 -5550 9 -025 LANG TRUST IR CURRENT OWNER 4110 ALTA VISTA AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5459 )7 -28- 033,34 LEXANDER K MCKENZIE 2 BAYVIEW AVE OS GATOS CA 95030 )7 -28 -052 AGARCHI SALIM 1524 OAK ST ARATOGA CA 95070 -5426 )7 -28 -057 ART FAMILY TRUST R CURRENT OWNER )431 WILLIAMS AVE kRATOGA CA 95070 -5427 397 -27 -025 397 -28 -001 GROVER B & MARYANN STEELE JINSONG HU OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20410 WALNUT AVE 20411 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5447 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5426 397 -28 -004 397 -28 -014 HONGYAN NI JOHN W & CHRISTINE PACE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20451 WALNUT AVE 20450 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5426 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5428 397 -28 -016 397 -28 -018 JAY S -016 BENJAMIN & LEILIA PEAKE JAY OAK WAY OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070 -4254. 20400 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5428 397 -28 -020 397 -28 -021, JUDITH L TEEPLE RICHARD J BIETZ OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20480 WILLIAMS AVE 14081 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5428 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5421 397 -28 -023 397 -28 -024 DAVID & CONNIE ESHLEMAN WALDEMAR M & LUCYNA OR CURRENT OWNER PASTUSZKA 14130 ALTA VISTA AVE 1116 WALSH AVE . SARATOGA CA 95070 -5459 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 -2646 397 -28 -027 397 -28 -032 OJALA TRUST CHARLEY GRIFFIN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14054 ALTA VISTA AVE 20365 WILLIAMS AVE. SARATOGA CA 95070 -5422 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5458 397 -28 -037 397 -28 -041 ROBERT K &CYNTHIA ROCKWOOD SANDRA L CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 325 AVENUE F 20445 WILLIAMS AVE REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 -5147 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5427 397 -28 -053 TONG & GRACE CHU, OR CURRENT OWNER 20435 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5426 397 -28 -058 HOWARD LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20401 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5427 397 -28 -056 THEODORE & VICTORIA HART PO BOX 427 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0427 397 -28 -059 ALEKSANDAR & GORDANA PANCE OR CURRENT OWNER 20405 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5427 61 397 -28 -062 397 -28 -063 T M & VAISHALI MARATHE JOE MENARD ALBERT & DIANE CLEMENT !2 CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 997 ALTA VISTA AVE 13999 ALTA VISTA AVE 13992 ALTA VISTA AVE kRATOGA CA 95070 -5421 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5421 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5422 397 -28 -064 MATTHEW G & JANIE RIDDLE DR CURRENT OWNER 13998 ALTA VISTA AVE 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5422 397 -28 -067 30 HOCK C )R CURRENT OWNER .4001 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5421 ;97 -28 -070, 71, 72 OHN P & KAY NORA '0 BOX 186 ; ARATOGA CA 95071 -0186 97 -29 -015 ;EN WANG ►R CURRENT OWNER 0442 GERALD ZAPELLI CT ARATOGA CA 95070 -5400 397 -28 -065 TONGXIN LU OR CURRENT OWNER 14000 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5422 397 -28 -068 JIM J & JESSICA LIN OR CURRENT OWNER 14018 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5422 397 -29 -011 STANLEY A & SUSAN BAC OR CURRENT OWNER 13990 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5422 CITY OF SARATOGA Attn: Christopher Riordan 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 397 -28 -066 HASSAN KHANMOHAMMADBAIGI OR CURRENT OWNER 20345 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5458 397 -28 -069 BLACKWELL PROPERTIES 125 E SUNNYOAKS AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 -6639 397 -29 -012 H LOS GATOS Not available SARATOGA CA 95070 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 • • 10 • • . Subject: 14078 Alta Vista Avenue APN: 397-28-041 500' Radius- 766.46 . . 11---Oo 20f4Z 11 i;! 12 IJ 41 .1. 3 31 36 3 U qg R. HI C TOR TR CT c 0 ic Alli 1 • J I0 Attachment 6 i II • • Ll L i t SP�WFr=E / SPECIES TO BE DETERMINED BY T ARBORIST / I.Y. 4110 ELEV. %S SIPPED COLORED CONCRETfjOR�EUAY. SIDEWALK / ELEV. 445 �3 SITE PLAN PROJECT DATA APR 3YI-011-041 HOTS ALTA VISTA AYE. SARATOD& CA. ANA AND ARMANDO CA57RO EASTNG USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: R - I - 10000 SIZE OF LOT : GRO55 IM 50 FT MET 0027 SOFT AGE OF ALL STRUCTURE APPR. 30 YEARS ALLONABLE FLOOR AREA 2SL0 SOFT n= ARIA OF KOFIM NNY NTIRCTIM FAN FLOOR 2,432 Ea F7 LOSER FLOOR IM EO FT BBASEMENTI PORCHES AND VERANDAS NO COVERED PORCHES OR VERANDAS. DECK AT LOIERELEVEL 401 SO FTF TOTAL DECK AREA LB SO FT NPERJLOEE SITE COVERAGE MAIN FLOOR 2.432 50 FT DMVEUAT 133 SD FT SIDE NALKS, STAIRS 1 *160 FT UNCOVERED PORCH TOTAL SO FT 3404 IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE 3550: UO = 425 INPERYIOUS SITE COVERAGE EN MY CORMIMATNN MEABIM ROOF INSULATION 1111. BE INCREASED TO AT LE41 R40. BASEMENT NALLS ARE FURRED OUT AND INSULATED t0 R4 SOLAR PANELS IM BE ADDED TO ROOF FOR DOMESTIC NOT NATEP EXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAN BE REPAIRED TO MATCH EXISTING 41-0' 4I'- C 12'-'Y 0'-9^ g SL Am yZ6.25 Am 0 341 SF EXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN OR BE REPAIRED TO F li i FLWIERN4 MATH EXISTING LOIN:R FLOOR PLAN BUILDM SETBACK VERFZAttON NOTE Am C 1591 SF / DROUGHT RESISTANT 1 b Arm B 400 SF � ,• D' -9• _ 0 I EVERGREEN SWUM AREA 12 SF AREA B 400 SF �G AREA D 314 SF ?V OAK i b P 3'-O' HIGH STUCCD PERS N/ 3'-0 HIGH DROUGHT SECTIONS. A B, c. 4 w DOT -DASH 1NE INDICATES MIUSHED GRADE ° ELEV. 419.0 1 SEE ELEYATKIN. SHEET AL VICINITY MAP RON FfNCE SI:CTIO 49- L' ELEV.'UL.O ,o �m 5 SF BETTEEN PERS AMA P_ 3J1 A4t P ELEV. 94.5 Lwx MLS6. 440 P DOt -DA LIME COVERED LANDING �// : AFWIJW ARBANG 0 FOp PRgn .... ... -.: 7QP 1N?PERIFLOOR L i t SP�WFr=E / SPECIES TO BE DETERMINED BY T ARBORIST / I.Y. 4110 ELEV. %S SIPPED COLORED CONCRETfjOR�EUAY. SIDEWALK / ELEV. 445 �3 SITE PLAN PROJECT DATA APR 3YI-011-041 HOTS ALTA VISTA AYE. SARATOD& CA. ANA AND ARMANDO CA57RO EASTNG USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: R - I - 10000 SIZE OF LOT : GRO55 IM 50 FT MET 0027 SOFT AGE OF ALL STRUCTURE APPR. 30 YEARS ALLONABLE FLOOR AREA 2SL0 SOFT n= ARIA OF KOFIM NNY NTIRCTIM FAN FLOOR 2,432 Ea F7 LOSER FLOOR IM EO FT BBASEMENTI PORCHES AND VERANDAS NO COVERED PORCHES OR VERANDAS. DECK AT LOIERELEVEL 401 SO FTF TOTAL DECK AREA LB SO FT NPERJLOEE SITE COVERAGE MAIN FLOOR 2.432 50 FT DMVEUAT 133 SD FT SIDE NALKS, STAIRS 1 *160 FT UNCOVERED PORCH TOTAL SO FT 3404 IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE 3550: UO = 425 INPERYIOUS SITE COVERAGE EN MY CORMIMATNN MEABIM ROOF INSULATION 1111. BE INCREASED TO AT LE41 R40. BASEMENT NALLS ARE FURRED OUT AND INSULATED t0 R4 SOLAR PANELS IM BE ADDED TO ROOF FOR DOMESTIC NOT NATEP EXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAN BE REPAIRED TO MATCH EXISTING 41-0' 4I'- C 12'-'Y 0'-9^ g SL Am A 12 SP Am 0 341 SF b 7S F li AREA G AS LOIN:R FLOOR PLAN BUILDM SETBACK VERFZAttON NOTE Am C 1591 SF ROOF PLAN b Arm B 400 SF � q D' -9• _ 0 2a -0' 401- C AREA 12 SF AREA B 400 SF AREA C 159E SF AREA D 314 SF TOTAL SF -MAX FLOOR 2432 SF 3'-0' DRmm Rm 4a- C 0'-9^ g E All GRADING PLAN b 7S F MAW BOOR PLAN AREA G AS LOIN:R FLOOR PLAN BUILDM SETBACK VERFZAttON NOTE 373 SF ROOF PLAN AREA F q U E44 SF 'PRIOR 7 A BTHAT ALL AL SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT) PROVIDE URITTEN CERT ARC TIOX BULLING SETBACK ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS.' b Al SECTIONS. A B, c. AS SELYM)N& 0. E F. VICINITY MAP 49- L' AREA E 5 SF AMA P_ 3J1 A4t 0 Q/ o i 1 1 'yy I ! � ✓awes (ELEV.] IS i / / ® Vr 401/Fi / I EXISTING PENCE AT SLOPED AS OF PROPERTY ARE SLOPE CALCULATIONS S - 0.00229 X T XL A I- CONTOUR INTERVAL L - TOTAL LENGTH OF CONTOURS A = AREA IN ACRES) S= AVERAGE SLOPE 5 = D.00221 X 2X 510 = 219 1 AVERAGE SLOPE OF SITE 0.25E SLOPE AT BBDIKG SITE = LESS THAN 045 OVER LENGTH OF RESIDENCE HEIGHT W- ORMATION! SEE SHEET AL FOR GRAPF6C N =TNON 9 EXTEM ELEVATMS LOWEST EXISTING ELEVATION AT BUILDING EDGE - ELEV. 40.0 HIGHEST EXISTING ELEVATION AT BOLONG ELEVATION - ELEY 45. 3 AVERAGE ELEVATION OF HEW OF BUILDING - ELEVATION 411.15 TOP MOST ELEVATION POINT OF STRUCTURE - 435.0 EXISTING STRUCTURE IS TOTALLY DEMOLNED. NO EXISTING STRUCTURES TO REMAIN PROJECT DESRIPM NEU RESIDENCE. ONE STORY AT GRADE ORH FULL BASEMENT AND WALKC 1T AT REAR TO DECK ABOVE A SEVERELY SLOPING SITE STARTING APPROXIMATELY 4-0' FROM REAR PORT OF RSID NICE. THE EDUSTNG NON CONTORTING RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT SHORN ON BOUNDARY SAVEYI 13 TO BE TOTALLY DEMOLISHED AND EXISTING ORNERAY AND 7REE5 AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ARE TO BE OEMOLINHED. EXISTING OAK AT FRONT OU PROPERTY 13 TO BE REMOVED AND NEW TREE AT THE DIRECTION OF CITY ABORIST. 411,510E AT REAR TNRD OF NEW RESIDENCE UAS FILL HELD BY ERODED DRY STONE RETAKING UALL LOSER LEVEL ENGINEERED TO STABILIZE BULDWG PAD- BASEMENT IS LOCATED ON PROPERTY TO CORRECT HILL EROSION OF NON CONFORMING FOUNDATION SYSTEM AND DRY LAD RETANNG NALL THAT IS PABNG. // I 'EXI5TIN FENCE AT SLOPED AREAS O/IROIER ARE CHAIN LINK OR METAL FENCES TO O� m ___---- --i3' 3767= —" / �O I/ / / I NO GRP➢E CHANGES AT THIS AREA OF SITE 1� P� V\ --- 'VLNK OR METAL FENCES TO REMAIN Forth a,4 " SCALE I18' - I'-0' - w� to 6ETWC& RH0000 DRmm Rm FRONT - 25' -O' I AI SITE PLAN REAR = BS' -O' All GRADING PLAN SIDE YARD - 105 OP ODTH AS MEASURED PER ZONING REG OR MNMRI OF L' -0' SOL YARDS CALC AT S'-0' t'-0' REQURED. USE L' -D' SIDEYARD SETBACK A2 MAW BOOR PLAN . AS LOIN:R FLOOR PLAN BUILDM SETBACK VERFZAttON NOTE A4 ROOF PLAN AS NORTH ELEVATION [RIGHT, U UffST ELEVATION IFRONTI 'PRIOR 7 A BTHAT ALL AL SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT) PROVIDE URITTEN CERT ARC TIOX BULLING SETBACK ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS.' EAST ELEVATION REAR) Al SECTIONS. A B, c. AS SELYM)N& 0. E F. VICINITY MAP L7 SITE SURVEY tnarv,°sRUr urovav FIRE DEPARTMENT ROOFING RATERAL& ROOFING COVERING SHALL BE FIRE RETARDANT AND COMPLY LOTH 74L STANDARDS ESTABLBHED FOR CLASS A ROOFING (CRY OF SARATOGA CODE 4- 5.0501 SPRINKLERS: AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN REDLY CONSTRUCTED OR iRODRED Al-TACNED/DETACHED GARAGES INGIUDING ANY WORKSHOPS OR STORAGE AREAS UITHIN THE GARAGE 1W4 ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED AS HABITABLE SPACE. AN RFPA DD SPRINKLER SYSTEM UIIH 2 HEADS PER CAR STALL AND 2 HEAD CALCULATION IS REORED. 70 ENSURE PROPER SPRNIUR OPERATION. THE GARAGE &1911 HAVE A SMOaT FLAT HORIZONTAL DETERMINE THE SQE Of S6�IEVD AND NEUTER NEEDED TO MEET S�Up CN AF�ANY TO DOMESTIC REQUREMENTS. THE SUPPRESSON CONTRACTOR SHALL SIEM7 THREE 01 COPES OF DORKING DRABNGS AND CALCULATIONS TO THE SARATOGA PIKE DISTRICT FOR APPROVAL. THE SPRINKLER AND UNDERFRDUND DATER SUPPLY MUST BE INSTALLED BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR (QTY OF SARATOGA CODE 4 -SAID FOR NEU CONSTRUCTONB, PREMISES IDENTIFICATION APPROVED NUMBERS OR ADDRESSES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL NEU AND MTNG BUIDNfi5 IN SUCH A POSITRON AS TO BE PLAINLY VNILE AND LEaBLE FROM THE ROAD OR STREET FRONTING THE PROPERTY ICFC V.4 -41 WAOM aMWTRE.'T If FROM CIVIL EN TOTAL CUT EXCAVATION : NS CIL YDS. MAX CUT HEIGHT : 10'-0" TOTAL FILL : 0.0 CU. YD5 MAX FILL HEW : 7 -O' TOTAL fiF - BASETIEHi 1997 57 / X i ' 1, „f § 4� L��JJJ ENT G " c -TSaeB R C �I I S C U L P T U R DATE ISSUED: SAIL PLAN FLOOR AREA CALCS PROJECT DATA SETBACK INFORMATION ANEW RESIDENCE FOR ANA AND ARMANDO CASTRO 7_28_2007 AM STEVEN J. KRAPEK, ARCHITECT 6508 BOLUX&ER ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95124 FC, _ VOICE 150 520.685 FAX 408 255 4074 E MAIL: akrapa 8cmaltnei _.._ ___ _.____- _ PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAWING INDEX _____ _.______-_._ 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE, SARATOGA, CA J 0 0 O� IGRADING PLAN /% lJ 2o�04x __- - ELEV. NW 9 EL EV. 1c 5 411.1 5 LEY. 19.0 DOT -DA LINE ELEV. Ide / / ELEV. K.& '40 STORM WATER RETENTION PLAN: GRADING PLAN OF NEW RESIDENCE HAS NOT CHANGED SUBSTANTAILLY FROM EXISTING RESIDENCE" FOOT PRINT OF NEW RESIDENCE IS IN SAME AREA AS EXISTING RESIDENCE AMC CARFORT. PAVING AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES HAVE NOT INCREASED BY MORE THAN 10% AND BASEMENT IS A PROACTIVE MEASURE TO STABNZE SOIL EROSION AT EXISTING NON COMPLIANT FOOTING AND FOUNDATION. NEW RESIDENCE ROOF WILL HAVE GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUT5 WITH NEW PERIMETER FRENCH DRAIN AT BASEMENT ANC WATER WILL BE COLLECTED AND DIRECTED TO SPLASH BLOCKS AND ALLOWED TO PERCOLATE IN EXISTING SOIL AS R DOES AT PRESENT. DATER AT FRONT OF PROPERTY FROM ;PERVIOUS PAVING AREAS WILL BE DIRECTED TO LAWN AREA AND LANOSCAPPEO AREAS TO PERCOLATE IN SOIL. FNNAHD GRADE R T.O. CONC. SIDEVALK / -- ' ° ; �� -- , 8; •Y' ; ^ � 'R �` ; yS± -- i = -- , — ADJACENT TO RESIDENCE. ELEV. VARIES PROM Ut0 • 0? OF OF GARAGE TO N 86D35'00" W 219.82 ELEV " •TOT CORNER STAIR LANDING Ninth f+ 11 1 413 Z / SCALE Vol - r-01 'I i i i i r 7, ..adltt,tl / a� GRADBW LEGM — MMAG GRADE& w G us) _ _ _ _ PROPOND GRADE CkAKGE& .. 1 —.4 GRAM IC—Q601 A NEW RESIDENCE FOR ANA AND ARMANDO %.41*1 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE. SARATOGA, CA Ale] vyC R C H-1 S ( U L P T U R 1 °A2B i5� D GRADING PLAN —t5A58 ,A STEVEN J KRA ?EK. ARCHITECT :608 9CW'iGER ROAD SAN JOSE. CA 95129 STORM WATER RETENTION PLAN NOTE .T DICE &50 S20 4485 FAX 408 255 40114 E MAC.: k,mek9c castm!t f+ 11 1 413 Z / SCALE Vol - r-01 'I i i i i r 7, ..adltt,tl / a� GRADBW LEGM — MMAG GRADE& w G us) _ _ _ _ PROPOND GRADE CkAKGE& .. 1 —.4 GRAM IC—Q601 A NEW RESIDENCE FOR ANA AND ARMANDO %.41*1 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE. SARATOGA, CA Ale] KI 0, i M 1 w 07 _ -- 6-4 V7 G'-0- d'-6 — T v"5µ ARCNISCULP.TURF II 1 i M 1 w 07 _ -- 6-4 V7 G'-0- d'-6 — T L MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1 3 5 15 25-0" t 2 4 10 SCALE 114' = 1' -0' MAIN FLOOR AREA 2,432 SQ.FT. A5 v"5µ ARCNISCULP.TURF �726�7 MAIN FLOOR PLAN, ♦ C -15498 STEVEN J KRAPEK. ARCHITECT 4508 BOLINGER RCAD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 8:25 AM AM - ... F � ,G VO!CE 450 520 4:85 FAX 408 25S 4014 BATH t E :TAIL riraDck'cacaet.r't • , ENTRY BEDROOM t 3 MASTER BATHROOM F��A� STUDY mss PORCH 4 MASTER BEDROOM }NEPLACF SE t aT -------- - - - - -- LAUND Y _ _ _ _ _ WALK -IN CLOSET SET ' 1 S 4 s! T e! IO t 0 'i N 5 ----- - - - - -- HALLWAY i 1 0 BATH 92 ' BEDROOM 82 2 CAR GARAGE I ui ��l 00 BE DROOM $1 _ - -- � BATH tl DECK eELOU -ell 5'-0' DIA OR I L MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1 3 5 15 25-0" t 2 4 10 SCALE 114' = 1' -0' MAIN FLOOR AREA 2,432 SQ.FT. A5 r i r RFPtA_ EX19017XG ERODED ON7 eT ONE NE,.Nrl UALL I I } f I oece aftoi I. 1 I { i I i I >r� I' i I a Area A 12 SF Area C 15% SF DIAGRAM OF FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS o AREA A 12 SF i Area 8 400 SF g AREA B 400 SF ti AREA C 13% SF . AREA D 364 SF y TOTAL SF -MAIN FLOOR 2432 SF 1 17 -1' 7• Area D 364 SF s y I, a sa- ' A NEW RESIDENCE FOR ANA AND ARMANDO CASTRO 14078 ALTA VI5TA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 12 1 I v"5µ ARCNISCULP.TURF �726�7 MAIN FLOOR PLAN, ♦ C -15498 STEVEN J KRAPEK. ARCHITECT 4508 BOLINGER RCAD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 8:25 AM AM - ... F � ,G VO!CE 450 520 4:85 FAX 408 25S 4014 E :TAIL riraDck'cacaet.r't • , r i r RFPtA_ EX19017XG ERODED ON7 eT ONE NE,.Nrl UALL I I } f I oece aftoi I. 1 I { i I i I >r� I' i I a Area A 12 SF Area C 15% SF DIAGRAM OF FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS o AREA A 12 SF i Area 8 400 SF g AREA B 400 SF ti AREA C 13% SF . AREA D 364 SF y TOTAL SF -MAIN FLOOR 2432 SF 1 17 -1' 7• Area D 364 SF s y I, a sa- ' A NEW RESIDENCE FOR ANA AND ARMANDO CASTRO 14078 ALTA VI5TA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 12 1 I .7 is '.'`" LOWER FLOOR PLAN ( BASEMENT ) 1 3 5 15 25'- 0" 0 2 < 10 SCALE 1/4 = 1' -0' LOWER FLOOR (BASEMENT) AREA 1.992 SQ.FT. CIAGRAN OF FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS AREA E i5 SF AREA F 1544 SF AREA G 3 13 SF TOTAL SF - EASEMENT 1992 SF R O f00 BAIL TOP OF CONC. RETAINNO $ALL IB At ELEV. 4b0 BOTTOM OF RETAMO BALI B AT REY, 4050 Y. 4042 DECK I S-0 10'- i' 12' -Y a h A R ( H I S.( U L P T U R 1 °7'28 LOWER FLOOR PLAN � ANEW RESIDENCE FOR =2° * C-15498 STEVEN J. KRAPEK, ARCHITECT L508 BOLUNGER ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 1SI21 & 28 AN AN .., ANA AND ARMANDO CASTRO ,`4 VOICE i50 520 LLHS FAX !Oe 255 1C'6 E Y.AIL: eirepetscaactrt.rut i 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE. SARATOGA, CA •, . • • 0 ROOF PLAN 3 5 15 25._0.. - < 10 SCALE 1/4' = C -0' ya C —t5a9B ,. ARCHISCULPIUR1 STEVEN J. KRAPEK, ARC4:ITEri 008 80LLINGER ROAD. SAN JOSE, CA 15129 D7-26-2007 ROOF ROOF PLAN � �. � ' A NEW RESIDENCE FOR ANA AND ARMANDO CASTRO A4 X25 "" AM 110V L50 520 6685 °A.X 400 255 40-L E MAIL; strapeiacwcw.w. 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE. SARATOGA, CA • 0 L� WEST ELEVATION 0 �HA)OMIRt HEIGHT AL109EQ — ELEV 91150 T.O. PLYWOOOD (MAIN LEVEL) t ELEV & 15 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED 7.0, CONC. SLAB IGARAGE) NNSHED GRABS FNISVFB GRABS _ —IvJ I I ( II I ELEV 91015 a —e —o- AVERAGE HEIGHT BASE LINE — _ _ — _ o—e—dl—e—o—o—e—o—o—o—o—o—o—o- I ElkL I I —�EF. 10150 — . — . — ' _f—� TO. CONC SLAB f8A5EMENi1 — 70. CONC. SLAB /BASEMNT) I - NORTH ELEVATION (LEFT) j MEASUREMENT POINT FOR HEIGHEST ELEV. 431,.15 — �MAXIMIRI FIGHT ALLOIBEp ELEV. .8 EEVT 43.0 ELEVATION MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED MATERIALS AND COLORS SELECTION FOR COLOR SELECTION REFER TO COLOR BOARD O LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE ROOFING 02 STUCCO - SAND FINISH Q SHINGLE SIDING 0 EL DORADO STONE Os TREX DECK O METAL RAILING (PAINTED TO MATCH SIDNG) NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION KEY PLAN ELEV435.0 4 TOP OF RIDGE _ ' It a I � G ❑ ❑ A T.LEV O. TOP f15 PATE � I 1 ELEV. 1150 i. .. T I i EAST ELEVATION ELEV. 1L4FDI�/� 1 ELEV. sqg —o— a —o —e— a A`/ERA(d: f1E1(}�T BASEl11ff } WEST ELEVATION (FRONT) { 1 _ 5 15 2S'-O" a z a 10 SCALE 1/4' = 'I' -0' T.O. CONC. SLAB IGARAGFI L �_- MEASUREMENT POINT FOR LOWEST HEIGHT OF ELEVATION 15 AT BOTTOM OF STAIRS a THIS 5DE I ELEV. 40 &.0 SEE ELEVATIONS. SHEET AL �. ,A R C H I S C U L P t U R f " C- 15498 '+ STEVEN J. KRAPEK, ARCHITECT 6509 BOLLINGER ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95119 DATE .I • 0 L� WEST ELEVATION 0 �HA)OMIRt HEIGHT AL109EQ — ELEV 91150 T.O. PLYWOOOD (MAIN LEVEL) t ELEV & 15 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED 7.0, CONC. SLAB IGARAGE) NNSHED GRABS FNISVFB GRABS _ —IvJ I I ( II I ELEV 91015 a —e —o- AVERAGE HEIGHT BASE LINE — _ _ — _ o—e—dl—e—o—o—e—o—o—o—o—o—o—o- I ElkL I I —�EF. 10150 — . — . — ' _f—� TO. CONC SLAB f8A5EMENi1 — 70. CONC. SLAB /BASEMNT) I - NORTH ELEVATION (LEFT) j MEASUREMENT POINT FOR HEIGHEST ELEV. 431,.15 — �MAXIMIRI FIGHT ALLOIBEp ELEV. .8 EEVT 43.0 ELEVATION MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED MATERIALS AND COLORS SELECTION FOR COLOR SELECTION REFER TO COLOR BOARD O LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE ROOFING 02 STUCCO - SAND FINISH Q SHINGLE SIDING 0 EL DORADO STONE Os TREX DECK O METAL RAILING (PAINTED TO MATCH SIDNG) NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION KEY PLAN ELEV435.0 4 TOP OF RIDGE _ ' It a I � G ❑ ❑ A T.LEV O. TOP f15 PATE � I 1 ELEV. 1150 i. .. T I i EAST ELEVATION ELEV. 1L4FDI�/� 1 ELEV. sqg —o— a —o —e— a A`/ERA(d: f1E1(}�T BASEl11ff } WEST ELEVATION (FRONT) { 1 _ 5 15 2S'-O" a z a 10 SCALE 1/4' = 'I' -0' T.O. CONC. SLAB IGARAGFI L �_- MEASUREMENT POINT FOR LOWEST HEIGHT OF ELEVATION 15 AT BOTTOM OF STAIRS a THIS 5DE I ELEV. 40 &.0 SEE ELEVATIONS. SHEET AL �. ,A R C H I S C U L P t U R f " C- 15498 '+ STEVEN J. KRAPEK, ARCHITECT 6509 BOLLINGER ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95119 DATE NORTH ELEVATION r WEST ELEVATION ANEW RESIDENCE FOR ANA AND ARMANDO CASTRO �7 AN B AM ` - VOICE 650 520 LLBS FAX 408 455 9016 E MAIL: grapekeemot.vt - '4078 ALTA VISTA AVE. SA.RATOGA, CA m • l H -U t I 1 MEASURING POINT FOR HIGHEST POINT AT ROOF ELEV. 435.0 ELEV. 134,15 1 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED F MAXMM V;EIGFfF ALL01ED — 4350 — — TOP OF RIDGE 0 0 ❑0 l L11 \J ❑ r FINISHED VA�ERETAINING CONC. WALL 5 LESS RETAINING THANS'-O' —HIGH MESURED FROM TOP OF DECK 1 FNI5HED GRADE Q 2 r' n ELEV 4115 T.O. PLYWOOD ( MAIN FLOOR) GRADE VARIES SEE \ELEV 4110 TOC LAN I @I� GRADANN ` FINISHED GRADE AT SIDE YARD ELEV. 410.0 } SOUTH ELEVATION (RIGHT) WALL RE7Af NG I ELEV. 410.0 W va T.O. GONC. RETAINING WALL e— a —o —e- AVERAGE HEIGHT OF BUILDING ELEV 11o1s ELEV. 410.15 ELEV, 410.15 AVERAGE HEIGHT BABE PMT ELEVATI011 AVERAGE HEIGHT BASE POINT ELEV. — �LEy�01�Q TOC LOWER LEVEL ELIFY, 40L.25 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ELEV. 04.00 _ _ T 0. DECK — . — — . — _ — _ . — . — — — . — — TOP-OE GPADE-AT REAR RE- 5IDE_.YARIL . — . — — . — — — — . — — --r0WES7- MVATMFPOt9i— r • ELEV- 435.0 _______________ _____ MM£%RIN -MINT fQR ------------ _----- ------ ---- -- - - ---- ELEV. 435.0 70P OF RIDGE HIGHEST POINT AT ROOF TOP OF RIDGE ELEV. 135.0 a O GRADE VARIES AT SITE BEYOND.WHERE NEW RESIDENCE IS LOCATED. SEE GRADING PLAN -- - t - C -0' HIGH WOOD FENCE AT SIDETYARD UNTIL SETBACK TO GRADE CHANGES TO HILLSIDE BEGINS PROPERTY (HEIGHT VARIES) LINE FINISHED GRADE AT 5IDEYAR: FENCE SLOPES TO FOLLOW GRADE i lJ GRADE BEYOND DECK VARIES SEE SITE PLAN FOR ELEVATIONS EAST ELEVATION (REAR) O 6' -O" SETBACK TO PROPERTY LINE — — /I i —E16. 11O.'0 e— T AMIfIG W LOWEST ELEVATION �AT BUILDING EDGE 1100 ELEV. 905.0 J BOT70M OF SEE AVERAGE HEIGHT INFORMATION RETAINING WALL AT SHEET Al ? MASTER BEDROOM i ,1 r -o' HIGH WOOD FENCE AT SIDETYARD UNTIL MATERIALS AND COLORS SELECTION GRADE CHANGES TO HILLSIDE BEGINS FOR COLOR SELECTION REFER TO COLOR BOARD !HEIGHT VARIESJ O LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE ROOFING O2 STUCCO - SAND FINISH I MAIN FLOOR) O SHINGLE SIDING T Q EL DORADO STONE )E AT SIDE YARD O5 TREX DECK Q METAL RAILING (PAINTED TO MATCH SIDING) FENCE SLOPES TO FOLLOW GRADE ELEV 410. s AVERAGE HEIGHT 'BASE POINT ELEVATKMI WEST ELEVATION ELEV. 104.5 i.0. CONC. SLAB (BASEMENT) h a s 15 25'r a' P' 0 2 4 10 i SCALE 1/4' = 1' -0' NORTH ELEVATION KEY PLAN Q SOUTH ELEVATION aEAST ELEVATION y v C -15486 ARCHISCULPTURT °7T2I SOUTH ELEVATION ' �. EAST ELEVATION A. NEW RESIDENCE FOR ANA AND ARMANDO C49RO A6 -�° 9:25 "' AM 57EVEN J. KRAPEK, ARCHITECT 4508 BOLLINGER ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 vt ,. I 14WS a�Ta, vlsTa AVE. $aRaTOGa, Ca s ,1F VOICE 450 520 4485 FAX 108 255 4014 E MAIL: urapeticwcert i • • ELEV. 4305 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED SECTION A 5i ELEV. 4 15 — MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED — ALL SPACES AT MAIN FLOOR UNO HAVE SLOPED CEILINGS AS INDICATED PER SECTION INTERIOR HEIGHT AT OUTSIDE WALL b 15 8' -0' AND CEILING RISE AT A 4 TO SLOPE TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SECTION C 12 �-7l ALL SPACES AT MAIN FLOOR UNO HAVE SLOPE CEILINGS AS INDICATED PER SECTION INTERIOR HEIGHT AT OUTSIDE WALL 15 8'-0' AND CEILING RISE AT A TO 12 SLOPE TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1 3 5 15 2.5'- (Y' I 0 t 4 OD SCALE 1/4" = 1' -0' (HIGHEST POINT OF E E H. G S' 0'. W M, SECTION B A R C H I S C U L P T U R f OATE ISSUED SECTION A ANEW RESIDENCE FOR SECTION 15- 0010, BASEMENT 7_26.2DD7 C -15498 * STEVEN J. KRAPEK, ARCHITECT 6508 BOLLINGER ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 115129 &25 AM AM JUSTIFICATION OF EXCLUSION OF SF AT LOWER LEVEL IN ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 'BA5EXENT' MEANS A SPACE DL A STRIICTIRE THAT IS PARTLY OR AI GRADE O EHFRE DISTANCE FROM t17H 5F TOTAL SF OF LOW LEVEL I SECTION C 1 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE. SARATOGA, CA ED HATCHED AREA INDICATES RDA! ES FLOOR GRADE O FL TL ABOVE S H SPA GRADE TO A FINISHED FLOOR DIRECTLY ABOVE INICH SPACE R lE6b 1770 6F AREA of lOESR LEVEL THAT MEETS SECTION b -OL010 II A MEETS THE AREA THAT T AREA OF ON OF THAM OR EOWI TO FORTY -TW 11OM. P THE FINSHED FLOOR 15 fDE"UMON OF BASEMENT DEEMED SECTOR 0 MORE THAN FORTY -TW SICHES ABOVE GRADE AT ANY POINT ALONG TWE THE ENTIRE E SPACE 5HALL�BE NCWOEDI IN THE CAALCULLATION OF FLOOR Dpi SF AREAS OF LOITER LEVEL TWIT HAVE TALL AREAS TOUT DO NOT MEET DUNTION OF "tOW I 14ATCMG REPRESENTS ALL AREA. THIS REOUREIENT APPLIES TO ALL LOTS. UTH THE EXCEPTION ESO 6F r Y 6F) AFAtSCON OF HIUSI E LOTS. ,1 an PERCENT OF LOVER FLOOR THAT MEETS DEFINITION OF AREA GRADE S LESS THAN HE BERM �\ _ _ SECTION 6 -Ot070 A710 SNh1i SF - SnD — I ON NLLBDE Lon. AS DFiRBD IN SECTION a- oc170eEi. ONLY THE PoRTaN of — — — �51R) FINISHED Rom AT MAIN THE SPACE UHERE TOE VERTICAL DISTANCE ABOVE SlIC H SPACE IS MORE INCHES ABOVE GRADE tAHA11 BE COUNTED AS FLOOR I SOf BT DEHHTLOI A SECTION 6 -00070, ENTRE BOOR AREA OF LONER FLOOR CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM AREA AND CONSIDERED CONSIDERED A STORY. THE KINSER OF STORES MEASURED FLOOR AREA CALLS - - --- __ VERTICALLY NUMBER Y AT ANY GIVEN POINT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMIM NUMBER OF STORIES ALLMD IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. I I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - I 1 PERIMETER OF BASE W—.7 SLAB AT GRADE 1 006E U LL.