HomeMy WebLinkAbout103-Initial Study and Negative Declaration.pdf
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
CITY OF SARATOGA
2007 – 2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Contact: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
408-868-1200 x 235
PREPARED BY:
RBF Consulting
111 W. St. John Street, Suite 850
San Jose, CA 95113
Contact: Laura Worthington-Forbes
408-993-9224
January 2010
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ..............................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of Initial Study......................................................................................................................2
1.3 Incorporation by Reference ...............................................................................................................2
2.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Project Location.................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................................5
2.3 Project Characteristics.....................................................................................................................11
2.4 Project Objectives/Goals .................................................................................................................13
2.5 Project Phasing ...............................................................................................................................13
2.6 Agreements, Permits, and Approvals ..............................................................................................14
3.0 Environmental Summary ............................................................................................................................15
3.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................15
3.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..............................................................................................16
3.3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .....................................................................................17
4.0 Environmental Analysis ..............................................................................................................................18
4.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................18
4.2 Agriculture Resources .....................................................................................................................20
4.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................21
4.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................31
4.5 Cultural Resources ..........................................................................................................................34
4.6 Geology and Soils ...........................................................................................................................37
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................40
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality...........................................................................................................43
4.9 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................................47
4.10 Mineral Resources...........................................................................................................................49
4.11 Noise ...............................................................................................................................................50
4.12 Population and Housing ..................................................................................................................53
4.13 Public Services ................................................................................................................................56
4.14 Recreation .......................................................................................................................................57
4.15 Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................................................................58
4.16 Utilities and Service Systems ..........................................................................................................62
4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................................................................66
4.18 References ......................................................................................................................................68
4.19 Report Preparation Personnel .........................................................................................................69
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.0 Consultant Recommendation .....................................................................................................................70
6.0 Lead Agency Determination .......................................................................................................................71
iii
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 RHNA Allocation (2007-2014)................................................................................................................10
2-2 Adjusted RHNA Allocation (2007-2014).................................................................................................10
4.3 Housing Element Update’s Compliance with the Attorney General’s General Plan
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................27
4.11-1 Noise Sensitivity of Land Uses ..............................................................................................................51
4.11-2 Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure ........................................................................51
4.12-1 Housing Element Projections (2007-2014) Compared to ABAG ............................................................54
4.15-1 LOS and V/C Ratio Ranges – Signalized Intersections ..........................................................................59
4.15-2 LOS and V/C Ratio Ranges – Unsignalized Intersections ......................................................................59
LIST OF EXHIBITS
2-1 Regional Vicinity .......................................................................................................................................7
2-2 Planning Area ...........................................................................................................................................8
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 1 - Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Saratoga (City) is located in the westerly portion of the County of Santa Clara, adjacent to
the western boundary of the City of San Jose and approximately 35 miles southeast of San Francisco.
The jurisdictional boundaries of the City encompass approximately 12.8 square miles. The City’s
planning area, which includes the City limits, the City’s current sphere-of-influence (SOI), and additional
unincorporated land, however, encompasses approximately 16.8 square miles. The City’s Housing
Element comprises one of the seven General Plan Elements mandated by the State of California. The
Housing Element update covers the planning period from January 2007 to July 2014 relative to the
maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. The
Project includes the 2007-2014 Housing Element together with various conforming amendments to the
General Plan and implementation actions as described in section 2.0.
Following preliminary review of the proposed Project, the City has determined that the Project is subject
to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study
addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the Project, as
proposed.
1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000–21177) and pursuant to Section
15063 (Initial Study) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City of Saratoga,
acting in the capacity of the lead agency, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to
determine whether the Project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the
Initial Study, the lead agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the Project may cause a
significant environmental effect, the lead agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is warranted to analyze Project-related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if
the lead agency finds that there is no evidence that the Project, either as proposed or as modified to
include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency shall find that the Project would not have a significant effect on the
environment and shall prepare a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for the Project.
Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before the lead agency” that such an effect may occur (Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code).
The environmental documentation, which is ultimately approved and/or certified by the City in
accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an
environmental basis of subsequent discretionary actions upon the Project. The resulting documentation
is not; however, a policy document, and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor
mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from which permits and other discretionary
approvals would be required.
The environmental documentation and supporting analysis are subject to a public review period.
During this review, comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to
the City. Following review of any comments received, the City will consider these comments as a part
of the Project’s environmental review and include them with the Initial Study documentation for
consideration by the City.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 2 - Introduction
1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY
The purpose of the Initial Study is to: (1) identify environmental impacts; (2) provide the lead agency
with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration;
(3) enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is
required to be prepared; (4) facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project;
(5) document the factual basis of the finding in a negative declaration that a project would not have a
significant environmental effect; (6) eliminate needless EIRs; (7) determine whether a previously
prepared EIR could be used for the project; and (8) assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by
focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be
significant, and explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be
significant.
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15000–15387 of the CCR) identifies the following
specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study:
(1) A description of the project including the location of the project;
(2) An identification of the environmental setting;
(3) An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method,
provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is
some evidence to support the entries . . .;
(4) A discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any;
(5) An examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other
applicable land use controls; and,
(6) The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study.
1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study, and are incorporated into
this document by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Saratoga City Hall
located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga.
City of Saratoga 1983 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (GP/EIR). The City of
Saratoga General Plan (General Plan) contains the plan for the future development and
operation of the City. The General Plan is composed of seven elements mandated for
inclusion by the State: Land Use (updated June 2007), Circulation and Scenic Highways
(updated September 2000), Open Space and Conservation (these two elements consolidated
and updated June 2007), Safety (updated October 1987), Noise (updated August 1988), and
Housing (updated June 2002). The General Plan EIR has been updated by inclusion of the
2002 Housing Element Negative Declaration and the 2007 Land Use Element Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The GP/EIR concluded implementation of the General Plan would result
in a built out capacity of approximately 35,000 persons by the year 2005. The 2002 Housing
Element and 2007 Land Use Element found no significant impacts to population as the
housing needs and population projections were covered by the residential units projected and
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 3 - Introduction
analyzed in the GP/EIR. The updated GP/EIR was utilized throughout this Initial Study as the
fundamental planning document governing the proposed Project. Background information and
policy information from the GP/EIR is cited in several sections of this Initial Study.
City of Saratoga Zoning Code, as (continuously) updated. Chapter 15 of the City of Saratoga
Municipal Code is known as the Zoning Regulations. The purposes of the Zoning Regulations
are to protect, promote, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare, ensuring
that development within the City is related to the City's ability to provide essential urban
services and is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Specifically, these regulations are
adopted to achieve the following:
(a) To control the physical development of the City in such a manner as to preserve it as
essentially a residential community with a rural atmosphere.
(b) To achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the Genera l Plan.
(c) To foster a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses.
(d) To promote the stability of existing land uses which conform with the General Plan, and to
protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions.
(e) To ensure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes, which are
most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole.
(f) To prevent population densities in excess of those prescr ibed in the General Plan, and to
maintain a suitable balance between structures and open spaces on each site.
(g) To ensure adequate light, air and privacy for each dwelling unit.
(h) To minimize traffic congestion and to avoid the overloadin g of utilities by preventing the
construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them.
(i) To facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities and institutions.
(j) To provide for adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.
(k) To provide for the orderly, attractive development of commercial facilities in those areas
where permitted by the General Plan.
(l) To exclude new industrial development in order to preserve the essential res idential
character of the City.
(m) To preserve natural beauty of the City.
(n) To ensure that uses and structures enhance their sites and harmonize with improvements
in the surrounding area.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 4 - Introduction
(o) To protect and enhance real property values within the City.
(p) To protect and preserve heritage, native, and other significant trees at all times, including,
the real property development planning and implementation processes.
The Zoning Code specifies regulations that must be fol lowed by every project within the City’s
jurisdictional area. Information within the City’s Code was utilized in various sections of this
Initial Study.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 5 - Project Description
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Saratoga (City) is located in the wes terly portion of the County of Santa Clara, adjacent to
the western boundary of the City of San Jose and approximately 35 miles southeast of San Francisco.
The jurisdictional boundaries of the City encompass approximately 12.8 square miles. The City’s
planning area, which includes the City limits, the City’s current sphere-of-influence (SOI), and additional
unincorporated land, however, encompasses approximately 16.8 square miles; refer to Exhibit 2-1,
Regional Vicinity.
The north, east and southerly portion of the community is sited on an historic alluvial plain shared with
the adjacent communities of Cupertino, San Jose, Los Gatos and Monte Sereno. The westerly portion
occupies low-lying foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and is adjacent to unincorporated properties
within Santa Clara County.
Major regional access to the community is provided by State Route 85 (SR-85), a six-lane freeway
linking to US 101 to the north in Mountain View, US 101 south in San Jose, and to SR 17 to north San
Jose and southwest to Santa Cruz County. Local roadways linking Saratoga to surrounding
communities include Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Avenue Highway 09 and Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road.
Exhibit 2-2, Planning Area, illustrates the precise boundaries of the City’s planning area, which
encompasses 16.8 square miles of which approximately 12.8 square miles are within the City’s
corporate limits.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
POPULATION
The City of Saratoga is one of 15 incorporated cities within the County of Santa Clara. The County’s
population totaled 1,497,577 persons in 1990 and 1,682,585 persons in 2000, representing an increase
of approximately 12.4 percent between 1990 and 2000.1 The County’s 2008 population is estimated at
1,837,075 persons.2 The City’s population totaled 28,061 persons in 1990 and 29,855 persons in 2000,
experiencing a 6.4 percent population growth between 1990 and 2000. Comparatively, the City
experienced a slower population growth than the County during the same time period. As of January
2008, the City’s population was an estimated 31,592 persons, representing an increase of
approximately 5.8 percent between 2000 and 2008.
1 U.S. Census 1990 and 2000.
2 State of California, Department of Finance, January 2008.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 6 - Project Description
HOUSING
In 2000, the U.S. Census reported 10,464 housing units in the City, a 3.1 percent increase from the
10,148 units in 1990. In comparison, the County’s housing stock increased 8.4 percent, from 522,040
housing units in 1990 to 565,863 units in 2000. The total housing units in California increased by 10.6
percent. In 2008, the City’s housing stock totaled 10,886 units and the County’s 608,652 units.
Between 2000 and 2008, the City’s housing stock increased approximately 4 percent, whereas the
County’s stock increased 7.6 percent. The City’s housing stock grew at a slower rate than the County’s
and State’s, between 2000 and 2008.
Review of the U.S. Census 2000 indicates that single-family detached housing comprised the majority
of the City’s housing with 9,551 units, accounting for 89.5 percent of total housing units. According to
the U.S. Census, single-family detached housing units had only slightly increased (approximately 3
percent) by 2000 from 9,234 units in 1990. Single-family attached housing units were the second
largest housing type in 2000 with 561 units accounting for 8.3 percent of total housing units.
Of Saratoga’s occupied housing units in 2000, 90.1 percent, 9,430 units, were single-family, detached.
Single-family, attached housing units were the second largest group with 520 units, accounting for 5
percent of total housing units. Approximately 93.7 percent of owner-occupied housing units were
single-family detached, compared to 58.2 percent of the renter-occupied single family, detached
housing units. Housing units by tenure in the City consisted of 90 percent owner occupied units and 10
percent renter-occupied units in 2000. Comparatively, owner -occupied housing units in Santa Clara
County represented 59.8 percent of total households, a smaller proportion than in the City. However,
there were fewer owner-occupied housing units statewide (56.9 percent) than in the County.
