HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-17 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 12, 2017
7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION 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 June 28, 2017.
Recommended Action:
Approve Minutes of June 28, 2017 meeting.
062817 Action 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. NEW BUSINESS
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 PDR17-0005/ARB17-0015/FER17-0001; 19100 Austin Way (510-06-
022); Gary Kohlsaat/Anuj Kapur and Tina Soltani,
The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing house and to construct a
new two-story house exceeding 6,000 square feet, with a maximum height not
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3
exceeding 28 feet with a basement and an attached second unit. A fence height
exception in the front setback is also requested. Two trees are proposed for removal.
Staff contact: Sandy Baily (408) 868-1225 or sbaily@saratoga.ca.us
Recommended Action:
The Commission should adopt Resolution No. 17-017 approving the project subject to
recommended conditions of approval.
Staff Report, 19100 Austin Way
Attachment 1 - Resolution of Approval
Attachment 2 - Arborist Report dated May 24, 2017
Attachment 3 - Geotechnical Clearance, Supplemental Geologic Report, dated
June 9, 2017
Attachment 4 - Letters from Kohlsaat and Associates, architect, (4)
Attachment 5 - 5Neighbor Notification Forms (5) and email correspondences (3)
Attachment 6 - Story pole Certification Letter, received June 19, 2017
Attachment 7 - Development Plans received June 21, 2017 (Exhibit "A")
2.2. Application SUB15-0001/VAR 16-002/ENV15-0005; 20625 Brookwood Lane
(APN 503-23-025); Dave Johnston
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.63 acre lot located at 20625 Brookwood Lane
into three parcels with a 0.37 acre park dedication. A variance for lot frontage is
requested to preserve a 48-inch oak tree on proposed Lot 3. No trees would be
impacted by this proposal.
The project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the
California Environmental Quality Act which became available for a 20 day public
review beginning June 16, 2017.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
• Adopt Resolution No. 17-019 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approving the Tentative Map, Variance, and Geotechnical Clearance subject to the
conditions of approval (including City Council acceptance of the Park Dedication).
• Adopt Resolution No. 17-020 recommending that the City Council accept the park
dedication.
Staff Report
Att 1 - Resolution for ISMND and Tentative Map
Att 2 - Resolution recommending acceptance of park dedication
Att 3 - IS -MND MMRP
Att 4 - Historic Evaluation
Att 5 - Geotechnical Clearance
Att 6 - Buildable Area Diagram
Att 7 - Will Serve Letters
Att 8 - Comment Letter from Neighbor
Att 9 - Tentative Map
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3
COMMISSION ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA
I, Janet Costa, Administrative Assistant 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 July 6, 2017 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the
City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 6th day of July 2017 at Saratoga, California.
Janet Costa, Administrative Assistant
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 Agenda – Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
ACTION MINUTES
JUNE 28, 2017
7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:Chair Tina Walia, Vice Chair Wendy Chang, Commissioners, Sunil Ahuja,
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Joyce Hlava, Len Almalech, Razi Mohiuddin
ABSENT:None
ALSO PRESENT:Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director
Sung Kwon, Sr. Planner
APPROVAL OF CORRECTED MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 28, 2017.
FITZSIMMONS/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2017. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: WALIA, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, AHUJA, ALMALECH,
MOHIUDDIN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 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
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 4
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 2
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 PDR15-0027 & ARB16-0051; Paramount Court (Lot 6) (APN 503-82-006);
Paramount Venture LLC
A new two-story house with a four car garage at Paramount Court (Lot 6). The height of the
house will not exceed 26 feet. No protected trees on the site will be removed. Staff Contact:
Sung H. Kwon (408) 868-1212 or skwon@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 17-018 approving the project subject to conditions of approval as
included in Exhibit 1.
ALMALECH/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CHANGE OF CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL.MOTION PASSED. AYES: FITZSIMMONS, CHANG, AHUJA,
HLAVA, ALMALECH, MOHIUDDIN. NOES: WALIA. ABSENT: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
DIRECTOR ITEMS: None.
COMMISSION ITEMS. None.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:40 PM
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Janet Costa, Office Specialist III
City of Saratoga
5
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date:July 12, 2017
Application:PDR17-0005,ARB17-0015, and FER17-0001
Location / APN: 19100 Austin Way/510-06-022
Owner/Applicant:Anuj Kapur and Tina Soltani/Gary Kohlsaat
Staff Planner:Sandy L. Baily, Special Projects Manager
19100 Austin Way
6
Page 2 of 9
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing house and to
construct a new 6,687square foot two-story residence with a 2,129 square foot basement. The house
includes a 674 square foot interior second unit which will be an affordable unit. The proposed
structure is 27 feet ten inches in height. Two trees are proposed for removal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should adopt Resolution No. 17-017 approving the
project subject to recommended conditions of approval.