� SEE GRAMG PLAN R R TOE VERTICAL OETANCE OF tHE KNSNED FLOOR ABOVE L{ I I \ AATELEAST EIGHNOT� NI OF AREA Of 9UCHI8PACE, tiEN THE ENTIRE SPACE IS A BASETEXT THAT SHALL NOT BE NCLIIOED IN THE � y UNHATCHED AREA INDICATES CALCILATION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A I STORY. 1 FLOOR AREA LINEA FINISHED --------------- - - - - -I - 1 I- �,� \/� II SF GRADE S GREATER THAN AS' LOV MAIN LEVELHE77 FLOOR AT 1� i" A R C H I S C U L P T U R f OATE ISSUED SECTION A ANEW RESIDENCE FOR 7_26.2DD7 C -15498 * STEVEN J. KRAPEK, ARCHITECT 6508 BOLLINGER ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 115129 &25 AM AM SECTION B ANA AND ARMANDO CASTRO Al VOICE 00 520 1185 FAX 408 255 4011 EMAIL: ekrxpeLSCmwtmt SECTION C 1 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 't, J 61- • 0 K] I ♦36.15 - hAXINIIN HEIGHT ALLOWED SEE NOTES AT SECTION D FOR INTERIOR HEIGHT DIMENSIONING IK R C H I S C U L P T U R E' °7 sECTION A NEW RESIDENCE FOR T�� ° (0-A "" SECTION E ANA AND ARMANDO CASTRO STEVEN J. KRAPEK, ARCHITECT 1508 BOLIINGER ROAD SAN JOSE. CA 95Y19 AM AM VOICE 650 520 6685 PAX 908 255 9076 E NAIL jk,*A'c=a%t "" SECTION F 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE. SARATOGA, CA ' GRAPHIC SCALE, -10' • •;%F 16.92 C� O Pj 4, x.1.6.07 v41 E4 � 25 ya: ti / s P / 'F el N ill' 35' 00" 226.59' 16.3♦ ��OAK - ��_- -____ —__ - - 0 I 1 u 416.41 6• 1416.11 /1 /116.11 / 6RICN __ - - - -- - - - - -- -- MVft /'� / - -T-• .- /� �- / I `DECK g 402.2 j / / i3w52 . 1 416.66 FF 6 .112. 11 �I .� j ('1+ (c) HOUSE �b�� — — — of l ••ins I fl\ —:VI5. 91 4C . .'F 29 -- I ' `OrCK nBOVE •Ob .�,i \ .'/ / % :�79 6 // / %( / / % 3]0.70/ (` I! 09.E .9 BRIC N ' / \\ /' K/ 1 t y / I 9 9A 4 395.19 1 O(K/ / l s { N 96' 35' OG.. 14 219.82' I fOc f JI LEGE?4E) 1 PROPERTY LINE 10 F06T CONTOURS 2FOOTCONTOURS — — — - FENCE` -- -- EXIST.SPOT ELEV. 301.11 f IVO. 67 DATE RE:'iS?DN 67 1 DATE DATE: F 6..2, 2oo7 �• ' SCALE: HOR. /' - /a' BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY -- - -- 'BERT . E7: ?« ' BA6I CY.A W E S T F A L L ENGINEERS , I N C . 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE., SARATOGA DESIGNED: -- r ---' —' — _- DRA4N: i9 DA.TE: L.S. 4353 14583 BIG 6A.SiN 4AY. SARPi06A., CA 95070 i ?CCi eE7 -024< 57.69 0, SAC 4 Item 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 07-262/13601 Saratoga Avenue Type of Application: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review & Conditional Use Permit for the Construction of Replacement Facilities for. Saint Andrew's Parish and School Applicant: Premier Commercial, Inc Owner: Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church and Day School Staff Plainnei Chi istophei A. Riordan, AICP, Senior Pla ner Date: September 12, 2007 APNI: 393-25-030 Department Head: John Livingstone, At/CP, Director 19 xj Lf P ,�V CED V I 3nN3Av Cn tic Nl- 41 APN: 393-25-030 Z- 1361 Saratoga Avenue 500' Radius Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT HISTORY: Application filed: 02/20/2007 Application complete: 03/30/2007 Notice published: 08/29/2007 Mailing completed: 08/21/2007 Posting completed: 09/06/2007 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit Approval to construct three new buildings on the project site, totaling approximately 49,920 square feet in size. These include: Administrative /Classroom Wing = 24,928 square feet (3 stories) North Classroom Wing = 16,332 square feet stones Clergy Offices = 8,660 square feet (3 stories) Saint Andrew's provides schooling for children at levels pre - kindergarten through the Stn grade. Current enrollment is approximately 415 students and the number of employees is 86. The project site is five -acres or 217,800 square feet. The zoning is R -1- 20,000 and the General Plan designation is Quasi - Public Facility (QPF). The City Council originally approved five new buildings for the site on May 21, 2003, which included the gymnasium/performing arts center, parish center, administrative /classroom wing, north classroom wing, and the clergy offices. Of those five buildings, only the gymnasium/performing arts center and the parish center were constructed. All project approvals for the remaining buildings have expired. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the previous project. The mitigations included provisions to reduce the noise, lighting, and aesthetic impacts of the new buildings on adjacent neighbors. Other mitigations included reconfiguring the parking lot to increase the vehicle queuing area. All the mitigations have been completed except for some that pertained specifically to the administration/classroom and the clergy building. The current application is a new project which thus requires the preparation of a new Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigations from the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration that pertain to the new buildings have been carried over and incorporated as mitigations for the current project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Resolutions. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. 11 s a • Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue Zoning: General Plan Designation: Measure G: Parcel Size: Grading Required: Environmental Determination: STAFF ANALYSIS R -1- 20,000 Quasi- Public Facilities (QPF) Not applicable 5 acres or 217, 800 square feet 4,700 CY (3,200 CY of cut and 1,500 CY of fill). Mitigated Negative Declaration Materials and Colors: Materials and colors will include a mixture of 8 -inch lapped horizontal siding and cement plaster. Proposed colors include: brown siding and a brown light -beige cement plaster. Roof materials include brown asphalt shingles. All colors and materials used for. the new buildings will match the existing buildings. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Background Saint Andrew's provides schooling for children at levels pre - kindergarten through the 8th grade. Current enrollment is approximately 415 students. The number of employees is 68 (52 for the school and 16 for the parish). The project site is five -acres or 217,800 square feet. The zoning is R -1- 20,000 and the General Plan designation is Quasi - Public Facility. The applicant received a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review (DR -01 -035), and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (UP -01 -013) approval from the Planning Commission (Commission) on March 12, 2003, to construct five new structures, consisting of approximately 72,345 square -feet to support St. Andrew's church and school activities. The Commission's approval of the project was appealed to the City Council. On May 21, 2003, the Saratoga City Council reviewed the project and upheld the Commission's decision to approve the project: All existing buildings on the site with the exception of the sanctuary were to be demolished and replaced. These new structures included 1) a gymnasium/performing arts center, 2) an administrative /classroom wing, 3) a 'north classroom wing, 4) clergy offices, and 5) a parish center. Of the five buildings that were approved by the Council, only the gymnasium/performing arts center and the parish center have been constructed. The Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) includes a provision (Section .15- 46.050) that all Design Review approvals expire within 24 months from the date of approval unless the applicant had received a building permit and commenced construction within that time period. The original approval expired on May 21, 2005. On December 8, 2004; based on a request by the applicant, the Community Development Director granted a one time, one year extension that extended the entitlements until May 21, 2006. The applicant did not file for a building permit for the construction of the administration/classroom wing, north classroom wing, and the clergy office during the three year period causing the Design Review entitlements granted by the Council to expire. 3 Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue Project Description The applicant has referred to the construction of the gymnasium/performing arts center and . the parish center that have been completed as Phase III. The new project, Phase IV, is an application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of the three -story Administration/Classroom wing, two -story North Classroom wing,, and the three story clergy offices that were not constructed under the previously approved project. The. following is a description of the buildings that would make up Phase IV. of the project. Administration/Classroom Wing Classrooms and administration offices will be located in a three -story 24,928 square foot building, which has an approximate height of 43 feet. The maximum allowable building height in the R -1- 20,000 zone district is 30 feet however, three -story buildings are allowed on sites with a General Plan designation of QPF, where the average slope underneath the structure is at least 10% and stepped building pad design is utilized. The building meets these requirements. 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 e site. The administration/classroom wing is linked by a pedestrian annex to the nearby north classroom wing. North Classroom Wing The north classroom wing is a two -story 16,332 square feet building. It will contain 15 classrooms and related support spaces. The maximum height of the north classroom wing is 30 feet. The location of this building will be behind the administration/classroom wing and will not be visible from Saratoga Avenue. Clergy Offices Building The clergy office is an 8,660 square foot three -story building. This building will contain all of the administration functions for the Parish as well as Sunday school classrooms. This building has multiple meeting and conference rooms and a lounge. The maximum height of this building would be approximately 39 feet. The height discussion contained in the above description of the administration/classroom wing is also applicable to the clergy office. The location of this building will be located to the right of the administration/classroom building and adjacent to the existing sanctuary . Covered Walkways and Outdoor Eating Areas Pedestrian site circulation between the existing and proposed buildings will occur under low sloped roofed covered walkways made of redwood posts and rafters. The existing outdoor eating area located at the northwestern tip of the property will be covered with a 20 foot tall fabric shade structure that will be green in color (see Attachment 6). The shade structure will be supported by 14 foot tall aluminum posts. This is a modification from the previously approved design that was similar in height and size but consisted of redwood posts and rafters. The outdoor eating space is framed by existing trees and will be used for school group activities as well as .a fair weather dining area during the school year. El Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue Surrounding Land Uses Adjacent properties are predominantly single - family residential. Saratoga Creek abuts the property line along the rear of the site and Saratoga Avenue abuts the front. Single - family residences are located on the opposite side of the creek. The Saratoga Library is located across the street and Sacred Heart Catholic Parish and School is located approximately a quarter of a mile to the southeast at 44545 Saratoga Avenue. 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: 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. 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. The proposed project requires that 202 spaces be provided and 203 spaces exist. 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 and as needed for special events. Conditional Use Permit Religious and Educational Facilities as Conditionally Permitted Uses The project site is located in the R -1 20,000 residential zone district. Permitted uses in the R -1 20,000 zone district include residential land uses. Religious and educational facilities such as St. Andrew's require a conditional use permit to operate in residential zone districts. This process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions on a project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent land uses. Existing Conditional Use Permits on file for St. Andrew's Episcopal Church date back to 1962. Any modification to a conditionally permitted use requires use permit approval. Variation from Standards Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15- 55.030 (Variation from Standards), a conditional use may be permitted by a CUP to have a different site area, density, structure height, distance between structures, site coverage, setback 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 is located. The following is a list of the exceptions requested by the applicant. 5 Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue Site Coverage The R -1 20,000 zone district limits the ratio of impervious coverage to sixty percent of the i size of the lot. The proposed impervious coverage is eighty five percent. The existing impervious coverage is eighty percent. Building Height The height limit in the R -1 20,000 residential zone district is 30 feet for a main structure which is not a single - family dwelling. Maximum heights of the proposed buildings range from approximately 30 to 43 feet. Existing buildings on the site range in height from approximately 39 feet for the performing arts /gymnasium building to approximately 54 feet for the sanctuary, as measured to the top of the roof (the steeple is at least 28 feet taller).. The administration/classroom wing and the clergy offices are threes stories. According to MCS 15712.100 c , no structure shall exceed two stories, except that ,pursuant to a use permit, a three story structure may be allowed for an institutional facility located upon a site designated for quasi - public facilities in the General Plan, where the average slope undemeah Me structue is ten percent . The proposed project meets the above slope and building design criteria. Floor Areal Site Area The maximum allowable floor area in the R -1- 20,000 zone district is 6,000 square feet and the total proposed floor area of the project is approximately 83,791 square feet. Although floor area is not specifically listed in SMC Section 15- 55.030 as a Variation from Standards, staff is supportive of the applicant's request. The additional floor area is necessary for the church to maintain their use as a church and a school and to modernize. their existing facilities. The impacts of the additional floor area on the immediate neighborhood have been evaluated and staff has made the determination that there would not be significant effects. The project has been conditioned so that the additional floor area.would not cause . the number of students and employees to increase. In addition, the additional floor area would be consistent with similar uses within the community as most other churches, schools, and institutional uses exceed their allowable floor area. Conditional Use Permit Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following findings stated in SMC Article 15 755 necessary to grant Use Permit approval. (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. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that staff finds that the land use of the site as a religious institution and school will remain unchanged and that 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. • 0 Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue (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. This finding. may be made in the affirmative in that staff finds that the project has been designed to reduce mass and bulk and conditions have been added to reduce the height, minimize the noise, and to protect views and privacy of adjacent single -. family residences. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. This finding may be made in the affirmative in'that staff finds that the City has given carefiil consideration to the project's effects on surrounding properties and has imposed reasonable conditions of approval and that the three story elements of the project are permitted-by the zoning ordinance as well as the General Plan. (d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated properties or the occupants thereof This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project site has been used as a church and school since the late 1950's and there is no indication that these uses have adversely impacted surrounding properties. Furthermore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. This document evaluated the projects aesthetic, privacy, traffic, and noise impacts on the surrounding properties and has been determined that the project would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the photomontages illustrate the buildings will not adversely affect views from neighboring properties. Clerestory windows in the north classroom building will reduce the privacy impacts for the adjacent property owners. The taller, three story` buildings are not located along the perimeter of the site but are instead located near the center. Recently installed landscaping located between the single - family residences on Tweed Avenue and the north classroom building will further increase the compatibility between the project and the residences. (b) Preserve natural landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the applicant will not be removing any landscaping as part of the current project. The previously approved project included the removal of twenty five trees that included American sweetgum, cedar, blue gum, coast live oak, coast redwood, acacia, . jacaranda, and pine. Replacement trees included four 48 -inch box trees and 46 36 -inch box trees. The applicant also volunteered to plant eight 24 -inch box redwood trees. The total replacement value of the trees was $84,080 and 7 Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue exceeded the appraised value of the trees that were removed. All new trees have been planted.. (c) Preserve native and heritage trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will not impact any native or heritage trees and no trees are proposed for removal. Existing ordinance sized trees in the area of construction will be protected based on the recommendations contained in the arborist report.. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the two -story classroom building is located near the rear of the site, will be screened by adjacent buildings, and is not visible from Saratoga Avenue. The three -story -- — — - administration /classroom building will be located in the center of the campus where views from neighboring properties will be screened by adjacent buildings. The perception of bulk of the clergy building will be reduced by its location between adjacent buildings and existing redwood rees would help screell VIUWb of the building from neighboring properties. Further bulk reduction of the administration/classroom building and the clergy building will be achieved by their large setbacks from the street. The administration/classroom and the clergy building have been conditioned so that their actual height will not exceed 32.5 feet and 33.5. feet, respectively, as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (e) Compatible bulk and height This. finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed administration/classroom building, north classroom wing, and -the clergy offices will be compatible in terms of design, square: footage, bulk, materials, and colors as the existing buildings on. the site; the new buildings will be compatible in height (the existing 18,418 square feet existing performing arts /gymnasium building has a height of 39 feet and the existing 11,446 square foot sanctuary is approximately 54 feet as measured to the top of the roof (the steeple is 'at least 28 feet taller). J 69 Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention I Plan (SWPPP) for Public. Works Department approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; the applicant shall incorporate all conditions of the grading ,and drainage permit as required by the Public Works Department; the previous phase of the project includes measures to reduce pollutant discharges to . storm drain systems which included vegetative swales and underground storm .water mechanical filtering device that uses sand to filter out pollutants form storm water. The current Phase IV will take advantage of these installed measures. t M Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue (g Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that design policies and techniques (policies #1,3,4 related to mass, bulk, views, and privacy, are detailed above (a -e). General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project meets this finding in that the project will include natural materials and colors to help blend the project with the existing rural character of Saratoga. These will include brown colored horizontal wood siding, light brown colored plaster, and brown asphalt shingles. The buildings are setback faf from Saratoga Avenue and -the parking lot that separates the buildings from the street is heavily landscaped and includes many trees that tie the project in with the rural atmosphere of the area. Land Use Element Goal 5.0 — Relate development proposals to. existing and planned . street capacities to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and other public safety hazards so as to protect neighborhoods. The project meets this finding in that all mitigation measures to address potential traffic impacts related to the construction of the administration/classroom building, north classroom wing, and the clergy office have already been completed as part of the previous phase of construction. These measures included reconfiguring the parking to avoid offsite vehicular queuing and the construction of soundwalls to limit the impacts of vehicular noise on adjacent neighbors. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative.Declaration was prepared for Phase, III of the project. The mitigations for phase III included provisions to reduce the noise, lighting, and aesthetic impacts of the new buildings on adjacent neighbors. Other mitigations included reconfiguring the parking lot to increase the vehicle queuing area. All the mitigations that pertain to Phase III have been completed except for some that pertained specifically to the administration/classroom and the clergy building. Phase IV is a new project that required the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigations from the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration that would also pertain to the. new buildings have been carried over and incorporated as conditions of approval. These mitigations are as follows: 1. To reduce the visual impacts of the buildings as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (a Heritage Lane) and to support the design review findings, the front elevation of the administration/classroom building shall not exceed an actual (not average) height of 32.5 feet. The front elevation of the clergy building shall not exceed an actual (not average) height of 30 feet. 2. All lighting shall be down cast "cut -off type which will not cast glare on adjoining . properties. 9 Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue 3. No lighting, including security lighting, shall be permitted to shine into any residential properties. 4. All building interior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do not remain on during the evening. S. In the event of accidental discovery of archaeological resources on the site, work within a 50 meter radius at the place of discovery shall be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. At the applicant's expense the qualified archaeologist will perform an archaeological reconnaissance and develop mitigation measures to protect archaeological resources. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner's Office shall be notified immediately who will determine if the remains are those of a Native American: 6. A soils report for the. project site shall be prepared prior to the application for a building_ permit. This report shall be submitted at the time of application. All new construction shall comply with the provisions of the geotechnical report . and with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are difeeted at mimmizing seismie risk and pre,;,@Ming less of life and property in the event of an earthquake. 7. So as to limit short term soil erosion and increased sediment, all conditions of the approved grading and drainage permit shall be implemented. 8. All conditions of the grading and drainage permit as required by the Public Works Department 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 prior to issuance of a building permit. Energy Efficiency 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. All glazing oriented towards the south and west will be low "e" type glass to eliminate solar heat gain during the warmer months of the year. All heating and cooling equipment (HVAC) 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. Buildings will include operable windows to provide the option for natural ventilation and reduce the need for mechanically induced airflow within spaces. Roof overhangs will reduce solar heat gain into the buildings. 