Vacancy rates are a measure of the general availability of housing and indicate a relationship with
available units and housing demand. Low vacancy rates influence greater upward price pressures. A
vacancy rate of 5.0 percent is generally considered healthy enough to minimize price pressure on rents.
At the time of the U.S. Census 2000, the City’s vacancy rate was an estimated 1.9 percent. In 2008,
the City’s vacancy rate remained at 1.9 percent.
Age is one way to measure housing stock conditions and a factor in determining the need for
rehabilitation. In general, housing stock that is 30 years or older may need repairs based on the
resilience of the materials used. Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and more likely to
exhibit need for major repairs. According to the U.S. Census 2000, 8,979 (85.6 percent) of the City’s
housing units were constructed prior to 1980. In the years 1960 to 1980, the City experienced the
highest period of housing construction accounting for 50.7 percent of the housing stock. An estimated
2.9 percent of the City’s housing stock was built prior to 1939.
The U.S. Census also provides data on housing tenure by age of housing stock. An estimated 85.6
percent of owner-occupied units in the City were built before 1980 and about 34.8 percent were built
before 1960. Of the renter-occupied units, 87.2 percent were built before 1980 and 37 percent were
built before 1960.
CITY OF SARATOGA 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-1
Regional Vicinity
NOT TO SCALE
01/10 • JN 40-100350
STANISLAUS
COUNTY
SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY
SOLANO
COUNTYMARIN
COUNTY
SAN
JOAQUIN
COUNTY
CALAVERAS
COUNTY
SANTA
CRUZ
COUNTY
SAN
MATEO
COUNTY
MERCED
COUNTY
MONTEREY
COUNTY
SAN
BENITO
COUNTY
5
5
198
152
152
237
129
183
156
132
108120
140
165
88
49
4
84 35
24
92
84
17
85
9
68
26
12
33
25
25
5933
1
1
4
1
101
101
680
780
580
280
580
880
280
80
205
Seaside
LivermoreHayward
Palo
Alto
Colinga
King City
Soledad
Big Sur
Salinas
Hollister
Monterey
Carmel
by the Sea Carmel
Valley
Marina
Santa Cruz
San
Francisco
San
Mateo
Half Moon
Bay
Fremont
Tracy
San Jose
Los Gatos
Capitola
Modesto
Turlock
Manteca
Stockton
Concord
Berkley
Oakland
Walnut Creek
Lodi
Angels
Camp
Gilroy
Mendota
Oakdale
Merce
Los
Banos
Atwater
Greenfield
San
Rafael
Vallejo
Cho
SARATOGA
- Project Site
CITY OF SARATOGA 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-2
Planning Area
01/10 • JN 40-100350
NOT TO SCALE
Source: City of Saratoga, May 30, 2007.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 9 - Project Description
A housing unit is considered substandard if certain conditions exist, including but not limited to
inadequate maintenance, faulty weather protection and fire hazards. In addition to structural
deficiencies and standards, the lack of infrastructure and utilities often serve as an indicator for
substandard conditions. The U.S. Census 2000 reported that 19 of the City’s occupied units lacked
complete plumbing facilities. Of these units, 12 were owner-occupied and 7 were renter-occupied. The
U.S. Census also reported 24 of the City’s occupied units lacked complete kitchen facilities. Of these
units, 5 were owner-occupied and 19 were renter-occupied. It is noted there may be some overlap in
these estimates, as some units might lack both complete plumbing facilities and complete kitchen
facilities.
According to the U.S. Census 2000, the median value for all owner-occupied housing units in Saratoga
was greater than $1,000,000. In 2000, approximately 1.4 percent of owner-occupied housing units
were valued below $100,000, with 0.5 percent of owner-occupied housing units valued between
$100,000 and $199,999; 0.8 percent valued between $200,000 and $299,999; 5.4 percent valued
between $300,000 and $499,999; and 91.8 percent valued at $500,000 or more. In November 2008,
the median value for new and resale homes in Saratoga was $1,100,000 which represents a 15.38
percent decrease from the median sales price in November 2007 of $1,300,000.
According to RealFacts, the average gross rent in the City was $2,128 in 2008. In 1999, over 32.4
percent of Saratoga’s renter households paid 30 percent or more of their household income for rent,
and 11 percent spent 50 percent or more.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
California Housing Element law requires that each city and county develop local housing programs
designed to meet its “fair share” of existing and future housing needs for all income groups, as
determined by the jurisdiction’s Council of Governments, when preparing the state-mandated Housing
Element of its General Plan. This “fair share” allocation seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction provides
policies and programs to address housing needs existing and estimate future housing need.
The City of Saratoga is a member government of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
which prepared a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) in 2007 that quantified the existing
and projected growth needs for housing in Saratoga. Specifically, the RHNA allocated the City’s
housing needs for the period January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014; refer to Table 2-1, RHNA Allocation
(2007-2014). As indicated in Table 2-1, the City’s fair share housing needs allocation is 292 new
housing units for the planning period of 2007 to 2014.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 10 - Project Description
Table 2-1
RHNA Allocation (2007-2014)
Income Category Housing Allocation
Extremely Low1 (45)
Very Low2 90
Low 68
Moderate 77
Above Moderate 57
Total 292
Source: RBF Consulting, 2007-2014 City of Saratoga Housing Element Table 2-29, Fair Share Housing
Needs Allocation, April 2009.
1. Regional share of extremely low-income units is assumed to be 50 percent of the very low-income
units. These units are a subset of the very low-income units and are not included in the total
construction need.
2. Includes 45 units affordable to extremely low-income households.
Table 2-2, Adjusted RHNA Allocation (2007-2014), summarizes the units constructed since January 1,
2007, according to income category. As indicated in Table 2-2, a total of 8 residential units have been
constructed in the City, all for above moderate-income households. The units constructed since
January 1, 2007 are credited towards the City’s RHNA allocation. In consideration of the constructed
units, the City’s adjusted need for 2007-2014 is 284 housing units, with 158 units allocated for very low-
and low-income households.
Table 2-2
Adjusted RHNA Allocation (2007-2014)
Income Category 2007-2014
RHNA Need
Construction
Achievements1
Adjusted
RHNA Need
Very Low 90 0 90
Low 68 0 68
Moderate 77 0 77
Above Moderate 57 8 49
Total 292 8 284
Source: RBF Consulting, 2007-2014 City of Saratoga Housing Element Table B-2, Adjusted RHNA Allocation, October
2008.
1. Based on building permits “finalized” through January 2009. Does not include projects currently under construction or
in the review or entitlement process.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 11 - Project Description
2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The Project consists of adopting the City of Saratoga General Plan 2007-2014 Housing Element
together with conforming amendments to the Land Use Element, a Housing Element Implementation
Ordinance, and amendments to the text of the Open Space and Conservation Element and Safety
Element to include factual information required by State Law.
The Housing Element comprises one of the seven General Plan Elements mandated by the State of
California, as expressed in Sections 65580 to 65589.8 of the California Government Code. California
State Law requires that the Housing Element consist of “an identification and analysis of existing and
projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled
programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing.”
As required by State Housing Law, the City must plan for its share of the region’s new housing needs in
all four income categories by identifying an adequate supply of land zoned at the appropriate density
levels to accommodate each income category. The RHNA goals do not represent a requirement for
actual housing production, but rather seek to ensure the City has, or plans to add, regulatory and policy
mechanisms to accommodate projected housing need.
To address the City’s needs for extremely -low, very-low, and low-income housing, Saratoga must
demonstrate that it has an adequate supply of land for higher density housing (20 or more dwelling
units per acre, per stature). Although zoning land for higher density development does not guarantee
the construction of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income families, without such higher
density zoning, the opportunity to use subsidies and implement affordable housing programs for such
families would not exist.
The City of Saratoga General Plan 2007-2014 Housing Element identifies and analyzes the existing
and projected housing needs, and articulates the City’s official policies for the preservation,
conservation, improvement, and production of housing within the City.
The Housing Element has been prepared in compliance with State Housing Element law. It examines
the City’s housing need, as it exists today, and projects future housing need. It sets forth statements of
community goals, objectives, and policies concerning those needs, and includes a housing policy
program that responds to current and future needs within the limitations posed by available resources.
The housing policy program details a schedule of actions to achieve its goals and objectives. Upon its
adoption by the Saratoga City Council, the updated Housing Element will serve as a comprehensive
statement of City housing policy and a program of actions to support of those policies.
Housing Programs and Objectives
The City’s housing policies are intended to detail the City’s commitment to assure the continued
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing within the City. Chapter 4, Housing Policy
Program, of the Housing Element provides specific details that will aid in the implementation of the
City's housing programs. The Element provides a series of Production Objectives and policies for
implementation of the Housing Element. Program information is also intended to show the City's
commitment to maintain, improve, and develop housing in the community through a "good faith, diligent
effort" as required by State Housing Law (Government Code Section 65583(c)). Chapter 4, Housing
Policy Program, of the Housing Element, provides a summary of the City’s proposed program
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 12 - Project Description
objectives. As indicated in Table B-2, the City’s adjusted regional housing needs for 2007-2014 is 284
housing units, with 158 units allocated for very-low and low-income households.
Meeting Regional Share Goals
To enable the City of Saratoga to meet its share of the region’s housing needs, the City has evaluated
its capacity to meet the future needs (284 units adjusted), based on entitled development, existing
development capacities, and vacant land resources. Chapter 15 of the City of Saratoga Municipal
Code, Zoning Code, identifies eleven residential zoning districts. The availability of land suited to
accommodate the various income levels is based upon the allowed density within these zoning districts.
Entitled Development to Date (March 2009). Saratoga currently has fourteen entitled single-family
residential developments partially constructed or awaiting construction. Six units have been determined
to be affordable to Above Moderate-Income households. The remaining eight units are second dwelling
units with deed restrictions limiting rental of such units to low-income households. These entitled
projects are described in Appendix B and illustrated in Table B-4 of the 2007-2014 Housing Element.
Vacant Land Resources. The remainder of Saratoga’s housing need would be accommodated through
development of vacant land or redevelopment. Saratoga has the capacity to provide 110 units on
vacant land within existing residential zones. The realistic capacity for the vacant residential land, as
summarized in Table B-3 of the Housing Element, utilizes the lower end of the permitted density range.
The lower end is the “threshold density” identified in the City’s Zoning Code and is what the City has
determined is the expected density of development. Based on the permitted densities, which range
from 1 to approximately 15 dwelling units per the sites identified in Table B-3, the vacant land would
allow for construction of moderate and above moderate-income units. Saratoga has enough vacant
land to accommodate its above-moderate income RHNA allocation and most of the moderate-income
allocation; however, the permitted densities are lower than what is generally needed to construct
housing units affordable to lower-income households.