Planning Commission approval is required because:
The proposed house is two stories, would exceed 18 feet in height and result in a size that is
more than 6,000 square feet. (Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(a) (1) (3) (6) and
(9),
A house height exception above 26 feet is requested to adhere to a specific architectural style
(Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-12.100 (a), and
A fence height exception in the front setback is requested (Saratoga Municipal Code Section
15-29.090 (a)
PROJECT DATA:
Site Area: 43,405sf
Average Slope:5.1%
Grading: 178 cubic yards of fill (excludes basement)
General Plan Designation: RVLD (Very Low Density Residential)
Zoning:R-1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Site Coverage
Main House & Garage
Lightwells/ Decks/ Patios
Pool/Spa
Driveway
Total Site Coverage
Front Yard Impervious
5,496 sf
2,728 sf
680 sf
1,878 sf
10,782 sf (24.8%)
2,033 sf (16.6%)
15,192 sf (35%)
6,103.5 sf (50% of 12,207 sf )
7
Page 3 of 9
Floor Area
First Floor
Second Floor
Garage
Second Unit
Total Floor Area
Basement (exempt)
3,004 sf
2,525 sf
484sf
674sf
6,687 sf
2,129 sf
6,687 sf (includes 10% addition,
608 sf, for affordable second unit)
Height
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
501.5’
503.5’
502.5’
530.3’(27’10”)
26 feet maximum
30 feet maximum if Planning
Commission can make findings
Setbacks (Vacant Site)
Front:
South Side:
North Side:
Rear:
Front:
South Side:
North Side:
Rear:
1st Story
67’6”’
34’8”
33’1””
83’10”
2nd Story
75’4”
47’2”
59’
110’10”
1st Story
30’
20’
20’
50’
2nd Story
30’
25’
25’
60’
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DISCUSSION
DESIGN REVIEW
Site and Neighborhood Description: The 43,405square foot property is located at 19100
Austin Wayand contains a single story house, detached garage and shed totaling 3,617 square feet
all of which are proposed to be demolished. The existing pool will remain. An existing fence runs
along the front of the property which the applicant proposes to replace. The brick portion of Austin
Way is designated a Heritage Lane. As required by the historic designation, if the applicant is
required to obtain an encroachment permit, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) will
review the encroachment permit application to ensure the work proposed does not impact the brick
roadway. No other review by the HPC is required. The average site slope is 5.1% and the existing
residence is situated on a gentle to relatively level building pad which is located below Austin Way.
The finished first floor elevation is approximately six feet below the street. The adjacent lot to the
north of the subject lot is at a higher elevation and the adjacent lot to the south of the subject lot is at
a lower elevation. The house to the north has a finished floor elevation at about 7’ higher than the
subject house and the house to the south has a finished floor elevation at about 6’ lower than the
subject house. The property is located within a liquefaction hazard zone. The potentially active
Berrocal Fault is mapped 2,200 feet southwest of the property.
8
Page 4 of 9
The residential neighborhood includes both single story and two story houses with various
architectural styles that include ranch, contemporary, Mission and Tuscan Renaissance. The houses
on both sides of the subject property are single story and the two houses across the street are one and
two stories. The existing houses to the north and the south of the subject property both received
approvals to exceed 6,000 square feet in 2009.
Architectural Design: The proposed housewill be located in the same general vicinity as the existing
building. The proposed house is a two-story French Eclectic designed house with a traditional steep
dominant hipped roof form and a symmetrical two story facade. The house includes a basement,
interior second unit, a two car side loading garage and a one car side loading carport. The house has
been designed to take advantage of the site’s lower elevation from the street. The building footprint
is rectangular. The mass of the front façade of the home is broken up by eyebrow dormers, arched
and rectangular windows, open metal railings and columns. The exterior materials include stucco
siding, cast stone trim and wrought iron railing, and a composition roof. The architecture incorporates
elements within the neighborhood which includes stucco siding, a formal entry way, belly band
detailing and quoins at the building corners. These design elements provide additional articulation,
texture and exterior detailing to help minimize the overall massing and visual impact. The height of
the house will be 27 feet 10 inches. A balcony is proposed off the master bedroom which is at the
rear elevation. A gas fireplace is proposed.
Height Exception: City Code allows a maximum house height of 26 feet. The Planning Commission
may grant a height exception up to 30 feet when findings are made pursuant to City Code Section 15-
12.100. These findings are detailed in the findings section in this report. The applicant is requesting
a height exception to allow a maximum height of 27’10” to be in keeping with the architectural
characteristic of the French Eclectic style which has tall, steeply pitched roofs. To approve a height
exception it must be found that the additional height is a necessary component of an identifiable
and well documented architectural style and that the design of the structure will be similar in
scale with structures in the surrounding neighborhood.
The book, A Field Guide to American Houses, states that the identifiable features of a French
Eclectic house includes “tall, steeply pitched hipped roofs (occasionally gabled in towered subtype)
without dominant front-facing cross gables, eaves commonly flared upward at roof-wall junction,”
and “materials include brick, stone, or stucco wall cladding and flat tile roofing”. According to the
book, the architectural style of the proposed design is most similar to the symmetrical subtype of
French Eclectic design. In this subtype, “the massive hipped roof, normally with the ridge
paralleling the front of the house, dominates a symmetrical façade with centered entry. Façade
detailing is usually rather formal, inspired by smaller French manor houses rather than grand
chateaus or modest farmhouses. Wings are frequently added to the sides of the main block”.
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior Beige (Stucco)
Trim Beige (Cast Stone)
Dark Brown (Aluminum Clad Windows and Doors)
Roof Gray (Composition)
9
Page 5 of 9
The original submittal had a height of 29’10”. Although staff felt that the originally proposed house
was well designed for a French Eclectic style, staff expressed concern that the height and mass were
not compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant discussed with staff on numerous occasions
possible solutions that met staff’s concerns while maintaining the architectural characteristics of a
French Eclectic design. The applicant was able to mitigate staff’s concerns by making modifications
which included lowering the height by two feet and eliminating the transom windows on the front
elevation. Both the staff and the applicant concur that the height reduction modification of the
character defining element of the roof is still in keeping with the spirit and purity of the French
Eclectic style of architecture. The applicant’s justification and correspondences regarding the design
and changes made during the design review process areprovided in Attachment 4. A height exception
for a French Eclectic style house was approved by the Planning Commission on Madrone Hill Road
in 2012 and modified in 2016 for a maximum height of 33 feet.