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 colors cement plaster. Roof materials include brown asphalt shingles. Landscape buffering has already been installed as part of the previous building phase between the project site and the adjacent residences and approximately 30 new trees have been planted in the parking lot to help blend the new structures with the environment and to reduce the "heat island" effect caused by parking lots. Neighbor Correspondence On March 14, 2007, the applicant sent a letter, copies of the project plans, and a copy of the City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form to all property owners within 500 feet of the project (Attachment 5). This letter stated that the church had only completed a portion of 10 • Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue the project that had been approved in May 2003 and would be submitting a new Design Review application to complete the remaining portion of the project. The letter also stated that the design and location of the new buildings would not change from the approved plans and invited concerned neighbors to contact the applicant to have any of their questions addressed. The applicant's efforts to inform the neighbors of the pending project resulted in only one completed Neighbor Notification Form being returned. This form is included as Attachment 4. Geotechnical Clearance The project does not include the construction of any basements and is not located within a geologic hazard zone. Geotechnical clearance was not required. Attachments: 1. Resolution for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 2. Resolution of Approval for Design Review and Use Permit. 3. Project Desciiption Letter, prepared by the applicant. 4. Neighbor review letters. 5. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 6. Details of the shade structure for the outdoor, eating area. 7. Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." 11 0 • RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -262 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SARATOGA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Saint Andrew's Parish and School, 13601 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS the City of Saratoga reviewed an application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for the construction of new buildings for Saint Andrew's Parish and School in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. The buildings will total approximately 49,920 square feet and the maximum height of the new buildings will not exceed 43 feet (referred to hereinafter as the "Project "); and WHEREAS an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the Project by the City of Saratoga, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CAA, Public Resources Code sections 21000- 21177), CEQA Guidelines, and City CEQA requirements; and WHEREAS the IS and a notice of intent to adopt a MND were circulated for public review from July 18, 2007 through July 17, 2007 and no comments from the public were received; and WHEREAS On September 12, 2007 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the MND at which oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the MND were presented to, the Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the IS and MND, administrative record, and Staff Reports for completeness and compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and City CEQA requirements; and WHEREAS, the Planning. Commission hereby finds that the Project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, as follows: Conservation Element Policy 6 0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project meets this finding in that it will include natural materials and colors to help blend the project with the existing rural character of Saratoga. These will include brown colored horizontal wood siding, light brown colored plaster, and brown asphalt shingles. The buildings are setback far from Saratoga Avenue and the parking lot that separates the buildings from the street is heavily landscaped and includes many trees that have tie the project in with the rural atmosphere of the area. Land Use Element Goal 5.0 — Relate development proposals to existing and planned street • capacities to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and other public safety hazards so as to protect neighborhoods. The project meets this finding in that all mitigation measures to address potential traffic impacts related to the construction of the administration/classroom building, north classroom wing, and the clergy office have already been completed as part of the previous phase of construction. These measures included reconfiguring the parking to avoid offsite vehicular queuing and the construction of soundwalls to limit the impacts of vehicular noise on adjacent neighbors; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning. Commission hereby makes the following findings: 1. Notice of all hearings on the MND was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and local City requirements; and 2 All Tnterested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity . to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the MND prior to this action by the Planning Commission; and 3. All comments raised during the public comment period and at the public hearings on the MND were responded to adequately; and 4. The Planning Commission was presented with and has reviewed all of the • information in the administrative record; and 5. The MND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA requirements, and the MND represents. the Planning Commission's independent judgment. The Planning Commission has considered the information contained in the MND and the record in considering the Project and related actions; and 6. Mitigation measures as listed in the MND have been incorporated in the conditions of approval for the design review approval of the Project, and a Mitigation, Monitoring Plan, which has been attached to this document, has been prepared for the project to ensure compliance; and 7. Based on the entire record of this matter, there is no evidence that the Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment; and 8. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City of Saratoga Department of Community Development and are maintained by the Director of that Department. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2 • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the.Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, State of California, this 12th day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John Livingstone 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 3 Mitigation Measures for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School. MITIGATION: TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY: IMPLEMENTIO DATE: I MONITORED BY: 1BYWHOM: COMPLETION VERIFIED DATE: 1) To reduce the visual impacts of the buildings as viewed from Applicant or Prior to Building Dept. Comm. Dev. Saratoga Avenue and to support the design review findings, Applicant's Rep submittal Dept. the front elevation of the administration /classroom building shall not exceed an actural (not average height) of 32.5 feet. The front . elevation of the clergy building shall not exceed an actual (not average) height of 30 feet. 2) All exterior lighting shall be down cast "cut -off' type which will Applicant or Prior to Building Dept. Comm. Dev. not cast glare on adjoining properties. Applicant's Rep permit issuance Dept. 3) No lighting, including security lighting, shall be permitted to shine Applicant or On -going Comm. Dev. into any residential properties Applicant's Rep Dept. 4) All building interior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to On -going Comm. Dev. ensure that the lights do not remain on during the evening Dept. evening. 5) In the event of accidental discovery of archaeological resources on Applicant or During on -site xcavation or Comm. Dev. the site, work within a 50 meter radius at the place of discovery shall Applicant's Rep grading Dept. be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate-the find. At the applicant's expense the qualified archaeologist will perform an archaeological reconnaissance and develop mitigation measures to protect archaeological resources. In the event of accidental discovery of.human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner's Office shall be notified immediately. The Coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American. Miti a *Measures for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 101 Saratoga A enue St. Andrew's Parish and School.• 9 9 9 9 6) A soils report for the project site shall be prepared prior to the Applicant or Prior to Bldg permit Comm. Dev. application for a building permit. This report shall be submitted at the Applicant's Rep issuance Dept. time of application. All new construction shall comply with the provisions of the geotechnical report and with the provisions of the. most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. 7) So as to limit short term soil erosion and increased sediment, all Applicant or During construction Comm. Dev. conditions of the approved grading and drainage permit shall be Applicant's Rep Dept. implemented. 8) All conditions of the grading and drainage permit as required by the Applicant or During constr ctino Comm. Dev. Public Works Department shall be met. A storm water retention plan Applicant's Rep Dept. indicating how all storm water will be retained on site shall be submitted and reviewed by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -262 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Saint Andrew's Parish and School, 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 buildings for Saint Andrew's Parish and School in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. The square footage of the new construction is approximately 49,920 square feet and the maximum height of the buildings will not exceed approximately 43 feet; and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15- 46.020(a)(6) states any new structure, except a single-family dwelli ery s"eture, having a floor area of one thnus�nd ;qilqre feet or greater, located in an R -1 district, requires Design Review approval by the Planning Commission. The proposal consists of a three new multi -story structure with a total floor area of approximately 49,920 square feet; therefore, Planning Commission review is required prior to issuance of building permits; 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, this project was not exempted from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an d the Planning Commission has considered a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 15- 55.030 states that a conditional use may be permitted by a use permit to have a different site area, density, structure height, distance between structures, site coverage, setback 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 project will have a different site area and/or floor area, site coverage, and building height than normally allowed in the R -1- 20,000 zone district; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project meets this finding in that it will include natural materials and colors to help blend the project with the . existing rural character of Saratoga. These will include brown colored horizontal wood siding, light brown colored plaster, and brown asphalt shingles. The buildings are setback Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue . far from Saratoga Avenue and the parking lot that separates the buildings from the street is heavily landscaped and includes many trees that tie the project in with the rural atmosphere • of the area. Land Use Element Goal 5.0 — Relate development proposals to existing and planned street capacities to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and other public safety hazards so as to protect neighborhoods. The project meets this finding in that all mitigation measures to address potential traffic impacts related to the construction of the administration/classroom building, north classroom wing, and the clergy office have already been completed as part of the previous phase of construction. These measures included reconfiguring the parking to avoid offsite vehicular queuing and the construction of soundwalls to limit the impacts of vehicular noise on adjacent neighbors; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden .of proof required to support the findings required for said application to be issued a Design Review Approval, as set forth below: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may made in the affirmative in that the photomontages illustrate the buildings will not adversely affect views from neighboring properties. Clerestory windows in the north classroom building will reduce the privacy impacts for the adjacent property owners. The taller, three story buildings are not located along the perimeter of the. site but are - instead located near the center: Recently installed landscaping located between the single - family residences on Tweed Avenue and the north classroom building will further increase the compatibility. between the project. and the residences: (b) Preserve natural landscape. This finding may be made in the. affirmative in that the applicant will not be removing any landscaping as part of the current project. The previously approved project included the removal of twenty five trees that included American sweetgum, cedar, blue gum,. coast live oak, coast redwood, acacia, jacaranda, and pine. Replacement trees included four 48 -inch box trees and 46 36 -inch box trees. The applicant also volunteered to plant eight 24 -inch box redwood trees. The total replacement value of the trees was $84,080 and exceeded the appraised value of the trees that were removed. All new trees have been planted. (c) Preserve native and heritage trees. This finding can be made in the. affirmative in that the project will not impact any native or heritage trees and no trees are proposed for removal. Existing ordinance sized trees in the area of construction will be protected based on the recommendations contained in the arborist report. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This fmding may be made in the affirmative in that the two -story classroom building is located near the rear of the site, would be screened by adjacent buildings, and is not 2 Application No. 07- 262/13601 Saratoga Avenue visible from Saratoga Avenue; the three -story administration/classroom building will be located in the center of the campus where views from neighboring properties will be screened by adjacent. buildings; the perception of bulk of the clergy building will be reduced by its location between adjacent buildings. and existing redwood trees would help screen views of the building from neighboring'properties; further bulk reduction of the administration/classroom building and the clergy building will be achieved by their large setbacks from the street; the administration/classroom and the clergy building have been conditioned so that. their actual height will not exceed 32.5 feet and 33.5 feet, respectively, as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (e) Compatible bulk and height This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed administration/classroom building, north classroom wing, and the clergy offices will be compatible in terms of design, square footage, bulk, materials, and colors as the existing buildings on the site; the new buildings will be compatible in height (the existing 18,418 square feet existing performing arts /gymnasium building has a height of 39 feet and the existing- 11,446 square foot sanctuary is approximately 54 feet as measured to the top of the roof (the steeple is at least 28 feet taller). 69 Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Public Works Department approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; the applicant shall incorporate all conditions of the grading and drainage permit as required by the Public Works Department; the previous phase of the project includes measures to reduce pollutant discharges to storm drain systems which included vegetative swales and underground storm water, mechanical filtering device that uses sand to filter out pollutants form storm water. The current Phase IV will take advantage of these installed measures. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative .in that design policies and techniques (policies #l, 3, 4 related to mass, bulk, views, and privacy, are detailed above (a -e); and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings required for said application to be issued a Conditional Use Permit approval, as set forth following: (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. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that that the land use of the site as a religious institution and school will remain unchanged and that 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. 3 Application No. 07- 262/13601 Saratoga Avenue (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. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project has been designed to reduce mass and bulk and conditions have been added to reduce the height, minimize the noise, and to protect views and privacy of adjacent single - family residences. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the City has. careful consideration to the project's effects on surrounding properties and has imposed . reasonable conditions of approval and that the three story elements of the project are permitted by the zoning ordinance as well as the General Plan. (d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing, or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project site has been used as a church and school since the late 1950's and there is no indication that these. uses . have . adversely impacted surrounding properties. Furthermore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. This document evaluated the projects aesthetic, privacy, traffic, and noise impacts on the surrounding properties and has been determined that the project would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. 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, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adopted and the applications for Design Review Approval and Conditional Use Permit are hereby found in compliance with City regulations and/or approved for variations therefrom so as to have a different site area and/or floor area, site coverage, and building height than normally allowed in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. The Design Review Approval and Conditional Use . Permit are hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL — None CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development and use shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped September 30, 2007, incorporated by reference. The use is comprised of a religious institution (comprised of the Parish Center, Clergy Building, and, the Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue Sanctuary) and a school (comprised of the administration/classroom wing, north classroom wing, and the performing arts /gymnasium building) and a covered outdoor dining area. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. All activities on the site shall be those that are incidental to the use of the site as a church. 3. The project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board received February 20, 2007. 4. To reduce the visual impacts of the buildings as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (a _Heritage._ Lane) _and to_ support the design review findings, the front elevation of the administration/classroom building shall not exceed an actual (not average) height of 32.5 feet. The front elevation of the clergy building shall not exceed an actual (not average) height of 30 feet. 5. All exterior 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. All building interior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do not remain on during the evening. 8. In the event of accidental'discovery of archaeological resources on the site, work within a 50 meter radius at the place of discovery shall be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. At the applicant's expense the qualified archaeologist will perform an archaeological reconnaissance and develop mitigation measures to protect archaeological resources. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner's Office shall be notified immediately. The Coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American. 9. A soils report for the project site shall be prepared prior to the application for a building permit. This,report shall be submitted at the time of application. All new construction shall comply with the provisions of the geotechnical report and with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. 10. So as to limit short term soil erosion and increased sediment, all conditions _of the approved grading and drainage permit shall be implemented. E Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue 11. All conditions of the grading and drainage permit as required by the Public. Works Department 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 prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. The applicant shall adhere to all recommendations contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 13. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may and maintains the option to modify, delete, or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve public heath, safety, and welfare.. 14. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 15. The following shall be required and/or included as to the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan as separate plan pages. b. The following note shall be included verifying building setback: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per. approved plans." 16. A storm water retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval 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. 17. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved project. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. 18. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500.00 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00. • EO Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue 19. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take into account the following: ■ To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. ■ To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. ■ Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency. and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. ■ Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the area, especially- along any hardscape area. _ ■ Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees FIRE DISTRICT 20. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire Department conditions. PUBLIC WORKS 21. Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect current site conditions, update site mapping, and review revised development plans, perform any appropriate supplemental exploratory investigation, and. update recommended geotechnical design criteria relating to grading, foundation, basement, retaining walls, and. site drainage. Investigation and geotechnical design criteria recommendation shall be prepared for all proposed structures. Appropriate documentation to address the above shall be submitted to the City for review by the City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of permits for project construction. 22. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for. foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 23. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed); and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 7 Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue 24. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 25.The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 26: Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 .months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of September 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission n. • Ej • Application No. 07- 262113601 Saratoga Avenue 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 01 Attachm 0, • iPREMIER Commercial Real Estate Services MEMO To: cc: John Livingstone Harry McKay Ernest Cockrell Bruce Freisen Dave AndersAl Kathleen Ofig Laila Lambtkecht From: Scot Sh Date: 12 Febru y 2007 Re: S ant A drew's Parish & School Sa nt ndrew's Extension: Phase 1V I D E C E.� I V E'D VI11 V, v, - - CgNMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT Saint Andrew's completed Phase 111 of the master planned reconstruction of their campus on or about December 2006. We are now requesting an extension of time, for 4 years, of the existing use permits and design entitlement approvals, as granted by the City of Saratoga May 21, 2003, to complete construction of the last and final Phase. This time is necessary to complete fundraising efforts, and finish construction documentation, for the last part of the campus rebuild including: the Parish Office building, School Administration and Classroom buildings. As part of Phase lll.construction, Saint Andrew's rebuilt the parking lot, bringing in new and upgraded utility-infrastructure necessary to serve the entire campus at final build -out. In addition, Saint Andrew's Hall and Center were constructed. The Phase 1V buildings will follow the May 21, 2003 approvals for both design and placement. Attached is our completed Application, along with 10 ledger size color plans showing the Phase 1V project area. Please let me know if there is anything else you require to start processing this application. Thank you in advance for your assistance. 