Candidate Sites for Rezoning Program. Pursuant to AB 2348, jurisdictions with a shortfall of vacant
and underutilized residential land to meet its RHNA needs must commit to a rezoning program to
provide adequate sites to meet its housing growth needs. The City has identified six adjoining parcels
with potential for residential development. Table B-5 of the Housing Element lists these parcels with
potential for lot consolidation which have the potential for 87 dwelling units with a zoning amendment to
permit by-right single and multi-family, rental and ownership residential development at a minimum net
density of 20 du/ac. Thus, the 87 units could be applied towards meeting the City’s lower income
housing needs pursuant to AB 2348. In addition, Table B-6 identifies the potential of vacant acreage at
the Odd Fellows Retirement Community, which is zoned exclusively residential, as have the greatest
potential to accommodate 50 percent (or 75 dwelling units) of the lower income housing need pursuant
to AB 2348.
Sites Summary. Table B-7 of the Housing Element summarizes the construction achievements and
entitled projects as compared to the RHNA allocation for 2007-2014. As indicated in Table B-7, the City
has the potential to meet all of the housing needs of the RHNA allocation for 2007-2014.
Conforming Amendments. In conjunction with the Housing Element the City will consider adoption of
conforming amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to ensure consistency with the
Housing Element by amending commercial land use designations to allow implementation of the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 13 - Project Description
rezoning program. These amendments are included in the approval documents described in section
2.6.
Implementation Ordinance. To implement the Housing Element the City will consider adoption of an
ordinance that would implement the rezoning program and other aspects of the Housing Policy
Program set forth in the Housing Element and described above. The implementation ordinance is
included in the approval documents described in section 2.6.
AB 162 Compliance. Assembly Bill 162, adopted in 2007, requires California cities to update
information in their General Plans regarding flood risks. This update must be completed concurrently
with the Housing Element adoption. The City will consider amendments to the text and maps of the
Safety Element and the Open Space and Conservation Element to ensure that they contain the
information required by law. The proposed amendments make no changes to the existing flood
protection policies in those General Plan elements. The AB 162 Amendments are included in the
approval documents described in section 2.6.
2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES/GOALS
The Housing Policy Program details the City’s goals, policies, and actions in regards to the
maintenance, improvement, preservation, and development of housing for all segments of the
community. In developing the Policy Program, the City assessed its current and projected housing
needs, evaluated performance in implementing existing policies and programs, analyzed current
constraints and resources, and considered input from residents and stakeholders.
Through the development of the Policy Program, the City has identified five broad housing priorities:
1. To ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to meet future and existing housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
2. To provide maintenance and rehabilitation activities to help ensure the quality of the City’s
housing stock and neighborhoods is preserved.
3. To ensure quality design of new developments and to enhance the aesthetic qualities of the
City.
4. To promote the practice of providing equal housing opportunities for all persons without
discrimination on the basis of families with children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities,
the homeless and all other segments of the community.
5. To maximize use of limited local resources by building partnerships and coordinating housing
efforts with outside agencies and organizations.
2.5 PROJECT PHASING
The Housing Element addresses the planning period January 2007 to July 2014.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 14 - Project Description
2.6 AGREEMENTS, PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Approval of the Project is subject to actions set forth by the City of Saratoga. As described above, the
Project includes the following legislative actions:
2007-2014 Housing Element
Land Use Element Conforming Amendments
Housing Element Implementation Ordinance
Amendments to the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines
Safety Element and Open Space and Conservation Element AB 162 Amendments
Copies of these proposed actions (the approval documents) are available in the City of Saratoga
Community Development Department. and are a part of this project description.
Adoption of the update to General Plan’s Housing Element is subject to review and/or approval by the
following agencies:
City of Saratoga Planning Commission;
City of Saratoga City Council; and
California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 15 - Environmental Summary
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
3.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Contact Persons and Phone Number:
Christopher Riordan
Senior Planner
Phone: 408-868-1200 x 235
4. Project Location: City of Saratoga
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
6. General Plan Designation: Various
7. Zoning: Various
8. Description of the Project:
The Project consists of an update to the Hous ing Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan; refer to
Section 2.3, Project Characteristics.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: City of Cupertino
South: City of Monte Sereno
East: City of San Jose
West: Unincorporated area of Santa Clara County
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has authority of review and comment
on the Housing Element. No other public agencies have authority over the Project.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 16 - Environmental Summary
3.2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Initial Study and Negative Declaration analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated
with the proposed Project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study are:
Aesthetics; Land Use and Planning;
Agriculture Resources; Mineral Resources;
Air Quality; Noise;
Biological Resources; Population and Housing;
Cultural Resources; Public Services;
Geology and Soils; Recreation;
Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Transportation/Traffic; and
Hydrology and Water Quality; Utilities and Service Systems.
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by
the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and used by the City in its environmental review process. For the
preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a
determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the
Project’s impacts and to identify mitigation.
In the evaluation of potential impacts in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, the questions in the Initial
Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided based on the analysis undertaken as part of the
Initial Study. The analysis considers the short-term, long-term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts
of the Project. To each question, there are four possible responses:
No Impact: The project would not have any measurable environmental impact on the
environment.
Less Than Significant Impact: The project would have the potential for impacting the
environment, although this impact would be below established significance thresholds.
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in General Plan EIR: The project would have the
potential to generate impacts that may be considered a significant effect on the environment.
However, these issues were evaluated in sufficient detail in the General Plan EIR and there is
no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis.
The General Plan Policies and/or Implementation Measures or changes to the project’s
physical or operational characteristics could reduce these impacts to levels that are less than
significant.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The project would have the
potential to generate impacts that may be considered a significant effect on the environment,
although mitigation measures or changes to the project’s physical or operational
characteristics could reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.
Potentially Significant Impact: The project would have impacts that are considered
significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce
these impacts to less than significant levels.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 17 - Environmental Summary
3.3 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” or a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Land Use and Planning
Agriculture Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural Resources Public Services
Geology and Soils Recreation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Transportation/Traffic
Hydrology and Water Quality Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 18 - Environmental Analysis
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of potential Project impacts as identifi ed in the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration. Explanations are provided for each item.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X
c. Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
X
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
(a, b, c, d)
Discussion:
Most of the undeveloped land in Saratoga is located in the hillside areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains
located on the west side of the City and is subject to significant constraints such as steep slopes and
unstable soils. However, these hillside areas represent the most significant topographical, and thus
visual, feature in the planning area. Views of the Santa Cruz Mountains are experienced from various
vantage points in the Saratoga community.
The City’s housing needs would be accommodated with in vacant land permitted for residential use
(new and infill development), and rezoning of residential and non-residential (i.e., commercial)
properties. Therefore, future residential development could have an adverse effect on scenic vistas
(i.e., views of the hillside areas). However, the majority of the hillside area is designated Open Space,
and only limited construction of residential uses is anticipated. The low-intensity land use in the hillside
area would preserve views of the hillsides. In general, future development anticipated by the Project
would be subject to compliance with the regulations and guidelines set forth in the City’s General Plan,
Municipal Code, and development review process. Where permitted, development on hillsides within
the City would be subject to design review and would involve careful siting, grading, and design in order
to minimize exposure and preserve the City’s vistas. Therefore, residential development according to
the Project is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 19 - Environmental Analysis
Adherence to the following goals and related implementing strategies contained in the General Plan
would ensure less than significant impacts to scenic vistas and resources, visual character of the site
and surroundings and additional light and glare within the Saratoga planning area:
Land Use
LU 8 The natural beauty of the West Valley hillside area shall be maintained and protected for its
contribution to the overall quality of life of current and future generations.
LU 9 Preserve the rural nature of the hills by limiting incompatible development.
LU 10 Minimize the visual impacts of hillside development, especially on ridgetops.
LU 13 The City shall use the design review process to assure that new construction and major
additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings.
Open Space
OSC 2 Preserve the City’s existing character which includes small town residential, rural/semi-rural
areas and open spaces.
OSC 6 Preserve the hillside lands in their natural condition and inherent natural beauty.
OSC 7 Use the design review and environmental review process to ensure that development
proposals in the hillsides are compatible with the natural environment.
Impact: Less Than Significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 20 - Environmental Analysis
4.2 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
Department of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c. Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
X
(a, b, c)
Discussion:
Agricultural uses in the City include more than 150 acres of land. Of this total, 109 acres have been
designated agricultural preserves under the Williamson Act. The Project proposes no change to
farmlands, unique farmlands, farmlands of Statewide Importance, zoning for agricultural uses or
Williamson Act Land Conservation contracts. No existing farm or agricultural properties would be
converted to non-agricultural uses pursuant to the Project.
The following goal and associated implementing strategies contained in the City’s General Plan would
ensure there would be no impact related to protection of agricultural resources in Saratoga:
LU 7 Protect existing agricultural resources and encourage expansion of this use.
Impact: Less Than Significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 21 - Environmental Analysis
4.3 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
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
X
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
X
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? X
The City of Saratoga lies within the southwestern portion of the Association Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD.
The BAAQMD’s current guidelines and emission thresholds are established in the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook. Air quality assessments estimate emissions of air pollutants associated with short-term
construction and long-term operation of a proposed project. Currently, the Air District is in the process
of updating the CEQA Guidelines.
Both the State of California and the Federal government have established health-based Ambient Air
Quality Standards (AAQS) for the following six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO); ozone
(O3); nitrogen oxides (NOX); sulfur oxides (SOX); particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter (PM10);
and lead (Pb). O3 (smog) is formed by a photochemical reaction between NOX and reactive organic
compounds (ROCs). Thus, impacts from O3 are assessed by evaluating impacts from NOX and ROCs.
The net increase in pollutant emissions determines the impact on regional air quality, as a result of a
proposed project. The results also allow the local government to determine whether a proposed project
would deter the region from achieving the goal of reducing pollutants in accordance with the Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) in order to comply with Federal and State AAQS.
Construction Emission Thresholds
The following proposed CEQA significance thresholds for construction emissions are under review for
the BAAQMD:
54 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROGs;
54 lbs/day of NOX;
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 22 - Environmental Analysis
82 lbs/day of PM10; and
54 lbs/day of SOX.
In the BAAQMD, project construction-related emissions that exceed any of the above emission
thresholds are considered to be a significant impact under the BAAQMD guidelines.
Operational Emission Thresholds
Project operational emissions that exceed any of the proposed thresholds listed below are considered
to be a significant impact under the BAAQMD guidelines:
54 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROGs;
54 lbs/day of NOX;
82 lbs/day of PM10; and
54 lbs/day of SOX.
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan.
No Impact. The proposed Project would not change the rate of population growth as shown in regional
population and jobs projections published by ABAG, on which the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan is based.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation.
Less Than Significant. The City’s housing needs would be accommodated within vacant land
permitted for residential use, redevelopment, and rezoning of residential/non-residential properties.
Construction activities for residential projects would generate pollutant emissions, including but not
limited to site grading, operation of construction equipment, and vehicle activities. The future housing
units would generate pollutant stationary and mobile source emissions due to uses of stationary
equipment, new vehicular trips, off-site power and natural gas generation, etc. As the Project
addresses housing units as a collective whole, no emission calculations are necessary in the
preparation of this document. Notwithstanding, residential development anticipated by the Project
could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. However, individual project proposals would be subject to review under CEQA, which would
specifically evaluate potential air quality impacts. Further, future residential development would be
subject to compliance with the following General Plan Policy for air emissions.
LU 15 Improve local and regional air quality by ensuring all development projects incorporate all
feasible measures to reduce air pollutants.