Fence Exception: City Code allows a fence up to three feet in height in the front yard setback area.
The code also allows wrought iron entrance gates up to five feet in height when located a minimum
of twenty feet from the edge of street pavement. The Planning Commission may grant a fence
exception when findings are made pursuant to City Code Section 15-29.090. These findings are
detailed in the findings sectionin this report. The applicant is requesting a fence exception to replace
the existing fence and gate within the front setback with decorative wrought iron fencing up to five
feet in height and a vehicular entry gate up to six feet tall with five foot tall field stone veneered
columns. The gate and fencing will have a maximum opening of four inches between pickets. The
fencing will be approximately eight feet from the front property line. The vehicular gate will be 25
feet from the edge of the street pavement. The proposed fencing would be similar in height and
location to existing fencing in the immediate neighborhood. A fence exception was approved for the
property to the south of the subject property in 2009. See Attachment 4for the applicant’s justification
and sheet L-2 of Attachment 7 for the fencing details.
Trees: The property contains 27 protected trees. Two trees are proposed for removal which are a
Variegated Cedar and a Hollywood Juniper. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has
determined that the two trees to be removed meet the City’s criteria for removal and has
recommended conditions of approval to ensure that the existing trees will not be impacted by the
construction (Attachment 2). Four Coast Live Oaks and two European Olive trees are located
within the front setback. A condition has been included to ensure the fence posts for the proposed
fence in the front setback are located and dug so that they will not impact the roots of these trees.
The applicant is required to place a tree bond of $48,250 and to install tree protection fencing prior
to the issuance of building permits.
Landscaping: New trees equal to $9,560 are required to be planted before final occupancy. A
condition of approval requires that the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance when the application is submitted to the Building Department.
Geotechnical Review: As noted above, the property is located within a liquefaction hazard zone.
The proposed development is constrained by relatively shallow groundwater conditions, potential
liquefaction-induced settlements and very strong seismic ground shaking. The project has received
10
Page 6 of 9
Geotechnical Clearance and conditions have been includedto meet all recommended requirements of
the City’s Geotechnical consultant (Attachment 3).
CalGreen Standards/Sustainable Features:The project will meet the minimum CalGreen
standards for a new house.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted five Neighbor Notification
Forms signed by adjacent property owners. One neighbor has a concern regarding the side loading
garage and carport and prefers that the garage and carport be designed so that the openings face
the street. The neighbor is concerned about flare, fumes and the noise associated with a side
loading garage. The applicant has worked with the neighbor in an attempt to mitigate their
concerns and has eliminated one carport that was located nearest to the neighbor (the applicant
originally proposed two carports), shifted the house a few feet and offered to increase the height
of the fence. The neighbor still has concerns regarding the garage and carport and prefers to not
increase the fence height and has submitted two emails regarding their concerns. A Public Notice
was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site and staff has received an email from the
neighbor across the street who is opposed to the height exception increase and is concerned of
construction traffic impacts to Austin Way. Conditions #18 and #33 addresses Austin Way concerns.
No additional concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this staff
report. Copies of the neighbor notification forms and email correspondences from the concerned
neighbors are included as Attachment 5.
FINDINGS
Design Review Findings:
The Planning Commission may grant Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15-45,
if the Planning Commission makes all of the following findings:
(a)Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. The project meets this finding because
the proposed residence is located in the center on a relatively flat portion of the lot in roughly
the same area developed with the existing house.
(b)All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If
constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native
trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any
smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using
the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. The project meets this finding in that the applicant
designed the project to only remove two trees that are in fair condition which meet the City’s
criteria for removal. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has recommended
conditions of approval to ensure that the existing trees will not be impacted by the construction.
(c)The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds. The project meets this finding because the structure is located in the
11
Page 7 of 9
middle of the buildable portion of the lot which is located below the street elevation. The first
and second floor setbacks at the front, sides and rear setback have been increased beyond the
minimum required. The balcony at the rear elevation and the second story windows should
not impact the privacy of adjacent parcels due to the existing vegetation, the grade differential
and the distances between the structures.The project does not impact any identified community
viewsheds.
(d)The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale
with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. The project meets this finding for the
structure itself in that the proposed house has been designed to meet the traditional
characteristics of the French Eclectic style. The mass of the front façade of the home is broken
up by eyebrow dormers, arched and rectangular windows, open railings and columns. The
architecture incorporates elements within the neighborhood which includes stucco siding, a
formal entry way, belly band detailing and quoins at the building corners. These design
elements provide additional articulation, texture and exterior detailing to help minimize the
overall massing and visual impact. Due to the building pad sitting below the street elevation,
the adjacent lot to the north being at a higher elevation and all the setbacks meeting more than
the minimum required, the visual impact of the proposed house is reduced. The residential
neighborhood includes both single story and two story houses.
(e)The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements
that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project meets this finding
because impermeable hardscape surfaces constitute less than 50% of the front setback area.
(f)Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to
utilize solar energy. The project meets this finding because the proposed location and house
design would not impact solar access for adjacent properties. The distance between adjacent
structures is sufficient to allow solar access.
(g)The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential
Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets this finding because the
building design and site plan incorporate several techniques from the Residential Design
Handbook, including increasing the setbacks from the street and adjacent residences of a two
story structure; deemphasizing the garage presence on the street, designing appurtenances in
proportion to the overall building form and neighborhood; minimizing windows and balconies
in direct view of the neighbor’s private indoor and outdoor areas; and selecting materials,
colors, and details that enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner.