1300 Oliver Road, Suite 300 • Fairfield, California 94534 • phone 707 •436 • 7300 fax 707 421 •9958 www.peres.net Attac it I� r� L PREMIER MAR 19 2UU1 licommercial C CITY OF SARATorA OMMUNITY DEVEIOpWNT Real Estate Services 14 March 2007 Re: Saint Andrew's Parish & School Adrnin.. Schs;o : Parish Off-,.ce Time Extension To our Neighbors, construe ' tion is complete oil a portion of our eampus, eensisting of the new Saint Andrew' Center, Saint Andrew's Hall, new parking lot and upgraded utilities. As we go into our fundraising efforts for the final Phase of this project, consisting of a new Administration Office, School Classrooms and Parish Office, Saint Andrew's Parish & School is requesting Design Review to complete this work, as originally approved by the Planning Commission in May 2003. The design and location of each building will be the . same, as shown on the attached site plan. Also, as part of this application, Saint Andrew's has withdrawn their prior request for a bell tower, and will not be requesting a bell tower with this application. Saint Andrew's Parish & School is very excited about completing their campus re- build. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 707 436 -7300. Also, for your convenience, l have attached a form the City of Saratogawould like you to complete. Please send the completed form to me, or take to the City of Saratoga Planning Department, Attention: Therese Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner. Her direct number is 408 868 -1230. Thank you. Cc: Ernest Cockrell Harry McKay 0 Bruce Friesen Therese Schmidt Laila Lambrecht 1300 Oliver Road, Suite 300 - Fairfield, Califomia 94534. - phone 707 •436. 7300 fax 707.421 •9958 .• unmv peres.net �2 j C°t • /4441 U,47 MAR 29 2007 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Datej— PROJECT ADDRES.� Applicant Name: Application Number: Stu��and the planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document l . representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal ysignature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; T,md rc anti the eec,ne of and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. DMy signature below certifies the following:I have reviewed the project plans; T understand the scup_ of wnrk; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the. applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: A41 VA TT- 9�a�'o— S`a��� Neighbor Phone Number: Si ature: t Printed: 6 or 6 • • I CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 12th day of September 12, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777. Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: DR 07 -262 / 13601 Saratoga Avenue APPLICANT /OWNER: Saint Andrews Parish and School APN: 393 -25- 027,028 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct three new buildings on the site totaling approximately 49,920 square feet. The three buildings will include a three -story administration/classroom wing, two -story north classroom wing, and three -story clergy offices. The project includes a request for Variation from Standards to exceed the maximum allowable floor area and lot coverage allowed in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. These three buildings were originally approved in May .2003. Planning entitlements have a three year expiration date. Building permits were not secured for these buildings in that time period and the entitlement have expired. The net lot size is approximately 5 -acres and the site is located in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15746.020. 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 for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, September 3, 2007. 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. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Senior Planner (408) 868 -1235 i • • . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kasl2ar , 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 21ST - day of August , 2007, that I deposited 73 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing 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 described as: APN: 393 -25 -027, 030 Address: 13601 Saratoga Ave that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. zi, Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • 0I 10 KI Attachment6. • O C] Perspective V' Overall Layout scent: ma Option # I -- --- ----- - -- — --- I - - - - Side View -V--i-ew- - - - - - - — -- - --- - -- - - D ch— �Y: Cc 03.28 M 100 7 Saint Andrews School - Fabri ` tx~: _ .. }� " 'tvCe a ppjjyy ■ .. S 7 Saint Andrews School - Fabri 4.. 1* 0 0 • Attachment 7 • • CITY OF SARATOGA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Saint Andrew's provides schooling for children at levels pre- kindergarten through the 8th grade. Existing enrollment is approximately 415 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. The applicant received Design Review Approval on March 12, 2003, to construct five new structures, consisting of approximately 72,345 square -feet to support St. Andrew's church and school activities. These structures , included a gymnasium/performing arts center, administrative /classroom wing, north classroom wing, clergy offices, and parish center. The gymnasium/performing arts center and the parish center have been constructed. Planning Comnlissiull approval has a thffee year expiration date. Ruilding peFmits -a-ad rVe-n-st-mg-tion 3x_a_s not commenced on the two classroom wings and the clergy offices in this three year period and the entitlements granted by the Planning Commission have expired. The new project, Phase IV, is an application for Design Review for the construction of the two classroom buildings and the clergy offices that were not constructed under the previously approved project. 1. Applicant: Saint Andrew's Parish and School 13601 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Proposed Location: 13601 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 3. Proposed Action: Approval Design Review for construction of the proposed church project. The request also includes approval of a variation from standards for site coverage. NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics 1. To reduce the visual impacts of the buildings as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (a Heritage Lane) and to support the design review findings, the front elevation of the administration/classroom building shall not exceed an actual (not average) height of 32.5 feet. The front elevation of the clergy building shall not exceed an actual (not average) height of 30 feet. 2. All lighting shall be down cast "cut -off type which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. 3. No lighting, including security lighting, shall be permitted to shine into any residential properties. 4. All building interior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do not remain on during the evening. CITY OF SARATOGA Cultural Resources 5. In the event of accidental discovery of archaeological resources on the site, work within a 50 meter radius at the place of discovery shall be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find.. At the applicant's expense the qualified archaeologist will perform an . archaeological reconnaissance and develop mitigation measures to protect archaeological resources. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner's Office shall be notified immediately who will determine if the remains are those of a Native American. All subsequent actions and mitigation measures shall comply with Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section, 15.064.5(e). Geology and Soils 6. A soils report for the project site shall be prepared prior to the application for a building permit. This report shall be submitted at the time of application. All new construction shall comply with the provisions of the geotechnical report and with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at - minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. 7. So as to limit short term soil erosion and increased sediment, all conditions of the approve grading and drainage permit shall be implemented. Hydralogy and Water Quality 8. All conditions of the grading and drainage permit as required by the Public Works Department 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 prior to issuance of a building permit. . REVIEW PERIOD All comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Saratoga Planning Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, no later than 5:00 PM on August 14, 2007. CONTACT PERSON(S) Chris Riordan Senior Planner City of Saratoga Saratoga, California 95070 Tel: (408) 868 -1230 Fax: (408) 867 -8555 criordan @sarato a ca.us • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM /INITIAL STUDY City of Saratoga Community Development Department INITIAL STUDY FOR PROPOSED DESIGN REVIEW FOR ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL AT 13601 SARATOGA AVENUE, SARATOGA, CALIFORINIA Introduction Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), an Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the lead agency as a basis for determining whether an Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for a project. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study contains a project description, description of environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by a checklist, explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects, evaluation o the projects consistency wiff existing, applicable land use regulations, and the names of the persons who prepared the study. Public and Agency Review This Initial Study will be circulated for public and agency review from July 15, 2007 to August 14, 2007. Copies of this document are available for review at the following locations: Saratoga Planning Offices Comments on this Initial Study must be received by 5pm on August 14, 2007 and sent to: Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Project Approvals Required I. List of City Approvals Needed: a. Conditional Use Permit b. Design Review c. Grading and Building Permits • Page 1 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for St. Andrew's Parish and School. 0 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christopher Alan Riordan, Senior Planner 408- 868 -1235 4. Project Location: .13601 Saratoga Avenue in Saratoga, California (Assessor's Parcel Number 393 -25 -022). 5.. - -Application Number(s).:_ _ _ 07 -262 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Saint Andrews Parish and School 13601 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 7. General Plan Designation: Quasi Public Facility (QPF) 8. Zoning: Residential (R -1- 20,000) 9. Description of the Project: Saint Andrew's provides schooling for children at levels pre - kindergarten through the 8`h grade. Existing. enrollment is approximately 415 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. The applicant received Design Review Approval on March 12, 2003, to construct six new structures, consisting of approximately 72,345 square -feet to support St. Andrew's church and school activities. These structures included a gymnasium/performing arts center, administrative /classroom wing, . north classroom wing, clergy offices, and parish center. The gymnasium/performing arts center and the parish center have been constructed. Planning Commission approval has a three year expiration date. Building permits and -construction was not commenced on the two classroom wings and the clergy offices in this three year period and the entitlements granted by the Planning Commission have expired. The new project, Phase IV, is an application for Design Review for the construction of the two classroom buildings and the clergy offices that were-not constructed under the previously approved project. The following is a description of the buildings that would make up Phase IV of the project. Administration /Classroom .Wing Classrooms and administration offices are located in a three -story 24,928 square foot building, which has a maximum height of 30 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 • Page 2 largest building in the proposed development and is located near the center of the site. The administration/classroom wing is linked by a pedestrian annex to the nearby north classroom wing. North Classroom Wing , The north classroom wing is a two -story 16,332 square feet building. It will contain .15 classrooms and related support spaces. The maximum height of the north classroom wing is 30 feet. Clergy Offices Building The clergy office is a 8,660 square foot three -story building. This building will contain all of he administration 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 would be -40 feet. -- — -- - -- - -- Covered Walkways Pedestrian site circulation between. the various buildings will occur under covered walkways made of redwood posts and rafters, with -low sloped roofs. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses are predominately single - family residences, consisting of both one and two stories. The. Saratoga City Library and Heritage. Orchard are located across the street from the project site. Another church is located in close proximity to the subject site. The City of, Saratoga Heritage. Lane commences at the project site. The Saratoga Creek abuts the rear property line of the project site. 11. Other public agencies whose. Santa Clara Valley Water District E Page 3 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 on the following pages. X Aesthetics. X Hydrology/Water Quality I find that although .the proposed project could have a significant effect on the Transportation /Traffic environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in Agriculture Resources .the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Land Use/Planning MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Utilities /Service Systems I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, Air Quality and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Mineral Resources X . Mandatory Findings of Significance environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed Biological Resources adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to Noise Applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or- mitigated pursuant. to that X Cultural Resources measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Population/Housing X Geolo /Soils Public Services Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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 X .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 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to Applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or- mitigated pursuant. to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. kanner Page 4 49 167 Date • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following . each question. . A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as -on = site, tuinulative as well-as- project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3 Once the lead - has determined that a particular nhvsical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact.is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one . or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4 "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain bow they reduce the effect to a less -than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA 'process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site specific conditions for the project. 0 6) Lead agencies are encouraged . to. incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Page 5 t Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source. list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should" identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any to reduce the impact to less than ____significance, Page 6 • • Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Less Than Significant _ No Impact Resources Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the ro'ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect X on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic hi hwa ? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the X site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or X night time views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the pr o'ect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson X Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could X result in conversion of Farmland, to non -a ricultural use? Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Issues Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated III.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proje ct: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? - b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality X standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species X in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community Page 8 • • • Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Resources Significant Issues identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but - not limited -to,-marsh,--vernal------ - pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological Page 9 Potentially Less Than No, Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation X X E® X M X 9/_ 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 nurser sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree reservation policy or ordinance? 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? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the pro a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic Page 9 Potentially Less Than No, Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation X X E® X M X 9/_ Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside X of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the proj ect: 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 Fjult zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground X shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground .failure, including. X liquefaction? iv Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? X 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 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or Property? e) Have soils inca able of Page 10 • • • • Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant. Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incor orated adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative. waste water disposal systems where X sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, X use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile X of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant X to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, NA would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? i) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless. Impact Mitigation Incor orated for people residing or working NA the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan X or emergency evacuation plan9 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, includ_ing_whep wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or X where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? 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 of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a X level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or Page 12 • • 0 • Issues and Supporting Information Potentially. Potentially ' Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact. Mitigation Incorporated area, including through the alteration of the course of a X 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater X drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary X or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation. map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure X of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seicbe, tsunami, or mudflow? X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over X the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with-any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the 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? b) Result in the loss of avai a i o a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific .Dian or other land use plan? XI. 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial,permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? . d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity . above levels existing without the Droiect? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopt Page 14 • /0) NA � 0 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project 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: Page 15 ect: NA X X Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than. No Resources. Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless . Impact Mitigation Incorporated Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ' regional parks or other X recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require., the construction or expansion of X recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the ro'ect: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the.street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either X the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the X county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Page 16 �7- • Page 17 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Result in change in air traffic NA patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially- increase hazards. due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or,incompatible uses (e.., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency, access? X in inadequate parking _n__R_P_uiJt capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., X bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, X the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and X resources, or are new or Page 17 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incor orated expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? XVII. 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 X eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are X considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of Page 18 • • • Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects X on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SOURCE REFERENCES: 1. Project Planner s knowledge of the site 2. Project Plans, entitled "St. Andrew's Parish & School (Phase IV Extension)" prepared by CSDA Architects, dated June 13, 2002 S. Yro9ecl lt411bpVlLauvii iiiiFa%,L r-llalyala, 1 x,111 4. Noise Assessment Study, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. June 2002 5. City of Saratoga General Plan 6. Saratoga Municipal code; Title 15 (Zoning Ordinance) 7. Alquist -Priolo Earthquake fault Zoning Map 0 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The proposed project is required to meet the City of Saratoga development standards and review by the Planning Commission to ensure that design of the Administration/Classroom Wing, North Classroom Wing, and the Clergy Offices will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate to the site and surrounding development. The proposed project meets the provisions of Saratoga Municipal Code Chapter 15 -12 (Single- Family Residential District) with the exception of site coverage. Site coverage is discussed later in this report. The maximum height for structures in the R -1 zone district is thirty feet and. no structures are allowed to exceed two stories. However, pursuant to a use permit, a three story- structure may be allowed for an institutional facility located upon a site designated for quasi - public (QPF) in the General Plan, where the average slope underneath the structure is ten percent or greater and a stepped building pad is used. The maximum height of the north classroom wing would be thirty feet. The maximum height of the clergy building and the admin/classroom building as measured from average grade would be approximately 44 feet and 43 feet, respectively, as the average slope beneath the building would exceed ten percent slope and a stepped building pad is being used. The aesthetic impacts of the admin/classroom building and the views of adjacent neighbors would be mitigated by its location in the center of the campus where it would be screened by existing buildings. The aesthetic impacts on the nearest `adjacent neighbor to the north would be Page 19 mitigated by existing trees and setbacks exceeding 120 feet. The height impacts on, the aesthetics of the site would be most noticeable as viewed from Saratoga Avenue as the actal height (not the average) of the front elevation facing Saratoga Avenue would be 36.5 feet. This building height would exceed the height of all existing buildings on adjacent parcels and could have a potential to have a significant impact on the aesthetics of the site as viewed from Saratoga Avenue, a Heritage Lane. However, this impact would be reduced by the 230 foot separation from Saratoga Avenue. The aesthetic impacts of the clergy building and on the views of adjacent neighbors would be mitigated by its location between the proposed. Admin/Classroom building, existing Parish Center, and the existing Sanctuary. Aesthetic impacts on adjacent neighbors would. be mitigated by setbacks exceeding 90 feet and the presence of existing evergreen trees. The height impacts on the aesthetics of the site would be most noticeable as viewed from Saratoga Avenue as the actual height (not the average) of the front elevation facing Saratoga Avenue would be 33.5 feet. This building height would exceed the height of all existing buildings on adjacent parcels and could have a, potential to have a significant impact on the aesthetics of the site as viewed from Saratoga Avenue, a Heritnge Lane- However, this impact would be reduced by the 230 foot separation from Saratoga Avenue. The orientation, proximity to the property line, height, and number of stories of the north classroom building, has the potential to unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the property owner at 19541 Tweed Court. Mitigation Measures: L To reduce the visual impacts of the buildings as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (a Heritage Lane) and to support the design review findings, the front elevation of the administration /classroom building shall not exceed an actual (not average) height of 32.5 feet. The front elevation of the clergy building shall not exceed an actual (not average) height of 30 feet. 2. All lighting shall be down cast "cut-off' type which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. 