HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-16 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR
MEETING
JUNE 08, 2016
7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 25, 2016.
Draft Minutes
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three
(3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning
Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission
may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications.
REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an Appeal Application with the
City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision.
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for
opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting
regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court,
members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or
in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of
the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3)
minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum
for closing statements.
1.1. Design Review Modification MOD16-0006
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 16-15 approving the project subject to conditions of approval
included in Attachment 1.
PC Staff Report - MOD16-0006 - 15240 Madrone Hill
Attachment 1. Resolution of Approval for Modifications – 15240 Madrone Hill Road
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 2
Attachment 2. Approved Resolution of Approval – 15240 Madrone Hill Road
Attachment 3. Applicant’s Letter of Justification
Attachment 4. Approved Plans – 15240 Madrone Hill Road
Attachment 5. As-Built Plans – 15240 Madrone Hill Road
1.2. Requested Time Extension (EXT 16-001) of PDR14-0003/CUP14-0001
Recommended Action:
Approve Resolution No. 16-016 approving the requested time extension for the
project subject to conditions of approval.
Staff Report -Blue Rock Shoot Grover House
Attachment 1. Resolution of Extension – 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way
Attachment 2. Previous Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 24, 2014
Attachment 3. E-mail correspondence from Applicant, dated May 4, 2016
Attachment 4. Reduced Plans from Previous Planning Commission Staff Report
DIRECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA
I, Janet Costa, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda
for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on June
2, 2016 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s
website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 2nd day of June 2016 at Saratoga, California.
Janet Costa, Office Specialist III
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this
meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II]
You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have
been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp.
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
Saratoga Planning Commission Action Minutes– Page 1 of 4
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
ACTION MINUTES
May 25, 2016
7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Dede Smullen, Vice Chair Tina Walia, Commissioners Joyce
Hlava, Sunil Ahuja, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Wendy Chang
ABSENT: Leonard Almalech, excused
ALSO PRESENT: Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director
Nicole Johnson, Planner II
Rick Smeaton, Sr. Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2016.
FITZSIMMONS/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2016. MOTION PASSED. AYES:,
SMULLEN, WALIA, HLAVA, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS, CHANG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT:
ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three
(3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning
Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission
may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications.
REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an Appeal Application with the
City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision.
1. NEW BUSINESS
1.1. Finding of General Plan Consistency - CIP
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the attached Resolution finding the
proposed CIP projects conform to the general plan.
Saratoga Planning Commission Action Minutes– Page 2 of 4
HLAVA/WALIA MOVED APPROVAL TO INCLUDE GENERAL PLAN
CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES CI2.2 AND C12.1 TO APPLICABLE
PROJECT NOTED IN ATTACHMENT 4 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT LIST SPREADSHEET. MOTION PASSED. AYES:, SMULLEN,
WALIA, HLAVA, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS, CHANG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT:
ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2. PUBLIC HEARING
Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for
opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting
regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court,
members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or
in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of
the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3)
minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum
for closing statements.
2.1. Application MOD 16-0004/12850 Saratoga Avenue (386-14-016);
Bougachouch/Westhope Presbyterian Church
The applicant is requesting to modify an existing approved Conditional Use Permit to
increase the maximum enrollment of children from 15 to 30 in the preschool facility
on the premises of Westhope Presbyterian Church.
Staff Contact: Nicole Johnson, Planner II (408) 868-1209
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 16-010 approving the project subject to conditions of approval
included in Attachment 1.
HLAVA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 16-010
APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
INCLUDED IN ATTACHMENT 1. MOTION PASSED. AYES:, SMULLEN,
WALIA, HLAVA, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS, CHANG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT:
ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2.2. Application MOD 16-0001/14103 Saratoga Ave. (397-25-095); Azarchehr/Immanuel
Lutheran Church
The applicant is requesting to modify an existing approved Conditional Use Permit to
increase the approved number of children from 15 to 30 and to modify the hours of
operation from 7:30AM to 7:30 PM. This use would take place within the existing
church building. Planning Commission review is required because the applicant seeks
to modify a previously approved Conditional Use.
Staff Contact: Richard Smeaton, AICP, Senior Planner (408) 868-1225
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 16-12 approving the project subject to conditions of approval
included in Attachment 1.
HLAVA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS:
Saratoga Planning Commission Action Minutes– Page 3 of 4
Action 1: Directed staff to refer to the Traffic Safety Commission the existing
traffic safety issues raised by neighbors of Immanuel Lutheran regarding this
block of Seagrave and Saratoga Avenue (ingress/egress, overall night time
visibility, reflectors at driveways, street lighting, striping or other safety
improvements). MOTION PASSED. AYES: SMULLEN, WALIA, HLAVA,
AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS, CHANG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: ALMALECH.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
Action 2: Approval of project with additional conditions:
Staff to review CUP use operation and traffic safety in 18 months and to
provide update if there are issues requiring Commission action or review.
Prior to the issuance of permits, the Church shall trim foliage at driveway
intersection of Seagrave to improve traffic visibility to the satisfaction of
staff.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: SMULLEN, WALIA, HLAVA, AHUJA,
FITZSIMMONS, CHANG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: ALMALECH. ABSTAIN:
NONE.
2.3. Application ABR-15-0048 & PDR-15-0038/18802 Dundee Avenue (389-17-004);
Hartman/Kumar
The applicant is requesting to demolish the existing house and construct a new 3,197
sq. ft. house. The height of the new house would be 20.75 feet. Two protected trees are
proposed for removal. Planning Commission design review is required because the
construction proposed contains a new basement and the proposed building is over 18
feet in height.
Staff Contact: Richard Smeaton, AICP, Senior Planner (408) 868-1225
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 16-011 approving the project subject to recommended
conditions of approval.
WALIA/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF PROJECT WITH DELETION OF
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL #7 AND #11. MOTION PASSED. AYES:,
SMULLEN, WALIA, HLAVA, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS, CHANG. NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2.4. Application PDR15-0030 Sullivan Way (503-28-138); Leu/Niederman
The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new two-story residence on a
vacant lot located on Sullivan Way. Planning Commission design review approval is
required because the new structure exceeds 18 feet in height and is two-stories.
Staff Contact: Erwin Ordoñez, AICP, Community Development Director, (408) 868-
1231
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 16-014 approving Design Review PDR15-0030 and ARB15-
0068 subject to conditions of approval.
HLAVA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED APPROVAL OF PROJECT WITH
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Saratoga Planning Commission Action Minutes– Page 4 of 4
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff
approval, a Lighting Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas.
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits and Final Inspection/Occupancy,
the applicant shall videotape the surface of the roadway that provides access
to the site at Sullivan Way. MOTION PASSED. AYES:, SMULLEN,
WALIA, HLAVA, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: CHANG. ABSENT:
ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Noted upcoming June 7, 2016 Study Session.
COMMISSION ITEMS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission, at the request of Commissioner Hlava, adjourned in honor of Robert
(Bob) Paul Weiss, a 45-year resident of Saratoga who recently passed away, and was known as
“Mr. Regan Lane” or the “mayor” of “lower” Pierce Road and the Argonaut neighborhood.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Janet Costa, Office Specialist III
City of Saratoga
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: June 8, 2016
Application: Design Review Modification MOD16-0006
Location / APN: 15240 Madrone Hill Road
517-22-060
Owner / Applicant: David and Colette Kress
Staff Planner: Richard Smeaton, Senior Planner
15240 Madrone Hill Road 10
Report to the Planning Commission
15240 Madrone Hill-file #MOD16-0006
June 8, 2016
Page | 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting a modification of an existing Planning Commission Design
Review (PDR) to reflect changes to the elevations of a previously approved building design.
The modifications to the approved design include the following:
Elimination of the sloped roof around the balcony (above the garage) and replacing
it with open railing.
Elimination of cast stone design elements under the windows on the front tower
element & north elevation.
Removal of stone over the front entrance.
The addition on three windows along the bottom of the front tower element.
Minor changes to windows and window/door details.
The Planning Commission’s approval is again required for the requested changes because the
Commission’s action on the original application resulted from a public hearing to review a
request to exceed the maximum height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
On January 23, 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed application PDR12-0019, which
included the approval for the construction of a 33 foot tall, 7830 square foot, two-story
residence; a 3,200 square foot basement, a 2nd dwelling unit, and a pool house. The
Planning Commission also adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
In response to the property owner’s request for City staff to review the status of the project
prior to the general contractor’s requests for further inspections and occupancy clearance, Staff
conducted a site and architectural inspection of the property and found changes from the
approved plans. The changes are significant enough from the original approval to require the
Planning Commission’s review for consistency with the original findings.
If this project did not require the Planning Commission’s review due to the previous public
hearing for the height exception, the requested Design Review modifications could have been
administratively reviewed by Staff and may have been approved subject to the applicable 15-
day neighborhood comment and appeal periods.
PROJECT DATA:
ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PARCEL SIZE
Single Family Residential RVLD (Very Low Density Residential 4 acres
(R-1-40,000)
Land uses surrounding the site are residential to the north, east, south and west.
DISCUSSION:
The residence under construction is French Eclectic in style. It includes features such as a
tall, steeply pitched roof, an ornate, off-centered front-entry, a mixture of gabled (through-
the-cornice) and arched windows, and a massive chimney along the northern (right) façade.
Proposed building materials such as concrete slate tile roofing, cement plaster walls, clad
11
Report to the Planning Commission
15240 Madrone Hill-file #MOD16-0006
June 8, 2016
Page | 3
wood, dual glazed windows, natural stone veneer and cast concrete window and door trim.
Proposed color exteriors include “grey” tile roofing, “light-cream” plaster walls, “white”
clad wood windows, “light natural” concrete window and door trim, and “copper” gutters
and downspouts.
Detail Colors and Materials
Roofing Gray – Concrete Slate Flat Tile
Building Ext. Light Crème – Cement
Windows & Doors White – Wood Clad
Window & Door Trim Light Natural – Cast Concrete
Gutters / Downspouts Copper
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence:
A public notice for the June 8, 2016 Planning Commission meeting was sent to property
owners within 500 feet of the site. The public hearing notice and description of the project was
published in the Saratoga News. To date, staff has not received any comments from adjoining
property owners.
CODE REQUIREMENTS:
Staff believes the applicant’s project with the requested revisions has met the burden of
proof to support the findings required for approval of a Design review under Article 15-
45.080 of the City Code, as shown below:
Findings for issuance of permit:
(a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project
with the modifications has met this finding because the proposed residence would be
located within the area of a previous house with the majority of heavy, mature tree
growth to remain intact. The proposed location is over 300 feet from the nearest
neighboring property and would not substantially interfere with views or privacy.
(b) The project preserves the natural landscape. This project meets this finding
because the structure with the modifications is sited on the existing grade pad, where
vegetation does not exist. The majority of existing natural landscape will remain.
(c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. The modification will not affect
the protected 26 native trees on the site.
(d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The project with
modifications meets this finding by utilizing techniques set forth in the Residential
Design Handbook on how to minimize bulk. This includes following the contours
with horizontal elements, softening the elevations by using different materials,
varying the heights with roof elements, providing compatibility in terms of
proportion, mass and height of the existing semi-rural neighborhood, and the
punctuation of large wall expanses with windows, porches, and terraces.
Additionally, the main front elevation with the significant revisions cannot be seen
from nearby adjacent properties.