(h)On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to
ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with
Section 15-13.100. The finding is not applicable as the site is not a hillside lot.
Height Exception Findings:
The Planning Commission may approve a structure up to thirty feet in height pursuant to City Code
Section 15-12-100, if the Planning Commission finds and determines that:
12
Page 8 of 9
(a)The additional height is a necessary component of an identifiable and well
documented architectural style . The identifiable features of a French Eclectic house
includes tall, steeply pitched roofs. The additional height is necessary to create the character
defining roof element to respect the spirit and purity of the French Eclectic style of
architecture.
(b)The design of the structure will be similar in scale with structures in the surrounding
neighborhood . The neighborhood consists of one and two story large formal houses.
The house has been designed and located to take advantage of the site’s lower elevation from
the street which creates a similar horizontal height pattern of the neighboring houses when
viewed from the street. The architecture incorporates elements within the neighborhood
which includes stucco siding, a formal entry way, belly band detailing and quoins at the
building corners. These design elements provide additional articulation, texture and exterior
detailing to help minimize the overall massing and visual impact.
(c) The net lot size used for determining floor area exceeds twenty-thousand square feet.
The net lot size of the subject parcel is more than double what is required. The net lot
size is 43,405 square feet.
Fence Exception Findings:
The Planning Commission may approve a Fence Exception pursuant to City Code Section 15-29.090,
if the Planning Commission finds that:
(a) The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the neighborhood. The
fence would be similar in location, height, and materials to existing fencing in the immediate
neighborhood. There are several concrete walls, wrought iron gates, and wrought iron fences
along Austin Way within a few hundred yards of the subject property. The proposed style
would be complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood.
(b) The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high quality,
exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable.The fence and gate would be
constructed of wrought iron similar in craftsmanship and quality to other wrought iron fencing
materials in the immediate neighborhood.
(c) The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which
the fence is located.The proposed fence and gate are similar to and harmonious with most of
the fencing in the neighborhood. The wrought iron fence and gate would replace the solid
wood fence.
(d)The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent
neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is
located. Installation and placement of the fence and gate will comply with all Building Code
requirements to ensure its structural safety.
13
Page 9 of 9
(e) The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle
traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties.The fence would
be located outside of the right-of-way. The vehicular gate will be 25 feet from the edge of the
street pavement. The fencing will be approximately eight feet from the front property line. The
wrought iron fence and gate will have a maximum opening of 4” between the pickets to prevent
someone from being trapped between the railings. The top of the fence would be constructed with
a smooth finish to prevent injury to wildlife leaping over the fence.
Environmental Determination:The project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction
or Conversion of Small Structures” of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows
for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Arborist Report dated May 24, 2017
3. Geotechnical Clearance, Supplemental Geologic Report, dated June 9, 2017
4. Letters from Kohlsaat and Associates, architect, (4)
5. Neighbor Notification Forms (5) and email correspondences (3)
6. Story pole Certification Letter, received June 19, 2017
7. Development Plans received June 21, 2017 (Exhibit "A")
14
RESOLUTION NO. 17-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. PDR17-0005 AND ARB17-0015 APPROVING THE
DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A HEIGHT
EXCEPTION, A SECOND DWELLING UNIT AND A FENCE EXCEPTION
FER17-0001 AT 19100 AUSTIN WAY (APN 510-06-022)
WHEREAS, an application was submitted byGary Kohlsaatto demolish an existing residence and
accessory structures to construct a new 27 foot 10 inch tall, 6,687 square foot two-story residence with a
2,129 square foot basement at 19100 Austin Way. The house includes an attached 674 square foot second
unit which will be an affordable unit. The applicant is also requesting a house height and a fence exception.
Planning Commission Design Review approval is required because the proposed house is two stories, would
exceed 18 feet in height and result in a size that is more than 6,000 square feet. The foregoing work is
described as the “Project” in this Resolution.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment
for the project in accordance with the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), and recommends that
the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2017 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 project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures” of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to
three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use
Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new
construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety
Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site
drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of
permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural
atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development.
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 follows the natural contours
of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; preserves
protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural elements are in scale with
the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes hardscape in the front setback area
and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably
15
impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and is consistent with the Residential
Design Review Handbook.
Section 5: The applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of the required
findings for issuance of a Height Exception pursuant to City Code Section 15-12-100 in that the
additional height is a necessary component of an identifiable and well documented French Eclectic style
which characterizes tall, steeply pitched roofs; the design of the structure will be similar in scale with
structures in the surrounding neighborhood as the house has been designed and located to take
advantage of the site’s lower elevation from the street which creates a similar horizontal height pattern of
the neighboring houses when viewed from the street and the architectural design elements provide
additional articulation, texture and exterior detailing to help minimize the overall massing and visual
impact; and the subject parcel’s net lot size used for determining floor area is more than double what is
required.
Section 6: The applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of the required
findings for issuance of a Fence Exception pursuant to City Code Section 15-29.090 in that, the subject
fence is similar in location, height, and materials to existing fencing in the immediate neighborhood; the
fence and gate would be constructed of wrought iron similar in craftsmanship and quality to other
wrought iron fencing materials in the immediate neighborhood; the fence will not be detrimental or
injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which
the property is located as it will comply with all Building Code requirements to ensure its structural
safety; and will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct
the safe access to and from adjacent properties as the vehicular gate will be 25 feet from the edge of the
street pavement and the fencing will be approximately eight feet from the front property line.