3. No lighting, including security lighting, shall be permitted to shine into any residential properties. 4. All building interior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure, that the lights do not remain on during the evening. II. Agricultural Resources The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland ", "Unique Farmland ", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required Page 20 • 0 III. Air Quality Demolition and new construction activities could have a significant impact to air quality through the release of respirable particulate matter. concentrations. Although there are no sensitive receptors (generally defined as a location such as a school, retirement facility or hospital where populations could be exposed to continuous emissions) in the vicinity of the subject site, the project is subject to City Building Department regulations that require approval of an adequate dust abatement plan for construction activities for both demolition and new construction prior to the issuance of a building permit. The dust abatement plan requirements would reduce the potential significant air quality impacts relating to. demolition and new construction of the project to less than significant. Motor vehicles are. the major source of ozone precursors and contributors to carbon monoxide generation in the Bay Area. The project proposes to construct new buildings and facilities that are consistent with the policies of the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district and General Plan. The proposed project does not include an increase in student, parishioner, or employee enrollment therefore no ne-w traffic volumes are expected. There is not requirement for a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified at the project site. The site is developed with some mature landscaping including street trees. Conditions of approval. for the proposed project require the developer to obtain approval by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of a building permit for; (a) for the landscape planting and irrigation plan; and (b) for tree protection measures during construction phases. of the project that must comply with and a required Tree Preservation Plan, Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 50.140.. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. V. Cultural Resources The site is currently developed with buildings, parking facilities, and landscaping. There are no known cultural resources on the site. The proposed project is located adjacent to the Saratoga Creek. Waterways, including streams and creeks were often places where Native Americans lived or carried out activities. .There is the potential that Native American remain could be disturbed during the construction phase of the project. Page 21 Mitigation Measures: • 5. In the. event of accidental discovery of archaeological resources on the site, work within a 50 meter radius at the place of discovery shall be baited immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. At the applicant's expense the qualified archaeologist will perform an archaeological reconnaissance and develop mitigation measures to protect archaeological resources. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner's Office shall be notified immediately who will determine if the remains are those of a Native American. All subsequent actions and mitigation measures shall comply with Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). VI. Geology and Soils 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 h,a, moved within the tact 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 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 a soils analysis should be prepared. 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. 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 Measures: 6. A soils report for the project site shall be prepared prior to the application for a building permit. This report shall be submitted at the time of application. All new construction shall comply with the provisions of the geotechnical report and with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which Page 22 are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. 7. So as to limit short term soil erosion and increased sediment, all conditions of the approved grading and drainage permit shall be implemented. VII: Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is not located in a high fire hazard within the City and the project site is not in an area that could be classified as a wildland. The new construction and site design shall be required to comply with the City's building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards as conditions of project approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The proposed project would not include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and the proposed project is not included on a list -of hazardous materials- (Source: -- Government Code Section 65962.5). VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The project would cover approximately 85% of the site with impervious surface where 45% is allowed by zoning standards of the R -1- 20,000 district. A Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage was approved in March 2003 during the initial Planning Commission review of the project. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or storm water run -off of the . already developed site. The City's Public Works Department requires the project to meet specific conditions of project approval that require compliance with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water quality and waste discharge and storm water run -off. The project conditions of approval would require that all storm water runoff is to remain on site. Mitigation Measure: 8. All conditions of the grading and drainage permit as required by the Public Works Department shall be met. A storm water retention plan indicating bow all storm water will be retained on site shall be submitted and reviewed by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. IX. Land Use and Planning The proposed use at the site (Quasi Public Facility) remains unchanged. The project site is not within an area that is subject to a habitat or natural community conservation plan. 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 dwelling. Religious and educational facilities such as Saint Andrew's require a conditional use permit to operate in residential zoned districts. Any modification to a conditionally approved use requires use permit approval. Use permit on file with the Community Development Department date back to 1962. for Saint Page 23 Andrew's Episcopal Church. The seven use permits on file indicate the facilities on the site have been slowly expanding since the 1960's. The R -1- 20,000 zone district limits the ratio of impervious coverage to 60% of the size of the lot. The proposed impervious coverage is 85% percent. The existing impervious coverage is 80 %. Pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 55.030 Variation from Standards, a conditional use may be permitted by a use permit to have a greater amount of site coverage than would be allowed in the R -1- 20,000 zone district (60 %). The use permit and request 'for a variation from standards will be thoroughly reviewed by the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission along with the application for Design'Review. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. X. Mineral Resources, 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. The project will not impact known mineral or locally- important mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None required. XI. Noise A Noise Assessment Study dated June 2002 was prepared for the project by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. The Noise Ordinance defines the ambient levels for residential land uses as: 60 - dBA during the daytime, 50 dBA during the evening and 45 dBA at night. Thus. the most restrictive noise limits for church and school related noise sources .are 68 dBA daytime, 58 dBA evening and 53 dBA night. The most prominent noise impacts on the adjacent neighbors and required noise mitigation measures associated with the Gymnasium use, the outside play areas, and vehicles have been addressed by the construction of sound walls and actions to control noise emitted from open gymnasium windows during events that were required prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase III of the project. The Noise Assessment Study did not identify any expected long term noise impacts from the three proposed buildings and no additional mitigations are recommended. The mechanical equipment (HVAC) noise level at the most impacted residential property line behind the church is 53 dBA. The noise exposure is within the limits ,of the Noise Ordinance standards. The project site is not located within any public or. private airport zone. Project related traffic would not cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets. However, the construction of the project would, temporarily increase current noise levels in the vicinity of the site. All development of the site shall comply with the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance and shall be required to follow standard construction techniques and best management practices. • Page 24 The City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance establishes policies to control unnecessary and excessive .noise in the City. The Ordinance stipulates noise restrictions for residential areas as follows: Noise levels for residential zoning districts cannot exceed 6 dBA above the local ambient noise level; Ambient noise in residential districts shall not exceed 60 dBA during daytime (7:00am- 7:00pm), 50 dBA during evening hours (7:00pm- 10:00pm), and 45 dBA during nighttime (10:00pm- 7:00am). See Municipal Code Sections 7- 30.020, 7- 30.040, 7- 30.050. Noise levels generated by construction activities are exempted from the above - mentioned standards provided that construction noise levels do not exceed 83 dBA at twenty -five feet from the soufce and so- long -as the noise- occurs-during- specified- times.- Municipal - Code - Section 7- 30.060 (c) further specifies restrictions for subdivision construction: Co;,straetien may be, conducted. between 730am and 6000pm Monday through Friday; No construction is permitted on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays unless specifically exempted by the Public Works Director in the event of an emergency. Mitigation Measures: None required. XII. Population and Housing The proposed project may be growth inducing. Existing student enrollment is approximately 439. A one percent increase in student enrollment is permitted without planning commission approval or additional studies. The Project would replace existing ancillary buildings and would not affect any existing housing or residents. Therefore, no impacts related to displacement of existing housing or residents are expected to occur. City development standards, development fees and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. XIII. Public Services Fire The project site is not located in a high fire or wildlands fire area. The project would be required to meet Fire Department development standards prior to issuance of a building permit. Police The project would not alter the use of the site or result in the need for additional police officers, equipment,. or facilities. Schools • The project does not include housing and is not subject to school impact fees. Page 25 Parks and Public Facilities The project would not be adding any more additional population to the area to there would be not be an impact on Parks or Public Facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required. XIV. Recreation The proposed project services existing populations and includes extensive_ recreational facilities on site. The majority of users of the facility (students) are required.to remain on the site and therefore there would not be a need to use off site recreational facilities. The church includes ample recreational facilities on site, including: a gymnasium, several play yards and areas, a lunch deck, and an outdoor amphitheater. It is not anticipated that the proposed use would accelerate the need for any additional recreational facilities or pose substantial physical deterioration to existing recreational facilities in the vicinity. Mitigation. Measures: None required. XV. Transportation Traffic A traffic study dated June 2002 was prepared by Fehr & Peers. 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 would be necessary to provide acceptable - operations. During the school year, vehicle queuing at Saint Andrew's each morning and, afternoon results in a backup onto Saratoga Avenue. To eliminate this backup the traffic study recommended several possible .vehicle queuing strategies which increase the vehicle queuing area and introduces and additional vehicle queuing area at the rear of the site. The traffic report provides a queuing recommendation to 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 and additional 615 feet of queuing from Saratoga Avenue to pick- up /drop -off area behind the gym. A total of approximately 1,000 linear feet of additional queuing will be provided on site. A condition of approval from Phase III that has already been implemented is that the parking lot is to be reoriented to provide vehicle queuing shall be accommodated on site. 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 that has been installed has eliminated on- street queuing on Saratoga Avenue. The proposed project will not affect existing levels of service. 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 • Page 26 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 Parking 203 parking spaces are provided on site. The traffic study does not recommend Saint Andrew's increase the number of parking spaces. The existing large expanse of parking lot is underutilized (except for Sunday's when overflow parking can be accommodated by the City library parking lot across the street on Saratoga Avenue). Intersection Impacts 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 level. The traffic study does not recommend any changes to this intersection - because the- operating -level is-- acceptable- and - enrollment is- not -- proposed -to be increased. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) The proposal is on a previously developed site and has no known protected species or habitats on site. The .proposal would be required to implement certain mitigation measures in the event that cultural resources are unearthed on the site in the process of project construction. With adherence to these measures, the project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) The proposal would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. The proposal would have minimal cumulative impacts on air quality, water quality, noise, public services, and utilities, and would not have significant cumulative impacts on traffic and transportation. b) With the adoption of Ahe mitigation measures identified in this report, the proposal would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Attachments: 1. Area Map 2. Project Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers Associates, June 2002 3. Noise Assessment Study, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. June 2002 Page 27 rn Q� h trN�sAve:: i c �r C4MfAG ;� ►"F Ct .� rZ'tr FOLNTAN _ 4o,�:�Clit�tide =Dt rEdinlivtgh= Cir =RFd9 N�� het �'�." '� � aYtii.n �'�' '.�y4' rt' r�3,• C� (� �Q�.i{ sj.,. ���,.,h"".?•. r V d �, 5a ratoga = kj 0. o AlCott V4 ba gllendalet}�+ ' HrFtrao - Allendale_� -¢s AdmFsais `• p . Aadow.O a '6007 Yahoo! Irtc. _ tt � Data B2�i Navteq..7eleAtlas ATTACHMENT 2: Noise Assessment Study Prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. June 11, 2002 7 • EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. .� o 2177 NORTHAMPTON DR. Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408 - 723 -8900 SAN JOSE, CA 95124 FAX: 408- 72MO99 NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR THE ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL REMODEL SARATOGA AVENUE, SARATOGA Prepared for St. Andrew's Parish and School Saratoga, CA Prepared by Jeffrey K. Pack June 11, 2002 Project No. 33 -009 -1 Ull JUN 2 6 2002 11 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY 000069 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background Information on Acoustics ...................:. ••••• 1 II. Acoustical Setting A. Noise Standards ......................................................... ..............................5 B. Project Description ............................................ ............................... .. :6 C. Existing Noise Exposures...................: •••6 III. Project- Generated Impacts A. Post Project Noise Exposures .................................... ..............................8 IV. Mitigation Measures 11 Pl X Noise B. Mechanical Equipment Noise ...... .................. ..................:............ 12 C. Gymnasium Noise .............. ...................... ............................... ......13 D. Bell Tower Noise ............................. ............................... ..................13 E. Parking Lot Noise ..................................................... .............................14 i V. Conclusions ........................................................................... ...:.........................14 APPENDIX A References................................................................ ............................... A -1 APPENDIX B 1. Noise Standards ...... ................................. ............................... ... 2. Terminology .......................................................... ............................... B -2 3. Instrumentation ..................................................... ............................... B -4 APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tabl es ... ............................... C -1 • • I. Background Information on Acoustics Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds which we hear in our normal environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad range of frequencies. As humans do not have perfect hearing, ntal cnunrl mPacnring 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. 000071 -2- 9 • 00,U072 TABLE I The A-Weighted Decibel Scale, Human Response, and Common Noise Sources Noise Level, dBA Human Response Noise Source 120-150+ Painfully Loud sonic Boom (140 dBA) 100-120 Physical Discomfort Discotheque (115.1 dBA) Motorrycle at 20 ft. ( I 10 dBA) Power Mower (100 dBA) 70-100 Annoying Diesel Pump at 100 ft. (95 dBA) Freight Train At 50 ft. (90 dBA) Food.Blender (90 dBA) Jet Plane at 1000 ft. (85 dBA) Freeway at 50 ft. (80 dBA) Alarm Clock (80 dBA) 50-70 Intrusive Average Traffic at 100 ft. (70 dBA) Vacuum Cleaner (70 dBA) Typewriter (65 dBA) 0-50 Quiet Normal Conversation (.50 dBA) Light Traffic at 100 ft. (45 dBA) Refrigerator (45 dBA) Whispering (35 dBA) Leaves Rustling (10 dBA) Threshold of Hearing (0 dBA) • 00,U072 • -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, LI, L10, L50 and L90 are commonly used. They are the A- weighted noise levels exceeded during 1%, 10 %, 50% and 90% of a stated time period. The continuous equivalent- energy level (Leq) is that level of a steady state noise which has the same sound energy as a time varying noise. It is often considered the average noise level and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL described below. In' determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, the Day -Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor was developed. The DNL is also called the Ld,,. Either is acceptable, however, DNL is more popular worldwide. The DNL divides the 24 -hour day into the daytime period of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime period of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The .nighttime noise levels are penalized by 10 dB to account for the greater sensitivity to noise at night. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24 -hour average which includes both an evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and a nighttime penalty. The proper notations for the Day -Night Level and the Community Noise Equivalent Level are dB DNL and dB CNEL, respectively, as they can only be calculated using A- weighted decibels. It is, therefore, considered redundant to notate dBA DNL or dBA CNEL. 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, learning, relaxing; _ physiological effects such as startling, hearing loss. 000073 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, e me - C a new., noise exceeds the previously exictino ambient noise level, the less. acceptable the new noise will be judged by the hearers. With regard to increases in A- weighted noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding this report. Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of I dB cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-. perceptible difference. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response: The adding or subtracting of sound levels is not simply arithmetic. The sound levels, in decibels, must be converted to Bels, the anti-log's of which are then calculated. The manipulation is then performed (arithmetic addition or subtraction), the logarithm of the sum or difference is calculated, the final number is then multiplied by 10 to convert Bels to decibels. The formula for adding decibels is as follows: Sum= 10log(l 0 SL/10. + 10 sL /10) where, SL is the Sound Level in decibels. • • • • • -5- dB = 63 dB, and 60 dB + 50 dB = 60 dB. Two sound For example, 60 dB + 60 sources of the same level are barely noisier than just one of the sources by itself. When one source is 10 dB higher than the other, the less noisy source does not add to the noisier source. II. Acoustical Setting A. Noise Standards The noise exposures presented herein, were evaluated against the standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Element, Ref. (a), which utilizes the Day -Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor and specifies a limit .of 60 dB DNL for residential land uses impacted by schools and churches. Short-term maximum noise levels created by the proposed church bells, activities within the planned gymnasium and parking lot traffic were also evaluated against the, standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance, Ref. (b), which limits noise from these sources to 8 dB above the ambient level. The Noise Ordinance defines the ambient levels for residential land uses as: 60 dBA during the daytime, 50 dBA during the evening and 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 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime period is from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Thus, the most restrictive noise limits for church and school related noise sources are 68 dBA daytime, 58 dBA evening and 53 dBA night. The church bells will be used between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 p.m., thus, the 68 dBA noise limit is applied. Gymnasium activities and parking lot noise may be produced between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Thus, the more stringent evening limit of 58 dBA is applicable. � J 7 *06/25/2002 07:45 4087238938 Project Description JEFFREY K PACK ME PAGE 02 The planned project, as shown on the Site Plan, Ref. (c), includes the addition of a gymnasium, classrooms, kitchen, bell tower, a re- configuration of the parking lot and the remodeling' of the parish, church, playgrounds and existing classrooms. The enrollment of the school is planned to remain at approximately 430 students ranging in age from 4 - 13 years old (Junior Kindergarten through 8th grade), as reported by St. Andrew's School,,Ref. (d). C. Existing Noise Exposures The existing noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the main playground is 68 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures are up to 8 dB in 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 axe within the limits of the City of Saratoga Noise Element. The existing noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line to the west from Sunday church service parking lot traffic is 44 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure from the parking lot is within the limits of the City of Saratoga Noise .Element standards. As vehicles park within 4 ft. of the property line, the maximum noise levels are up to 75 dB,A., which are due to car doors closing and engines starting These noise levels are up to 7 dB in excess of the daytime limit of the Noise Ordinance and up to 17 dB in excess of the evening limit of the Noise Ordinance. Sunday church parking generates higher levels of noise than school day parking. 