12
Report to the Planning Commission
15240 Madrone Hill-file #MOD16-0006
June 8, 2016
Page | 4
(e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. The overall design of the residence
with modifications is still compatible in bulk and height of neighboring properties
within the immediate environment, and that the proposed modification are still
consistent with the original findings to grant the original height exception. The
existing neighborhood scale includes large lots with stately, grand residences.
Nearby structures include Villa Montalvo. The proposed project is compatible the
residence within the center of the lot and substantially setback from all other
residences or structures within the area.
(f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The project
required minimal site grading to construct, which did not substantially impact
erosion. The existing driveway will remains while the majority of new hardscape
surfaces, such as the circular driveway would be constructed out of permeable
pavers designed to allow subtle water absorption and drainage. The proposed
walkways would be constructed of decomposed granite, further allowing water
filtration onsite.
(g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The project meets
this finding in that it will utilize the following:
a. The proposed project would protect neighbor’s privacy by proper site
planning and appropriate landscaping.
b. Use of a limited number of materials and colors on a single elevation.
c. Increase setbacks for living areas that require more privacy.
d. The architectural style is not restricted by the existing pattern, but is
compatible.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Community Development Department completed
an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-
21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and
any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from December
24, 2012 – January 22, 2013. All Interested Parties that desired to comment on the MND
were given the opportunity to submit comments on the adequacy of the MND. The minor
nature of the changes on the façade would not necessitate a revision to the approved MND.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 16-15 approving the project subject to conditions of approval
included in Attachment 1.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval for Modifications – 15240 Madrone Hill Road
2. Approved Resolution of Approval – 15240 Madrone Hill Road
3. Applicant’s Letter of Justification
13
Report to the Planning Commission
15240 Madrone Hill-file #MOD16-0006
June 8, 2016
Page | 5
4. Approved Plans – 15240 Madrone Hill Road
5. As-Built Plans – 15240 Madrone Hill Road
14
RESOLUTION NO. 16-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR A MODIFICATION OF A DESIGN REVIEW MOD16-0006, LOCATED AT
15240 MADRONE HILL ROAD (517-22-060)
WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Collet & David Kress, to modify a
previously approved Planning Commission Design Review (PDR12-0019) that allowed for the
demolition of an existing two-story residence, caretaker’s house, garage and greenhouse in order to
build a new 7,793 sq. ft. two-story residence and 43 sq. ft. pool house bathroom. The proposed
project included a 3,200 sq. ft. basement and a secondary dwelling unit within the main residence.
The applicant is seeking to make changes to the approved building elevations. Planning
Commission approval is required because the previous Design Review application was approved by
the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other
interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and
Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14
California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The
intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a
20-day public review period from December 24, 2012 – January 11, 2013. All Interested Parties
were allowed to comment on the MND and were given the opportunity to submit written and oral
comments on the adequacy of the MND. The minor nature of the changes on the façade would not
necessitate a revision to the approved MND.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 1.1 in that
the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached residences and
LU 1.2 to continue to review all residential development proposals to ensure consistency with Land
Use Element goals and Policies.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and
improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project avoids unreasonable
interference with views and privacy; preserves the natural landscape, native and heritage trees;
minimizes the perception of excessive bulk and is of compatible bulk and height; uses current
grading and erosion control methods; and follows appropriate design policies and techniques.
15
Resolution No. 16-15
Section 6: The findings required for issuance of a Use Permit are set forth below. The
applicant’s project has met the burden of proof to support the findings required for approval of a
Design Review under Article 15-45.080 of the City Code, as set forth below:
FINDING #1: The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The
project with the modifications has met this finding because the proposed residence would be located
within the area of a previous house with the majority of heavy, mature tree growth to remain intact.
The proposed location is over 300 feet from the nearest neighboring property and would not
substantially interfere with views or privacy.
FINDING #2: The project preserves the natural landscape. This project meets this finding
because the structure with the modifications is sited on the existing grade pad, where vegetation
does not exist. The majority of existing natural landscape will remain.
FINDING #3: The project preserves native and heritage trees. The modification will not affect
the protected 26 native trees on the site.
FINDING #4: The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The project with
modifications meets this finding by utilizing techniques set forth in the Residential Design
Handbook on how to minimize bulk. This includes following the contours with horizontal elements,
softening the elevations by using different materials, varying the heights with roof elements,
providing compatibility in terms of proportion, mass and height of the existing semi-rural
neighborhood, and the punctuation of large wall expanses with windows, porches, and terraces.
Additionally, the main front elevation with the significant revisions cannot be seen from nearby
adjacent properties.
FINDING #5: The project is of compatible bulk and height. The overall design of the residence
with modifications is still compatible in bulk and height of neighboring properties within the
immediate environment, and that the proposed modification are still consistent with the original
findings to grant the original height exception. The existing neighborhood scale includes large lots
with stately, grand residences. Nearby structures include Villa Montalvo. The proposed project is
compatible the residence within the center of the lot and substantially setback from all other
residences or structures within the area.
FINDING #6: The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The project
required minimal site grading to construct, which did not substantially impact erosion. The existing
driveway will remains while the majority of new hardscape surfaces, such as the circular driveway
would be constructed out of permeable pavers designed to allow subtle water absorption and
drainage. The proposed walkways would be constructed of decomposed granite, further allowing
water filtration onsite.
FINDING #7: The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The project
meets this finding in that it will utilize the following:
1. The proposed project would protect neighbor’s privacy by proper site planning and
appropriate landscaping.
2. Use of a limited number of materials and colors on a single elevation.
3. Increase setbacks for living areas that require more privacy.
16
Resolution No. 16-15
4. The architectural style is not restricted by the existing pattern, but is compatible.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves MOD16-0006
located at 15240 Madrone Hill, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto
as Exhibit 1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 8th day of
June 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Tina Walia
Vice Chair, Planning Commission
17
Resolution No. 16-15
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MOD16-0006
15240 MADRONE HILL ROAD (517-22-060)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for
this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval
documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by
the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the
Community Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid
in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on
the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or
made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner
relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by
the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney. 18
Resolution No. 16-15
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated July 15, 2013, titled
“As-Built”, sheet A4.1 and A4.2 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the
Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a
clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in
accordance with Condition No. 4, above.
7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the
following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6
above;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private
vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on
the site;
c. City Arborist Reports dated November 16, 2012 onto separate construction plan pages;
d. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions dated December 17, 2012 onto separate plan pages;
e. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
f. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public
right-of-way.
9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-
75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
10. Front yard Landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or
a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department. 150% of the estimated cost of
the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
11. Private Road Condition. The applicant will be required to provide the City a videotape record
of existing conditions of the access road prior to zone clearance. The applicant will be required
to repair the access road to the existing condition prior to planning final and building occupancy.
ARBORIST
12. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Report. All requirements in the City
Arborist Report dated November 16, 2012, are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and
shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans.
19
Resolution No. 16-15
GEOLOGIST
13. Compliance with Geotechnical Clearance Conditions Memorandum. All requirements in
the Geotechnical Clearance memorandum dated December 17, 2012, and all other conditions, as
specified by the City Geologist are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be
implemented as part of the Approved Plans.
PUBLIC WORKS
14. Record of LLA. Prior to Building Permit issuance, any and all required documentation for the
Lot Line Adjustment for 15240 Madrone Hill Road must be recorded with the Santa Clara
County Recorder’s office.
ENVIRONMENTAL
15. Air Quality Mitigation. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures at
the project sites:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be
prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
• All roadways to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid
as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
16. Hazard Mitigation. The project plans shall incorporate the following wildfire protection
measures:
• Dead limbs shall be removed from all existing and planted trees within the project setback
line.
• Tree limbs shall be pruned to within 10 feet of chimneys and shall not touch any portion of
the structure.
• A vertical separation of at least three times the height of the lower fuel layer (shrub) shall be
maintained within the project setback line.
• An irrigation system shall be installed around all vegetation planted within the project
setback line. 20
Resolution No. 16-15
• The roofs/roof assemblies, gutters, vents, desks, exterior walls, and exterior windows of the
residence shall be resistant to ignition.
• All chimney outlets shall be covered with a non-flammable mesh screen of ½-inch or
smaller mesh.
• If balconies or above-ground decks are included in the project design, the undersides of
these features shall be enclosed with fire-resistant materials.
• Sprinkler systems shall be installed in the residence.
17. Stormwater Mitigation. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following measures:
• The project sponsor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction of the
proposed project. It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Water Board), but it must be maintained on-site and made available
to Water Board or City staff upon request. The SWPPP shall include specific and detailed
Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At
a minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials,
equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and adhesives)
with storm water. Ingress and egress from construction sites shall be carefully controlled to
minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down facilities shall be
designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions. The SWPPP
shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor,
and shall include both dry and wet weather inspections.
18. Noise Mitigation. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures:
• In accordance with Article 7-30.060(a) of the City Code, construction activities (including
earthmoving and grading) within the project site shall be conducted only between the hours
of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not occur on Sundays or weekend holidays.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.
• All stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors, shall be located as far as
practical from residences in the vicinity of the project site.
• Whenever feasible, quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, shall be
utilized.
19. Second Dwelling Unit – Deed Restricted. The owner shall restrict the rental of the second unit
to only households that qualify as lower, very-low, or extremely-low income households as
those terms are defined in the move recent Santa Clara County Housing and Urban
Development Program Income Limits or, in the event that the most recent such report is more
than five years old, in accordance with the definitions set forth in Health and Safety Code
sections 50079.5,50105, and 50106 as those sections exist as of the effective date of this
restriction. “Rental” means any agreement whereby the occupant(s) of the second unit make
any payment in consideration of said occupancy. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date:June 8, 2016
Application:Requested Time Extension (EXT 16-001) of previous
Planning Commission Design Review(PDR) and
Conditional Use Permit(CUP) approvals
PDR14-0003 / CUP14-0001
Location / APN:14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way
503-24-020 and 503-24-027
Owner / Applicant:Mitchell Cutler
Staff Planner:Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director
14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way
SUMMARY 35
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Commercial Retail (CR)
Commercial Historic 1 (CH1)
Existing Uses
Authorized Uses
14521 Big Basin Wy: vacant bldg. (Grover House)
Reconstructed mixed-use building
w/ restaurant/wine bar and 1 apt.
14523 Big Basin Wy: restaurant (Blue Rock Shoot)
Reconstructed mixed-use building
w/ restaurant, office, and 2 apts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Planning Commission previously approved a Design Review and Conditional Use
Permit for a mixed-use development project at this location on September 24, 2016. A copy
of the previous Planning Commission staff report is provided as Attachment 2 to this report
and a copy of the approved development plans is provided as Attachment 4.
On May 4, 2016, the applicant requested a three year extension for the previously approved
project as permitted by Zoning Code Section 15-46.050 (c) [Design Review: Multi-Family
Dwellings and Commercial Structures]:
“Design review approvals approved in conjunction with an approved tentative
subdivision map or approved use permit, or both, may be extended for a period or
period of time not exceeding thirty-six months.”
A copy of the applicant’s time extension request is provided as Attachment 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 16-016 approving the requested time extension for the project
subject to conditions of approval.
36
DISCUSSION:
The Zoning Ordinance requires that the requested time extension be reviewed in the same
manner (via a public hearing) as the previous Conditional Use Permit [Section 15-55-
090(b)].