Section 7: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR17-0005, ARB17-
0015 and FER17-0001 at 19100 Austin Way (APN 510-06-022) subject to the above Findings, and
Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 12th day of July 2017
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Tina K. Walia
Chair, Planning Commission
16
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR17-0005, ARB17-0015 AND FER17-0001
19100 AUSTIN WAY
(APN 510-06-022)
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
permit 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 satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 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.
2. 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 City certifies that all
processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is
maintained).
3. 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.
4. 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.
17
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, 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.
5. Construction must be commenced within 36 months fromthe date of this approval(July 12, 2020),
or the resolution will expire.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but
not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project
shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the
proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not
be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara
County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department.
Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required
by the building department.
7. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those
features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated June 21, 2017 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 City Code.
8. 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.Incorporate this complete and signed Design Review Approval Resolution into the
submitted building plan sets. The resolution is valid only when it includes all the required
signatures;
d.A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of
required setback areas;
e.A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with
the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan;
f.A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and
g.All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
18
9. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval, a lighting
Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited
to full-cut off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on
adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to
limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties.
10. Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide
a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans.
11. A locking mailbox approved for use by the US Postal service shall be installed and in
compliance with Saratoga Municipal Code section 6-25.030. The mailbox shall be installed
prior to final inspection.
12. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take into account the following:
a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water
runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that
provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and
prolong exposure to water shall be specified.
b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the
landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area.
c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil
type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall,
air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to
ensure successful establishment.
d. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential
damage to roots of protected trees.
e. Sufficient documentation to show how the project complies with applicable Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirements including the payment of
deposit fees for the review submitted plans and water budget/usage calculations.
13. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site
preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and
16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and
other requirements stated in these sections.
14. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community
Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such
landscaping shall be provided to the City.
15. Prior to issuance of Building Permits 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:
a. Proposed construction worker parking area.
b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code.
c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas.
19
d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for
delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth
moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours.
e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas.
f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours,
name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and
contractor.
16.This Condition is Permanent:Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner
shall record a City prepared second dwelling unit deed restriction, at the property owner’s
expense, so if rented, the unit shall only be rented to below market rate households.
17. Excluding the front yard fence exception as shown on the Approved Plans dated June 21, 2017
denominated Exhibit "A", all other fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height
requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29.
18.Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall videotape the surface of the brick
portion of Austin Way (Heritage Lane). A copy of the tape shall be retained by the
Community Development Department. Any damages during the construction shall be repaired
to its original condition by the applicant prior to building permit final.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
19. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements.
CITY ARBORIST
20. All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated September 22, 2016 are hereby adopted as
conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans.
21. Holes for fence posts shall be hand dug. Roots measuring two inches or more shall not be cut
for fence posts. Rather, the post shall be relocated to miss roots. Project arborist shall monitor
digging for posts.
GEOLOGIST
22. All requirements in the Geotechnical Clearance memorandum dated June 9, 2017, 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.
23. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage
improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure
that their recommendations have been properly incorporated.
20
24. 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.
25. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects
of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations
for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
26. 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.
27. The owner/applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
28. The owner/applicant shall enter into an Indemnity 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
PUBLIC WORKS
29. The owner/applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any
City right-of-way or City easement including all new utilities prior to commencement of the
work to implement this Design Review. Prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit, the
applicant/owner shall have the permit reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission to
ensure the historic brick roadway is protected.
30. The owner/applicantshall remove and replace existing dip and settled asphalt driveway approach
with a new one conforming to existing adjoining grade. See Saratoga Standard details for removal
and new installation.
31. The owner/applicant shall replace the existing driveway approach and conform to the existing
street grade fronting the property. New flow line shall conform to existing flow lines and grade.
See City Standard details for removal and new installation.
32. Existing driveway shall be maintained for ingress and egressand fire turn out during construction.
Damages to driveway approach during the construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection.
33. The owner/applicant/contractor shall be responsible for the protection of the existing bricks on
Austin Way. Any damages during the construction shall be repair to its original condition. No
Occupancy of Building until restoration is complete on the street. A plan shall be provided
regarding the protection of the existing bricks.
34. Provide a site grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed Civil engineer.
21
35. The site grading plan shall include but not be limited to the following:
The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the
building at a slope not less than 5 percent for a distance of 10 feet measured
perpendicular to the face of the wall.
If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, a 5
percent slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting
water away from foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a
minimum of 2 percent where located within 10 feet of the building foundation
Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a
minimum of 2 percent away from the building.
36. All existing utilities to existing house (gas, electric, water and sewer) shall be capped off prior
to demolition of existing structures. Show on building plans all new utility services to the new
residence. All utilities to the new residence shall be installed underground.
37. Prior to the commencement of any earthwork/grading activities, the applicant/owner shall
arrange a pre-construction meeting. The meeting shall include the City of Saratoga Grading
Inspector, the grading contractor and the project soils engineer. The applicant/owner shall
arrange the pre-construction meeting at least 48 hours prior to the start of any
earthwork/grading activities.
38. The owner/applicant shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and other public right of way in a
clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed
from the public property. All adjacent property, both public and private, shall be maintained in
a clean, safe and usable condition.
39. The Project Civil Engineer shall design this project to comply with the grading
recommendations in the geotechnical report.