Atmospheric greenhouse gases and clouds within the earth’s atmosphere influence the earth’s
temperature by absorbing most of the infrared radiation rising from the earth’s sun warmed surface that
would otherwise escape into space. This process is commonly known as the Greenhouse Effect. The
greenhouse gases and clouds, in turn, radiate some heat back to the earth’s surface and some out to
space. The resulting balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation from both the
earth’s surface and atmosphere keeps the planet habitable. However, anthropogenic (i.e., caused by
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 23 - Environmental Analysis
humans) emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere enhance the Greenhouse Effect by
absorbing the radiation from other atmospheric greenhouse gases that would otherwise escape to
space, thereby trapping more radiation in the atmosphere and causing the temperature to increase.
California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases, emitting over 400 million tons of
carbon dioxide (CO2) a year.3 Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an increase of
three to four degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Methane is also an important greenhouse gas
that potentially contributes to global climate change. Greenhouse gases are global in their effect, which
is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. Because primary greenhouse gases
have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well mixed, their
impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission.
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature,
precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result
from:
Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit
around the sun;
Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction in
sunlight from the addition of greenhouse gases and other gases to the atmosphere from
volcanic eruptions); and
Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels)
and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification).
The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in average global tropospheric temperature
of 0.2° Celsius per decade, determined from meteorological measurements world wide between 1990
and 2005.4 Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming would
occur, which would induce further changes in the global climate system during the current century.5
Changes to the global climate system and ecosystems and to California would include, but would not
be limited to:
The loss of sea ice and mountain snow pack resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea
surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to
the atmosphere’s ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures;6
Rise in global average sea level primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers
and ice caps, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;7
Changes in weather that includes, widespread changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, wind
patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold and the intensity of tropical cyclones;8
3 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, 2006.
4 Ibid. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for
Policymakers, February 2007.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 24 - Environmental Analysis
Decline of Sierra snowpack, which accounts for approximately half of the surface water
storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years;9
Increase in the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent (depending
on the future temperature scenario) in high ozone areas of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin
Valley by the end of the 21st century;10 and
High potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and seawater intrusion into the Delta and
levee systems due to the rise in sea level.11
Global Climate Change Gasses
The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the “green house
effect.”12 The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three fold process summarized
as follows: Short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion
of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere
absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This
”trapping” of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process
of the greenhouse effect.
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average temperature would be approximately -18 degrees
Celsius (°C) (0° Fahrenheit [°F]) instead of its present 14°C (57°F). The most abundant greenhouse
gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases have greater ability to absorb and
re-radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge
the potency of greenhouse gases, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for
each greenhouse gas based on its ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation. The GWP of a
gas is determined using carbon dioxide as the reference gas with a GWP of one (1).
Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, the following:13
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). CO2 is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in stationary and
mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources in the past
250 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 35 percent.14 CO2 is the
most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (GWP of 1) for determining GWP s for
other greenhouse gases. In 2004, 83.8 percent of California’s greenhouse gases emissions
were CO2.15
8 Ibid.
9 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger
and the Legislature (Executive Summary), March 2006.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers.
13 All GWPs are given as 100 year Global Warming Potential. Unless noted otherwise, all GWPs were obtained from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of
Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996).
14 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004, April
2006.
15 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004, December 2006.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 25 - Environmental Analysis
Nitrous Oxide (N2O). N2O is produced by both natural and human related sources. Primary
human related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management,
sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and
nitric acid production. The GWP of N2O is 310.
Methane (CH4). CH4 is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in forest fires,
landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the
top three sources of CH4 come from landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation.
CH4 is the primary component of natural gas, which is used for space and water heating,
steam production, and power generation. The GWP of CH4 is 21.
Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, chlorofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride,
hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.
Methodology
Per the Attorney General’s Office, their recommended General Plan (including the Housing Element)
measures “will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of global warming.”16 Additionally, the
Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger at the Legislature (CAT Report) provides
“overarching recommendations considered essential by the (Climate Action Team) in meeting the
statewide climate change emissions reduction targets” and “lays out a path forward to ensure that
California’s climate change emission reduction targets are met.” The CAT Report identifies strategies
designed to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions and meet AB 32 and EO S-3-05 goals.
Therefore, compliance with all applicable CAT Report strategies and Attorney General’s General Plan
recommendations would ensure the proposed Project would help achieve the AB 32 and EO S-3-05
goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for California and would result in a less than significant
impact.
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) identifies various approaches to
global climate change. The CAPCOA approach utilized in this analysis is identified below:
The emissions associated with a [general plan] are assumed to have a significant impact
unless one can arrive at a less-than-significant finding by … the [methodology] below:
1. Demonstrate that a General Plan (GP) or a Regional Plan (RP) is in Compliance with AB
32:
For most GPs or RPs this will requi re demonstration that projected . . . emissions will
be equal to or less than 1990 emissions.
GPs or RPs are expected to fully document 1990 and [future] GHG [greenhouse gas]
emission inventories.
Projection of . . . emissions is complicated by the fact that CARB is expected to
promulgate emission reductions in the short term. Until explicit CARB regulations are
in place, unmitigated GP . . . emission inventories represent business-as-usual
scenarios.
EIRs for GPs or RPs which demonstrate [future] mitigated emissions are less than or
equal to 1990 emissions are considered less than significant.
16 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers,
February 2007.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 26 - Environmental Analysis
Global Climate Change Analysis
Population growth anticipated to occur under the Project, which was anticipated by the General Plan, is
expected to result in increased emissions of greenhouse gases, largely due to increased vehicle miles
traveled (VMTs), as well as increased energy consumption and waste generation. As discussed
previously, increased emissions of greenhouse gases could contribute to global climate change
patterns and the adverse global environmental effects thereof. Increased concentrations of greenhouse
gas emissions could also potentially conflict with the requirement of AB 32 to reduce Statewide
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Construction Emissions
CEQA does not require an agency to evaluate an impact that is “too speculative,” provided that the
agency identifies the impact, engages in a “thorough investigation” but is “unable to resolve an issue,”
and then discloses its conclusion that the impact is too speculative for evaluation. (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15145, Office of Planning and Research Commentary). Additionally, CEQA requires that
impacts be evaluated at a level that is “specific enough to permit informed decision making and public
participation” with the “production of information sufficient to understand the environmental impacts of
the proposed Project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects
are concerned.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15146, Office of Planning and Research Commentary).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15146(b):
An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance
or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow
from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the
specific construction projects that might follow.
Construction of future residential new and infill development projects would result in greenhouse gas
emissions from the use of construction equipment. However, details of these future construction
activities are unknown at this time, and therefore, cannot be quantified. Compliance with General Plan
policies and implementation measures would reduce construction-related emissions to a level below
“business as usual.”
Operational Emissions
Area sources include emissions from natural gas combustion, hearth (wood stove/fireplaces),
landscaping equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. Indirect sources include
emissions from energy consumption and water conveyance. Mobile sources include emissions from
passenger vehicles and delivery trucks. Typically, mobile sources are the primary contributor of
greenhouse gas emissions. However, consistent with the General Plan, the Project would discourage
sprawl, encourage infill development, and encourage public transportation.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 27 - Environmental Analysis
Compliance with the Attorney General’s Recommendations
The California Office of the Attorney General has established recommended measures for projects to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.17 A list of the Attorney General’s recommended measures and the
project’s compliance with each measure are listed in Table 4.3, Housing Element Update’s Compliance
with the Attorney General’s General Plan Recommendations.
Table 4.3
Housing Element Update’s Compliance with the Attorney General’s General Plan Recommendations
Attorney General’s Recommended Measures Compliance with Attorney General’s
Recommendations
Housing Element
Concentrate mixed use and medium to higher density
residential development in areas near jobs, transit routes,
schools, shopping areas and recreation.
Compliant. Policy Action 4-1.1 requires amending the
Mixed-Use Overlay for all commercial zoning districts to allow
rental and owner occupied residential development as a
matter of right, remove the 50% limit on residential floor area
and remove the 1,250 square foot maximum on new dwelling
units. Policy Action 4-3.2 allows for amendments to the zoning
code for Saratoga Village to include mixed-use, infill
development, adaptive reuse, live/work and multi-family
development standards.
Increase density in single-family residential areas located
near transit routes or commercial areas. For example,
promote duplexes in residential areas and increased height
limits of multi-unit buildings on main arterial streets, under
specified conditions.
Compliant. Policy Action 4-4.1 requires the review/revision
of the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance to encourage further
development of second units in single family residential zoning
districts.
Encourage transit-oriented developments. Compliant. See below.
Impose minimum residential densities in areas designated
for transit-oriented, mixed-use development to ensure higher
density in these areas.
Compliant. Policy Action 4-1.3 establishes a new mixed use
zoning district permitting rental and owner-occupied
multifamily residential as a matter of right with a minimum
density of 20 du/ac. The candidate site is located in the City’s
bus transit corridor (see Appendix B of Housing Element).
Designate mixed use areas where housing is one of the
required uses.
Compliant. See above Policies 4-1.1, 4-1.3 4-3.2.
Promote infill, mixed use and higher density development by,
for example, reducing developer fees; providing fast-track
permit processing; reducing processing fees; funding
infrastructure loans; and giving preference for infrastructure
improvements in these areas.
Compliant. See above; also, Policy Action 4-1.4 requires
continued use of the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance which
provides incentives, concessions and other regulatory
procedures to facilitate development of affordable housing
throughout the City. Policy Action 4-5.3 supports continued
cooperation with developers to provide housing opportunities
for lower income households.
Source: State of California Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office, The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global
Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, updated May 21, 2008.
17 California Office of the Attorney General, The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the
Local Agency Level, updated May 21, 2008.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 28 - Environmental Analysis
Global Climate Change Conclusion
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a)(1), one of the basic purposes of CEQA is to, “Inform
governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of
proposed activities.” Senate Bill 97 requires the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to
develop CEQA Guidelines for analysis and, if necessary, the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or
the effects of greenhouse gas emissions to the Resources Agency by July 1, 2009. Additionally, it is
the position of the State Legislature (as expressed in its adoption of AB 32, The California Climate
Solutions Act of 2006) that global climate change poses significant adverse effects to the environment
of the State of California and the entire world. Additionally, the State Legislature adopted the public
policy position that global climate change is, “a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health,
natural resources, and the environment of California” (Health and Safety Code Section 38501).
The State Legislature has determined that, “the potential adverse impacts of global warming include the
exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the State from the
Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses
and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment and an increase in the
incidences of infectious disease, asthma and other human health-related problems” and that, “Global
warming will have detrimental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including agriculture,
wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry (and)…will also increase the
strain on electricity supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer air-conditioning in the hottest
parts of the State” (Health and Safety Code Section 38501). These public policy statements became
law with the enactment of Assembly Bill 32, Statutes of 2006.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 in June 2005, which
established the following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets:
2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels;
2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels; and
2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
AB 32 requires that the CARB determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in
1990, and approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be
achieved by 2020. The CARB has approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 metric tons of CO2
equivalent (CO2e).18 By January 2009, CARB must adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant
sources of greenhouse gases and also a plan indicating how reductions in significant greenhouse gas
sources would be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms and other actions.
It is noted that there are no established quantitative thresholds of significance or methodologies in place
to analyze and determine the significance of global climate change with respect to a General Plan. This
analysis has been formulated to comply with the purpose and intent of CEQA, as well as the guidance
issued from CAPCOA and the California’s Attorney General’s Office.