000076 • • The existing noise level from the church mechanical equipment is 53 dBA at the most impacted residential property line to the north. The noise level is at the limit of the nighttime noise limit of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance. To determine the existing noise environment at the residential areas adjacent to the project site, continuous�recordings of the sound levels were made at two locations for a 24 -hour period on February 15 -16, 2001 using Larson -Davis 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meters. Location 1 was at the north property line adjacent to the kindergarten play area. Location 2 was at the north property line adjacent to the lunch area at the bottom of the steps. These locations were chosen as they are the most noise impacted residential property lines. Additional sound level measurements were made on Sunday, February 18, 2001 from 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. at the north property line behind the church and at the south property line along the parking lot. These measurements were performed to capture church related noise at the residential property lines. The locations of the noise measurements are shown on Figure 1. The meters yield, by direct readout, a series of the sound levels versus time, which include the Li, L10, L50 and L90, i.e., those levels of noise exceeded 1 %, 10 %, 50 % and 90% of the time. Also measured were the minimum and maximum levels, . and the continuous equivalent- energy levels (Leq), which are used to calculate the DNL. The DNL for the survey location was calculated by decibel averaging of the Leq's as they apply to the various time periods of the DNL index. Nighttime penalties were applied and the DNL was calculated using the formula shown in Appendix B. The measured Leq's and DNL calculations are shown in the data tables in Appendix C. 000077 iJJ..: �•�� � ✓ /, erne, ' oP t.er' �. �e � }a .:. .l►.+.r r.-..� / � .512K: op e(Calr.�ilFg i:..' ' f'� l Loc. 1 se•�_ -� -�. •71H. L .��,,- - I°i,IrJir` 101= Loc. 2 t Loc. 3 -J_4 '\ D 1 . - - - •- - _ r� , { \ \1] Loc. 4 ]f 1 �Y ` FIGURE' t . a ' T+�;I Existing Site Plan showing the noise -1= measurement locations. Source: Edward L. Pack Assoc.,, Inc. Mar, 20, 2001 1 - S*AAA.TOQEsAVENUF - ' -8. • The playground L�q'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 L,q's ranged from 40.3 to 79.2 dBA. The Leq'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 Lei's ranged from 46.0 to 66.5 dBA. During the entire daytime period the L,,q's ranged from 42.5 to 62.5 dBA. At night the Leq's ranged from 34.5 to 51.1 dBA. The short -term measurements (10- minute L,,, s), at the north residential property line made during church services ranged from 48.4 during church service to 52.4 when church let out. The noise measurements made at the south property line (also 10- minute Leq's) during church service were 47.5 during church service to 56.4 at the beginning of service. III. Project- Generated Noise Impacts A. Post Project Noise Exposures The post project noise exposure at the most impacted .residential property lin.e 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 Noise Element standards. The post project noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the "Kindergarten play area" will be 68 dB DNL. Thus; the noise.exposure is expected to remain the same as existing for this area and will be 8 dB in excess of the City of Saratoga Noise Element standards. 0000, 79 The post project noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the "lunch area" in the annexed portion of the site adjacent to the creek will be 56 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure is expected to be slightly higher than the existing noise exposure in this area, but will 'be within the limits of the City of Saratoga Noise Element standards. The project - generated noise, exposure at the most impacted residential property line to the west adjacent to the parking lot will be 44 dB DNL and will remain the same as existing. Maximum vehicle noise levels will be up to 75 dBA at the property line. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the limits of the Noise Element standards but up to 7 dB in excess of the daytime limit of the Noise Ordinance and up to 17 dB in excess of the. evening limit of the Noise Ordinance. The maximum noise levels generated within the planned gymnasium could be up to 57 dBA at the most impacted residence adjacent to the gymnasium area, assuming that windows ,on the west side of the gym are open during activities. Thus, the noise exposure is likely to be within the 58 dBA evening limit.of the. Noise Ordinance. The mechanical equipment (HVAC) noise level at the most impacted residential property line behind the church is 53 dBA. The noise exposure is within the limits of the Noise Ordinance standards. It is unknown at this. time if any of the mechanical equipment will be changed or, modified. If the .equipment is changed or modified, an analysis of the noise emission should be performed. • • 000 r" so -10- The mechanical equipment for the gymnasium has not been specified, thus, an acoustical analysis of the equipment has not been performed. Bell Tower Noise Precise sound levels created by the planned bell tower cannot be calculated as the exact bells have not been determined. However, information from the bell manufacturer, Ref. (e), has revealed that the estimated sound level from the bells would be 79 dBA maximum from bells in an open tower 50 ft. high and at 50 ft. Fateral distance. It is our understanding that the top elevation of the planned bell tower bell openings will be approximately 46 ft. At the nearest residential property line to the northeast (180 ft. from the tower), the un- shielded sound level will be 68 dBA. However, the church structure will provide approximately 7 dB of sound level reduction. Therefore, the maximum sound level from the bells is estimated to be 61 dBA. This sound level is within the 68 dBA daytime limit of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance. If these bells are rung between 7:00 and 10:00 p.m., the sound levels will be 3 dB in excess of the.evening limit. At the nearest residential property line to the south, (400 ft. from the tower), the Uri- shielded sound level will be 61 dBA. Thus, the sound level will be within the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance daytime standard but 3 dB in excess of the evening standard. Any receptor location within a 180 ft. line -of -sight to the bells will receive a maximum sound level in excess of 68 dBA. Intervening structures that block the line -of- -sight will typically provide a minimum of 5 dB of sound reduction. ood osl -ll- As shown above, the project - generated noise exposures from the lower play area will exceed the limits of the standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Element. Mitigation measures will be required. The church's HVAC equipment is at the nighttime limit of the Noise Ordinance. Noise from the gymnasium mechanical equipment could not be quantified as a precise mechanical plan has not been prepared. The sound levels created by the bells in the proposed bell tower are likely to exceed the limits of the Noise Ordinance if the bells are used in the evening. Noise from the gymnasium is likely to be within the limits of the Noise Ordinance during daytime and evening activities, however, there is potential for noise excesses if the gymnasium windows and doors are kept open during events. TAW- i ires will be required fo, sourees th-at-will produce noise excesses. Measures to ensure compliance with the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance . are recommended, as described below. IV. Mitigation Measures A Play Area Noise To achieve compliance with the 60 dB DNL standard of the City of Saratoga Noise Element at the residential property line adjacent to lower play area, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Construct an 8 ft. high acoustically- effective barrier along the property line contiguous with the residence to the northeast. The barrier shall extend from the.northern tip of the site for a distance of 120 ft. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest play area ground elevation. Please see Figure 2 for the location of the recommended noise control barrier. • a ,$ K tk.Cq� AL • . % ea� 1v+1 yl•M�utvre, r�olhcvc • . � - �� w6►It(1�J1eti�lak'fMp�. � .. jC�VWr!e�t� .^plaw% 1. 'tok K w1 , +� cr^ p'�OP - op w N F� ut4arV( }v� w • p• T _ ! s f �J -f, • a . iawwA brrr tripil - ` TIM 0�/areil Wa1�W� O nn, , tWA spa -b�-�h �y'a► -Ix,- _'� t ,ice - � tw eotic.r. 7. Seiwai4 t' • FIGURE 2 uuum L cations and heights of the recommended " noise control barriers. The barrier heights are in reference to the nearest playground or parking lot elevation. - - ---- C fJ T © y EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Acuu.vviad C *,,,jS11I/(III/A' 2177 Nunhampton Drive Tel: (408) 733 - 8900 San Jose, CA 95124 Fax: (4U8) 723 -8099 June 12,2002 = 12- 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 wood, concrete, stucco, masonry, earth berm or a combination thereof and .must have a minimum surface weight of 2.5 lbs. per sq. ft. If wood fencing is used, homogeneous sheet materials are preferable. to conventional wood fencing as the latter has a tendency to warp and form openings with age. However, high quality, air- tight, tongue- and - groove, shiplap, or board and batten construction can be used, provided the minimum-surface-weight -requirement is met and the construction is air - tight. The noise control barriers must be constructed so that all joints, including connections with barrier components and the ground. The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce play area noise exposures to 60 dB DNL or less at the residential areas.. B. Mechanical Equipment Noise Should noise reduction of the church's HVAC equipment be required due to increased load, modifications or changes,. one of the following measures are recommended: Install Industrial Acoustics Company (IAC) "Slimshield" acoustic louvers in the rear wall of the church at the mechanical room. Replace or modify, as necessary, the existing equipment with less noisy equipment or components. OOJO84 • . -13- C. Gymnasium Noise To ensure compliance with the Noise Ordinance and to minimize noise annoyance to the residences to the west, maintain closed all windows on the west and north sides of the gymnasium during noise generating activity periods inside the gymnasium. Noise generating. activities include, athletic games and practice, social events with music, and P.E. classes. Although this measure would be required only after 10:00 p.m. to comply with the Noise Ordinance, app ying this measure during hours will minimize noise annoyance to the neighbors. Perform an acoustical analysis of the mechanical equipment once a precise mechanical plan is developed. • D. Bell Tower Noise The ultimate sound levels from the bells will be predicated on precise designs of the bell tower. However, to confine the bell tower sound levels that would be in excess of the 68 dBA limit of the Noise Ordinance to the church property, partial shielding of the bell tower opening that would direct sound downward is likely to be necessary. Acoustical treatment of the interior of the tower may also be necessary, however, this may change the tonality of the bells. Achieving compliance with the standards of the Noise Ordinance is technically feasible although the sound of the bells may be compromised somewhat. Further review of the bells' sound and implementation is warranted. Designs of enclosure of the bells for practice is beyond the scope of this study. -14- • E. Parking Lot Noise Construct a 7 ft. high acoustically- effective barrier .along the property, line contiguous with the residence to the west at the parking spaces along the property. line. The barrier height is in reference.to the nearest parking space elevation. - - - -- - - -- . - - Restrict parking-at-the .parking. spaces along the west property line to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Please see. Figure 2 for the location of the recommended noise control barrier. The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce parking lot noise to 68 dBA or less at the residential areas. V. Conclusions In conclusion, the existing and post project noise exposures generated by the large play area exceed the limits of the standards. The church's HVAC equipment is at the limit of the Noise Ordinance if the . equipment operates past 10:00 p.m. Noise from the gymnasium could also exceed the Noise Ordinance limits if windows are left open during noisy activities. Sound levels from the bell tower may exceed the limits of the Noise Ordinance, depending upon the final design of the bell tower. Noise from church and school traffic in the parking lot will be similar to present levels and will be within the limits of the Noise Element standards. However, maximum noise. levels from car doors and engines 'starting at parking spaces along the westerly fence will exceed the limits of the Noise Ordinance. Mitigation measures for the large play area, the. HVAC equipment, gymnasium, bell tower and parking lot are provided in Section IV of this report. • 00 S6 • i -15 The study findings for existing conditions are based on field measurements and other data and are correct to the best of our knowledge. Future noise projections are based on information provided by St. Andrew's Parish and School, the project architect and the church bell manufacturer. Significant deviations in the predicted school enrollment, site planning, future changes in school activity levels, noise regulations or other future changes beyond our control may produce . long -range noise results different from our estimates. Report Prepared By: Pack APPENDIX A •�I References (a) Noise Element of the General Plan, City of Saratoga, Adopted by City Council, . August 17, 1988. (b) City of Saratoga Municipal Code, Article 7-30, Section 7-30.050 (c) Site Plan, Saint Andrew's Parish & School, by CSDA Architects, April 8, 2002 (d) Information on Existing And Future School Enrollment and Operations Provided by St. Andrew's School, by Telecon to Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., March (e) Information on Church Bell Sound Levels Provided by Mr. Alan Hughes, `��gclaapel Bell Fotndr�d,, h� F_mail to Fdward L. Pack Associates_ Inc.. April 23, 2002 • • • U.J APPENDIX B Noise Standards, Terminology, Instrumentation, I. Noise Standards A. City of Saratoga Noise Element Standards The City of Saratoga Noise Element of the General Plan, August 17, 1988 specifies acoustical standards for various land uses, as shown below; Land Use Standards Commercial /Office Outdoor 65 dB DNL Indoor 50 dB DNL Public /Park Outdoor 60 dB DNL Indoor 50 dB DNL Residential Outdoor 60 dB DNL Indoor 45 dB DNL The Noise Element also contains a policy enforcing the Noise Ordinance, Article 7 -30, of the Municipal Code. B -1 000 X 59 2. Terminology A. Statistical Noise Levels Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of.statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the, noise. levels exceeded a given p . ercentage 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: A noise level exceeded for I% of the time. Ljo A noise level exceeded . for 10% of the time,. considered to be an "intrusive" level. L5o The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level. L90 The noise level exceeded 90 % of the'time, designated as a "background" noise level. Leq The continuous equivalent-energy level is that level of a steady-state noise having the same sound energy as a given time-varying noise. The Leq represents the decibel level of the time-averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL U-11% 000090 • • • B. Day-Night Level (DNL) Noise levels utilized in the standards are described in terms of the Day -Night Level (DNL). The DNL rating is determined by the cumulative noise exposures occurring over a 24 -hour day in terms of A- Weighted sound energy. The 24 -hour day is divided into two subperiods for the DNL index, .i.e., the daytime period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the nighttime period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. A 10 dB weighting factor is applied .(added) to the noise levels occurring during the nighttime period -to account- for -the greater sensitivity of people to noise during these hours. The DNL is calculated from the measured Leq in accordance with the following mathematical formula: DNL = [(Ld +IOlog1015) & (L„ +10+10109109)] - 1Olog1024 Where: Ld = Leq for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) L„ = Leq for the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) . .24- indicates the 24 -hour period & - denotes decibel addition. C. A- Weighted Sound Level The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA ". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear. 0000,91 • 3. Instrumentation i 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 (Ley). Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft . above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI S I A for Type 1 instruments. The "A" ' weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance with the -- appl- icable -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 UC�J3g2 • APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables lie • 0 Uq ,9 3 b�+ DNL CALCULATIONS CLIENT: ST. ANDREWS CHURCH FILE: 33 -009 PROJECT: SCHOOL AND CHURCH REMODEL DATE: 311/01 SOURCE: CHILDREN PLAY AREA NOISE LOCATION 1 PLAYGROUND LOCATION 2 LUN H AREA Dist. to Source 20 ft. Dist. to Source 60 ft TIME 7:00a.m. Leq 54.2 10 ^Leq /10 263026.8 TIME 7:00a.m. Le 52.2 10 ^Leq /10 165958.7 8:00 a.m. 62.4 1737800.8 8:00 a.m. 54.1 257039.6 9:00a.m. 47.1 . 51286.1 9:00a.m. 46.0 39810.7 10:00a.m. 72.0 15848931.9 10:00a.m. 62.7 1862087.1 11:00 a.m. 64.9 3090295.4 11:00 a.m. 54.3 269153.5 12:00noon 73.5 22387211.4 12:00noon 66.5 4466835.9 1:00p.m. 69.7 9332543.0 1 1:00 .m. 59.6 912010.8 2:00 p.m. 54.2 263026.8 2:00 p.m. 52.7 186208.7 3:00 p.m. 79.2 83176377.1 3:00 p.m. 57.3 5370.31.8 4:00 p.m. 66.2 4168693.8 4:00 P.m. 53.1 204173.8 5:00 P.M. 60.0 1000000.0 5:00 p.m. 46.7 46773.5 6:00 p.m. 46.9 48977.9 6:00 p.m. 1 45.8 38018.9 7:00 p. m. 44.0 25118.9 7:00 p.m. 45.2 33113.1 8:00 P.M. 45.5 35481.3 8:00 P.M. 47.1 51286.1 9:00 P.M. 40.3 10715.21 SUM= 1 141439486.5 9:00 p.m. 1 42.5 1 17782.8 SUM= 9087285.2 10:00 .m. 40Y 11749.0 Ld= 69.7 10:00 P.M. 42.7 18620.9 Ld=l 57.8 11:00 P.M. 37.9 6166.0 11:00 P.M. 38.9 7762.5 12:00mdnt 40.0 10000.0 12:00mdnt 39.4 8709.6 1:00 a.m. 34.6 2884.0 1:00 a.m. 35.2 3311.3 2:00 a.m. 34.0 2511.9 2:00 a.m. 34.5 2818.4 3:00 a.m. 34.0 2511.9 3:00 a.m. 34.9 3090.3 4:00 a.m. 36.5 4466.8 4:00 a.m. 38.0 6309.6 5:00 a.m. 43.2 20893.0 5:00 a.m. 45.8 38018.9 6:00 a.m. 52.0 158489.3 SUM= 219671.8 ; 6:00 a.m. 51.1 128825.0 SUM= 217466.4. Ln= 43.9 Ln= 43.8 Da time Level= 81.5 D 3ytime Level= 69.6 Nighttime Level= 63.4 Ni httime Level= 63.3 DNL= 67.8 DNL= 56.7 24 -Hour Le q= 67.7 4 -Hour Leg= 55:9 • ATTACHMENT 3: Traffic Study Prepared by Fehr & Peers June 21, 2002 lie � 0 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS y90 MEMORANDUM JUN 2 6 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA MMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Scott Sheldon, Premier Commercial From: Sohrab Rashid/Jason Pack Date: June 21, 2002 Subject: Traffic Study for Proposed St. Andrew's Parish and School Master Plan in 'Saratoga, California 1015 -351A Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. has completed a traffic study. for the proposed master plan for St. Andrew's Parish and School located on the north side of Saratoga Avenue just west of Fruitvale Avenue in the City of Saratoga. The traffic study was conducted to evaluate existing conditions and near -term conditions with the proposed circulation plan to determine if on -site or off -site improvements will be necessary to provide acceptable operations. This memorandum presents our key findings and recommendations followed by a detailed description of our approach and evaluation. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our observations and technical analysis: • The proposed master plan does not identify a substantial change in the number of students at the campus at one time. The number of seats within the parish is not changing, although an increase in the number of church members is desired. • The proposed circulation plan includes reconfiguration of the existing parking lot, but the total number of on -site parking -spaces provided will not change substantially. The amount of on -site storage for vehicle queues is also not proposed to change with the proposed project. • To better accommodate vehicle demand during peak drop- off/pick up periods, the length of the campus frontage for passenger loading/unloading activities should be maximized. Changes to the proposed site plan are included. • A separate drop - off/pick -up area should be provided in the parking area at the rear of the gymnasium for pre - kindergarten /kindergarten student loading to reduce queues at the front of the - school. 255 N. Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 278 -1700 Fax. (408) 278 -1717 0OU095 • • L 1' ' fp FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 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 __ ropyiate travel speeds in hg main drive akle and to provide a designated crossing location for pedestrians. The detailed evaluation to support these findings and recommendations is presented below. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existin g 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 12 to 15 people: one is a full -time administrator, five are clergyman, and the rest perform administrative duties for the church. Vehicular Access and Circulation Access to St. Andrew's Parish and School is provided via one entrance only driveway and one exit only driveway on the north side of Saratoga Avenue. The easternmost driveway is for inbound traffic and, although not designed for this purpose, is wide enough to . accommodate two vehicles entering at the same time. This allows a "dual right -turn" condition when vehicles turn from the outside travel lane around vehicles that are queued back from the existing drop - off/pick -up area. The egress driveway has two lanes and allows left- turning and right- turning vehicles to exit simultaneously- 2�1f N . I . f? I , FEHR &_ PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Saratoga Avenue is striped to provide a northbound left -turn lane into the site at the entrance driveway. Saratoga Avenue is also striped to provide a merge -lane for vehicles exiting the site and turning left onto northbound Saratoga Avenue. On- street parking is permitted on Saratoga Avenue from the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection to the egress driveway and includes space for approximately 16 vehicles. Parking is also permitted on the unpaved shoulder south of the exit only driveway where approximately seven vehicles can park parallel. A one -way loop road provides access to the drop- off/pick -up area and the 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 ins e s driveway to the egress driveway is designated as a drop -off/pick-up lane immediately adjacent to the school buildings. Along the wrought ir fence separa mg e sidewalk from the parking lot, this one -way, two -lane drive aisle is 24 feet wide. A striped crosswalk is provided to guide pedestrians from the parking lot to the raised sidewalk serving the campus. During drop -off and pick -up periods, a staff person serves as a crossing -guard and stops vehicles in the. drop -off lane to allow pedestrians to cross. The total length of on -site queuing space is approximately 380 feet, which includes a 130 -foot drop - off/pick -up area. There are 187 striped, on -site parking spaces available during school pick -up /drop -off hours. An additional 13 spaces between the bollards in the drop- off/pick up area are available on weekends and outside school hours for church parking. Additional off -site parking is available on weekends at the Saratoga Library across Saratoga Avenue. No designated pedestrian crossing area is provided except at the signalized Fruitvale Avenue intersection to the east. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Access Pedestrian access to St. Andrew's is relatively limited directly in front of the site. A sidewalk is provided east of the westem crosswalk on the north side of Saratoga Avenue, while a sidewalk is provided on the south side of Saratoga Avenue along the entire length of the project frontage. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Fruitvale Avenue and the signalized intersection includes crosswalks on the west and south approaches. A crossing guard is provided at the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection during the morning and afternoon school peak hours. No separate pedestrian path is provided directly in front of the site or towards Crestbrook Drive to the west. Bicycle lanes are striped on both sides of Saratoga Avenue. The lane immediately adjacent to the site is actually a combined bicycle /parking lane thatis 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 ooutidq�7 -1 FEHR PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 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 comer 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. L 11 f? FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS No students were observed bicycling or walking to school. Given the school's service area, this observation was not unexpected. No students were observed. alighting (i.e., disembarking) from VTA buses on Saratoga Avenue. Drivers responded well to the staff person controlling traffic at the on -site crosswalk between the parking area and the raised sidewalk. No conflicts at this location were observed, although the temporary delays did nominally contribute to the on- street queuing on Saratoga Avenue. Afternoon Observations Dismissal time at St. Andrew's School is at 3:00 PM, Monday thru Friday. Observations were made from 2:45 PM until 3:15 PM in February and March 2001. Prior to 2:45 pm there were nine vehicles already queued in the pic -up lane awaiting student dismi . 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 Ito. 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 Fruitvale Avenue. These queues temporarily delayed traffic trying to exit St. Andrew's, but did not cause any substantial operational problems. In addition, these queues cleared once the eastbound signal phase turned green. Sunday Observations As noted previously, two. worship services - are held at the church on Sundays. The first worship service begins at 8:00 am followed by. the second service beginning at 10:00 am. Observations were conducted on February 1, 2001 from 9:15 am to 10:10.am when traffic volumes on Saratoga Avenue would be higher than earlier in the morning. s t.: oJ"a • f FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS At 9:25 am, few vehicles were observed entering or exiting the site. The parking lot was approximately 25 percent full at this time and the traffic volumes on Saratoga Avenue were very low. Vehicles experienced very.short delays at the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection. Only one vehicle was parked on Saratoga Avenue adjacent to the site at this time. The volume of traffic entering the site increased over the next twenty minutes by which time the parking lot was 55 percent full. During this time, two vehicles parked. east of the entrance driveway forcing all entering traffic to turn right into the site from the outside travel lane instead of from the shoulder. By 9:55 am, the lot was almost full. At no time during the observations did traffic queue back onto Saratoga Avenue. Nine cars were parked on Saratoga Avenue at this time. During the next several minutes, the lot became effectively full and veb:iuleb b 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 morning (7:00. am to 9:00 am) and afternoon (2:30 pm to 4:30 pm) peak periods when school traffic is highest. Traffic counts were conducted at the intersection during both periods in February 2001. To measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network, traffic engineers commonly use a grading system called Level of Service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free flow traffic conditions with little or no delay at intersections) to LOS F (representing over- saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). LOS E for signalized intersections represents operations at capacity. The City of Saratoga has defined LOS D as the minimum acceptable operating level for all study intersections. For signalized intersections, the level of service methodology described in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) was applied with adjusted saturation flow rates per City of Saratoga and VTA guidelines. The average stopped delay for signalized intersections is calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a level of service designation as shown in . Table 1. This method is consistent with the methods used by the VTA. oca -Loo f FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS The results of the LOS analysis show that the Saratoga Avenue / Fruitvale Avenue in 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. 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 1. these queues was to temporarily block access to the library entrance and to temporarily ft delay some vehicles turning le 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 r'o- Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions 'Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay Average Stopped Delay Per- Vehicle Level of Service Description Seconds Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable <_ 5.0 A L_Sjession and/or short�cle lengths. _ _ - -- - - _p — - -- - - - 5.1 to 7.0 ]3+ Operations with low delay occurring with good progression 7,1 to 13.0 B and/or short cycle lengths. 13.1 to 15.0 B - - C+ Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression - 15.1 to 17:0 C and/or longer lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to 17.1 to 23.0 .cycle 23.1 to 25.0 C_ D+ ` appear. -- - -- ._.. _ . Operations with longer delays due to a combination of . 25.1 to 28.0 D unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. ' 28.1 to 37.0 Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 37.1 to 40.0 E+ ;Operations with high delay values indicatin g poor progression, ession, ' P P 40.1 to 44. E long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures 44.1 to 56.0 E_ are frequent 56.1 10 60_0 Operations delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring F du to over- saturation, poor progression,, or very long cycle i > 60.0 lengths. Source: VTA's CMP Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, May 7, 1998, and Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1985. Observations showed that vehicles traveling eastbound on Saratoga Avenue formed lengthy queues during several cycles between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm. At their longest, the queues extended from Fruitvale Avenue west past the driveway serving the library. The. effect of 1. these queues was to temporarily block access to the library entrance and to temporarily ft delay some vehicles turning le 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 r'o- fp FEHR Sz PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS the new gymnasium is intended to provide additional on -site amenities and would not directly result in new vehicle trips during the peak hours. Although the gymnasium could accommodate additional sporting events, these events would generate traffic before and after the evening peak commute period. Implementation of the proposed master plan does not include an increase in the number of seats in the church sanctuary building. Thus, any increase in service attendance on Sundays would likely have to be accommodated by adding services beginning after the current 9:00 am and 11:00 am services. These project parameters were used to conduct the subsequent traffic and circulation evaluation. POTENTIAL OPERATIONAL ISSUES The impacts of a project on circulation are usually identified by criteria that address vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Typically, a significant transportation/circulation impact is defined to occur if implementation of the proposed project: Degrades operations at a signalized intersection from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F), or exacerbates operations at an intersection already operating at LOS E or F; Exacerbates the need for a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable level and adds more than two percent to the critical volume; • Increases parking intrusion on adjacent neighborhood streets; • Impedes travel on an existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facility; or • Increases the potential for conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists, pedestrians, or other vehicles, or results in a hazard/safety issue. The evaluation of the proposed project based on these criteria is described below. The site plan for the proposed project used in this analysis was prepared by CSDA Architects and is dated April 8, 2002. This plan is included as Exhibit A. Approximate recommended lane widths for on -site roadways have been noted on 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. g 0QJ-14602 . fp FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Without the addition of substantial new traffic volumes, implementation of the proposed master plan is not expected to have a significant impact on the operation of the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale .Avenue intersection from a . capacity standpoint. Potential impacts because of queuing on Saratoga Avenue are discussed below. On -Site Circulation The pattern of traffic on -site is somewhat driven by the provision of the perpendicular parking aisles in the main lot. This configuration provides the maximum number of stalls but also requires two -way travel on at least one segment of the drive aisles surrounding the main lot. Two options have been developed for on-site circulation One maintains the existing counter- clockwise, one -way vehicle flow along the building frontage only as shown on Exhibit B. A second provides for two -way travel around the entire lot (see Exhibit C). One -Way Configuration Under the one -way configuration, a 14 -foot minimum width drive aisle should be provided from the entrance driveway to the two -way drive aisle serving the exit driveway and rear of the gymnasium. The section of the aisle leading up to the exit driveway would ideally be 18. to 20 feet. The two -way section leading to the exit driveway would "allow re- circulation within the lot without having to use Saratoga Avenue. An 8- to 10 -foot wide drop - off/pick -up lane would be provided adjacent to the drive aisle as shown on Exhibit B. Students would only enter and exit vehicles in the drop- off/pick -up lane. It is likely that the vehicle queue during peak periods will block access to the handicapped spaces located next to the sanctuary. In addition, it is recommended that the three parking spaces located next to the handicapped spaces be blocked with cones during peak periods so as to maintain flow into the site. If additional drop - off/pick -up length is needed to serve the demand, it would be possible to use the handicapped space length by installing removable bollards- or cones in front of the spaces during peak periods. The 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 14 feet in length and extend the width of the traveled way.. Raised crosswalks are speed humps that are typically 22 feet in length and FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS include a flat 10 -foot section in the center that is striped diagonally. These help to direct pedestrians from the lot to the campus area. The current site plan from CSDA shows two humps, one of which may be relocated to the south to minimize travel speeds in front of the gymnasium. The drive aisle to the rear of the campus should be constructed at a minimum of 22 feet wide (ideally 24 feet) without parking to adequately accommodate two -way travel. Use of the rear area for student drop- off/pick -up is discussed below as part of on -site vehicle queuing. Two -Way Circulation Two-way, circulation could be provided by striping two travel lanes from the entrance driveway to the exit driveway around the entire length of the main parking lot. e 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 - off/pick -up lane during peak periods. Speed humps or raised crosswalks should also be provided under this alternative. On -Site Vehicle Queuing Since the existing available curb length results in queues that extend back onto Saratoga Avenue, the site plan should be modified to provide more 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 needed to minimize the potential for vehicles to queue back to the Saratoga Avenue entrance. This involves the installation of removable bollards in the area of the handicapped and general spaces located next to the church sanctuary. The total drop - off/pick curb length provided will be approximately 300 feet (without using the handicapped/general spaces), which is approximately 170 feet more than is currently used. Use of the parking spaces would increase the drop - off/pick -up length by approximately 80 additional feet. Adequate staff should be provided to assist students during peak periods to direct parents to pull vehicles forward in the drop- off/pick -up lane. A second drop - off/pickup area at the rear of the site will increase on -site capacity and reduce demand at the front of the school. Parents would be able to drop -off and pick up younger students in close proximity to their classrooms. As shown on Exhibits B and C, the 10 ►. ,. .. I fp FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS rear lot would have to be modified to permit vehicles to turn around after, stopping at the curb. Vehicles would be able to queue on the roadway behind the gymnasium. Given that the children are very young, staff would have to assist students entering and exiting vehicles. In some cases, parents will choose to park their vehicle and walk their child to class. Those vehicles should be parked in the main lot at the front of the school and the six spaces at the back of the gymnasium should be designated for staff parking only during school hours. The additional on -site loading areas and the use of the roadway behind the gym for queuing will help to reduce the potential for vehicles to queue back to and onto Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga Avenue Operations The additional on -site vehicle storage for queuing and additional total drop - off/pick -up curb length will reduce and will > e y eliminate queuing on Saratoga I nue.- Adequatc on-Si staffing to increase passenger loading/unloading efficiency will help. with this process. Accordingly no changes to Saratoga Avenue are recommended as part of the project. Parking The proposed parking supply with the master plan will include a total of 202. spaces. The five parallel parking spaces and the eight spaces in front of the sanctuary will be temporarily unavailable during the peak drop - off/pick -up periods, but only for a short time. This is slightly more than the existing supply of 200 spaces (i.e., 187 full -time spaces and 13 part- time. spaces located in the current drop -off area). Since no .substantial change in student enrollment is expected, no increase in parking supply is required. However, 24 vehicles were observed parking on Saratoga. Avenue or in the library lot across the street as noted under existing conditions. Without a more substantial increase in the parking supply, drivers will continue to park on the street and in the library lot. Parking in the library lot.is not an ideal condition because some church patrons will likely cross Saratoga Avenue midblock between Fruitvale Avenue Crestbrook Drive (to the southwest). This is not a legal crossing and is. not considered a safe activity even with lower traffic volumes on Saratoga Avenue on Sundays. 001J.'"05 • 1%Wfvl w I . • • A VI ... ....... .... ... . . .. ..... lot 1.4 JI.- i. t f • • A VI 16' 1 24' ! � i Typical Path for Drop —off /Pick —up Co Co R�SB. �i 'v Go N �O Go W Painted Median with 20' (min.) Aisle N ip W do v • " Path for Additional On -Site Storage Go 0 ® O_ I q) �x n CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 12th day of September 12, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: DR 07 -262 / 13601 Saratoga Avenue APPLICANT /OWNER: Saint Andrews Parish and School APN: 393 -25- 027,028 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct .three new buildings on the site totaling approximately 49,920 square feet. The three buildings will include a three -story administration/classroom wing, two -story north classroom wing, and three -story clergy offices. The-project includes a request for Variation from Standards to exceed the maximum allowable floor area and lot coverage allowed in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. These three buildings were originally approved in May 2003. Planning entitlements have a three year expiration date. Building permits were not secured for these buildings in that time period and the entitlement have expired. The net lot size is approximately 5 -acres and the site is located in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 46.020. 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 for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, September 3, 2007. 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. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Senior Planner (408) 868 -1235 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ,NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar 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 21ST day of August 2007, that I deposited 73 notices in the United .States Post Office, 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 persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing 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 described as: APN: 393 -25 -027, 030 Address: 13601 Saratoga Ave that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail.to the addresses shown above. • i; Denise Kaspar �. Advanced Listing Services • ST® ANDREWS PARISH.& SCHOOL Phase IV Extension FIRE, DISTRICT COMPLIANCE CRITERIA 2251 Colonial GbuK ~ 826630 -4400 A 94886 j 92549322174 FAX race 6, 2(02 Revised 911. Plan Rerlew Mtme To: Satmoga Piro District ATTN: nrnle Ycsule Copy: CSDA Architects, AT": Initial Rice, Acilla Arrbisecl Rom: Fine ftbacilff s uIlltems, Tnc, air Trmolby C+llah-, 7.6„Tim Protection Fzgincw principal RB: itoview of Revlsod Bloc Plea � SL Andrar's Parish & School Sarsloga, CA Crcctiop: At the request std d'ancdoa of the Yin: Dialdcl, we have porformod a g°nera) review of the revised she plan submitted. Codc reference pmvldad on to Tho California Ruildiog Cdr, 1998 edition. Cho conrmerms, III- in nature, tea sec fbRowc: 1) 1' he 2001 Colifamis building Standards Code is ewarcady bring diioiboted wilb ■ $ited efketive dole erNeve nbr 2002. We would snlicipatD the now structures would comply wish the 1001 COC unlus permit plans am sulsoittad belbre that date, 2) Oayttc nn hydra ft and Are flaw, In accordance with dbe Cathtwaia Fin Cade, shell be prodded Owner 10 wbalk ClVU she pia Ter silting of required fire bydnats, and ddeminetion of squired An flow. 3) Fin depaotmenl cormecbau (FDCs) lbr all the sprinkler protected at= lures [hell be sired st a conlyd location to be specified upon aubmiscion orthe civil rba vin,, rerameed above, Afire h)vlrent "I be wncurrendy toestcd within 73 feet ar dlis leulion. 4) Frrc SI%tnkkt Sysicmt Pe CRC ScctioD 904,2A.1, rim sprinklers ilmll la provided ailhin oll buildings of li I occupancy, PuUurlar rtL^li role, given re the stated 2 story cl.mroom wing being `non- sprinklc°d••. Sprioldae arc roquirod pot n:favo cd CDC Section 4T�pVA'r N i J +� 1 5) 1;xlaiur wslYopening protection, walls -dim an on mawned property line between Perrormlog AtWOym and AdoninrClas structure, win need to fully eumplywith CBC Table 3 -A Particular atoemiva is directed to well m prtcAti with openings within 10 Tad of 4he property lice. 6) Fire ALmn System. A eonolidased, addbectable, the slum system shell be provided for 11ho cmpus structures. Fire olmn reporlineann%IR1arine shall be by building nom, euoe aad 4•pe ofdevke, Central, eoo . olieAc fire alum earWOl wd semtow"or panels shall be burled 41 die sdrata suYioablsilt5mg sold a remote site to be detuaniocd upon submis4on orbutidiry dAign pluu. 7) exit Dlvc- Wdttoeys, Eludur exit walkways std itaimmyf shell not be loudest whore opeainga in uWdw wags ass prohibit d or required to be It I - rod, jCBC Section 1006211. Site exit plan should ckwly dcuil that e4tways ba® the yhnctura _ mmply wilb d0s.regnirenral Patti bu anamSan lD sill atsitwps bMveeo slrurtwsc x1141% aepmU°e belweso buitdings is 2A Rol or lest 8) ItuAklow Spaed Special uwa endlwrrdaus speed (le: school laboratotier, shape e1c.) alull he s.p »tad end prodnswl pct C3C SecUoo 305,2.4 Agaie, comments provided arc very preliminary in nstue band upon the slnyle• preliminary code seetysis site shat, dated May 22, 2002, submitted. Tool 1": 2 2 PROJECT DATA/ ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FNVIROMFNTAI INFORMAT ZONING: RH -1, 20,000 GENERAL PLAN: QUASI- PUBLIC FACILITY APNj: 393 -25 -622 EXISTING LAND USE PRIVATE SCHOOL AND CHURCH SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL EAST: RESIDENTIAL WEST: RESIDENTIAL PARCEL SIZE (in square feel or acres): 5 ACRES NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION: GENTLE SLOPE FROM SARATOGA AVE. TO CREEKBED, SEVERAL NATIVE OAKS NOTE: SEE CIVIL DRAWING, CO.1 FOR SLOPE, CUT & FILL INFORMATION BRCHITECTURAL DETAILS PROPOSED SETBACKS: FRONT: 15' (TO EDGE OF PARKING) REAR: 50' (TOP OF CREEK BANK) LEFT SIDE: 20' RIGHT SIDE: 20' HEIGHTS OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS i ADMIN. /CLASSROOM WING: 39• -6. O SOUTH ELEVATION .(on sloped grade) 44' -0' O NORTH ELEVATION NORTH CLASSROOM WING: 30' -0' CLERGY OFFICES: 36' -0' 0 SOUTH ELEVATION (on sloped grode) 40' -0' 0 NORTH ELEVATION 111E OF STRUCTURES EXISTING: PROPOSED: SCHOOL 23,108 SF LOWER LEVEL 19,307 SF PORTABLE 2,304 SF MAIN LEVEL 19,548 SF SANCTUARY 11,446 SF UPPER LEVEL 11065 SF PARISH CENTER 4,007 SF NEW CONSTRUCTION 49,920 SF PARISH HALUGY.'. 418 SF 59,283 Ste MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED NEUTRAL GREY CEMENT PLASTER BASE AT ALL BUILDINGS. BALANCE OF EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE EITHER LIGHT BEIGE CEMENT PLASTER OR, GAPPED HORIZONTAL SIDING PAINTED BROWN. -DARK BRONZE ALUM. WINDOW FRAMES WITH CLEAR GLASS & BROWN ASPHAULT. SHINGLES. PROPOSED NEW LANDSCAPING SEE DRAWING L1,2 FOR SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE INFORMATION PR JECT TEAM CLIENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT St. Mdrew's Parish and So 001 Desigrworks 13601 Saratoga Ave. 1 1061 Miller Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 � Berkeley, CA 94708 Harry McKay, Head of School Rebecca Coffman, Principal CodeH, S4aar & Devalo Architeels, Inc. T: 408/ 867 -3785 T: 510/ 559 -1034 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1170 F: 408/ 741 -1852 F: 510/ 559 -1034 San Froncisw, CA 94104 Rev. Emst Cockrell, Ponsh '(� dealynocsdorchlterb.eom T: 408/ 867 -3493 ( ACOUSTIC ENGINEER 415. 693,9800 F. 408/ 867 -3496 j( Edward Pack Associates 415.693.9830 2177 Northhompton Dr. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Son Jose, CA 95124 CONSULTANT Premier Commercial, Inc. Jeff Pack 1300 Oliver Rd., Suite 300 T: 408/ 723 78900 Fairfield, CA 94533 F: 408/ 723 -BD99 Scott Sheldon T: 707/ 436 -7300 TRAFFIC CONSULTANT F: 707/ 421 -9958 Fehr & Peers Associates 255 N. Market St., Suite 300 ARCHITECT I San Jose,.CA 95110 Corlett, Skoer & DeVoto Architects, Inc. So rob Roshid 120 Montgomery St., Suite '1170 T: 408/ 278 -1700 ARCHITECT STAMP Son froncison, CA 94104 F. 40B/ 278 -1717 Jorge Rico, Projecl Architect _ T. 415/ 693 -9800 F: 415/ 639 -9830 CIVIL ENGINEER i Creegon & D'Angelo 1075 Norhl 10th St., suite ; 100 Son Jose, CA 96112 David Voorhies T: 408/ 998 -1234 F: 408/ 996 -0944 1 1 CONSULTANT STAMP j� II i AUTHORITY APPROVAL . DRAWING INDEX ,f l AD.1 COVER SHEET A1.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PUN 1 DO.1 DEMOLITION PLAN �� PROJECT ADDRESS CO.1 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN ST. ANDREW'S LT.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS - TREE REMOVAL PLAN PARISH .� SCHOOL L1.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN j L1.3 SITE CIRCULATION, BARKING & PAVING PLAN PLAN. DEPT. LIA SITE LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE DETAILS A2.1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN SUBMITTAL A2.2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN A2.3 UPPER LEVEL PUN A2.4 ROOF PLAN 13601 SARATOGA AVE. A3.1 PERFORMING ARTS /GYM SARATOGA, CA 95070 Al2 ADMIN /CLASSROOMIWING & NORTH CLASSROOM WING ELEVATIONS A3.3 CLERGY OFFICES & PARISH CENTER ELEVATIONS A3.4 BUILDING SECTIONS A3.5 PHOTO MONTAGES k SITE SECTION M -1 MATERIALS BOARD II S� LOCATION MAP i f Y _ _- -J. --. q�a_� _ �- '� Its i ttAim(: B/• DATE DESCRIPTION: .2 mew e-�— 1/„! �'•� DIIAhN CHX•D BY: f • �> � ,.• r.:r�rt / Y rlt-... ` w r=' - CSM MQIITECTS 2003 - -'-'di ib — • !••j .` , .� ..