40. All grading and earthwork activities shall conform to the approved plans and specifications.
All grading and earthwork activities shall be observed and approved by the soils engineer. The
soils engineer shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to any grading or earthwork activities.
Unobserved or unapproved work shall be removed and replaced under observation of the
project soil engineer.
41. The owner/applicant shall submit a site plan and associated calculations for storm water
treatment measures in compliance with NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, November 19, 2015
Provision C.3.i. Required Site Design Measures for Small Projects and Detached Single-Family
Home Projects. Applicant / Owner shall require all development projects, which create and /or
replace greater or equal 2,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, and
22
detached single-family home projects, which create and or replace 2,500 square feet or more of
impervious surface, to install one or more of the following site design measures:
Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.
Direct runoff onto vegetated areas.
Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.
Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.
42. Construction Site Control
The owner/applicant shall implement construction site inspection and control to
prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains per approved
Erosion Control Plan.
The City requires the construction sites to maintain year-round effective erosion
control, run-on and run-off control, sediment control, good site management, and
non-storm water management through all phases of construction (including, but not
limited to, site grading, building, and finishing of lots) until the site is fully
stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures.
City will conduct inspections to determine compliance and determine the
effectiveness of the BMPs in preventing the discharge of construction pollutants
into the storm drain. Owner shall be required to timely correct all actual and
potential discharges observed.
43. Prior to the Building Department final, all drainage, grading, and landscaping of the site shall
be completed.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-219
-2
03/06/17
04/25/17A.SECOND FLOORABOVE20'-0"20'-0"25' S.F.S.S.B.20' F.F.S.S.B.30' FRONT SETBACK25' S.F.S.S.B.20' F.F.S.S.B.50' FI
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
R
E
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
60' S
E
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
R
E
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
47'-21/4"34'-8"67'-51/2"
83'-
1
0
1/2"
25'-0"
75'-33/4"
110'
-
1
0
1/4"33'-11/4"58'-113/4"(E) FF = 504.59'
FF = 504.00'
FF = 503.50'
EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE
TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING SHED
TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING DECK
TO BE DEMOLISHED
SECOND FLOOR
ABOVE
MODIFY EXISTING RETAINING WALLMODIFY EXISTING RETAINING WALL
LOWEST EXISTING
GRADE = 501.50'
HIGHEST EXISTING
GRADE = 503.50'SECONDARYDWELLINGTREE TO BE REMOVED
NEW OVERHEAD LINE TO
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
NEW UNDERGROUND
ELEC/TEL/CABLE
EXISTING SEWER LATERAL
TO BE REMAIN
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELEC/
TEL/CABLE TO BE
REROUTED UNDERGROUND
D.G. PATHS
D.G. PATHS
D.G. PATHS
FOUNTAIN, SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS
D.G. PATHS
BBQ AREA
D.G. PATHS
NEW VEHICULAR
AND MAN GATE
NEW VEHICULAR
AND MAN GATES
(E) SLIDING GATE TO
BE REMOVED
FIRE PIT
D.G. PATHS
PAVERS
W/ GRASS STRIPS
WOOD DECK
TO BE REMOVED
SECONDARY
DWELLING
NEW WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO
REPLACE EXISTING WOOD FENCE,
SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS
NEW WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO
REPLACE EXISTING WOOD FENCE,
SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS
ADDRESS LOCATION
PER FIRE DEPARTMENT
STANDARDS
(SS)(SS)(SS)(SS)(SS)(SS)(SS)(SS)
mailbox
water
meter
water
meter
water
meter
mailbox
pillar
water
meter
mailbox
mailbox
guy
jp
column
column
ss co
electric
meter
gas
meter
(ohu)
(ohu)
(ohu)
(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)(ohu)
ss mh
rim 504.99
8" inv 492.24
ss mh
rim 499.13
8" inv 493.45 10' P.S.E. PER 522 M 20505506
504
503502501
500
499505506507508
50
9
510
511512513514510509508507506
50450350250150049
9
.
2
3
OH
W
49
9
.
9
5
OH
W
50
0
.
0
8
EL
E
C
T
-
P
A
N
E
L
50
0
.
1
2
53
8
.
6
1
PP
50
4
.
9
9
SS
M
H
49
9
.
1
3
SS
M
H
50
2
.
4
3
IC
V
B
X
50
2
.
3
8
IC
V
B
X
50
2
.
4
3
IC
V
B
X
50
3
.
8
4
GA
R
F
F
50
2
.
9
7
GA
S
M
E
T
E
R
51
3
.
9
1
JP
N48° 30' 40"E219.29N70° 44
'
03"W186.89
S48° 12' 35"W309.97
N41° 42' 30"W164.70PROPOSED RESIDENCE
TRELLISED
PATIO
COVERED
PORCH
COVERED
LOGGIA
CARPORT
LIGHTWELLLIGHTWELL
PATIO
EXISTING RESIDENCE
TO BE DEMOLISHED
GARAGE
(E) POOL
TO REMAIN
(E) DRIVEWAY
TO REMAIN
(TO BE REMODELED)
(ohu)
LAWN
LAWN
LAWN
(E) DRIVEWAY
TO REMAIN
(TO BE REMODELED)
RAISED BEDS
POOL DECK
(E)
SPA
19" LIVE OAK
21" LIVE OAK
27" LIVE OAK
12",13",14"
LIVE OAK
18",18"
LIVE OAK
14"
OLIVE
14"
VARIEGATED
CEDAR
24"
JUNIPER
16", 14"
MONT. CYPRESS
27"
REDWOOD
34", 17"
MONT.
CYPRESS
18"
MONT.