Consistent with the General Plan, the Project anticipates infill residential and mixed-use development.
Although, the automobile would continue to dominate as the main transportation mode, alternative
18 Carbon dioxide equivalency is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2
that would have the same global warming potential, when measured over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). For example, the global
warming potential for methane over 100 years is 25 and for nitrous oxide 298. This means that emissions of one million metric tons of methane
and nitrous oxide respectively is equivalent to emissions of 25 and 298 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 29 - Environmental Analysis
transportation modes would be promoted through the General Plan’s existing policies and
implementation measures. The Project would promote a range of affordable housing choices near jobs,
services, and transit, which would inherently reduce sprawl and thus total VMTs. As indicated in Table
4.3, the proposed Project would be in compliance with the recommended measures and strategies
identified by the Attorney General’s Office.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan Goals, Policies and
associated Implementation Measures, and Housing Element Policy Actions listed in Table 4-3:
Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements
LU/OSC 15 Improve local and regional air quality by ensuring all development projects
incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants.
LU/OSC 15.1 Require development projects to comply with BAAQMD measures to reduce fugitive
dust emissions due to grading and construction activities.
LU/OSC 15.2 Encourage use of trip demand measures as part of major commercial and office
development projects to reduce dependence on auto use.
LU 15.3 Discourage the use of wood burning fireplaces by limiting one per residence,
including outdoor/patio fireplaces.
Circulation and Scenic Highway Element
CI.2.22 Require a transportation analysis for all development projects resulting in 50 or more
net new daily trips. The analysis shall identify potential impacts to intersection and
roadway operations, project access, and alternative travel modes, and shall identify
feasible improvements or project modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts. Impact
significance should be consistent with the criteria maintained b the VTA. City staff
should have the discretion to require focused studies regarding access, sight
distance, and other operational and safety issues.
CI.2.23 Evaluate development proposals and design roadway improvements based on
established Level of Service standards.
CI.2.28 Develop and adopt a Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Plan to specifically
include a process for identifying problem areas, and for evaluating, funding, and
implementing traffic calming measures to reduce high traffic volumes and travel
speeds on City streets.
CI.4.0a Promote local and regional transit as a viable alternative to automobile travel for
destinations within and outside the City.
CI.4.0b Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity,
safety, accessibility, and convenience of existing and planned transit, bicycle and
pedestrian systems.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 30 - Environmental Analysis
(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Impact Adequately Addressed in GPEIR. Refer to Response (b).
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to General Plan Policies listed in Response (b).
(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact Adequately Addressed in GPEIR. Refer to Response (b). In addition, the construction of
individual residential projects could potentially lead to fugitive emissions and other pollutants affecting
sensitive land uses. Increased traffic volumes on City streets could also lead to increases in traffic
congestion and associated vehicle emissions, which could impact sensitive receptors. However, as
future residential development would occur throughout the City, substantial pollutant concentrations are
unlikely to be produced. Thus, less than significant impacts are anticipated in this regard. It is also
important to note the conceptual nature of the anticipated residential development associated with the
Housing Element. Future development proposals would be analyzed individually for potential impacts
to air quality and to determine compliance with applicable State and Federal ambient air quality
standards. If necessary, mitigation would be recommended to reduce potential air quality impacts to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to General Plan Policies listed in Response (b).
(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the general
public. Odors can present significant problems for both the source and the surrounding community.
Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can agitate and alarm the general public.
Most people determine an odor to be offensive (objectionable) if it is sensed longer than the duration of
a human breath, typically two to five seconds.
Construction activities associated with residential projects anticipated by the Housing Element may
generate objectionable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust or from application of paint and
asphalt. All new development would be subject to compliance with standards established for the
BAAQMD for odor control. Any impacts to adjacent land uses would likely be short-term and are
considered less than significant. Notwithstanding, due to the conceptual nature of the future residential
development, proposals would be analyzed individually to evaluate the potential creation of
objectionable odors. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential air quality impacts to
a less than significant level.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 31 - Environmental Analysis
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
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 interruption, or other
means?
X
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
(a - d)
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Housing Element would not directly remove
sensitive vegetation communities, sensitive plant or wildlife species, or their respective habitats,
wetlands and wildlife corridors because the Housing Element does not infer direct development
rights. However, future housing would be accommodated within vacant lands, which could
significantly impact, either directly, or through habitat modifications, sensitive vegetation
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 32 - Environmental Analysis
communities and/or sensitive plant and wildlife species. The most notable impact would involve
the removal of sensitive vegetation communities and individual plant or wildlife species for building
pad development, and building and roadway construction. However, the following GPEIR Goals
and Strategies would mitigate potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan Policies and
Implementation Measures:
LU 8 The natural beauty of the West Valley hillsides area shall be maintained and protected for
its contribution to the overall quality of life of current and future generations.
LU 8.1 Development proposals shall minimize impacts to ridgelines, significant natural hillside
features, including but not limited to steep topography, major stands of vegetation,
especially native vegetation and oak trees, and watercourses.
LU 8.2 Adhere to the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan (derived by Measure A) which is
incorporated herein by this reference.
LU 9 Preserve the rural nature of the hills by limiting incompatible development.
LU 9.1 Limit expansion of urban development in the hillside areas.
LU 9.1 Limit the amount of grading within hillside areas to the minimum amount needed for
dwellings and access.
OSC 11 Protect and enhance sensitive vegetative and wildlife habitat in the Saratoga Planning
area.
OSC 11.1 Minimize development that would encroach into important wildlife habitats, limit or restrict
normal range areas, or restrict access to water food or shelter. This includes limitations on
the installation of barrier fencing in hillside areas.
OSC 11.2 Through the development and CEQA process, preserve, protect, and maintain riparian
habitats and creek corridors. This includes requiring biological surveys of parcels of land
that could contain sensitive species or their habitats prior to allowing development on
these parcels.
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Open Space/Conservation Element includes goals and
strategies to preserve existing trees that provide roosting and nesting opportunities for various
avian species in the Saratoga Planning area. The following GPEIR Goals and Strategies would
mitigate potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan Policies and
Implementation Measures:
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 33 - Environmental Analysis
OSC 12 Support appropriate management for sustaining the health and increasing the extent of
urban forest resources in the City. The specific vision is to increase overall tree cover, tree
health and consequent tree benefits in an equitable, cost beneficial and sustainable
manner.
OSC 12.1 Development projects should include the preservation of protected trees and other
significant trees. Any adverse affect on the health and longevity of native oak trees,
protected or other significant trees should be avoided through appropriate design
measures and construction practices. When tree preservation is not feasible, individual
development projects shall include appropriate tree replacement as approved by the City.
OSC 12.2 It is the City’s policy that forested lands in the City’s Sphere of Influence shall be managed
to maximize environmental protection and to discourage logging to the maximum extent
possible, consistent with proper fire protection standards and practices.
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The City of Saratoga is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan
or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. Moreover, no housing development would occur within
designated open space areas. Thus, implementation of the Housing Element would not conflict with
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and no impact is anticipated.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 34 - Environmental Analysis
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5?
X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
X
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
d. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
Less Than Significant Impact. A number of historic resources have been identified in the Saratoga
Planning area. These are described in the Land Use Element. The City’s future housing needs would
be accommodated within vacant land permitted for residential use, redevelopment, and rezoning of
residential/non-residential properties. Because various historical or potentially historical resources are
present throughout the City, future residential development could cause an adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource. The following GPEIR Goals and Strategies would mitigate
potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan EIR Policies and
Implementation Measures:
LU 12 Recognize the heritage of the City by seeking to protect historic and cultural resources,
where feasible.
LU 12.1 Enhance the visual character of the City by encouraging compatibility of architectural
styles that reflect established architectural traditions.
LU 12.2 Develop zoning and other incentives for property owners to preserve historic resources
and seek out historic designations for their respective properties.
LU 12.3 In order to create an incentive for the protection of historic structures, modify the Zoning
Ordinance to allow the Planning Commission to have the authority to modify any of the
development regulations in the Ordinance, if the subject of the application is a structure
which has been designated as an historic landmark.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 35 - Environmental Analysis
LU 12.4 The City shall continue to participate in the Mills Act program which allo ws property
owners of historic residences a reduction of their property tax.
LU 12.5 Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City’s past and foster
civic and neighborhood pride and sense of identity based upon the recognition and use of
the City’s heritage resources.
LU 12.6 The Heritage Preservation Commission shall regularly update the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory.
LU 12.7 Development proposals impacting any of the City’s heritage land and/or any historic
resources listed on any local or state inventory shall be reviewed by Heritage Preservation
Commission and the Planning Commission, as required.
LU 12.8 For any project development affecting structures that are 50 years of age or older,
conduct an historic review.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the GPESR, future construction of public and private
development projects could have a potentially significant impact on unsurveyed archeological, historic,
cultural, Native American and/or paleontological resources. However, implementation of the following
Land Use Element Strategy which requires reconnaissance-level surveys of development sites be
undertaken prior to construction to ensure than any cultural resources are identified and properly dealt
with prior to any impact would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan EIR Policies and
Implementation Measures:
LU 12.9 Conduct reconnaissance-level analyses of new development projects to ensure that no
significant archeological, prehistoric, paleontological Native American resources would be
disturbed. If such resources are found, appropriate steps shall be taken, consistent with
CEQA requirements to protect these resources.
(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s future housing needs would be accommodated within
vacant land permitted for residential use, redevelopment, and rezoning of residential/non-residential
properties. As discussed above, various prehistoric and ethnohistoric resources are present throughout
the City. Given the cultural sensitivity of the Planning Area, ground-disturbing activities, such as
grading or excavation, have the potential to disturb human remains. If human remains were found,
those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California
Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for
human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any
human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the
requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code
would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 36 - Environmental Analysis
Heritage Commission, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If human remains are found during excavation,
excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overly
adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated
and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains.
Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the
event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be considered less than
significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 37 - Environmental Analysis
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
X
2) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
3) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
4) Landslides? X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? 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 -site 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
California Building Code (2001),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
X
(a, c, d)
Less Than Significant Impact. Existing structures within Saratoga and future development projects
that could be constructed would be subject to geologic hazards, including but not limited to moderate to
severe groundshaking from seismic events, liquefaction, landslides and other potential unstable soil
conditions. None of the Saratoga Planning area is located within an Earthquake Hazard Zone, so the
risk of ground rupture is considered low.
New development projects would be required to adhere to construction requirements set forth in the
California Building Code to minimize hazards from groundshaking. The City of Saratoga may also
require development projects in or near steep hillside areas to be analyzed in site-specific geotechnical
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 38 - Environmental Analysis
reports to determine appropriate construction techniques for individual sites. Adherence to required
building codes and practice and adherence to the following goals and strategies, would result in less
than significant impacts.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan Policies and
Implementation Measures:
LU 8 The natural beauty of the West Valley hillsides area shall be maintained and protected for
its contribution to the overall quality of life of current and future generations.
LU 8.1 Development proposals shall minimize impacts to ridgelines, significant natural hillside
features, including but not limited to steep topography, major stands of vegetation,
especially native vegetation and oak trees, and watercourses.
LU 9 Preserve the rural nature of the hills by limiting incompatible development.
LU 9.1 Limit expansion of urban development in the hillside areas.
LU 9.2 Limit the amount of grading within hillside areas to the minimum amount needed for
swellings and access.