The draft Resolution of Extension prepared for this time extension request (Attachment
1) is consistent with the original project approval resolution but staff is also
recommending two additional Conditions of Approval to better reflect current best
practices:
·Construction Management Plan Requirement. Prior to Building Permit issuance
the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction
Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following:
o Proposed construction worker parking area.
o Proposed site security and fencing.
o Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code.
o Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging and parking areas.
o Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street
closures, required hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, traffic
control/directional signs, traffic control personnel, business and property
owner notifications, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving
or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. Street
closure or traffic disruption shall be prohibited during any City approved
Special Events. All potential street closures or traffic disruptions shall be
closely coordinated with City staff and the Sheriff’s Department after an
extensive outreach effort to the Chamber of Commerce and Village
Businesses.
o Proposed construction material staging/storage areas.
o Pedestrian safety plan for sidewalk frontage along Big Basin Way and rear
parking lot area. Such plan shall include proposed scaffolding and
screening.
o Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work
hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both
homeowner and contractor.
·Historic Photo Documentation Survey (Grover House). Prior to Building
Permit issuance the applicant shall cooperate with City staff’s preparation of an
Historic Photo Documentation Survey of the Grover House interior and exteriors.
The Photo Documentation Survey will assist the applicant in maintain consistency
with the existing historic elements and detailing of the Grover House should any
portions of the structure be damage or need replacing during construction.
ATTACHMENTS:
3
37
1.Resolution of Extension – 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way
2.Previous Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 24, 2014.
3.E-mail correspondence from Applicant, dated May 4, 2016.
4.Reduced Plans from Previous Planning Commission Staff Report
38
RESOLUTION NO. 16016
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
EXTENDING FOR A THIRTYSIX MONTH PERIOD THE ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVALS FOR DESIGN REVIEW (PDR140003)
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP140001) FOR A MIXEDUSE PROJECT
LOCATED AT 14521 AND 14523 BIG BASIN WAY (APN 503247020,027)
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2014 an application was submitted by Scott Design
Associates and Mitchell and Tracey Cutler requesting approval for an Initial Study / Negative
Declaration, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for two commercial lots located at
14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. The project includes the remodel of an existing structure
(14521 Big Basin Way) and restaurant (14523 Big Basin Way). 14521 Big Basin Way will be
rehabilitated and remodeled for a wine bar / restaurant use. One residential apartment will be
attached and constructed at the rear of the building. 14523 Big Basin Way will be remodeled to
include an office space, restaurant, and two apartment units. An additional story will be
constructed on top of 14523 Big Basin Way in order to accommodate one of the apartment units.
The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and
Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 2100021177), CEQA
Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 1500015387), and any other applicable
requirements. The intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and
circulated for a 20day public review period from September 3, 2014 – September 23, 2014. All
Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written
and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public
Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on September 24, 2014.; and
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commission approved the project after
holding a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence
presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2016, the applicant submitted a request for a three (3) year extension of
the time period for the approved project; and
WHEREAS, the Saratoga Zoning Code allows for up to a 36month time extension to be
granted for projects with both Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held another duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the
applicant, and other interested parties and approved the project, as demonstrated; and
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
39
Resolution No. 16016
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2:The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Goals LU 2 in that the
City shall encourage the economic viability of Saratoga’s existing commercial and office areas
and their accessibility by residents, taking into account the impact on surrounding residential
areas.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code regarding Design Review
findings in that the project will incorporate architectural features and landscaping that are
harmonious to the existing commercial neighborhood, in that the landscaping shall integrate
waterconserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible, in that
the project will incorporate colors of wall and roofing materials to blend with the natural
landscape and be nonreflective, and that the proposed development shall be compatible in terms
of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code regarding Conditional Use
Permit findings in that the project location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, the proposed
location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or
maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity, the proposed conditional use will comply with each
of the applicable provisions of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code, and that the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate
neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby reaffirms the previously
adopted Negative Declaration and approves a thirtysix month time extension for applications
PDR140003 and CUP140001, for the project located at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way,
subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 8 th day of
June 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Tina Walia 40
Resolution No. 16016
ViceChair, Planning Commission
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR140003 AND CUP140001
14521 AND 14523 BIG BASIN WAY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A.GENERAL
1.All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading
for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval
documenting all applicable permanent or other termspecified conditions has been recorded
by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the
Community Development Director.
2.If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect
until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3.The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting
this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in
connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing
fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is
mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning
Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing
fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is
maintained).
4.The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County,
City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
5.As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and
volunteers harmless from and against:41
Resolution No. 16016
a.any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any
action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken,
done or made prior to said action; and
b.any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on
their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director,
Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this
required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior
approval as to form and content by the City Attorney.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6.Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated September 15, 2014
denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in
writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition No. 4,
above.
7.Expiration of Approval. The approvals for this project shall expire 36months after the date
of the Planning Commission’s action (September 8, 2019) unless the use is commenced, a
building permit is issued, and construction is commenced and prosecuted diligently toward
completion as required by Saratoga Zoning Code Section 1555.090.
8.Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be
submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by
the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum
include the following:
a.Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit
“A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition
No. 6 above;
b.A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private
vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinanceprotected tree
on the site;
c.City Arborist Reports dated April 24, 2014, and all other future updated reports onto a
separate construction plan page;
d.This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
e.All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
9.Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or
public rightofway.
42
Resolution No. 16016
10.Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section
1675.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
11.Hours of Operation. Any proposed restaurant located at 14521 Big Basin Way shall be
allowed to operate no earlier than 6:00 A.M. and no later than 12:00 A.M.
12.Noise Levels. All noise levels will comply with Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 7
30.040 regarding noise standards and SMC Section 730.060 regarding exceptions to special
activities.
13.Restaurant Uses. The restaurant uses located at 14521 Big Basin Way shall at all times
operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having
jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety,
and water quality issues.
14.Business Licenses. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a Business License
from the City of Saratoga prior to issuance of building permit(s) for tenant improvement(s).
15.Construction Parking. All construction employees of the approved use must utilize the
southwest corner of Parking District #1 or another public parking structure in order to meet
their parking needs. Parking in parking spaces adjacent to the project is not allowed by
construction employees.
16.Construction Management Plan Requirement. Prior to Building Permit issuance the
applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management
Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following:
o Proposed construction worker parking area.
o Proposed site security and fencing.
o Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code.
o Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging and parking areas.
o Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closures,
required hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, traffic control/directional
signs, traffic control personnel, business and property owner notifications, etc. To
the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be
scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. Street closure or traffic disruption shall
be prohibited during any City approved Special Events. All potential street
closures or traffic disruptions shall be closely coordinated with City staff and the
Sheriff’s Department after an extensive outreach effort to the Chamber of
Commerce and Village Businesses.
o Proposed construction material staging/storage areas.
o Pedestrian safety plan for sidewalk frontage along Big Basin Way and rear
parking lot area. Such plan shall include proposed scaffolding and screening.
o Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours,
name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and
contractor.
43
Resolution No. 16016
17.Historic Photo Documentation Survey (Grover House). Prior to Building Permit issuance
the applicant shall cooperate with City staff’s preparation of an Historic Photo
Documentation Survey of the Grover House interior and exteriors. The Photo
Documentation Survey will assist the applicant in maintain consistency with the existing
historic elements and detailing of the Grover House should any portions of the structure be
damage or need replacing during construction.
PUBLIC WORKS
18.Applicant (owner) shall replace concrete sidewalk along Big Basin Way frontage of both
properties. An encroachment permit for any and all improvements in the City rightofway or
City easement shall be obtained prior to commencement of the work in the rightofway. The
extent of the sidewalk replacement can be adjusted by the City Engineer during the
Encroachment Permit issuance.
19.Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for any and all
improvements in the Big Basin Way prior to commencement of the work in the roadway.
20.The owner/applicant shall provide the Director of Public Works with a plan describing how
owner/applicant will implement all BMPs and other measures required to reduce the
stormwater runoff impacts of the project, as described in and required by the City's NPDES
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R220090074. The measures included in this
plan shall include, but are not limited to, construction site control measures, plans for storm
drain stenciling, and landscaping measures. This plan must be approved by the Director of
Public Works. Prior to final map approval, the owner/applicant shall implement the plan,
including paying City any fees for reviewing the plan, inspection and reporting.
D.CITY GEOLOGIST
19.The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations
have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
20.The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily by
limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements,
and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and
concrete. The results of these inspections and the asbuilt conditions of the project shall be
44
Resolution No. 16016
described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for
review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval.
21.The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
22.The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from
any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope
failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
45
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: September 24, 014
Application: PDR14-0003 / CUP14-0001
Location / APN: 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way /
503-24-020,027
Owner / Applicant: Cutler / Scott Design Associates
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
14521/14523 Big Basin Way
46
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project includes a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for two commercial lots
located at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. The project includes the remodel of an existing
structure (14521 Big Basin Way – Grover House) and restaurant (14523 Big Basin Way –
Blue Rock Shoot). The Grover House would be rehabilitated and remodeled for a wine bar /
restaurant use and one residential apartment would be attached and constructed at the rear of
the building. The Blue Rock Shoot would be remodeled to include an office space,
restaurant, and two apartment units. An additional story would be constructed on top of
14523 Big Basin to accommodate one of the apartment units
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any expansion over
five hundred square feet to an existing main structure in an R-M, P-A, or C district – City
Code Section 15-46.020(a)(2)
Conditional Use Permit Approval by the Planning Commission is required for a Mixed-Use
development – City Code Section 15-19.050(b)(4)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 14-045 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
PROJECT DATA:
Net Site Area: 1,691 sq. ft.
14521 Big Basin Way
Grover House
Proposed Allowable / Required
Structure Coverage
Building Footprint 1,333 sq. ft. (79%) 1,352 sq. ft. (80%)
Setbacks
Front (South) 8’ 0’
Rear (North) 0’ 0’
Left Side (West) 0’ 0’
Right Side (East) 0’ 0’
Heights
Lowest Elevation Point 475.75’
Highest Elevation Point 498.75’
Average Elevation Point 487.25’
Proposed Topmost Point 511.44’(24’2”) 522.25’ (35’)
2
47
Site Area: 2,757 sq. ft.
14523 Big Basin Way
Blue Rock Shoot
Proposed Allowable / Required
Structure Coverage
Building Footprint 2,105 sq. ft. (79%) 1,352 sq. ft. (80%)
Setbacks
Front (South) 0’ 0’
Rear (North) 0’ 0’
Left Side (West) 1.5’ 0’
Right Side (East) 4’ 0’
Heights
Lowest Elevation Point 476.30’
Highest Elevation Point 499.50’
Average Elevation Point 487.90’
Proposed Topmost Point 522.90’ 522.90’ (35’)
Per the table above, the proposed project conforms to the building coverage, setback, and
height requirements for the CH-1 zoning district, as required per the Mixed-Use
Development standards.
SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Existing Site Description
The Grover House is located at 14521 Big Basin Way and is listed on the City’s Heritage
Resource Inventory. The Grover House is a small two-story Pioneer Cottage with a
gabled-roof. The upper floor is located at street level of Big Basin Way. The lower floor
is located at the rear, following the steep slope of the property and facing the rear public
parking lot.
The Blue Rock Shoot is located at 14523 Big Basin Way. The building is a two-story
hipped roof structure identified by its blue green colored exterior and open rural porch.
Similar to the Grover House, the upper floor is located at the street level of Big Basin
Way and the lower floor is located at the rear, following the existing down slope to the
public parking lot.
Exterior Materials
The colors for the Grover House and Blue Rock Shoot include off-white “White Dove”
horizontal siding and light grey “Silver Lake” trim. The standing seam metal roof would be
a dark earth tone color. Instead of replacing the existing siding for the Grover House, the
material will be removed, resurfaced, and restored. Damaged siding will be replaced. Since
the location is within the Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI) area, the applicant has proposed to
add cement to the existing wood siding in order to meet Fire Rating Requirements per the
Building Code. Replacement siding will be non-combustible.