CYPRESS
26"
MONT.
CYPRESS
11"
REDWOOD
22"
REDWOOD
9"
REDWOOD
30" BIG
LEAF MAPLE
26" BIG
LEAF MAPLE
24" BIG
LEAF MAPLE
35" BIG
LEAF MAPLE
17" ENGLISH
WALNUT
51.5" LIVE OAK
27" LIVE OAK
COVERED
PORCH
#866
#867
#868
#892
#869
#870
#871
#872
#873
#874
#875
#888
#876
#877
#878
#879
#880
#881
#886
#887
#889
#890
#891
A U S T I N W A YSCALE: 1" = 10'
SITE PLAN
59
60
Fountain
Steps
4 Vegetable BoxesGavel Path Lemon Trees
Turf between
Travertine
Firepit
Pool
Staircase
SPA
Fruitless
Olive Tees
Lawn
Fig Tree
503
Persimmon
Travertine
Stepping
Stones
Lawn
2 Crape Myrtle
(Multi-Trunk)
Arbutus
Marina
Fountain
2 Orange Trees
Canary Island Palm
3 Lavender Garden
Euonymous
Green Spire
Boxwood
9 Prunus C.C.
2 Large Vases
with Topiaries
Line Drive
w/ Boxwood
Crape Myrtle Trees
(E) Oaks
Hedge of 12 Dodonea9 Prunus C.C.
Pomegranate3 Tristania Laurina
Fruit Trees
Wild Plum &
Apples
Bench surrounding
Existing Tree 2 Thuja
E.G.
Steps
Car
Parking
Hammock
Sun Dial
877
876
875
874
504887
886
Travertine
Driveway
Semi-Permeable I.E.
Pavers on sand bed
D.G. or
Gravel Path
Travertine
Terrace
Residence
Lawn
25’-0”16’-0”891
890
885
889
888
878
879
880
881882
869
870
868
867
866
Travertine
Stepping
Stones
Travertine
Stepping
Stones
Shrubs
Mailbox
Light Well
Staircase Lightwell
Front Entry
Seating Area
Iron Fence
Toyon Hedge
Dwarf Citrus Tree
Gates
Sculpture OR
Seating Area
(E) Oaks
Existing Trees
Toyon Hedge
Existing Olive Hedge
Existing Trees
Travertine Patio
Pot Pedestals @ ends
of Seat walls
Steps
Outdoor Kitchen
with Pergola
Stairs
GarageCovered Porch
Covered Porch
3&7*4*0/4#:N * NOTES (E) = Existing
SCALE 1”=10’
0 10 20 LANDSCAPE PLANNOTE: REFER TO SHEET
L-2 FOR THE TREE TABLE KAPUR RESIDENCEAITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) 842-0245aitkenassociates@gmail.com19100 Austin Way, Saratoga, CA03-02-2017
IN & AD
KAPUR
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB
1"=10'-0"
L-1 61
Table 1: 19101 Austin Way Tree Table
Tree Species Number Trunk Diameter Estimated Height Estimated Crown
Diameter
Condition Suitability for
Preservation
Notes
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
866 19 45 40 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
867 21 45 40 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
868 27 45 40 Good Good
European olive
(Olea europaea)
869 12, 13, 24 45 45 Fair Fair
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
870 18, 18 45 45 Fair Fair Dead spar over
road
European olive
(Olea europaea)
871 14 35 30 Fair Fair
variegated cedar
(Thuja plicata
‘zebrina')
872 14 45 25 Fair Fair
Hollywood juniper
(Juniperus
chinensis
‘Torulosa’)
873 24 25 25 Fair Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
874 16, 14 35 35 Fair Poor Under high voltage
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
875 27 65 40 Good Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
876 34, 17 55 40 Fair Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
877 18 45 35 Fair Poor
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
878 26 55 40 Fair Poor
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
879 11 45 30 Fair Fair
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
880 22 65 40 Fair Fair
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
881 9 45 30 Fair Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
882 40 70 50 Good Good
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
883 30 65 45 Fair Poor Lean
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
884 19 45 45 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
885 12 30 30 Fair Fair Suppressed
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
886 30 35 40 Poor Poor Topped decay
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
887 26 40 40 Fair Fair
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
888 24 40 40 Fair Fair
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
889 35 40 40 Fair Fair In deck
English walnut
(Juglans regia)
890 17 20 30 Fair Poor
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
891 51.5 65 50 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
892 28 55 50 Good Good Adjacent site
Table 1: 19101 Austin Way Tree TableTree Species Number Trunk Diameter Estimated Height Estimated Crown Diameter Condition Suitability for Preservation Notescoast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)866 19 45 40 Good Goodcoast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)867 21 45 40 Good Goodcoast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)868 27 45 40 Good GoodEuropean olive (Olea europaea)869 12, 13, 24 45 45 Fair Faircoast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)870 18, 18 45 45 Fair Fair Dead spar over roadEuropean olive (Olea europaea)871 14 35 30 Fair Fairvariegated cedar (Thuja plicata ‘zebrina')872 14 45 25 Fair FairHollywood juniper (Juniperus chinensis ‘Torulosa’)873 24 25 25 Fair FairMonterey cypress (Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
874 16, 14 35 35 Fair Poor Under high voltage
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
875 27 65 40 Good Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
876 34, 17 55 40 Fair Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
877 18 45 35 Fair Poor
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
878 26 55 40 Fair Poor
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
879 11 45 30 Fair Fair
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