OSC 6 Preserve the hillside lands in their natural condition and inherent natural beauty.
OSC 6.1 Through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, designate lands in the hillier
portions of the Saratoga Planning Area for open space- managed resource production,
which allows very low-density residential uses while maintaining a significant amount of
open space.
A copy of the final geologic report shall be forwarded to the State Geologist within 30-
days of the City’s review and approval of the report.
GEO IM 4.0 When reviewing projects for ministerial or discretionary action, the City shall apply the
Land Use Compatibility Chart (GPESR Table 5.6-1) for Special Studies Zones and Fault
Hazard Zones.
GEO IM 6.0 The City shall require that all structures within the City be built to the latest seismic safety
requirements of the California Uniform Building and Safety Code.
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s future housing needs would be accommodated within
vacant land permitted for residential use and rezoning of residential/non-residential properties.
Therefore, clearing and grading for construction associated with future residential developments
anticipated by the Housing Element would expose soils to short-term erosion by wind and water which
could result in soil erosion into adjacent bodies of water. The City enforces surface water quality
standards that have been adopted by the Regional water Quality Control Board to minimize erosion
potential from construction and operational phases of projects. In addition, the Open
Space/Conservation Element contains Goal 9, which states it is the policy of the City to protect existing
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 39 - Environmental Analysis
watercourses in the community and enhance water quality in surface and subsurface water sources.
Potential impacts of soil erosion would therefore be less than significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Less Than Significant Impact. A majority of dwellings constructed under the auspices of the General
Plan would be connected to a sanitary sewer system. In hillside areas, there may be limited use of
septic systems to support individual custom homes. Any use of septic systems would only be
undertaken with valid permits fro local and County agencies and with appropriate underlying soil
conditions, which would result in less than significant impacts.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 40 - Environmental Analysis
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d. Be located on a site, which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5, and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
X
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, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area?
X
f. For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
X
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Less Than Significant Impact. The secondary activities that would occur at the fu ture residential
developments (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) would involve the use of limited quantities of
hazardous materials. Cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used
in the regular maintenance of buildings and landscaping would be utilized by future residential uses.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 41 - Environmental Analysis
Thus, the residential development anticipated by the Housing Element would increase in the use of
household cleaning products and other materials routinely used in building maintenance. However, no
significant amounts of hazardous materials would be utilized, disposed of, or transported in conjunction
with future residential developments. With proper use and disposal, household maintenance chemicals
are not expected to create hazardous or unhealthful conditions for future residents. Following
compliance with the local, State and Federal regulatory framework, implementation of the Housing
Element is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment involving the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(b, c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment or emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within on-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Impact Adequately Addressed in GPEIR. In some instances, previous land uses within Saratoga
may have used potentially hazardous materials that, under limited conditions, could be released into the
atmosphere. This may include but would not be limited to agricultural chemical residue, use of asbestos
in building materials and underground storage tanks. Some of these sites may be located within one-
quarter mile of a local school. Construction activities undertaken pursuant to the General Plan could
release hazardous or potentially hazardous material into the atmosphere, soil or groundwater. This
could result in a potentially significant impact and the following mitigation measure would mitigate this
impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Program:
Land Use Element 2006 MND Mitigation Measure 1: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building
permits that could foreseably emit hazardous or potentially hazardous materials, the City of Saratoga
shall require applicants to obtain a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine the possibility
of hazardous materials. The Phase I report shall be filed with the appropriate City of Saratoga
department. If warranted by the Phase I report, additional studies may be required and remediation
plans prepared and approved by the City prior to the issuance of requested permits. If necessary, local,
County or state regulatory agencies may need to be contacted and necessary clearances obtained.
Requested work shall not be undertaken until all necessary clearances have been obtained.
(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. There were no sites listed on the Cortese List as of January 2010. Therefore, no impacts
would result.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 42 - Environmental Analysis
(e, f) 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, or within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
No Impact. There are no public or private airports or airstrips located within the Saratoga Planning
Area; therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The City’s future housing needs would be accommodated within vacant land permi tted for
residential use, redevelopment, and rezoning of residential/non-residential properties. Initial Studies
would be prepared for individual projects to address changes in traffic patterns and circulation. As
conditions for approval, each project would be required to meet all City and County Fire Department
standards and regulations pertaining to emergency response access and evacuation procedures. Upon
compliance with City Fire Department guidelines, it is anticipated that the residential development
anticipated by the Housing Element would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Less Than Significant. Portions of the Saratoga Planning Area are located within hillside areas that
are considered high fire hazard areas. The City is committed to working with the two local fire districts
to ensure that new individual development projects are provided with adequate access for emergency
fire and rescue equipment and with an adequate and reliable water supply. These fire reduction
measures are included as conditions of approval for new development; therefore, less than significant
impacts would result.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 43 - Environmental Analysis
4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements? X
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 level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
X
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of stream or river, in a
manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
X
d. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
X
e. Create or contribute runoff which
would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
X
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
involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
X
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 44 - Environmental Analysis
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow? X
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
No Impact. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program to control direct storm water discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES
permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include
construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Saratoga is
within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB.
Construction activities from future residential development anticipated by the Housing Element would
be subject to NPDES requirements, which include submitting a NOI for coverage, developing a
SWPPP, and implementing BMPs. Additionally, through the City’s development review process, future
residential projects would be evaluated for potential water quality impacts from construction activities.
Compliance with the NPDES requirements would reduce construction-related impacts to water quality
to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(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
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted).
No Impact. No significant changes to the use of water is anticipated with regard to adoption of the
Project. Limited new development would occur in the Saratoga Planning area but this amount of
development would not significantly impede groundwater recharge. The General Plan contains the
following goals and strategies to protect groundwater resources:
OSC 9 Protect existing watercourses in the community and enhance water quality in surface and
subsurface water sources.
OSC 9.3 Implement land use controls to protect watershed lands on the upper elevations of
hillsides.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 45 - Environmental Analysis
(c, d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site, or substantially increase the rate or surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off site.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since
additional development was assumed. As such, changes in drainage patterns and potential
erosion/siltation associated with future housing was anticipated in the GPEIR and subsequent Land
Use and Open Space/Conservation Element Updates. Implementation of the proposed Project would
be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than
previously identified. Additionally, future residential development would be subject to compliance with
local and State codes and requirements for erosion control, including the development and
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Additionally, the following
General Plan policies would also assist in limiting the amount of increased stormwater flows; therefore,
the impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following Policy:
OSC 9.2 Concentrate development in those portions of the community least susceptible to soil
erosion and minimize grading and the introduction of impervious surfaces. Where
appropriate, consider the use of on-site detention or retention basins to minimize
stormwater runoff from sites.
LU 6.1 Incorporate specific standards and requirements into the Zoning Ordinance to preserve
and protect sensitive watershed areas on hillsides within the community.
LU 6.2 Development proposals shall incorporate stormwater quality features, including but not
limited to grassy bio-swales, to protect surface and subsurface water quality.
(e, f) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant. Refer to Responses 4.8(c, d).
Mitigation Program: No additional mitigation is required.
(g, h, i)
Less Than Significant Impact. Saratoga is located in the North Central Flood Zone of the Santa Clara
County Water District. Creeks in the City under District jurisdiction are Calabazas, Rodeo, Saratoga,
Wildcat, and San Tomas. In general, flooding from these creeks has been confined to the relatively
narrow flood plain directly adjacent to the creeks. The development proposed to meet the housing need
in Housing Element does not anticipate placing housing within the flood plains of these waterways. The
following General Plan would reduce any potential impacts of future development within watercourses
in the Santa Clara Valley Water District to less than significant.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 46 - Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following Policy:
OSC 9.a The City shall coordinate review of development projects adjacent to watercourses with
the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other applicable agencies.
(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a surface wave created when a large body of water is
shaken, often by an earthquake. There are no large bodies of water within the Planning Area that have
the capacity to create a sieche. The Saratoga Planning Area would therefore not be subject to seiche
or tsunami. Individual projects that may be permitted in proximity to slopes could be subject to geologic
hazards including the potential for mudflow. Following standard City of Saratoga development review
procedures, project-specific development reviews would be undertaken for development applications in
potential hazard areas to ensure safety from possible mudflows and similar hazards. Less than
significant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to this topic.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 47 - Environmental Analysis
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community? X
b. Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
X
(a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The City’s adjusted need for 2007-2014 is 284 housing units, which would be
accommodated within vacant land permitted for residential use, redevelopment, and rezoning of
residential/non-residential properties. Future residential development anticipated by the Project would
replace some vacant lands with residential uses throughout the City; however, it is not anticipated that
any future residential development would physically divide an established community or reduce access
to community amenities.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Housing Element policies are generally consistent with
policies contained in the existing General Plan Elements. There would therefore be no impact with
regard to conflicts with plans or policies. All future residential projects would be subject to review under
the City’s environmental and design review process. Additionally, due to the conceptual nature of the
future residential development, proposals would require individual assessments to ensure consistency
with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code, and other relevant planning documents. If necessary,
appropriate mitigation would be required to avoid or reduce impacts.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 48 - Environmental Analysis
(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.4(f).
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 49 - Environmental Analysis
4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X
(a, b)
No Impact. No significant deposits of minerals are known to exist in the Saratoga Planning Area.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 50 - Environmental Analysis
4.11 NOISE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
X
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c. A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
X
d. A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
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, would
the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
X
f. For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
X
The State of California Office of Noise Control has established guidelines for acceptable community
noise levels. The State Office of Noise Control defines an outdoor level of 60 dBA CNEL or less as
being “normally acceptable” for residential uses. The City of Saratoga General Plan designates 60 dBA
CNEL as the maximum level acceptable for residential outdoor uses, and 45 dBA for indoor uses.
Table 4.11-1, presents the noise standards contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The
criteria are designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from stationary sources
at the private property line such as generators, air conditioning equipment, and other mechanical
equipment. These standards include maximum permissible noise levels for noise sources not operating
on a public right-of-way. The federal government specifically pre-empts local control of noise emissions
from aircraft, railroads, and interstate highways. However, local agencies may regulate noise levels of
most other sources, may provide standards for insulation of noise receivers (either within the structure
or by placement of noise barriers such as walls), and, through land use decisions, may reduce noise
impacts by separating noise generators from noise-sensitive uses. The noise standards apply to all
residential properties in the City.
As shown in Table 4.11-1, the acceptable noise levels are up to 65 dBA CNEL for commercial and
office uses on the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) scale; up to 60 dBA CNEL for public
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 51 - Environmental Analysis
facilities and parks; and up to 60 dBA for residences. The exterior noise standard for residences is 60
dBA; the interior noise standard is 45 dBA.
Table 4.11-1
Noise Sensitivity of Land Uses
CNEL Value
Land Use
Daytime Evening
Commercial / Office – Outdoor 65 dBA 55 dBA
Commercial / Office – Indoor 50 dBA 40 dBA
Public / Park – Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA
Public / Park – Indoor 50 dBA 40 dBA
Residential – Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA
Residential – Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dBA = decibels on the “A-weighted” acoustic scale
Source: City of Indio, City of Saratoga General Plan Noise Element, Figure 2, August 17, 1988, Page r.