3
48
To differentiate the structures from one another, the Grover House includes architectural
features such as a zinc metal roof overhang, entry door to match the Pioneer Cottage period
and top vent while Blue Rock Shoot includes shutter details, thick front patio columns, and
double-hung windows.
The rear of the buildings (facing the City owned parking lot) will be a combination of
horizontal siding and masonry veneer stone. A color and material board will be available at
the site visit and public hearing.
Detail Colors and Materials
Building Ext. Off-white ‘White Dove’ horizontal siding
Windows Gray “Silver Lake’ Trim
Veneer Gray/Brown Masonry Stone
Roofing Dark Gray Metal, Standing Seam Roof
Building Uses
The following is a summary of the project starting with the level closest to the parking lot in
the rear. The levels are as follows:
• Parking Level
• Lower Level
• Street Level
• Second Floor Level
Parking Level
The first story of a two-story apartment would be constructed from the parking level for
14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House). The front door of the apartment would be accessed
via the outdoor stairway located in between Grover House and 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue
Rock Shoot). A 569 sq. ft. commercial office would be located at the parking level for Blue
Rock Shoot. The front door of the office space would face the parking lot.
Both spaces are considered basement level per City Code and therefore are not considered
stories. This would allow the applicant to construct up to three floors above the proposed
apartment and office space, as long as they remain under the 35 foot height limit. The
applicant has proposed to build a three story at the Blue Rock location to not disrupt the
architectural integrity of the Grover House.
Lower Level
The second story of the two-story apartment and a storage area for the proposed wine bar /
restaurant would be constructed at the lower level for Grover House. Only the storage area
would be accessible from the outside. The first story of an additional two-story apartment
and office/storage space for the existing restaurant would be constructed at the lower level
of Blue Rock Shoot. Both residential spaces would have open space in the form of a deck
area, facing the parking lot and Wildwood Park.
4
49
Street Level
An 871 sq. ft. wine bar / restaurant and 465 sq. ft. open patio would be constructed at the
street level for Grover House. The outdoor patio would act as a roof for the residential
apartment below it. The second story of the second two-story apartment and a 921 sq. ft.
restaurant space would be located at street level for Blue Rock. The second story would
have additional open space in the form of an additional deck facing the parking lot and
Wildwood Park.
Second Story Level
No additional uses or spaces are proposed above Grover House. A 1,694 sq. ft., single-story
apartment has been proposed for the second story level above Blue Rock Shoot.
Trees
One tree (Tree of Heaven) is within the building footprint of the Grover House and has been
approved for removal by the City Arborist. The project was modified to not affect the 48"
Redwood located on the eastern property. The arborist report can be found per Attachment
2.
Parking
The project does not include the creation of any off-street parking. Per City Code Section
15-35.020(k), no off-street parking is required of any new, altered, or enlarged site or
structure in any C-H district until such time as a total of forty-one thousand eight hundred
fifty square feet of gross floor area is constructed. This provision has been utilized for
previous projects in the Village thereby reducing the amount of remaining gross floor to
18,452 sq. ft.
The project proposes an additional 990 sq. ft. for Grover House and 3,482 sq. ft. for Blue
Rock Shoot, making it a total of 4,472 sq. ft. of new gross floor area for the CH-1 district.
That amount will be deducted from the allotted amount established by City Code.
Therefore, the project meets the off-street parking requirements of the City.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Heritage Preservation Commission
The alterations to the Grover House were reviewed by the Heritage Preservation
Commission (HPC) at their August 12, 2014 meeting. The HPC recommended Planning
Commission approve the project. The HPC memo is included as Attachment 3.
Village Design Guidelines
The project is consistent with the Village Design Guidelines in regards to colors, materials
and textures. The applicant has proposed to create a trash enclosure for the mixed-use
project and adjacent businesses within the City owned parking lot, which is consistent with
Village Design Guideline policy. The area of the enclosure would not impact any existing
parking. Typically, the City would be responsible for installing trash enclosures in the
Village parking district, but the applicant has agreed to install the enclosure. A page of the
5
50
Village Design Guidelines has been includes as Attachment 4 to illustrate the policy
regarding such enclosures.
Energy Efficiency
Per City Code Section 16-47, all new mixed-use buildings are required to incorporate
energy efficient or “green” measures into their design. The energy efficient features
included in this project include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan, bicycle parking, and
documentation demonstrating the building design will be fifteen percent more energy
efficient than required by Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations using a
State of California adopted performance method, as approved by the State Energy
Commission.
Neighbor Correspondence
Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property (Attachment 5). The public hearing notice and description of the project was
published in the Saratoga News. Staff has received one written comment which is included
as Attachment 5. The applicant’s response letter is included as Attachment 6.
Staff recommends adding the following condition to the resolution: “All construction
employees of the approved use must utilize the southwest corner of Parking District #1 or
another public parking structure in order to meet their parking needs. Parking in parking
spaces adjacent to the project is not allowed by construction employees.”
Mixed-Use Development Standards
The project is considered mixed-use. All mixed-used developments must meet the
following standards contained in Article 15-58 of the City Code.
a) The proposed density does not exceed 20 dwelling units per net acre.
b) Only commercial uses would be located on the ground floor abutting a street. Dwelling
units would be located in all other portions of the structure or site.
c) The additional findings can be made for projects where the residential floor area exceeds
50% of the total floor area of the project. These additional findings can be found within
the Design Review Findings below.
d) The project meets the parking requirement established by City Code.
e) If fencing is proposed, it will comply with the maximum height standards.
f) Each residential dwelling unit has a private, usable outdoor space (balcony and patio).
g) The maximum height of a mixed-use structure shall be as it is stated in the underlying
zoning district (35’)
h) The overall site coverage is within the coverage limits of the applicable zoning district
(80% building coverage).
i) The project does not abut a single-family residential district, therefore a sound wall is
not required.
j) The residential component of the mixed-use project will be rental.
k) The project is multi-story and has been reviewed to ensure adequate privacy is protected
of nearby properties.
6
51
l) The project applicant may be required to pay a park-in-lieu fee, established pursuant
to Section 14-25.080 of the City Code, if applicable.
The project applicant has met all of the above requirements for approval of a mixed-use
development.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section 15-46.040 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural
features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include
height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the proposed project includes two structures with
identical colors and materials, such as horizontal siding, matching exterior colors
and trim, and masonry features located on the back side. These architectural features
allow the project to be harmonious with one another and the buildings within the
Commercial Historic district.
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall
have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be
harmonious in appearance. The proposal does not include any signage. Future
signage will be required to meet the City sign code requirements and the Village
Design Guidelines. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be
preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation
systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it
shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows
or regularly spaced. This finding can be made because the proposal does not
propose any landscaping. The project was reconfigured to retain an existing
Redwood on an adjacent property, which meets the finding to accommodate existing
trees and vegetation to the maximum extent feasible.
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be
nonreflective. The wall colors and roofing materials would blend with the natural
landscape because the proposed color tones are off-white and gray, which are within
a similar color spectrum as nearby commercial and residential properties along Big
Basin Way. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials
such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical
equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. This
finding can be made because the proposed roof will be standing seam metal for
Grover House and Blue Rock Shoot. The proposed roof is non-reflective and is gray
7
52
in color. No mechanical equipment is proposed to be located on Grover House
while the mechanical equipment on the roof for Blue Rock Shoot will be hidden by
the metal roof screen and horizontal siding and corbel details of the false front roof
structure.
(f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design
with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project would be
compatible with other developments within the Village, such as the Sam Cloud
Barn. The nearby area is comprised of multiple story commercial and residential
structures with similar heights. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission must make the following findings because the
residential floor area exceeds 50 percent of the total floor area of all buildings onsite. The
findings are as follows:
(1) That the proposed location of the mixed-use is in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The
proposed location is within a commercial district that allows mixed-use development as a
conditionally permitted use. Furthermore, mixed-use residential development in
commercial zoning districts is consistent with implementation of the General Plan and
Housing Element. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(2) That the proposed location of the mixed-use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The
project includes professional office, restaurant and residential dwelling units within a
commercial zoned district. The project is similar to mixed-use projects within the
immediate area. The operation and maintenance of either use would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety and welfare of the properties in the vicinity in that both uses are
already established in existing commercial districts.
(3) That the proposed mixed-use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this Chapter. This finding can be made because appropriate conditions have been placed
on the proposed conditional use to ensure compliance to City Code requirements. This
finding can be made in the affirmative.
(4) That the proposed mixed-use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in
the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or
the occupants thereof. This finding can be made because the City currently has multiple
commercial/residential developments within the immediate neighborhood and the
Village.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit Approval pursuant to City
Code Section 15-55.070 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
8
53
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located. This finding can be met because the proposed uses of restaurant and mixed-
use residential are both already existing within the Commercial-Historic (CH-1)
zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity. This finding can be met because the project has been reviewed and
conditioned by the required agencies. The proposed development would not be
detrimental to public safety, as it will comply with all applicable local and state
regulations. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this Chapter. This finding can be made because appropriate
conditions have been placed on the proposed conditional use permit to ensure
compliance to City Code requirements. Any intensification of the proposed
conditional use would require an amended Conditional Use Permit application.
(d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated
uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding
properties or the occupants thereof. This finding can be made because the project
has been analyzed for adverse effects and it has been determined that the project can
provide sufficient off-street parking and will not result in unreasonable parking
impacts, or any additional adverse effects on an existing or anticipated use.
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS
When multi-family dwellings are proposed to be located upon a site within any commercial
zoning district, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development
standards set forth in Article 15-17 of the City Code. The density of development shall be as
determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that:
(1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site. This finding can be made
because the project has met all zoning requirements associated with the site, such as
setbacks, building height, site coverage, and required off-street parking. This finding can
be made in the affirmative.
(2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on
adjacent properties. This finding can be made because the project is consistent with
structures and the development of adjacent properties. This finding can be made in the
affirmative.
9
54
(3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site. This finding
can be made because the project, as proposed, would dedicate an open air deck or patio to
each dwelling unit. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the
occupants of adjacent properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative as the
project, as designed, includes outdoor rear balconies for all residential units proposed.
These open areas would allow the residents of the site sufficient access to light and air.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Community Development Department
completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code
sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections
15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Negative
Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from
September 3, 2014 – September 23, 2014. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the
MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of
the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the Planning
Commission on September 24, 2014. Please see Attachment 7.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval – 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way
2. Arborist Report, dated April 24, 2014
3. HPC memo, dated August 12, 2014
4. Village Design Guidelines, pg. 19
5. Neighbor Comments
6. Rebuttal to Neighbor comments
7. Negative Declaration
8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”
10
55
RESOLUTION NO. 14-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW (PDR14-
0003) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP14-0001) FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT
LOCATED AT 14521 AND 14523 BIG BASIN WAY (APN 503-247-020,027)
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2014 an application was submitted by Scott Design
Associates and Mitchell and Tracey Cutler requesting approval for an Initial Study / Negative
Declaration, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for two commercial lots located at 14521
and 14523 Big Basin Way. The project includes the remodel of an existing structure (14521 Big
Basin Way) and restaurant (14523 Big Basin Way). 14521 Big Basin WAy will be rehabilitated
and remodeled for a wine bar / restaurant use. One residential apartment will be attached and
constructed at the rear of the building. 14523 Big Basin Way will be remodeled to include an office
space, restaurant, and two apartment units. An additional story will be constructed on top of 14523
Big Basin Way in order to accommodate one of the apartment units. The foregoing work is
described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant,
and other interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and
Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14
California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The
intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day
public review period from September 3, 2014 – September 23, 2014. All Interested Parties desiring
to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the
adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the
Planning Commission on September 24, 2014.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Goals LU 2 in that the
City shall encourage the economic viability of Saratoga’s existing commercial and office areas and
their accessibility by residents, taking into account the impact on surrounding residential areas.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code regarding Design Review
findings in that the project will incorporate architectural features and landscaping that are
harmonious to the existing commercial neighborhood, in that the landscaping shall integrate water-
conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible, in that the
project will incorporate colors of wall and roofing materials to blend with the natural landscape and
56
Resolution No. 14-045
be non-reflective, and that the proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk
and design with other structures in the immediate area.
Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code regarding Conditional Use
Permit findings in that the project location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of
the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, the proposed
location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity, the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code, and that the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely
affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby adopts the Negative
Declaration and approves applications PDR14-0003 and CUP14-0001, for the project located at
14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit
1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 24th day of
September 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
57
Resolution No. 14-045
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR14-0003 AND CUP14-0001
14521 AND 14523 BIG BASIN WAY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for
this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval
documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by
the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the
Community Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid
in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on
the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or
made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner
relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by
the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required 58
Resolution No. 14-045
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated September 15, 2014
denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in
writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition No. 4, above.
7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the
following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6
above;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private
vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on
the site;
c. City Arborist Reports dated April 24, 2014, and all other future updated reports onto a
separate construction plan page;
d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
e. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public
right-of-way.
9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-
75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
10. Hours of Operation. Any proposed restaurant located at 14521 Big Basin Way shall be
allowed to operate no earlier than 6:00 A.M. and no later than 12:00 A.M.
11. Noise Levels. All noise levels will comply with Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 7-
30.040 regarding noise standards and SMC Section 7-30.060 regarding exceptions to special
activities.
12. Restaurant Uses. The restaurant uses located at 14521 Big Basin Way shall at all times operate
in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional
authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water
quality issues.
59
Resolution No. 14-045
13. Business Licenses. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a Business License
from the City of Saratoga prior to issuance of building permit(s) for tenant improvement(s).
14. Construction Parking. All construction employees of the approved use must utilize the
southwest corner of Parking District #1 or another public parking structure in order to meet their
parking needs. Parking in parking spaces adjacent to the project is not allowed by construction
employees.
PUBLIC WORKS
15. Applicant (owner) shall replace concrete sidewalk along Big Basin Way frontage of both
properties. An encroachment permit for any and all improvements in the City right-of-way or
City easement shall be obtained prior to commencement of the work in the right-of-way. The
extent of the sidewalk replacement can be adjusted by the City Engineer during the
Encroachment Permit issuance.
16. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for any and all
improvements in the Big Basin Way prior to commencement of the work in the roadway.
17. The owner/applicant shall provide the Director of Public Works with a plan describing how
owner/applicant will implement all BMPs and other measures required to reduce the stormwater
runoff impacts of the project, as described in and required by the City's NPDES Municipal
Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2009-0074. The measures included in this plan shall
include, but are not limited to, construction site control measures, plans for storm drain
stenciling, and landscaping measures. This plan must be approved by the Director of Public
Works. Prior to final map approval, the owner/applicant shall implement the plan, including
paying City any fees for reviewing the plan, inspection and reporting.
D. CITY GEOLOGIST
19. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been
properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical
consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits.
20. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects
of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily by limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations
for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of
these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical
consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of
occupancy) project approval.
60
Resolution No. 14-045
21. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
22. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from
any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure
or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
61
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application No.: ARB14-0008
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Mitchell Cutler
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 503-24-020
& 503-24-027
Email: Mitchell.Cutler@comcast.net
Report History:
Report #1
Date:
Plans received February 26, 2014
Report completed March 27, 2014
Report #2 – This report replaces report #1 Revised plans received April 16, 2014
and April 21, 2014
Report completed April 24, 2014
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to add on to the Blue Rock Shoot and Grover
House and remodel both buildings.
One tree of heaven is in the building envelope and requires removal to construct the project.
STATUS: Approved to proceed by City Arborist, with conditions
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree bond – Required - $31,540
For trees numbered 1, 3 and 4 on adjacent properties.
Tree fencing – Required – See attached map.
Tree removals – Permitted w/ building permit – Tree 2 meets criteria for
removal and replacement.
Page 1 of 3
62
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way
Replacement trees –
Required –
Required replacement value of $2,250, before final
inspection.
Written permission
from neighbor –
Required –
• Approval to prune trees 1 and 3 is needed prior to
issuance of building permits.
• If tree protection fencing for trees 1 and 3 will be
installed on adjacent property rather than at property
line.
FINDINGS:
Tree Removals
Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made
and specific tree removal criteria met. One tree of heaven is in conflict with the project, and
meets the City’s criteria allowing it to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once
building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal
criteria for reference.
Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met
Tree Number Criteria met Criteria not met
2 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8
This paragraph provides more detailed findings permitting the removal of tree 2. It is a tree
of heaven in fair condition in the proposed building envelope (criterion 1). Removal of this
tree will not significantly affect privacy, shade, aesthetics, or erosion control (criterion 4).
There is no alternative to removing this tree that allows constructing the addition (criterion
6). Removal of this tree and replacing it with new trees following construction is consistent
with the Tree Regulations (City Code 15-50.080, criterion 7). Removal of this tree will
provide the property owner with economic and other enjoyment of the property (criterion
9).
Replacement Trees
The total appraised value of tree 2 is $2,250. New trees equal to this appraised value will be
required as a condition of the project. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the
property. There is very little room for new trees, and it is acceptable to pay an in lieu fee
rather than plant new trees. It is also acceptable to plant new trees on another property
owned by the applicant as part of this project. Replacement values for new trees are listed
below.
Replacement Tree Values:
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Page 2 of 3
63
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way
New Construction
Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the
requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-
50.120 of the City Code.
Redwood – tree 1
The project proposes to remove a trash enclosure and concrete slab that are at the property
line, six feet from the trunk of a very large redwood (tree 1) on the adjacent property, and
build a new two story apartment in the same location. A pier and above-grade beam
foundation will be employed to protect the roots of the redwood. Holes for piers will be dug
by hand under the supervision of a Project Arborist to determine their location. Some
branches of the redwood will require removal to clear the proposed building envelope.
Written approval from the tree’s owner will be needed.
Tree of heaven – tree 3
Tree number 3 grows on the adjacent property as well, and a large portion of its canopy
extends over the property for the Grover House. Some of the canopy extends into the
proposed building envelope. The applicant has expressed a desire to retain this tree and
prune it to clear the proposed work area.
Redwood – tree 4
This tree grows adjacent to the proposed trash enclosure on adjacent property. It butts up
against a retaining wall and will be about ten feet from the new structure. This is
acceptable, and work to install the trash enclosure should be monitored by the project
arborist.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Data
2 – Tree Removal Criteria
3 – Conditions of Approval
4 – Maps Showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing
IMPORTANT
This entire report, including attachments, shall be copied onto a plan
sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans.
Page 3 of 3
64
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 1
PLAN REVIEW:
Architectural Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Scott Design Associates
Date of Plans: March 11, 2014
Sheet 1 of 2 Proposed Site Plan and Topographic Survey
Sheet A0.1 Main Floor Plan and Lower Floor Plan
Sheet A0.2 Existing Floor Plans Grover House
Sheet A2.1 Floor Plan Parking District Level
Sheet A2.2 Floor Plan Lower Level
Sheet A2.3 Floor Plan Street Level
Sheet A2.4 Floor Plan Second Floor Level
Sheet A3.1 Elevations
Sheet A3.2 Elevations South Grover House
Sheet A3.3 Elevations Blue Rock Shoot South
Sheet A3.4 Elevations Grover House North
Sheet A3.5 Elevations Blue Rock Shoot North
Sheet A5.1 Cross Sections Grover House
Sheet A5.2 Cross Sections Blue Rock Shoot
Civil Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Westfall Engineers, Inc.
Date of Plans: August 22, 2013
Sheet 2 of 2 Boundary and Topographic Survey
TREE DATA:
Table 1: Condition of trees and potential construction impacts
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(inches) Condition
Intensity of
Construction
Impacts
Suitability
for
Preservation Location
Coast redwood Adjacent
1 Sequoia sempervirens 46 Good High High property
Tree of heaven In building
2 Ailanthus altissima 13.5 Fair High Low footprint
Tree of heaven Adjacent
3 Ailanthus altissima 16 Fair Moderate Low property
Coast redwood Adjacent
4 Sequoia sempervirens 30 Good Moderate High property
65
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 1
Table 2: Appraised values
Species
Trunk
Diameter
Canopy
Spread Health Structure Site
Contri-
bution
Place
-ment
Appraised
value
1: Coast redwood, Sequoia sempervirens*
46 35 70 70 80 50 30 $24,200
2: Tree of heaven, Ailanthus altissima
13.5 25 80 60 80 50 60 $2,250
3: Tree of heaven, Ailanthus altissima*
16 25 70 50 80 50 30 $240
4: Coast redwood, Sequoia sempervirens*
30 25 70 70 80 50 0 $7,100
Species ratings: Coast redwood = 90%; Tree of heaven = 10%
*Trees 1, 3 and 4 are located on properties not owned by the applicant.
Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the
Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and
Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
66
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 2
TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article
15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If
findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and
replacement during construction.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to
existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services;
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property;
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and
the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes;
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal
would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the
general welfare of residents in the area;
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry
practices;
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on
the protected tree;
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose
and intent of this Article;
(8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes
of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is
no other feasible alternative to the removal.
Page 1 of 1
67
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. This entire arborist report shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree
Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans.
2. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $31,540
a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080.
b. Shall be for tree(s) 2, 3 and 4.
c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development
Department before obtaining Building Division permits.
d. May be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a
bond.
e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project.
f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved
by the City Arborist.
3. Tree Protection:
a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached maps.
b. Shall be installed at the property line for trees 1 and 3, unless applicant has
obtained written permission from their owner to install it on adjacent property.
c. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials
on site.
d. For trees 1 and 3 protection shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link
fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24
inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart.
e. For tree 4, protection shall be comprised of straw wattle wrapped around the
trunk from its base for four feet up the trunk.
f. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT
MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST,
KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”.
g. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree
protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining
building division permits.
h. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction
until final inspection.
i. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City
Arborist to arrange a field meeting.
4. The Site Plan shall be modified so that is accurately reflects that the addition will
extend all the way to the lower parking.
5. The owner shall obtain written permission from the owner of trees 1 and 3 to prune
them for this project prior to issuance of building division permits.
Page 1 of 3
68
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 3
6. The designated Project Arborist for this project shall be Gil Mitchell of Davey Tree
Expert Company.
7. The Project Arborist shall be on site to supervise and monitor the following work:
a. All work within 15 feet of trees 1 and 4.
b. Pruning of trees 1 and 3.
c. Hand digging of holes for piers within 12 feet of tree 1.
8. The foundation for the project shall consist of a pier and above grade beam where it
is within 15 feet of redwood 1.
9. The beam for the foundation shall remain entirely above grade, and shall not be
buried.