�� SHEET 111LF COVER SHEET c 1 E i "w,,�•,ri l r RIGINAL SCALE :,_• ._ I „m . w ,rvvwm- r3. zooa OB NO.: a AO. 113 r.a1 � �l't= -"—� - SHEET 1 1 `� ��i-- i ,�i •.e :v: {y:- ? tt 1 NUMBER: . E U OT A. C] • T ' 11 . Phase IV Extension FIRE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE CRITERIA D F W tCk r" Creek, CA 94sea 8t?6s32-448M X5322174 FAX lure 6, 2002 Revlaad Site Plan Rcvina Memo To: Saruoga Fire Diririot ATTN; Nola Kraulc Copy: CSDA Axhhau. ATITT: Jorge Rico, project Atrhtlect Arms: Fire Pro one ts, toe. By. Timothy Cansi m, P.B., bite Pmtmtion Fm&= Principal RP: ticWewofRevisodBhePlaa- dated5Q3l02 SL Andrew's Padtb & School Saratoga, CA Greetings: At the regveu and dhecdca of theAm District, we havo performed a general review of the revised shepim tubmittad. Code references pmvldcd are to thoCalifornia Building C.&, 1996 alition. Our eommen% general in naturq are us ibllows: 1 )1'he 2001 California Building Sandards Code b =ready being dis ribated with a shod et'fecGve dab orNcvamber 2002. We would mlicipato she new structures would comply with the 2001 CBC uniets permh plans orestd Wodbe(brethatdata. 21 0"to fire hydra= and fue flaw. In accotdsecc w16 rbe Callfh h Fire 1D4 shall be provided. Owner to submit cvit sits play At siting of required fie hydrants. and detetnination of required fire flow, 3) Fire department cmmartione OW &) fbT all lba sonklerpmEactel Amclures abaLl be sited at a OOrt(yd location to be specified upon submission orths civil drawing referenced above. Afire hydrant shut be concurrently loosted witddn 7S feet orthb location. 4) Fve Stelokkr b'ystcmr. Per CBC Section 904.2,1.1, Cm sprinklers shall be Pavidod within all buildingsofF (occupancy. Particalwartealiou la given toIbc rated 2aloty classroom wing bmng "non•sprink7erd ". Sprinklers wrtequired par raRrmesdCDC Section. O a 1 4� s 5) Exlariur wlWopming protw ian, wall' adjacent to assumed properly line bdwaa parfmming A1WOym nDa AdminiCtm structurv, win need to fully aumplywithCEC Table 7 -A PeeticalAt ath1II)ea is directed to will segntcnts with openings within 10 feet aftho property line. 6) Fire ALam System. A consolidated, addmsublay fire alarm system shall Its pm idad for tho c,an" adoctmaa. Flto alarm repartb4samncladnaahall be bybuUding, floor. aumandlypeofatovice. C4atral, eumoEdaded, flTs alarm control and aentmlrialatpsnele shell be baled d the admirdxwatimlmDdatg and a rcmok site tv be rktvnnitted upon subtrdsrian ofbuildLng dmign Plans, 7) Exit DWhvp Walltvaays. EatMim exit walkwsp& and gtnim;W ahaA not be loraial whore apart gs in artaior wage an prahibihrd «required b be peoterted. (CBC Scetion f 006A.1 j. Site exit plm ahoutd clarly detail that c4tways &van the 51113dure comply wilt this regniremaL Particular 11110ation k exlt 8131[A7ty& baeweeo structures whew srpaatlon between buildings is 20 fbM or kse 8) Harardovs $pars. Spaced uses and hay udous spaces (to, school labamteriM, $hops etc.) shall be separated and prowed pd CBC Section 30$.3.4 Agxie, comment& provided arc vary preliminay in Traturc bated upon the singke preliminary code analysis site shaat, dtdod bfay 22, 2004 aubmiaed. Tout Page:2 2 PROJECT DATA/ ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ENVIROMENTAL INFORMATION ZONING: RH-1, 20,000 GENERAL PLAN: QUASI- PUBLIC FACILITY APN #: 393 -25 -022 EXISITNG LAND USE PRIVATE SCHOOL AND CHURCH SURROUNDING LAND USES: . NORTH: RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL EAST. RESIDENTIAL WEST: RESIDENTIAL. PARCEL SIZE (in square feel or acres): 5 ACRES NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION: GENTLE SLOPE FROM SARATOGA AVE. TO CREEKBED, SEVERAL NATIVE OAKS NOTE: SEE CIVIL DRAWING, CO.1 FOR SLOPE, CUT & FILL INFORMATION ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS PROPOSED SETBACKS: FRONT: 15' (TO EDGE OF PARKING) REAR: 50' (TOP OF CREEK BANK) LEFT SIDE: 20' RIGHT SIDE: 20' HEIGHTS OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS ADMIN. /CLASSROOM WING: 39' -6' 0 SOUTH ELEVATION (on sloped grade) 44' -0' 0 NORTH ELEVATION NORTH CLASSROOM WING: - 30' -0' CLERGY OFFICES: 36' -0' 0 SOUTH ELEVATION (on sloped grade) 40' -0" 0 NORTH ELEVATION SIZE OF STRUCTURES EXISTING: PROPOSED: SCHOOL 23,108 SF LOWER LEVEL 19,307 SF PORTABLE 2,304 SF MAIN LEVEL 19,548 SF SANCTUARY 11,446 SF I UPPER LEVEL 11 065 SF PARISH CENTER 4,007 SF NEW CONSTRUCTION 49,920 SF PARISH HALUGYM 18.418 SF , 59,283 SF MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED NEUTRAL GREY CEMENT PLASTER BASE AT ALL BUILDINGS. BALANCE OF EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE EITHER LIGHT BEIGE CEMENT PLASTER OR, GAPPED HORIZONTAL SIDING PAINTED BROWN. DARK BRONZE ALUM. WINDOW FRAMES WITH CLEAR GLASS & BROWN ASPHAULT. SHINGLES. PROPOSED NEW LANDSCAPING SEE DRAWING L1.2 FOR SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM CLIENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT St. Andrews Parish and School Desigworks 13601 Saratoga Ave. 1061 Miller Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 ' Berkeley, CA 94708 Harty McKay, Head of School Rebecca Coffman, Principal T: 408/ 867 -3785 T: 510/ 559 -1034 R 408/ 741 -1852 F. 510/ 559 -1034 Rev. Emst Cockrell, Parish T: 408/ 867 -3493 ACOUSTIC ENGINEER F; 408/ 867 -3496 Edward Pack Associates 2177 Northhompton Dr. PROJECT MANAGEMENT San Jose, CA 95124 Premier Commercial, Inc. Jeff Pack 1300 Oliver Rd., Suite 300 1 T: 408/ 723 -8900 Fairfield, CA 94533 ( F: 408/ 723 -8099 Scott Sheldon T. 707/ 436 -7300 TRAFFIC CONSULTANT F. 707/ 421 -9958 ( Fehr & Peers Associates 255 N. Market St.. Suite 300 ARCHITECT San Jose, CA 95110 Corlett, Skaer & DeVoto Architects, Inc. Sohrob Rashid 120 Montgomery St., Suite 1170 T: 408/ 278-1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 f F. 408/ 278 -1717 Jorge Rico, Project Architect1 T. 415/ 693 -9800 1 R 415/ 639 -9830 CIVIL ENGINEER Creagan & D'Angelo 1075 Norhl 10th SL, suite 100 , San Jose, CA 96112 I! David Voorhies T: -408/ 998 -1234 R 408/ 998 -0944 DRAWING INDEX ADA COVER SHEET A1.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE`PLAN 00.1 DEMOLITION PLAN CO.1 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN L1.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS - TREE REMOVAL PLAN 1.1.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.3 SITE CIRCULATION, PARKING & PAVING PLAN L1.4 SITE LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE DETAILS A2.1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN, A2.2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN ' A2.3 UPPER LEVEL. PLANT A2.4 ROOF PLAN A3.1 PERFORMING ARTS /GYM A3.2 ADMIN /CLASSROOM WING & NORTH CLASSROOM WING ELEVATIONS A7.3 CLERGY OFFICES & PARISH CENTER ELEVATIONS A3.4 BUILDING SECTIONS A3.5 PHOTO MONTAGES & SITE SECTION M -1 MATERIALS BOARD , LOCATION MAP Corlett, Skaer & DeVolo Architects, Inc 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1170 Son Fronerseo, fA 94104 de9i9n0adamhitect3.com 415.693.9800 415.693.9830 ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH do SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 csDA ARRDTECTS 2003 SHEET TITLE COVER SHEET 19......,.... „.t1 2. iW W 13. 2003 ND.: 2131.01 • 3 • 60'x40' FIRE / ENGINE HAMMERHEAD I TURNAROUND — r— / 1 A3.4 A I i l l l l l n l l l SITE PLAN SCALE 1' -00' 10' Sewer Pipeline Easeme Per ca 2277 OR 339 — lotion Taken from 103 Maps 16 4 PICK -UP/ A3.4 DROP -OFF #2 DN / / \ O +., Wire C Per 1709 09 M M o ® i\\ y r ORTH OW r— \ / N._ jN -t e \. (Dower Level); SARATOGA AVE. SHEET NOTES i 1- NEW PARKING COUNT ! 146 STANDARD SPACES ® 9'- %x18' -0' 50 COMPACT SPACES @ 8'- 0'x16' -O" 7 ACCESSIBLE SPACES Q 14' -0 "x18' -0" 203 SPACES TOTAL 2- SEE "L" SERIES DRAWINGS FOR LANDSCAPE INFORMATION 3- SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR PROPERTY LINES, GRADING, DRAINAGE, ETC. APPROX. CAMERA POSITION FOR PHOTO - SEEj 2/A3.6 �I Phase IV ^.„ k15' MINIMUM SETBACK TO TO LINE APROX. CAMERA PI FOR PHOTO — SEEI '• I 1.1 8' HIGH ACOUSTIC y�NOISE BARRIER ALONG PROPERTY LINE 1 I 1t 111 � 11 6' HIGH DECORATIVE ti11; � WOOD FENCE 1 111 1t�5• POE and PTT Easement 1 Per 4447 OR 113 1' 111 1 X1,1 )SITION 3/A3.5 0N 0 15' 60' 30' CSDA ARCHITECTS Corlett, Skaor & DeVol. Architects, Inc. 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1170 Son Francisco, CA 94104 design0csdarcNitects.com 415.693.9800 415.693.9830 PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 I MARK: I DATE: I DESCRIPTION: I CSDA ARCHITECTS 2002 SHEET TITLE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN I° 11• 2. DATE: 08 NO.: ,W1dNrT 1J. 2007 2111,01 SHEET NUMBER: A1.1 • • <. ase N Landscape Plan No I + Lunch beck/Amphltheater Mesucaeee ,. 2 "M imwpeA�ccess to Luoc Deck 3 6' W cad pence continued as per exist�ng (Aas. iwgenson)� 4 Hardsca WBali Play ea�vete v tl/ balJIM S Trees Istinanters w/ setbacks as ir x S e asp9er Arberbt teNcrraappm»I 6 Pre K, J-K a K Play Area Flbcr, andxt pavan, an�oa 7 P e�g In!ered blocty�laining 'a l C� aetait L s4) l vndto mview a p��+1 xW/cw tlati6 i M6orias B informal landscape tie steps Rex esls ft"le ame loadou 9 B' Wood Fence (see detail L i.4) k perAeO". I Eaglneerssaport +o Heritage Oak Terrace wlBeq sendxt pavvswl deQJM IP �� Atbm1W rcvkw s0p0prw�u w i+ Nursery Play Area A +9erAtO1bM01 Malgtlf42pOft +2 Covered Walkway 13 Sundial/FOCai Point 7b be .aern= +4 Seat Wall W /Arbor comma OrAm e Mli tbablr is Church Plaza +b O�inal Raised Planters wJ c«,crte vsbae 4 +7 Flower Bed i is Flag Poles (replace existing) +g Handicap Access to Parlsh 20 Labyrinth 2+ Memorial Gardens /.Burlal Area Asp" a►eD sR we permit 12 ElMrggn. AKq! Pee %Wd �m10y 191 exbd z3 Site Lighting Csee L 1.4 24 Landscape Trees - approe_ 54 new AO exhdny OeesWe marka8 +V• 25 Landscape Buffer 9 aai ml aulor an shmb burftr W 26 Drop - off /Pick -up Area l e LA MID S C A PE P L A K N 1 N G ' io6+ MILLER AVE BERKELEY,CA 947o8 TEL /FAX 5+0.559 -2034 4esignwork8®eardd'alk net PRO) ECTTEAM: Rebecm Coffman, Landscape Architect PROJECT Saint Andrew's Parish & School U60 Samtoga Sera Ave. 950" Tel: 4*&867.3M Falc 4t-74t.185x CONSULTANTS: QATEi p•ny.c2 ASM4tl: LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: t` _ 30,-0* L 1.2 °t. 11 • �i1 FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL HALL /PERFORMING ARTS/GYM I 15,168 S.F. "LASSROOM WING I� 8,308 S.F. CLASSROOM WING 8,166 S.F. OFFICES 2,833 S.F. CENTER — -- )WER — -- LEVEL TOTAL PARISH CENTER 34,475 S.F. Itl 0 16' 8' 32' CSDA ARCHITECTS Corlett, Skoer 8: DeVoto ArdM'tects, Inc. 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1170 Son Francisco, CA 94104 designOcsdortNtects.com 415.693.9800 415.693.9830 CONSULTANT ARCHITECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARAiOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MARK: DATE DESCRIPTION: ORAWN 8Y: CHK'O 8'Y: FYRIGHr . CSDA ARCHITECTS 2002 SHEET TITLE LOWER LEVEL PLAN ORIGINAL SCALE LG II' 1- 2. ¢: OB NO.: uxu m: I�, aow 213i.01 SHEET NUMBER: A2.1 !V 0 • FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL I $GIE 1 /IA' -I'O' 0 16' 8. 3?: CSDA ARCHITECTS CorteN, Sl— & WWOto k-IMects, kM1 120 MoatWw. y St,--t, Sutte 1170 San F,�o o. CA 94104 desim_,*— lb,cta Fb.a 415.693.90 415.6919630 CONSULTANT ARCHITECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL FRMC! ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOCA AVE. SARATOCA, CA 95070 WK: DATE: OESMFR4N: ORANN 6Y: CHK`D Or; oFYPJCHT: CSOi ARCHITECTS 2002 SHEET, TALE MAIN LEVEL PLAN RIMNAL SCALE IE fi iE Wt NO uro.x. I ±. axe 2t ±1_c� SHEET NUM&ER: A2.2 .2 • • FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL � scAte t /m• -ra• , 111 PARISH HALL /PERFORMING ARTS /GYM ?' _ ADMIN /CLASSROOM WING 8,310 S.F. 1:7 .---- NORTH CLASSROOM WING — -- _.. CLERGY OFFICES 2,755 S. F. PARISH CENTER — -- BELL TOWER — -- UPPER LEVEL TOTAL 11,065 S.F 62' . .. ®nauuu ® ®I ® ® ►�GI ^�I __ _ NN 10 w'd j milli N 7. F"__---- - - - - -- -t. 'I u 0 16' 8' 32' C SDA ARCHITECTS Corlett, Skoer & DeVotc ArchAects, hi 120 Montgomery Street, Suke 1170 Sor. Fronds. -o, CA 94:04 desyn0csdorcNtects,com 415 - 693.9800 415.593.9830 CONSULTANT ARCHITECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA., CA 95070 MARK: DATE: DESCRIPTION: DRAWN BY: CHK'D BY: COPYRIGHT: CSOA ARCHITECTS 2002 SHEET TITLE UPPER LEVEL PLAN RtMNAL SCALE Jain t]. 2003? B NO.: 2131.*1 SHE NUMBER: A2.3 • 0 C] 0 16, 1 ROOF PLAN r�}� 1 SCALE: 1 116' -1'D' �, $� 32' .5 r X w:FY J `4i 1 1 i l Corlett, Skaer & OeVata Architect,, Inc 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1170 San Fruncisco, CA 94104 designOcsdarchitecb.com 415.693.9800 415.693.9830 CONSULTANT ARCHITECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MARK: °ATE DESCRIPTION: DRAWN BY: CHK'D BY: COPYRIGHT: CSDA ARCHITECTS 2003 SHEET TITLE ROOF PLAN RIGINAL SCALE 1° It• 12• 1Wt11fff 13, 200.1 Ofi 2131.01 INU BER: A2.4 2= • • .7- 7,. CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR J2 INSET ACCENT PANELS TEXTURED CEMENT PLASTER,- COLOR #3 rat a ASPHALT SHINGLE GLAZING IN FRAME - COLOR #2 Existing ASPHALT SHINGLE LOW 'V DOUBLE BRONZE ANODIZED 4. 71, r r r r r t7. I: f, " 7 7=1 r. ry r rl r- r, r. rl r il L4 A GiF PERFORMING ARTS GYM, EAST ELEVATION V SCALE 111613'0' 4. 71, r r r r r t7. I: f, " 7 7=1 r. ry C *r 5 .7. PERFORMING ARTS GYM. SOUTH ELEVATION 3 SCALE, 1116--1-W PERFORMING ARTS / GYM. — NORTH ELEVATION 2 SCAM: 1116*-I'Z' CEMENT PLASTER TEXTURED CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR J3 yJ rm METAL WALKIIAW ROOF TO MATCH SHINGLE COLOR _T.(j. ROOF +390 ASPHALT SHINGLE 9- WOOD SUNG - COLOR #1 (ABOVE PLASTER) LOW *r DOUBLE GLAZING K BRONZE ANCOUED FRAME TEXTURED CEMENT PL43TER - COLOR 13 MAIN LEVEL +362 IT, LOWER LEVEL T,351 PLASTER - COLOR 13 ASPHALT SHINGLE I INSET ACCENT PANELS B-�WOOO SIDING - COLOR fl TEXTURED CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR 13 II T.O. ROOF T 0 PARAPET r r r r t7. I: f, " 7 7=1 *r 5 .7. PERFORMING ARTS GYM. SOUTH ELEVATION 3 SCALE, 1116--1-W CEMENT PLASTER TEXTURED CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR J3 yJ rm METAL WALKIIAW ROOF TO MATCH SHINGLE COLOR _T.(j. ROOF +390 ASPHALT SHINGLE 9- WOOD SUNG - COLOR #1 (ABOVE PLASTER) LOW *r DOUBLE GLAZING K BRONZE ANCOUED FRAME TEXTURED CEMENT PL43TER - COLOR 13 MAIN LEVEL +362 IT, LOWER LEVEL T,351 PLASTER - COLOR 13 ASPHALT SHINGLE I INSET ACCENT PANELS B-�WOOO SIDING - COLOR fl TEXTURED CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR 13 II T.O. ROOF T 0 PARAPET +375 MAIN LEVEL +362 — — LOWER. LEVEL �W 'r DOUBLE OWING 114 PERFORMING ARTS GYM. — WEST ELEVATION ONZE ANODIZED FRAME SCALE. 1 2.W GY1114ASKM SCALED j 16 Mal 32 NOTE: SEE SHEET M-1 FOR MATERIALS COLORS AND FlNrSHES -_HITPCT" Coft% Slow & O*Wo Arc t& hr- 120 Maftwrmy &r..L, SuA. 1170 San Fmcism CA 94104 d*skjnQcsdcrd*mcts.c*m 415.6939800 CONSULTANT mmmEcr STAMP CLA Ad I-Tf-Wi 0S.- CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PRWECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 1 ww- JDATE I msoamlow DRFM BY: CHWO BY: COPYRIGHT: CSCA ARCHITECTS SHEET TITU PERFORMING ARTS / GYMNASIUM ELEVATIONS RQNAL SCALE A� ............ 12• JMAIARI il, 200.7 2131.01 SHEET NUMBER: All r r r r t7. I: f, " 7 7=1 *r 5 +375 MAIN LEVEL +362 — — LOWER. LEVEL �W 'r DOUBLE OWING 114 PERFORMING ARTS GYM. — WEST ELEVATION ONZE ANODIZED FRAME SCALE. 1 2.W GY1114ASKM SCALED j 16 Mal 32 NOTE: SEE SHEET M-1 FOR MATERIALS COLORS AND FlNrSHES -_HITPCT" Coft% Slow & O*Wo Arc t& hr- 120 Maftwrmy &r..L, SuA. 1170 San Fmcism CA 94104 d*skjnQcsdcrd*mcts.c*m 415.6939800 CONSULTANT mmmEcr STAMP CLA Ad I-Tf-Wi 0S.- CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PRWECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 1 ww- JDATE I msoamlow DRFM BY: CHWO BY: COPYRIGHT: CSCA ARCHITECTS SHEET TITU PERFORMING ARTS / GYMNASIUM ELEVATIONS RQNAL SCALE A� ............ 12• JMAIARI il, 200.7 2131.01 SHEET NUMBER: All rl L • • ROOFED BRIDGE TO NORTH CLASSROOM WING-a ADMIN. / CLASSROOM — NORTH ELEVATION 6 SCALE 1/16-1-V WOOD FASCIA AND GSM GUM PAINTED WHITE ASPHALT SHINGLE 14 E N !ENWr PLASTER - NT -;:{COLOR 2 LOW "E* DOUBLE GLAZING IN r- BRON21E ANODIZm (I FRAME TEXTURED C 84T PLASTER - CO OR #3 NORTH CLASSROOM WING WE E r, N 4 SCALE, i/16-P-0- � iB -®9, WOOD FASCIA AND GSM CUTTER PAINTED WHITE ASPHALT SHINGLE CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR 02 OPERABLE LOW 'E7 DOUBLE GLAZING IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME TEXTURED CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR J3 ROOFED BRIDGE TO NORTH 111151111 CLASSROOM WING TEXTURED CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR J4 --I.-O.HIGH ROORL +400 M-- __T.O__ROOF___._4h_ +395 ROOFED BRIDGE TO NORTH t Ig CLASSROOM WING UPPER LEVEL_ +376 -MAIN LEVEL. +363.5 LOWER I QJEL A� +351 ADMIN. / CLASSROOM EAST ELEVATION 5 SCALE 1/16-1-4- 3 NORTH CLASSROOM WING — SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE, 1/16`1V WOOD FASCIA AND GSM GUTTER PAINTED WHITE ASPHALT SHINGLE —CEMENT PLASTER ME) M] COLOR 02 OPERABLE LOW *E* DOUBLE GLAZING IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME TEXTURED CEMENT -KT" 2 COLOR f3 f:m NORTH CLASSROOM WING — NORTH ELEVATION 2 SCAM 1116-1.0- Phase IV T.O. ROOF_ +381 MAIN LEVEL +363.5 LOWER +351 +381 __MAIN LEVEL +363.5 LOWER _UEVEL.J,. +351 EAST CLASSROOM WING EAST IdLEVATION SCALE, I/16-IV 2 14 44 `i� + 1 (a qv 6 1 8.,n+ 5 rlc 0 16 SCALE + 7 32 NOTE: SEE SHEET M-1 FOR MATERIALS COLORS AND FINISHES T I CwIdtt SkIw k De to Ar"ocl; tW_ 120 Mudgmmy SOeell, Soft 4170 Sm fronciSM. CA 94104 41 41&693_qW CONSULTANT ARCIWECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREWS PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOCA CA 95070 MARK- IDATE I DESCRIPTION, DRAM BY: CHXlo of. COPTRIGNIF. CSDA ARCHITECTS 2003 SHEET TITLE ADMIN, CLASSROOM NORTH CLASSROOM WING ELEVATIONS RUNAL ScqE IU�%wom 13.2003110 to.: 6 A3.2 WOOD FASCIA AND GSM CUTTER PAINTED 01TE T.O.HIGH ROOF., ASPHALT SHINGLE +395 . I CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR #2 . . . . . OPERABLE LOW 'E' DOUBLE P f GLAZING IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME UPPER LEVEL % TEXTURED CEMENT +V6 4 a fir. . PLASTER COLOR 13 n - -- MAIN LEVEL +363.5 IF. METAL WALKWAY ROOF TO MATCH SHINGLE COLOR - ____ — — — — _II _+351 LOWER LEVEL em ­ — . — ADMIN. CLASSROOM WEST ELEVATION ADMIN. CLASSROOM — SOUTH ELEVATION 8 SCALE- 1/1611V 7 SCALE 1/16--l.7 ADMIN. / CLASSROOM — NORTH ELEVATION 6 SCALE 1/16-1-V WOOD FASCIA AND GSM GUM PAINTED WHITE ASPHALT SHINGLE 14 E N !ENWr PLASTER - NT -;:{COLOR 2 LOW "E* DOUBLE GLAZING IN r- BRON21E ANODIZm (I FRAME TEXTURED C 84T PLASTER - CO OR #3 NORTH CLASSROOM WING WE E r, N 4 SCALE, i/16-P-0- � iB -®9, WOOD FASCIA AND GSM CUTTER PAINTED WHITE ASPHALT SHINGLE CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR 02 OPERABLE LOW 'E7 DOUBLE GLAZING IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME TEXTURED CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR J3 ROOFED BRIDGE TO NORTH 111151111 CLASSROOM WING TEXTURED CEMENT PLASTER - COLOR J4 --I.-O.HIGH ROORL +400 M-- __T.O__ROOF___._4h_ +395 ROOFED BRIDGE TO NORTH t Ig CLASSROOM WING UPPER LEVEL_ +376 -MAIN LEVEL. +363.5 LOWER I QJEL A� +351 ADMIN. / CLASSROOM EAST ELEVATION 5 SCALE 1/16-1-4- 3 NORTH CLASSROOM WING — SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE, 1/16`1V WOOD FASCIA AND GSM GUTTER PAINTED WHITE ASPHALT SHINGLE —CEMENT PLASTER ME) M] COLOR 02 OPERABLE LOW *E* DOUBLE GLAZING IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME TEXTURED CEMENT -KT" 2 COLOR f3 f:m NORTH CLASSROOM WING — NORTH ELEVATION 2 SCAM 1116-1.0- Phase IV T.O. ROOF_ +381 MAIN LEVEL +363.5 LOWER +351 +381 __MAIN LEVEL +363.5 LOWER _UEVEL.J,. +351 EAST CLASSROOM WING EAST IdLEVATION SCALE, I/16-IV 2 14 44 `i� + 1 (a qv 6 1 8.,n+ 5 rlc 0 16 SCALE + 7 32 NOTE: SEE SHEET M-1 FOR MATERIALS COLORS AND FINISHES T I CwIdtt SkIw k De to Ar"ocl; tW_ 120 Mudgmmy SOeell, Soft 4170 Sm fronciSM. CA 94104 41 41&693_qW CONSULTANT ARCIWECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREWS PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOCA CA 95070 MARK- IDATE I DESCRIPTION, DRAM BY: CHXlo of. COPTRIGNIF. CSDA ARCHITECTS 2003 SHEET TITLE ADMIN, CLASSROOM NORTH CLASSROOM WING ELEVATIONS RUNAL ScqE IU�%wom 13.2003110 to.: 6 A3.2 F c I Code. Skoer B DeVoto Archtwts, Ins 120 Montgomery Street Suite 1170 I Son Fmcixe, CA 94104 designOadorchitects.cam 415.693.9800 415.693.9830 WOOD FASCIA AND GSM 1 CONSULTANT W000 FASCIA AND GSM - CUTTER PAINTED WHITE CUM PAINTED WHITE T,O.HIGH ROOF .a r.;i+a•. -. „; .. _ +396.5 ASPHALT SHINGLE - ASPHALT SHINGLE a. W WOOD SIDING �l ..:_y. -=5... v.�+o -'.r -� - '..•it�0 8' W000 SIDING +•Y` T „� -- t E ..r. +.. ;mow, +392B.QOF 4 - COLOR 11 _ __ - "'^tip - COLOR 1 _ _ T.O. ROOF +383 L; CU�ZIN N BRONZE DOUBLE _ _ I9, -EARA. rc =„ 1 r' :• '� s -- r: J�jf•' .r ANOD2ED FRAME ''r”' - T:— •"*'�.' _ +37 _ v . -x t •ti ` _ 4,,.1�u'fi ,,nJ ,z^ _ UPPER LEVEL FRNENi •' � -�— • .•b ..'., i3�, t „� _ ' - T ..',:y: - r• �T�- - +375 ARCHITECT STAMP COLOR /3 b. _ 1 ` .?'rf , �• ,�.•.• ' fif'.4 �' t -��, •- r , r” FWISH REOW000 BIN, t 'tr .;i ' MAIN EVEL t Y ,1 t r Pt: ', r �-'� �. . I N 1 ;� • ! "-�✓ MAIN LEVEL �' — — " +363 • ' ` OPERABLE LDW 1:' DOUBLE I 1 PARISH CENTER — EAST ELEVATION O PARISH CENTER — NORTH ELEVATION GLAZING IN BRONZE t f•� ANODIZED FRAME SCALE 1/161111v SCALE 1/16• -1•4' fir; �:ht;' - ( LOWER LEVEL TEXTURED CEMENT PIASTER - COLOR 13 CONCRETE STEPS 9 CLERGY OFFICES — NORTH ELEVATION CLERGY OFFICES — EAST' ELEVATION SCALE Vm -ra 8 SCALE 1116• -i-V CONSULTANT STAMP WOOD FASCIA AND GSM WOOD FASCIA AND GSM CUTTER PAINTED WHITE _ T.O�HIGH ROOF GUTTER PAINTED WHITE - ASPHALT SHINGLE ASPHALT SHINGLE �' • 3,s+ _i'�~�� — _T.O. ROOF +396.5 B•COLOR SIDING RYA- . 8' WOOD SIDING . -"-?tt -, � �..: r. _ - +392 - • - COLOR #1 T_0. ROOF a -t- ti +383 t. °t� SIT k •ti F, J '> a' - OPERABLE LOW 'E' DOUBLE - _ - T31, T ' +35 AUTHORITY APPROVAL GLAZING UPPER LEVEL 4ANODIZED FRAME 76 A 7 TEXTURED CEMENT .. r :ir <„• Tpr�dl _ 6 sue•;:.•_ �;,..•r •a'i. G '+;: _rte. �.i'.' .� �.� PLASTER -COLOR j3 - f.::.t r :"xti ' MQI~ — �Lt_ --.�r 1 S 1 — - 11 .. b j I / I, 1 MAIN LEVEL +363 TEXTURED CEMENT +363 I PLASTER PARISH CENTER — WEST ELEVATION PARISH CENTER — SOUTH ELEVATION — OPERABLE - LOW6W'DOUBLE ! 7 SCALE I /16'•10 6 SCALE 1/16' -1'q - - — — - GLAZING IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME METAL AY ROOF TO MATCH LOR i 5 CLERGY OFFICES — WEST ELEVATION CLERGY D CLERGY OFFICES — SOU1�H ELEVATION PROJECT ADDRESS 6UdE I /16• -I'U• 4 SCALE 1/16' -1'0' ST. ANDREW'S PARISH do SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. Phase IV SUBMITTAL - • 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 c MARK: DATE: DESCRIPTION: naooM N DRAWN Br: ` CHK'D BY: COPYRIGHC 10 CSOA ARCHITECTS 2003 g V SHEET TITLE M" \�•�J `'�� s CLERGY OFFICES, PARISH CENTER 1 ELEVATIONS 0 16 ORIGINAL SCALE SCALE 8 32 OB NO.: 1u0MRr 13, 2003 2131.01 NOTE: SEE SHEET M -1 FOR MATERIALS COLORS AND FINISHES SHEET NUMBER: A3.3 9 0 � / | / PA MAIN LEVEL / | / Phase I7 Existing L -0 ROOF UPPER LEVEL SECTION ADMINISTRATION / CLASSROOM WING - T 0 HIGH ROOF UPPER LEVEL MAIN, LEVEL LOWER LEVEL EX15MG SANCTUARY BEYOND — CLERGY OFFICES — - CLERGY OFFICES - -�ww�rmmow/oums�ownmo - SECTION ADMIN. / CLASSROOM WING BEYOND -GYMNASIUM - - NORTH oumsROow ROOF . RETAINING WALL WHERE PAINTED CORRUGATED REQUIRED FUR ACCESSIBLE METAL COVER PATH OF TRAIVEL '9 �345 12 EXISTING SLOPE REDWOOD DECK NDISIURBED AND POSTS T. PAVING EXISTING GRADE COVERED OUTDOOR ARm- (SECTION VIEW womx SECTION � / | / PA MAIN LEVEL / | / Phase I7 Existing L -0 ROOF UPPER LEVEL SECTION ADMINISTRATION / CLASSROOM WING - T 0 HIGH ROOF UPPER LEVEL MAIN, LEVEL LOWER LEVEL EX15MG SANCTUARY BEYOND — CLERGY OFFICES — - CLERGY OFFICES - -�ww�rmmow/oums�ownmo - SECTION ADMIN. / CLASSROOM WING BEYOND -GYMNASIUM - - NORTH oumsROow ROOF ,20 Montgomy Stre� Sub 1170 Son Fnond�. CA 94104 CONSULTANT ARCHITECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREWS PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 ORAVIIN IN. CHICO at. SHEET TITLE BUILDING SECTIONS ORIGINAL SCALE SlEET Numem A3.4 . ,20 Montgomy Stre� Sub 1170 Son Fnond�. CA 94104 CONSULTANT ARCHITECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREWS PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 ORAVIIN IN. CHICO at. SHEET TITLE BUILDING SECTIONS ORIGINAL SCALE SlEET Numem A3.4 OUTLINE OF ROOF BEYOND TOP OF NEW B' -0" FENCE 0 PROPERTY LINE PORTION OF NEW PARISH CENTER SCREENED FROM VIEW _0 q ilp - 7411 VIEW OF PARISH CENTER FROM LUOH RESIDENCE -19540 TWEED COURT VIEW OF NORTH CLASSROOM WING FROM VITEK RESIDENCE -19541 TWEED COURT 60' — 90' VARIES � O _,UBaARY O4 SIDEW kLK SID :LIBRARY LIBRARY LANDSCAPE SARATOGA AVE. +367.4 FIN. FLT. I + SECTION THRU NEW LIBRARY, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND NORTH WING sc-d; rla PARKING 230' OUTLINE OF ROOF BEYOND TOP OF NEW - 8'-0" FENCE 0 PROPERTY LINE PORTION OF NEW PARISH• CENTER SCREENED FROM VIEW L�roQENTRY ROOF 0 b T . ROOF +395 BRIDGE MAIN LEVEL CL. T.O. F +363 5 __j +381 r DISCOVERY CENTER CL. F Co MAIN C CL C L L . CL. C LOWEf MR. +351 ADMINISTRATION / CLASSROOM WING — NORTH CLASSROOM WING — I A Ilk C, I i Cwleft. Skw & O&W Archlecits. W_ 120 M"g=n Street We 11-M so. fmcbm CA 94104 415.693—q= 415.693—qm CONSLILTANT ARCHITECT STAMP C04SULTANr STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT AWRESS ST. ANDREWS PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MARK: DATE GESCRIFIM OPAM St., Cw'O fft. COPIF"IT. CSM ARCMFEEM 2003 SHEET TITLE PHOTO MONTAGES & SITE SECTION RKNOL SCALE 9, � ............ r-WAAW ta. ZIA, 2i31.z A3.5 l • CE cc CE Cc CE cc • CSDA ARCHITECTS Coddt, Slmr & DeVoto Ardawls. Mc. 120 Voetgm , SuAe 1170 CA 94104 des"csk,cMect&. 415.693.9600 415.693.9630 CONSULTANT ARCHITECT STANP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 W M: JDATE. oESCR mm: ORATYN 9Y: CHWO 1M: COPYRIOHL CSOA ARWECTS M, SHEET TIRE MATERIALS BOARD RIGINAL SCALE DAIL N0 0"90 aA maz 21.71.01 SHEET 1Al9ER: M-1