Significance of Changes in Ambient Noise Levels
A project is considered to have a significant noise impact when it causes an adopted noise standard to
be exceeded for a project site or for adjacent sensitive receptors. In addition to concerns regarding the
absolute increase in noise level that might occur when a new source is introduced into an area, it is also
important to consider the existing ambient noise environment. If the ambient noise environment is quiet
and the new noise source greatly increases the noise exposure, an impact may occur even though a
criterion level might not be exceeded. Lacking adopted standards for evaluating such impacts, a
general standard for community noise environments is that an increase of over 5 dBA, regardless of the
ambient noise level without a project, is readily noticeable and is therefore considered a significant
impact; refer to Table 4.11-2, Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure. In areas where
the ambient noise level without a project is 60 dBA to 65 dBA, some individuals may notice an increase
in the ambient noise level of greater than 3 dBA and any such increase would be a significant impact.
In areas where the ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder
than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact because the increase would contribute to an
existing noise deficiency.
Table 4.11-2
Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure
Ambient Noise Level Without Project
(Ldn or CNEL)
Significant Impact Is Assumed To Occur if the
Project Increases Ambient Noise Levels by:
< 60 dBA 5.0 dBA or more
60 – 65 dBA 3.0 dBA or more
> 65 dBA 1.5 dBA or more
dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; Ldn = day/night average noise level.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference
to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise, October 1979 (revised July 1981).
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 52 - Environmental Analysis
(a, b, c, d)
Less Than Significant impact. The Project anticipates the development of 284 housing units.
Construction and operation of these units would generate both short-term and long-term noise impacts.
Short-term noise impacts could occur during grading and construction. Construction activities have the
potential to expose adjacent land uses to noise levels between 70 and 90 decibels at 50 feet from the
noise source. Construction activities associated with future residential projects are anticipated to
temporarily exceed the City of Saratoga noise standards. The degree of noise impact would be
dependant upon the distance between the construction activity and the noise sensitive receptor.
Long-term noise impacts would be associated with vehicular traffic to/from the site (including residents
and visitors), outdoor activities, and stationary mechanical equipment on site. To determine noise
levels and project-related impacts, specific information is needed for a particular project. Future
residential development would be required to comply with City, State, and Federal guidelines regarding
vehicle noise, roadway construction, and noise abatement and insulation standards. This would ensure
that noise levels in Saratoga are maintained within acceptable standards that prevent extensive
disturbance, annoyance, or disruption. In addition, future residential development would require
individual assessments of potential impacts from project-related noise sources. If necessary, mitigation
would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed Housing Element was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development
was assumed. As such, the noise exposure associated with future housing was anticipated in the
GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the analysis presented in the
GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts involving noise exposure than previously identified.
Additionally, compliance with the General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures for noise
exposure would be required.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan Policies:
(e, f)
No Impact. No public or private airstrips are located in or adjacent to the Saratoga Planning Area.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 53 - Environmental Analysis
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
X
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c. Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
(a, b, c)
No Impact. The City’s adjusted regional housing ne eds for the planning period 2007-2014 is 284
housing units. The Project anticipates that future residential development would be accommodated
within vacant land permitted for residential use, redevelopment, and rezoning of residential and non-
residential properties. The Project proposes various housing programs to assist in providing housing
for low- and moderate-income households.
A project could induce 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).
Implementation of the Project would not induce direct population growth in the City, because the Project
does not infer direct development rights. However, the residential development anticipated by the
Project would induce population growth in the City directly through the construction of housing.
Assuming 100 percent occupancy and 2.9 persons per household (State of California Department of
Finance, 2008), the population growth associated with the development of 284 housing units would be
approximately 824 persons for the planning period. This potential population growth would represent
an increase of approximately 2.5 percent over the City’s 2008 population estimate of 31,592 persons.
Potential growth inducing impacts are also assessed based on a project's consistency with adopted
plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint. The Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the responsible agency for developing and adopting regional
housing, population, and employment growth forecasts for local Santa Clara County governments,
among other counties. Table 4.12-1, Housing Element Projections Compared to ABAG, analyzes the
growth anticipated with the Project, as compared to ABAG’s 2015 growth projections for the City.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 54 - Environmental Analysis
Table 4.12-1
Housing Element Projections (2007-2014) Compared to ABAG
Description Dwelling Units Population
Existing (2008) 1 11,093 31,592
Housing Element (HE) 284 8242
Projected 2014 11,377 32,416
ABAG 2015 Projections3 11,1724 32,400
Difference HE: 2015 ABAG 205 16
1. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State,
2001-2007, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2008.
2. The population projection is based on 100 percent occupancy of the dwelling units and 2.9 persons per household (State
of California, Department of Finance, Table 2-E-5 Population, 2000; DOF Table 2-E-5, 2008).
3. 2015 ABAG projections.
4. The dwelling units project is based on 100 percent occupancy of the dwelling units and 2.9 persons per household (State
of California, Department of Finance, Table 2 -E-5 Population, 2000; DOF Table 2-E-5, 2008).
As indicated in Table 4.12-1, the residential development anticipated by the Project would generate
slightly more population growth (16) than ABAG’s 2015 population growth projection for the City. The
difference in population growth is attributed to the growth that is anticipated to occur outside of the
Saratoga’s City limits, but within the City’s Sphere of Influence Area, which was not considered in
ABAG’s projections. Furthermore, ABAG’s 2015 projections occur after the housing element planning
period 2007-2014. In a subregional context, the City’s 2014 population associated with the Housing
Element would be substantially similar to ABAG’s projections for the City, and the City would remain
generally consistent with the subregional population growth forecasts.
Additionally, the GPEIR concluded implementation of the General Plan would result in an increase in
population growth from the existing population at the time of preparation in 1982 of 30,000 to an
anticipated 33,162 persons which was below the expected 35,000 persons at buildout in the year 2005.
The residential development anticipated by the 2007-2014 Housing Element and other implementing
measures included in the Project would generate less population growth than the 2005 population
growth projection for the City. Therefore, the residential development anticipated by the Project would not
induce substantial population growth in the City and a less than significant impact would occur in this
regard.
Future development of housing occurring as redevelopment could displace existing housing and
people, although, it is not anticipated to occur in substantial amounts. Construction of replacement
housing would occur through the redevelopment, as anticipated by the Project. Moreover, the increase
in residential uses is expected to occur mostly on land that is currently unimproved or rezoned from
non-residential use.
California Government Code Section 7260(b) (the “California Relocation Law”) establishes “a uniform
policy for the fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a direct result of programs or projects
undertaken by a public entity.” A primary purpose of the California Relocation Law is to ensure that
these persons not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs and projects designed for the
benefit of the public as a whole and to minimize the hardship of displacement on these persons.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 55 - Environmental Analysis
Such activities would be conducted pursuant to all requirements of the California Redevelopment Law
and Relocation Law, within the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency. Following compliance with
the California Redevelopment and Relocation laws, impacts associated with the displacement of
housing and persons would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the Project has
been developed to meet the future population needs of the City, and future development would be
consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Element, as well as other measures in the General
Plan. Impacts relative to the displacement of existing housing are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 56 - Environmental Analysis
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:
1) Fire protection? X
2) Police protection? X
3) Schools? X
4) Parks? X
5) Other public facilities? X
(a, 1-5)
No Impact. All potential impacts to public services, including fire protection, medical aid, police
protection, schools, parks, solid waste disposal, maintenance of public facilities, and other
governmental services were thoroughly analyzed in the GPEIR and no additional impacts are
anticipated. The project would result in the creation of 284 residential units to meet the City’s RHNA
determination and would not significantly impact the ability of the City’s public services to meet the
demands of the public.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 57 - Environmental Analysis
4.14 RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
X
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
(a, b)
No Impact. The proposed increase in housing units in the 2007-2014 Housing Element is 284 which is
within the growth analyzed in the GPEIR (see Discussion in 4.12). The General Plan includes goals and
strategies for providing additional parks and open space for the anticipated growth in the community;
therefore no impacts would result from the addition of 284 units within the 2007-2014 planning period.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan policies and
strategies:
OSC 3 To provide and maintain parks and a variety of passive and active recreational sites which
are located, designed, and improved to serve the needs of the residents, the community,
and the neighborhoods of Saratoga.
OSC 3.1 Ensure that existing and future parks and dedicated open spaces remain part of the public
domain in perpetuity.
OSC 3.4 Strive to achieve a ratio of 5 acres of park and open space area per 1,000 residents.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 58 - Environmental Analysis
4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
X
b. Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
X
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
X
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e. Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
X
Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is
based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis method is utilized in traffic impact analyses to determine
the operating LOS of the signalized study intersections; and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
analysis methodology is utilized to determine the operating LOS of the unsignalized study intersections.
The ICU analysis methodology describes the operation of a signalized intersection using a range from
LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on corresponding
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios; refer to Table 4.15-1, LOS and V/C Ratio Ranges – Signalized
Intersections.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 59 - Environmental Analysis
Table 4.15-1
LOS and V/C Ratio Ranges – Signalized Intersections
LOS V/C Ratio
A <0.60
B 0.61 – 0.70
C 0.71 – 0.80
D 0.81 – 0.90
E 0.91 – 1.00
F >1.00
Source: 1990 Transportation Research
The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational analysis methodology describes the operation
of an unsignalized intersection using a range from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely
congested conditions), based on delay experienced per vehicle; refer to Table 4.15-2, LOS and V/C
Ratio Ranges – Unsignalized Intersections.
Table 4.15-2
LOS and V/C Ratio Ranges – Unsignalized Intersections
LOS V/C Ratio
A < 10.0
B 10.01 – 15.0
C 15.01 – 25.0
D 25.01 – 35.0
E 35.01 – 50.0
F > 50.0
Source: 1990 Transportation Research.
LOS is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for all movements of all-way stop-controlled
intersections; for one-way or two-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is based on the worst stop-
controlled movement.
Performance Criteria
The General Plan Circulation Element (updated 2001) defines an “acceptable level of service” as Level
of Service “D” at street intersections under City jurisdiction. A lower LOS may be accepted if it is
determined that achieving LOS D is not feasible. For roadways and intersections under the jurisdiction
of the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA), the LOS standard is E.
(a, b)
No Impact. The proposed Project was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development
was assumed. As such, the traffic increases and circulation impacts associated with future housing
were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with
the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 60 - Environmental Analysis
The General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures would reduce potential impacts to traffic and
transportation to less than significant. Due to the conceptual nature of the future residential
development, proposals could require individual assessments of potential impacts to traffic and
circulation. If necessary, additional mitigation would be recommended to further minimize potential
impacts.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan EIR Policies:
CI 2.4 Maintain a minimum LOS D operations standard at all signalized street intersections that
are under City jurisdiction. (Intersections and roadways included in the Santa Clara
County Congestion Management Program are held to a LOS E standard.)
CI 2.7 Ensure that new development or redevelopment projects provide adequate property
dedication to accommodate future roadway improvements at key intersections and other
problem areas.
CI 2.13 Protect the integrity of and improve existing hillside streets by planning future
development according to existing street capacities.
CI 2.22 Require a transportation analysis for all development projects resulting in 50 or more net
new daily trips. The analysis shall identify potential impacts to intersection and roadway
operations, project access, and alternative travel modes, and shall identify feasible
improvements or project modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts. Impact significance
should be consistent with the criteria maintained by the VTA. City staff should have the
discretion to require focused studies regarding access, sight distance, and other
operational and safety issues.