10. The number of piers within 12 feet of the trunk of tree 1 shall be limited to two. The
diameters of these piers shall be no more than 18 inches.
11. Holes for foundation piers shall be dug by hand for the first two feet under the
supervision of the Project Arborist. If roots measuring two inches or more in
diameter are encountered, the hole shall be relocated to avoid the roots. Roots
measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut with a sharp pruning tool
under the supervision of the Project Arborist.
12. No excavation other than that specified in these Conditions of Approval shall occur
within 12 feet of the trunk of redwood number 1, as measured from the outside of
the trunk, unless otherwise permitted by the City Arborist prior to performing work.
13. Trenching to install new utilities or connect existing utilities to new shall not be
permitted inside tree protection fencing.
14. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project
may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit
from the building division for the approved project.
15. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his
responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction
work.
16. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These
activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition,
grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials
(including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
Page 2 of 3
69
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 3
17. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards.
18. Tree number 2 meets the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced
once Building Division permits have been obtained.
19. New trees equal to $2,250 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection
and occupancy. New trees may be of any species. It is acceptable to pay an in lieu fee for
some or all of the required new trees, or plant new trees on another property owned by
the applicant within Saratoga, instead of planting new trees at the project site.
20. Replacement values for new trees are listed below.
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
21. Should any tree become damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required equal to the
value of the damage.
22. Stockpiling of construction materials or equipment, and the disposal of construction
debris or harmful products, is prohibited under tree canopies or anywhere on site that
allows drainage to areas under tree canopies.
23. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the
project, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist.
That letter shall document the work performed around trees, include photos of the
work in progress, and provide information on the condition of the trees.
24. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection
fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City
Arborist for a final inspection.
Page 3 of 3
70
14521
14523
Attachment 4
3
2
1
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way
Legend
Tree Canopy
Tree Protection
Fence
71
14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Legend Tree Canopy Tree Protection Straw Wattle 4 14521 14523 Attachment 4
72
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 12, 2014
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC)
FROM: Michael Fossati
SUBJECT: Roof Replacement for Mixed-Use Project – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover
House)
Property Location: 14521 Big Basin Way
Property APN: 517-08-005
Project Applicant/Owner: Mitch Cutler
Background: The applicant, Mitch Cutler purchased the Grover House in 2013. The Grover
House is currently on the Heritage Resource Inventory, considered a resource, but not a
landmark. The Grover House and the 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) are both owned
by Mr. Cutler. A study session was held on May 13, 2014 regarding the proposed project. A
public hearing was held on July 8, 2014. HPC denied a motion to recommend the proposed
project, due to the proposed metal roof structure. The applicant is requesting the HPC review the
project one more time, as the 7/8 meeting had only six commissioners present.
Project Description: The project is currently being reviewed by the City as mixed-use
development that includes a complete interior remodel and rear addition of the Grover House.
The applicant has proposed the structure (as a whole) stay intact, with the exception of a bump
out on the northern facing wall. The bump out will assist in accommodating ADA required
restrooms for both sexes, since the interior remodel would potentially be used as a wine bar or
restaurant. The rear of the Grover House would be built into an open deck for patrons of the
potential wine bar to utilize. Underneath the deck would be one residential apartment.
The applicant has proposed the color “White Dove” white for the horizontal siding and “Silver
Lake” gray for the trim for both structures. Instead of replacing the existing siding for the
Grover House, the material will be removed, resurfaced, and restored. Since the location is
within the Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI) area, the applicant has proposed to add cement to the
wood fire in order to meet Fire Rating Requirements per the Building Code. The siding for the
Blue Rock Shoot will be replaced with Hardie Board horizontal planks.
Additional improvements for the Grover House include replacement of the doors and window to
match existing and a metal roof to replace the existing shake.
Summary of July 8, 2014 HPC meeting: The previously discussed proposal did not receive
HPC recommendation, due to the proposed metal roof. Since there was not a majority to make a 73
Page 2 of 2
final decision, the applicant has requested the project be reviewed again. The applicant has
provided an explanation on why he is proposing a metal roof.
Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards (Standards)
for rehabilitation reference the Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Guidelines)
as a reference. In those guidelines, the use of metal roofs is consistent with 18th and 19th century
structures, such as the time when the Grover House was constructed (1895). Furthermore, the
architectural form of a gable roof, which is typical for Pioneer Cottage design, will remain as the
main roof form for the rehabilitation.
Staff is requesting the HPC review the project as proposed and determine the following:
1. Determine that the proposed project is in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards and that it will not have an impact on the historic character of the structure.
2. Determine that the proposed project is not in accordance with the Secretary of Interior
Standards and either request changes to proposed project, or recommend denial of the
project to the Planning Commission.
Attachments
1. DPR for Grover House
2. Secretary of Interior Standards – Rehabilitation
3. Guidelines for Treatment of Historic Properties – Roofs
4. Letter from applicant
5. Front Elevation for
74
Mount Diablo
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
NRHP Status Code
4of Grover House*Resource Name or #
HP-88-01 P1. Other identifier:
*P2. Location:
Santa Clara County*a. County
Cupertino*b. USGS 7.5' Quad 1980 Photorevised .8 S.T .2 W.R
Big Basin Way c. Address:SaratogaCity 95070Zip
10S d. UTM:(give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone mE/mN
northwest side of Big Basin Way between Third and Fourth Streets.
e.Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
(Assigned by recorder):
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a location map as necessary.)
;;
;
This National-style ("Pioneer") cottage typifies the small one-story gabled residences of the
late-nineteenth century in rural Saratoga. This vernacular building type dates from as early
as the pre-railroad American era, from the 1850s to the 1870s, although National-style houses
continued to be built as late as 1880s, such as this one. It has original narrow roof span,
relatively steep gabled roof, double-hung windows, channel-rustic horizontal wood siding,
shallow boxed eaves, flat-board frieze and corner boards. The front door and front window have
been replaced, but there are no other apparent major alterations to the building.
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements, include design, material, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)*P4. Resources Present:
None
Location Map
Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet
Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record
District Record
Linear Feature Record
Milling Station Record
Rock Art Record
Artifact Record
Photograph Record
Other (List):
*Attachments:
Archives & Architecture: City of Saratoga Statement of Historic Context, 2009.
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none".)
View facing north, July 2009.
P5b.Description of Photo:
(View, date, accession #)
Historic Prehistoric Both
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
Ruth M Long Trust et al
PO Box 2095
Saratoga CA 95070
*P7. Owner and Address:
Archives & Architecture, LLC
PO Box 1332
San Jose, CA 95109
*P8. Recorded By: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
10/26/09*P9. Date Recorded:
Reconnaissance
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
c1895, 114 years old.
* Required InformationDPR 523A (1/95)
Not for Publication Unrestricted
1
503-24-020APN#
B.M.
F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz
Date
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
Page
14521
75
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
5S3*NRHP/CRHR Status Code
Grover HouseResource Name (Assigned by recorder)
4of
David and Nancy Grover House B1. Historic Name:
14521 Big Basin Way B2. Common Name:
Single family residential B3. Original Use:VacantB4. Present Use:
National*B5. Architectural Style:
Constructed circa 1895.
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
No Yes Unknown*B7. Moved?n/aDate:n/aOriginal Location:
None
*B8. Related Features:
Unknown B9a. Architect:Unknownb. Builder:
Architecture*B10. Significance: Theme Saratoga VillageArea:
c1895Period of Significance:CommercialProperty Type:NoneApplicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The Grover House is listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory, included as a part of
HP-88-01. It qualified under Criteria a and c:
a) the property exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, aesthetic,
and architectural history of Saratoga; and
e) the property contributes to the unique physical characteristics of The Village.
The Grover House does not appear eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources,
as it lacks quality of architectural design for it to distinctively represent the era in which
it was built.
(Continued on page 4, DPR523L)
DPR 523B (1/95)*Required Information
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes)
Garrod, Saratoga Story, .
San Jose Evening News, 12/12/1906.
Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission, Historic
Resources Inventory form, 1988.
U.S. Census, 1880-1930.
*B12. References:
Listed Heritage ResourceB13. Remarks:
Franklin Maggi*B14. Evaluator:
October 26, 2009*Date of Evaluation:
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
(This space reserved for official comments.)
2
None
Primary #
HRI #
Page
76
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
4of
DPR 523J (1/95)*Required Information
* Map Name:Multiple n.t.s.* Scale:Varies* Date of Map:
Grover House*Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder)3
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Page
77
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
4of
DPR 523L (1/95)*Required Information
(Continued from page 2, DPR523b, B10)
Historical Background
This small vernacular cottage was apparently built about 1895 and was owned by David and Nancy
Grover. It is one of the smallest single-family cottages in the Saratoga Village commercial
core. David Grover worked as a farmer and they lived here with their son, Harry, who was a
laborer on a farm. After David’s death in 1906 at age 90, Nancy continued to live here with her
son. Nancy was active in community and church activities in Saratoga. The house is now used as
a commercial building on Big Basin Way.
Integrity
Although altered with a replacement front window sash and new door, the cottage retains
adequate character-defining architectural design, workmanship and materials, as well as a
historic location and setting within Saratoga Village, and the property continues to represent
the historical associations and feelings of this residence.
* Recorded By F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz
Grover House*Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder)
Continuation Update10/26/2009* Date
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Page 4
78
Home > The Standards > Four Approaches to the Treatment of Historic Properties > Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation as a Treatment
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and
additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
Standards for Rehabilitation
A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features,
spaces, and spatial relationships.
1.
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features,
spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
2.
Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
3.
Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.4.
Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will
be preserved.
5.
Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
6.
Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause
damage to historic materials will not be used.
7.
Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
8.
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships
that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
9.
New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the10.
Rehabilitation as a Treatment and Standards for Rehabilitation—Technic...http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm
1 of 2 8/6/2014 4:25 PM
79
essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Rehabilitation as a treatment
When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a
new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a
treatment.
The Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties illustrate the practical application of these treatment standards to historic
properties. These Guidelines are also available in PDF format .
The Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes apply these treatment standards to historic cultural landscapes.
Rehabilitation as a Treatment and Standards for Rehabilitation—Technic...http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm
2 of 2 8/6/2014 4:25 PM
80
1
Michael Fossati
From:mitchell.cutler <mitchell.cutler@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, July 08, 2014 10:05 AM
To:Michael Fossati; Scott M. Cunningham
Cc:Tracey Cutler
Subject:14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way
Attachments:20140708_095409.jpg
Michael thank you for walking us through this morning historic preservation committee meeting.....I understand
that the Historic Preservation Committee unanimously supports the remodel at the Blue Rock shoot and Grover
House. However they were split as to whether the roof material on the Grover house should be metal or wood
shake. for our part we would like to stay with the metal roof. When designing the remodel we took our cues
from the Sam Cloud Barn House located behind the Blue Rock Shoot property, next to the hotel. As you can see
from the photo enclosed they used a corrugated metal roof with copper gutters to great effect. It is our
understanding that the Sam Cloud Barn is a historical remodel done in the way that we want to proceed with our
project and we took our prescident from this structure. Further it was reported during the meeting today that
metal roofs were consistent with architectural structures in the 19 century. Also, it is our belief that a continuous
metal roof on both buildings will look much more professional and less ticky tacky- hodge podge then alternate
roofing materials. As Scott Cunningham will be there to represent us during the September Planning
Commission meeting please note that the professionalism of this project represents our commitment as long
time residents and business owners in Saratoga. SIncerely, Mitchell and Tracy Cutler.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
81
82
TRASH CANS
The trash can design uses the same materials and
style as the benches. The cans are round with a
flat top, and durably made of wood slats with a
black metal frame.