(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. Due to the nature and scope of the anticipated housing development, an increase in air
traffic levels or change in location that would result in substantial safety risks are not anticipated.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s future housing needs would increase traffic volumes,
potentially requiring circulation infrastructure improvements. All traffic improvements would be
constructed according to the City’s roadway safety standards. Also, future development anticipated by
the Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s General Plan Implementation Measures.
Therefore, transportation/traffic hazards due to a design feature or incompat ible uses would not
substantially increase. Furthermore, due to the conceptual nature of the future residential development,
proposals would require individual assessments of potential impacts relative to traffic and circulation,
including an evaluation of potential traffic hazards. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce
potential traffic hazards to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Program: No additional mitigation is required due to the policies of the General Plan.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 61 - Environmental Analysis
(e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. New private development will be facilitated by the General Plan and will be reviewed by
the City of Saratoga, appropriate Fire Districts and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department to
ensure that no emergency accesses are blocked or impeded.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The Project anticipates the development of 284 residential units, each with resultant
demands for off-street parking. The, specific details of each project would determine actual parking
demands. Compliance with the General Plan Implementation Measures and provisions of the Zoning
Code would ensure that adequate parking capacity is provided for future residential development
anticipated by the Project. Notwithstanding, due to the conceptual nature of the future residential
development, proposals would require individual assessments of potential impacts associated with
parking capacity.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the following General Plan policy:
CI 2.15 Require development projects to mitigate and reduce their respective traffic and parking
impacts by implementing practical and feasible street improvements.
(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Bus service in Saratoga is provided by the Valley transportation
Authority (VTA). The City’s future housing needs would increase the demand for bus service. The City
would continue to cooperate with VTA in establishing new bus routes and stops. New subdivision plans
would be reviewed by VTA in order to assess impacts on bus service and examining the need to
provide bus stops or bays.
The City supports and maintains access to alternative transportation routes (e.g., bus routes, bicycle
paths, etc.). Additionally, future development anticipated by the Project would be subject to compliance
with the City’s General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures. The proposed Project would not
conflict with existing policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Thus, less than
significant impacts are anticipated in this regard.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to General Plan policies:
CI 4.0a Promote local and regional transit as a viable alternative to automobile travel for
destinations within and outside the City.
CI 4.0b Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity, safety,
accessibility, and convenience of existing and planned transit, bicycle and pedestrian
systems.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 62 - Environmental Analysis
4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
X
b. Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
c. Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
d. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g. Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
(a, e)
Less Than Significant Impact. The City requires NPDES permits, according to federal regulations for
both point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and
nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the
United States. For point source discharges, such as sewer outfalls, each NPDES permit contains limits
on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge.
All future residential projects would be required to comply with the wastewater discharge requirements
and all provisions of the NPDES program. Therefore, the residential development would not result in
an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. Additionally, the NPDES Phase I and Phase II
requirements would regulate discharge from construction sites. Therefore, the residential development
would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB with respect to
discharges to the sewer system or stormwater system within the City.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 63 - Environmental Analysis
(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
No Impact.
Water. Potable water is supplied to Saratoga by the San Jose Water Company which obtains water
from three major sources: groundwater, imported surface water, and local mountain surface water.
These sources are often blended together in the distribution s ystem. Consequently, different sources
are dispersed to Saratoga from day to day as customer usage changes. Saratoga will continue to meet
its future demands with imported water, groundwater, and local mountain surface water supplies.
The City’s future housing needs would increase water consumption, placing greater demands on water
treatment and distribution facilities. Water line extensions into undeveloped areas, creation of new
pressure zones, and upgrades to the existing system could be required in order to meet the increased
demand. However, the GPEIR concluded implementation of the General Plan would result in an
increased demand for domestic water, and the proposed Project was considered in the GPEIR
analysis, since additional development was assumed. As such, the increased water demand
associated with future housing was anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed
Project would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater
impacts associated with water demands and facilities than previously identified. Additionally, future
development anticipated by the Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s General Plan
Policies and Implementation Measures. Due to the conceptual nature of the future residential
development, proposals would require individual assessments of potential water demands and impacts
to water facilities. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level. Therefore, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact
regarding the construction of new water facilities.
In addition, the Open Space/Conservation Element includes the following goals and strategies to
conserve water resources:
OSC 10 Maximize the use of the City’s water supply.
OSC 10.1 Implement water conservation provisions of the Urban Water Management Plan.
Wastewater. The City is served by two sanitation districts: the Cupertino Sanitary District and the West
Valley Sanitation District. The Cupertino Sanitary District anticipates being able to accommodate
expected growth within areas served, and the West Valley Sanitation District has a fixed capacity
allocation that, based on population growth projections to 2030, would not exceed the current fixed
capacity allocation.
The City’s future housing needs would generate increased wastewater flows, placing greater demands
on wastewater treatment and distribution. Sewer line extensions into undeveloped areas, construction
of sewer lift stations, and upgrades/expansion of treatment plants could be required in order to meet the
increased demand. However, the GPEIR concluded implementation of the General Plan would
increase wastewater generation, and the proposed Project was considered in the GPEIR analysis,
since additional development was assumed. As such, the increased wastewater generation and
impacts to sewer facilities associated with future housing was anticipated in the GP/GPEIR.
Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR,
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 64 - Environmental Analysis
and would result in no greater impacts associated with wastewater generation and sewer facilities than
previously identified. Additionally, future development anticipated by the Project would be subject to
compliance with the City’s General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures. Due to the conceptual
nature of the future residential development, proposals would require individual assessments of
potential wastewater generation and impacts to sewer facilities. If necessary, mitigation would be
required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, Project implementation
would result in a less than significant impact regarding the construction of new sewage facilities.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the General Plan.
(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.8.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s future housing needs would increase water demands.
However, the GPEIR concluded implementation of the General Plan would result in an increased
demand for domestic water. The proposed Project was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since
additional development was assumed. As such, the increased water demand associated with future
housing was anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent
with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously
identified.
Senate Bills 221 and 610 were signed into law in 2001 and took effect January 1, 2002. The two bills
amended State law to better link information on water supply availability to certain land use decisions
by cities and counties. The two companion bills provide a regulatory forum that requires more
collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. All SB 610 and 221
reports are generated and adopted by the public water supplier.
Senate Bill (SB) 610 requires a detailed report regarding water availability and planning for additional
water supplies that is included with the environmental document for specified projects. All “projec ts”
meeting any of the following criteria require the assessment:
A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units (DU);
A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 500,000 square feet (SF) of floor space;
A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more
than 250,000 SF of floor space;
A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms;
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 65 - Environmental Analysis
A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house
more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000
SF of floor area;
A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or
A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than the amount of
water required by a 500-DU project.
While SB 610 primarily affects the Water Code, SB 221 principally applies to the Subdivision Map Act.
The primary effect of SB 221 is to condition every tentative map for an applicable subdivision on the
applicant by verifying that the public water supplier (PWS) has “sufficient water supply” available to
serve it.
Due to the conceptual nature of the future development, proposals would require individual
assessments of potential impacts to water supplies. All future residential development would be subject
to compliance with General Plan Policies, which involve water conservation measures. Additionally,
any future residential development meeting SB 610 criteria would require a water supply assessment.
Similarly, any residential project involving a subdivision pursuant to SB 221 would require verification of
sufficient water supply from the water supplier. Compliance with the existing regulatory framework and
the General Plan Policies would further ensure that sufficient water supplies would be available from
existing entitlements and resources to serve future development. Refer also to Response 4.8.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required due to the General Plan.
(f, g)
No Impact. The City’s future housing needs would generate additional solid waste, placing an
increased demand on solid waste disposal services and ultimately requiring disposal at a landfill.
Without specific housing project details, it is not possible to precisely determine the volume of solid
waste that would be generated by future residential development. However, the GPEIR concluded
implementation of the General Plan would increase the amount of solid waste generation, and the
proposed Project was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed.
As such, the solid waste generation associated with future housing was anticipated in the GP/GPEIR.
Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR,
and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Therefore, no new or expanded solid
waste facilities would be required as a result of the Project and no impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 66 - Environmental Analysis
4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Adequately
Addressed
in GPEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c. Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is the City of Saratoga Housing Element and
related conforming and implementation actions. The Housing Element is a policy document addressing
demographic issues and local housing needs in the City for the planning period from 2007 to 2014. The
Project anticipates the development of 284 residential units to meet the regional housing needs.
Although the presence of biological resources has been identified (refer to Section 4.4) and the
potential for uncovered cultural resources exists within the eastern portion of the planning area (refer to
Section 4.5), implementation of the Project would not directly impact these resources, because the
Project does not infer direct development rights. Due to the conceptual nature of the future residential
development, proposals would require individual assessments of potential impacts to biological and
cultural resources. If necessary, additional mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to
a less than significant level.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 67 - Environmental Analysis
The proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory. It is hereby found that the proposed Project involves no potential for any adverse impact,
either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources (De Minimis Impact), and that a Certificate of
Fee Exemption shall be prepared for the proposed Project.
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is the Housi ng Element for the City of Saratoga.
The Housing Element is a policy document designed to aid the City in future planning, and provides the
policy and regulatory mechanism to allow the market development of 284 residential units for the
planning period from 2007 to 2014. Further, due to the conceptual nature of the future residential
development, proposals would require individual assessments of potential cumulative impacts. If
necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
(c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is the City of Saratoga Housing Element and
related conforming and implementation actions. The Housing Element is a policy document addressing
demographic issues and local housing needs in the City for the Planning period from 2007 to 2014.
The Project provides the policy and regulatory mechanism to allow the market development of 284
residential units. Each individual residential project would be evaluated for their potential direct and
indirect impacts on human beings. Through the City’s environmental review process, future residential
developments would be evaluated to determine their impacts for all of the issue areas cited in Sections
4.1 through 4.16. If needed, mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 68 - Environmental Analysis
4.18 REFERENCES
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. These documents are
available for review at the City of Saratoga, Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070.
1) City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga General Plan and EIR, May 1983.
2) City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga Housing Element and Initial Study/Negative Declaration,
2000.
3) City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the
Saratoga General Plan and Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, June 2007.
4) City of Saratoga, Municipal Code, Continuously Updated.
5) RBF Consulting, 2007-2014 City of Saratoga Draft Housing Element Table A-41, April 2009.
6) State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2001-2007, with 2000 Benchmark, Sacramento, California, May
2008.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 69 - Environmental Analysis
4.19 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
City of Saratoga (Lead Agency)
Department of Community Development
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
RBF Consulting (Environmental Analysis)
111 West Saint John Street, Suite 850
San Jose, CA 95113
Laura Worthington-Forbes, AICP, Senior Vice President
Brian J. Allee, Environmental Analyst
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 70 - Consultant Recommendation
5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study and Environmental
Checklist, we recommend that the City of Saratoga prepare a Negative Declaration for the Project. We
find that the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the environmental issues detailed
in Section 4.0. We recommend the first category be selected for the City’s determination; refer to
Section 6.0, Lead Agency Determination.
Date Laura Worthington-Forbes, AICP
Manager, Environmental Planning Services
RBF Consulting San Jose Office
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2007-2014 Housing Element
Administrative Draft January 2010 - 71 - Lead Agency Determination
6.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that, although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described in Section 5.0 have been incorporated. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
“potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigation
incorporated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
City of Saratoga
Signature Agency
Printed Name and Title Date
X