The existing City‐owned cement trash cans in the
Village are tentatively proposed to be replaced by
the City with a new wooden enclosures. There is
also the possibility that a local community group
may donate these. In addition, property owners
who install a new can or replace an existing one
will be required to use this wood design. Like the
benches, each can may accommodate a custom‐
lettered medallion to acknowledge the purchaser
or donor.
TRASH ENCLOSURES
All garbage dumpsters are required to be enclosed and screened from public view. This diagram
shows the selected design of the trash enclosure, which can be seen at various locations in Village
Parking District #3. The structure is made of split‐face concrete block with a wood‐slat gate.
Appropriate landscaping should be installed along the perimeter of the enclosure to soften its
appearance.
The City will be responsible for installing trash enclosures in the other Village parking districts
through assessments to the districts. Individual property owners are responsible for installing them
on their own property.
83
1
Michael Fossati
From:Glenn Wildman <gvwildman@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, September 15, 2014 10:25 AM
To:Michael Fossati
Subject:Public Hearing Sept 29, 2014
Michael Fossati. thank you for meeting with me about the proposed Building Project at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way.
Glenn & Aillse Victoria Wildman
Michael Galletta
Owners / Partnership
Prime Cuts Salon
14529 Big Basin Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 741-0508
We have been in Business in Saratoga for 35 years since July 1979.
We have major concerns about parking for Public use in the City of Saratoga Parking District Lot at the rear of the
Proposed Construction Project at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way, Saratoga.
1. The plan has no parking spaces allotted to accommodate the Residents of the 3 Proposed Apartments. A minim of 6
Spaces.
2. The City of Saratoga Parking District Lot accommodates Public Use of Wildwood Park, Businesses and
Restaurants on Big Basin Way as well as Guests at The Inn of Saratoga. The Parking district Lot is full to capacity the
majority of day time hours
3. Our main concern is the availability of parking to our Customers not only during the construction but also parking for
additional employees of the expanded Restaurants and Apartments.
4. We would also like to know where the Contractors, Subcontractors and Trades People will park theirs vehicles. Parking
on Big Basin Way is limited to 2 hours. Generally speaking they would start between 7:00-8:00 AM and their vehicles
would be parked for 8 hours on week days leaving very little available parking for the Public.
5. Will building materials be allowed to be "Staged" in the Parking District Lot? This will reduce the available parking to
the Public.
6. The sewer system is strained to it's maximum capacity. Are there plans in place to up grade the system to
accommodate this additional use and protect Wildwood Creek?
84
1
Michael Fossati
From:mitchell.cutler <mitchell.cutler@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, September 15, 2014 8:27 AM
To:Michael Fossati
Cc:Scott M. Cunningham
Subject:RE: FW: Public Hearing Sept 29, 2014
Michael, in response to the "hair salon's" letter. Our names are Mitchell and Tracy Cutler we are the owners of
La Fondue Restaurant, owners of the Blue Rock Shoot and Grover House and Residents of Saratoga for the past
22 years.
1) We had considered a loting private spaces to the proposed project. However in order to provide for a
potential three spots on the premises, we would need to remove 8 spots for access from the public lot itself to
acess the private spaces. a net loss of 5 total parking spaces which does not seem prudent. Further, it is our
understanding that this district had enough future parking credits to provide for the added floor space.
2) The statement the "parking district lot is full to capacity the majority of the day time hours" is factually
incorrect. As the owners of La Fondue and long time resident for the past 22 years we have personally
witnessed an empty parking lot on hundreds of days. Parking has never really been a problem in Saratoga at any
time in the past because there has not been existing business to support current users in the parking districts.The
facts are that Saratoga is a comparably "sleepy" and or slow business town. Most businesspersons privately joke
that "you could roll a bowling ball through this town and not hit a single person"....
3) Regarding availability during construction to the hair salons customers. We anticipate approximately 4-6 cars
per day using the parking lot for construction purposes. We can request that those participants participating in
construction, park at the southwest corner of the lot. As the contractors employees are usually the first to show
up at approximately 7 a.m. The lot is empty, and these employees can have their choice of those spots in the
southwest corner. If a pre-planned coned off area is desired it can be arranged for there.
4) Please see the answer to # 3.
5) Building materials would be staged on an as available as needed basis, the same condition that exists for each
and every construction job that has going on in the past, present or future on any building site in Saratoga.The
facts are that construction interrupts normal business activities. All citizens around the world live with it. WHY
should the hair salon be exempt?
6) I'm not sure what the issue with the Saratoga Creek is but we do not anticipate any sewer expansion therefore
the proposed concern is not applicable.
In closing we anticipate a beautiful new project that benefits all of Saratoga. Our motto is " be the change you
want to see". We believe this project is an appropriate addition to the Village landscape. If the Planning
Commission would like to see a vibrant and reenergized Saratoga Village District, clearly some investment
encouragement is in order.
Sincerely, Mitchell & Tracey Cutler
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
85
2
-------- Original message --------
From: Michael Fossati
Date:09/15/2014 10:38 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Mitchell Cutler (mitchell.cutler@comcast.net)" , scott@scottdesign.com
Subject: FW: Public Hearing Sept 29, 2014
Hi Mitch and Scott – Can you please provide any input to the questions below.
Thank you,
Michael
From: Glenn Wildman
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 10:25 AM
To: Michael Fossati
Subject: Public Hearing Sept 29, 2014
Michael Fossati. thank you for meeting with me about the proposed Building Project at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way.
Glenn & Aillse Victoria Wildman
Michael Galletta
Owners / Partnership
Prime Cuts Salon
14529 Big Basin Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 741-0508
We have been in Business in Saratoga for 35 years since July 1979.
We have major concerns about parking for Public use in the City of Saratoga Parking District Lot at the rear of the
Proposed Construction Project at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way, Saratoga. 86
3
1. The plan has no parking spaces allotted to accommodate the Residents of the 3 Proposed Apartments. A minim of 6
Spaces.
2. The City of Saratoga Parking District Lot accommodates Public Use of Wildwood Park, Businesses and
Restaurants on Big Basin Way as well as Guests at The Inn of Saratoga. The Parking district Lot is full to capacity the
majority of day time hours
3. Our main concern is the availability of parking to our Customers not only during the construction but also parking for
additional employees of the expanded Restaurants and Apartments.
4. We would also like to know where the Contractors, Subcontractors and Trades People will park theirs vehicles. Parking
on Big Basin Way is limited to 2 hours. Generally speaking they would start between 7:00-8:00 AM and their vehicles
would be parked for 8 hours on week days leaving very little available parking for the Public.
5. Will building materials be allowed to be "Staged" in the Parking District Lot? This will reduce the available parking to
the Public.
6. The sewer system is strained to it's maximum capacity. Are there plans in place to up grade the system to
accommodate this additional use and protect Wildwood Creek?
87
88
89
Environmental Initial Study
and Negative Declaration
For:
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit &
Lot Line Adjustment
for 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Owner:
Mitchell & Tracy Cutler
14435-C Big Basin Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
Public Review Period:
September 3, 2014 to September 23, 2014
90
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 2
1. Project title: PDR14-0003; CUP14-0001; LLA14-0001
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division
13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Contact person and phone number: Michael Fossati, Planner
(408) 868-1212
4. Project location/APN: 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way / 503-24-020 and 021
5. Project sponsor name / address: Mitchell and Tracy Cutler / 14435-C Big Basin Way,
Saratoga CA
6. General plan designation: Commercial-Historic
7. Zoning: Commercial-Historic 2 (CH-2)
8. Description of project: The project includes a Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Lot Line
Adjustment for two commercial lots located at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. The project
includes the remodel of an existing structure (14521 Big Basin Way) and restaurant (14523 Big
Basin Way). 14521 Big Basin will be rehabilitated and remodeled for a wine bar / restaurant use.
One residential apartment will be attached and constructed at the rear of the building. 14523 Big
Basin will be remodeled to include an office space, restaurant, and two apartment units. An
additional story will be constructed on top of 14523 Big Basin in order to accommodate one of the
apartment units.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project location is bounded by a parking lot and Wildwood
Creek to the north, commercial structures to the east and west, and Big Basin Way to the south.
10. Other public agencies whose review is required
a. Santa Clara County Fire District
b. West Valley Sanitation District
91
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 3
Contents
Figure 1: Project Location .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 – Boundary / Topographic Survey ............................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4 – Existing 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 5 – Existing 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) .......................................................................................... 9
Figure 6 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Parking Level ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 7 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Lower Level .......................................................................................... 11
Figure 8 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Street Level .......................................................................................... 12
Figure 9 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Upper Level .......................................................................................... 13
Figure 10 – Elevations – Front and Rear .................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 11 – Elevations – Left Side – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House .............................................................. 15
Figure 12 – Elevations – Left Side – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) ......................................................... 16
Figure 13 – Elevations – Right Side – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) ........................................................... 17
Figure 14 – Elevations – Right Side – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) ....................................................... 18
Figure 15 – Cross Sections – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) ........................................................................ 19
Figure 16 – Cross Sections – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) .................................................................... 20
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ........................................................................................................ 22
I. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 25
III. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................................... 25
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 26
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 27
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................................................... 28
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 29
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................................................... 29
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 30
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................................................................. 31
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 32
XII. NOISE ............................................................................................................................................................. 32
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................................................ 34
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: ......................................................................................................................................... 35
92
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 4
XV. RECREATION: ................................................................................................................................................. 36
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ......................................................................................................................... 37
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................ 38
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................ 38
93
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 5
Figure 1: Project Location
94
Figure 2 Site Plan
95
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 7
Figure 3 – Boundary / Topographic Survey
96
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 8
Figure 4 – Existing 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot)
97
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 9
Figure 5 – Existing 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House)
98
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 10
Figure 6 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Parking Level
99
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 11
Figure 7 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Lower Level
100
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 12
Figure 8 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Street Level
101
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 13
Figure 9 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Upper Level
102
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 14
Figure 10 – Elevations – Front and Rear
103
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 15
Figure 11 – Elevations – Left Side – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House
)
104
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 16
Figure 12 – Elevations – Left Side – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot)
105
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 17
Figure 13 – Elevations – Right Side – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House)
106
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 18
Figure 14 – Elevations – Right Side – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot)
107
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 19
Figure 15 – Cross Sections – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House)
108
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 20
Figure 16 – Cross Sections – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot)
109
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 21
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist
beginning on page 8 for additional information.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required
____________________________________ ______________________
Michael Fossati, Planner Date: September 2, 2014
City of Saratoga
110
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 22
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
111
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 23
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
112
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 24
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No scenic view or viewsheds are in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, there are no scenic
views or viewsheds explicitly identified in the City of Saratoga’s General Plan or other planning
documents. The design review of the existing structure and restaurant would not affect any existing
scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
14521 Big Basin Way is located on the City of Saratoga's Heritage Resource Inventory, making it a
historic building. Furthermore, Big Basin Way is considered a state scenic highway. It has been
determined that the design review would not damage scenic resources as the project has been reviewed
by the City of Saratoga's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) for compliance with the Secretary of
Interior Standards on July 8, 2014 at a regularly scheduled HPC hearing.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
The project would not damage existing visual character or quality of the site as the project location is
currently built out and consistent with the surrounding commercial and residential structures located
within the commercial-historic district.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
The project, as proposed would not create substantial light or glare. The majority of exterior material
would be siding, stucco or wood based walls, none of which create a light source.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impact on
Aesthetics.
(Source: staff review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element, and Saratoga City Code
§15-45, HPC Staff memo for Mixed-use Project - 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) dated August
113
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 25
12, 2014, City of Saratoga, California Scenic Highway Mapping System,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/, accessed on 8/28, 2014).
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION:
a-e) The project location is within a commercial area and is not proposing any conversion of agricultural
or forest land.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Agricultural and Forest Resources.
(Sources: staff review of the project, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12,
California Public Resource Code)
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by
the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may
be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significa
nt Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
114
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 26
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
DISCUSSION:
a-e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The project would not have any substantial impact on air quality. All associated construction of the
proposed project would be required to follow Best Known Methods (BKM) from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air
Quality.
(Sources: BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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?
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 US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
115
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 27
(a-d) The project would have no substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, sensitive natural
community or species, wetlands, or corridors for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species as the project is located in a commercial district and substantially setback from any
riparian areas.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
The proposed project includes the removal of one protected trees (per Saratoga City Code), as the tree is
located within the proximity of the proposed building footprint. The trees has been reviewed by the city
Arborist. It has been determined by the City Arborist that the findings consistent with City Code Article
15-50 (Tree Regulations) have been met to remove the tree. Furthermore, the applicant will be required
to plant new trees with an appraised value to the tree that is being removed.
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?
The project, as proposed, would not conflict with any conservation plan, as the location is not within
such a plan area.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
biological resources.
(Sources: staff review of the project. Arborist report by Kate Bear, City of Saratoga Arborist, dated
April 24, 2014)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION:
a-d) 14521 Big Basin Way is located on the City of Saratoga's Heritage Resource Inventory, making it a
historic building. Furthermore, Big Basin Way is considered a state scenic highway. It has been
determined that the project would not damage scenic resources as the project has been reviewed by the
City of Saratoga's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) for compliance with the Secretary of
Interior Standards on July 8, 2014 at a regularly scheduled HPC hearing.
116
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 28
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Cultural Resources.
(Sources: staff review and HPC Staff memo for Mixed-use Project - 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover
House) dated August 12, 2014,)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
DISCUSSION:
a-e) The project is located in an area that is potentially constrained by weak and compressible fill and
alluvium and strong seismic ground shaking. the supplemental evaluations prepared by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant have addressed the City Geologist's concerns regarding the project. Conditions
placed on the project have been established to determine a "less than significant" impact regarding the
project.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
geology and soils.
(Sources: Staff’s review of the project, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Supplemental Geotechnical Peer
Review Memorandum, completed by Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc. dated July 8, 2014)
117
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 29
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions, or conflict with any policies
for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases because the proposed project is the reconstruction of two
existing commercial structures and the construction of one additional commercial structure and three
residential apartments.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of
greenhouse gases.
(Sources: Staffs review of the project)
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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?
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
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?
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?
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?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
118
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 30
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?
DISCUSSION:
a-h) The project includes design review for a mixed-use commercial / residential structures located in an
existing commercial district and is not located on or near a hazardous waste and substance site. The
project would not create a significant hazard to the public regarding hazardous materials because the
project use has no exposure to hazardous materials. There are no airports or protected wildlands within
the area of the project and the project, as proposed, would not impair the implementation of an
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of
hazards or hazardous materials.
(Sources: California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed May 19, 2014),
staff’s review of the project.)
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 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?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
119
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 31
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?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
DISCUSSION:
a-j) The project includes design review for a mixed-use commercial / residential structure located in an existing
commercial district. If approved, the applicant would be required to design a proper drainage plan to
alleviate water runoff. The project would not violate water standards, deplete groundwater supplies or
significantly alter drainage patterns. The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or an
area potentially affected by a levee, dam, or tsunami.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Hydrology and Water Quality Resources.
(Sources: FEMA Map Service Center FEMA Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001
&langId=-1/ (accessed May 19, 2014); Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014. Interactive ABAG
(GIS) Maps Showing Tsunami Planning Areas. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/(accessed May 19,
2014.)
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
a-c) The project includes design review for a mixed-use commercial / residential structure located in an existing
commercial district, where mixed-use projects are conditionally permitted. The existing site is currently
used for commercial uses and would not physically divide an established community. The project,
as proposed would not be in conflict of any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction, including any applicable habitat conservation plan.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Land Use and Planning.
120
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 32
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga Municipal Code, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element)
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
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?
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?
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The property is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral deposits or
value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral resource recovery
site. Based on the above discussion, the project does not present the potential for a significant adverse
effect on the environment related to mineral resources.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Mineral Resources.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Open Space Element)
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
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?
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?
DISCUSSION:
121
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 33
a-f) 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?
The following table lists noise standards for
residential uses in the City of Saratoga Noise
Ordinance (Article 7-30 of the City Code). The
indoor standards apply to noise produced by exterior
noise sources. Because the site is not located in
close proximity to high-traffic roadways, ambient
noise levels on the site are low, and are expected to be in the range of 50 – 60 A-weighted decibels
(dBA) or lower. Noise sources around the project site include light traffic volumes and functions held
by commercial businesses within the area
Implementation of the proposed project could increase noise levels in the vicinity of the site during the
project construction period. Construction of the proposed project would involve limited earthwork and
grading, since the addition is within the existing building area. Construction of the proposed project is
scheduled to extend over a period of 18 – 24 months. Construction related short-term noise levels would
be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity but would end once construction
is completed. The site preparation phase, which would include excavation and grading of the site, tends
to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving
equipment. Mitigation would not be required, because the project sponsor is mandated to follow
construction practices as stated per the City Code.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Residents adjacent to the project site could be exposed to temporary increased levels of ground borne
vibration and ground borne noise during the construction period. These increases are expected to occur
infrequently, and for only short durations during the project construction period, which is expected to
extend over 12 – 18 months. As such, the exposure of such noise levels is considered less than a
significant impact.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Long-term use of the project site will not substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels
because the existing and proposed use are currently in effect within the area. There is no impact that
would substantially increase ambient noise levels permanently within the project vicinity.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Table 1: Residential Ambient Noise Standards
Land Use Daytime Evening Nighttime
Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA
Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA 30 dBA
Source: City of Saratoga, June 2014. City Code, Article 7‐30.
122
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 34
Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the
project site vicinity but would cease once construction is completed. This increase in noise levels is
considered less than significant because the proposed construction is similar to residential construction
which happens throughout the City of Saratoga.
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?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to
high levels of airport-related noise.
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?
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not expose site visitors to high levels of airstrip-related noise.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to noise impacts.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga City Code)
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significa
nt 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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
DISCUSSION:
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)?
Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially induce population growth, as the project
includes a the construction of three new residential apartments.
123
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 35
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would not displace existing housing, but rather have the potential to create new
housing stock. There would be no impact.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Implementation of the proposed project would not displace people or dwelling units.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Housing Element)
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significa
nt 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:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
DISCUSSION:
The following discussion addresses the potential impacts of the project on fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities.
Fire protection. The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) would provide fire fighting services
to the project site. Since the project will be reviewed and conditioned by the SCCFD, the environmental
impacts relating to fire protection will be less than significant.
Police protection. The proposed project would receive crime enforcement services from the West
Valley Division of the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff. The proposed project may result in the
124
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 36
construction of three apartment residences, if approved. Although these new residences could be the
target of crime, an increase in demand for Sheriff services would not be required.
Schools. Any students generated by the proposed project would be permitted to attend Saratoga School
District (elementary and middle) and Los Gatos - Saratoga High School District (high school). Since the
proposed project has the potential to increase residential units, there would be a potential net increase of
students to increase demand for school facilities. Due to the potential number of residential units, the
increase of student demand would be less than significant.
Parks. Implementation of the proposed project would potentially increase park demand because the
project is includes a General Plan amendment that would potentially allow the development of two new
residential lots, but the amount of density created would be considered less than significant.
Other public facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the
demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care
facilities, because the project only has the potential of creating more density in the form of two new
residential lots.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Public Services.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan. Saratoga Municipal Code. Developmental
Review Comments for 14521/14523 Big Basin Way, dated March 6, 2014)
XV. RECREATION: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significa
nt 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?
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?
DISCUSSION:
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?
The project has the potential to increase the use of parks, but not in such a manner that it would
substantially deteriorate such facilities.
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?
125
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 37
The project does not include formal recreational facilities; therefore, there would be no impact that
would adversely physically effect the environment.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Recreation.
(Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Open Space Element)
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,
but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
DISCUSSION:
a – f) The project will not conflict with programs associated with performance of the City’s circulation
system, congestion management programs or air traffic patterns. The mixed-use project has no design
feature that would substantially increase hazards or result in emergency access. Lastly, the project
would not conflict with policies, plans or programs that regarding public transit.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic.
(Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Circulation Element)
126
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 38
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
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?
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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
DISCUSSION:
a - g) Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for
wastewater treatment because the project would not significantly increase the existing number of
dwelling units currently established in the vicinity.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Utilities and Service Systems.
(Source: Review of the project, phone conversation with Patrick Salandro, West Valley Sanitation
District, dated 8/28/14)
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
127
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 39
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
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, substantially 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?
Implementation of the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the exiting
environment because the project site is already utilized for religious uses and surrounded by residential
uses. The site does not contain riparian woodland where fish, wildlife, or endangered plants or animals
are located. One of the existing structures on the site (Grover House) is currently on the Heritage
Resource Inventory. The structure will not be demolished, but rehabilitated. The project was reviewed
by the City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission and recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission.
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)?
The proposed project would result in the continuation of mixed-use development within an existing
commercial neighborhood, in a way that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning
regulations. All environmental impacts that could occur as result of the proposed project are considered
either less than significant or no impact within this Initial Study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
The project site has been historically developed as a religious uses and single-family residential area.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would result with contaminated soil or groundwater.
The site is not located in a high wildfire risk area. Therefore, the proposed project would not have
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.
GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES:
1. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation , Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and
Safety Element)
2. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map
3. City of Saratoga Housing Element
4. City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory
5. City of Saratoga Seismic Hazard Zones Map, dated July 2007
128
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way
Page 40
PROJECT RELATED SOURCES/REFERENCES:
6. Project Plans.
7. California Public Resource Code, 2014. Website: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/calawquery?codesection=prc (accessed August 28, 2014)
8. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2014. Website:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA
%20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en (accessed August 28, 2014)
9. Arborist report by Kate Bear, City of Saratoga Arborist, dated April 24, 2014)
10. California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site
List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed August 28, 2014).
11. FEMA Map Service Center, Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/(accessed August 28, 2014)
12. Developmental Review Comments for 14521/14523 Big Basin Way, SCCFD, dated March 3, 2014.
13. HPC Staff memo for Mixed-use Project - 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) dated August 12,
2014,)
14. Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review Memorandum, completed by Cotton Shires & Associates,
Inc. dated July 8, 2014
129
From: mitchell cutler [mailto:cutler1962@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 7:37 AM
To: Erwin Ordoñez <eordonez@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Tracey Cutler
<tate.cutler@gmail.com>; scott@scottdesign.com
Subject: Blue Rock Shoot (14523 Big Basin Way) & Grover House (14521 Big Basin Way)
We are requesting a time extension for the development of our project for 36 months from
November 2016 to November 2019, because we anticipate being out of the country for the next
1.5 years.
Scott Cunningham of Scott Design will be my representative at the June 8 2016 planning
Commission meeting.
Thank you....Mitchell & Tracey Cutler.
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146