880 22 65 40 Fair Fair
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
881 9 45 30 Fair Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
882 40 70 50 Good Good
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
883 30 65 45 Fair Poor Lean
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
884 19 45 45 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
885 12 30 30 Fair Fair Suppressed
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
886 30 35 40 Poor Poor Topped decay
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
887 26 40 40 Fair Fair
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
888 24 40 40 Fair Fair
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
889 35 40 40 Fair Fair In deck
English walnut
(Juglans regia)
890 17 20 30 Fair Poor
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
891 51.5 65 50 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
892 28 55 50 Good Good Adjacent site
Table 1: 19101 Austin Way Tree Table
Tree Species Number Trunk Diameter Estimated Height Estimated Crown
Diameter
Condition Suitability for
Preservation
Notes
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
866 19 45 40 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
867 21 45 40 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
868 27 45 40 Good Good
European olive
(Olea europaea)
869 12, 13, 24 45 45 Fair Fair
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
870 18, 18 45 45 Fair Fair Dead spar over
road
European olive
(Olea europaea)
871 14 35 30 Fair Fair
variegated cedar
(Thuja plicata
‘zebrina')
872 14 45 25 Fair Fair
Hollywood juniper
(Juniperus
chinensis
‘Torulosa’)
873 24 25 25 Fair Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
874 16, 14 35 35 Fair Poor Under high voltage
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
875 27 65 40 Good Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
876 34, 17 55 40 Fair Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
877 18 45 35 Fair Poor
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
878 26 55 40 Fair Poor
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
879 11 45 30 Fair Fair
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
880 22 65 40 Fair Fair
coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
881 9 45 30 Fair Fair
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
882 40 70 50 Good Good
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa)
883 30 65 45 Fair Poor Lean
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
884 19 45 45 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
885 12 30 30 Fair Fair Suppressed
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
886 30 35 40 Poor Poor Topped decay
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
887 26 40 40 Fair Fair
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
888 24 40 40 Fair Fair
big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum)
889 35 40 40 Fair Fair In deck
English walnut
(Juglans regia)
890 17 20 30 Fair Poor
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
891 51.5 65 50 Good Good
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
892 28 55 50 Good Good Adjacent site
3&7*4*0/4#:KAPUR RESIDENCEAITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) 842-0245aitkenassociates@gmail.com19100 Austin Way, Saratoga, CA03-02-2017
IN & AD
KAPUR
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB
1"=10'-0"
L-2 FENCE, GATE AND TREE TABLE DETAIL SHEET62
(BSBHF
GRADING QUANTITIES
CUT FILL
0 CY 178 CY
TOTAL GRADING = 178 CY
LANDSCAPING
EXCAVATION
FOR HOUSE 957 CY 0 CY
63
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-319
-7
03/06/17
04/25/17A.RANGEWCD
RANGE
REF
12'-0"23'-0"10'-0"23'-0"21'-0"1'-0"30'-91/2"22'-61/2"20'-0"7'-0"1'-6"4'-6"13'-0"22'-0"10'-6"14'-10"18'-10"81/2"16'-11"19'-1"14'-6"2'-0"12'-10"
56'-0"53'-4"73'-4"1'-4"45'-6"16'-10"82'-5"
A
A-9
A
A-9
B
A-9
B
A-9
GAS ONLY
FIREPLACE
FOYER
OFFICE
LIVING
ROOM
DINING ROOM
FAMILY
ROOM
KITCHEN
GUEST SUITE
LAUNDRY/
MUD ROOM
2-CAR GARAGE
ELEV.
FORMAL
POWDER
LIVING
ROOM
GUEST
BATH
BATH
BEDROOM
SECONDARY
DWELLING
KITCHEN
HALF
BATH
CARPORT
DN
OPEN
TO ABOVE &
BELOW
UP
COVERED ENTRY
(LIGHTWELL BELOW)
DN
PANTRY
DN
F.P.
TRELLISED PATIO
PATIO
(LIGHTWELL BELOW)CLO.
OPEN
TO ABOVE &
BELOW
DN
HALL
COVERED
LOGGIA
OPEN
TO ABOVE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
64
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-419
-8
03/06/17
04/25/17A.WCDA
A-9
A
A-9
B
A-9
21'-7"12'-10"21'-7"33'-1/2"20'-31/2"23'-4"11'-101/2"13'-11/2"5'-0"53'-4"56'-0"
19'-61/2"16'-11"19'-61/2"2'-0"1'-91/2"18'-6"MASTER SUITE
MASTER CLOSET
BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3
CLO.
BATH 4
ELEV.
CLOSET
LAUNDRY 2
BEDROOM 4
VESTIBULE
DN
OPEN TO
BELOW
BATH 3
MASTER BATH
BALCONY
BATH 2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
65
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-519
-9
03/06/17
04/25/17A.
WCD
REF
34'-2"
4'-0"21'-10"7'-10"22'-61/2"4'-0"19'-61/2"16'-11"6'-0"13'-61/2"2'-0"4'-0"6'-0"2'-0"9'-61/2"22'-111/2"53'-4"UP
MECHANICAL/
BEDROOM 6
MEDIA ROOM
STORAGE
HALF
BATH 2
UP
ELEV
LIGHTWELL
LANDING
OPEN TO
ABOVE
BEDROOM 5
LIGHT-
WELL
UP
STORAGE
WET BAR
LAUNDRY
BATH 5
A
A-9
A
A-9
B
A-9
B
A-9
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
66
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-619
-10
03/06/17
04/25/17A.
A
A-9
A
A-9
B
A-9
B
A-9
STANDING SEAM ARCHED METAL ROOFSTANDING SEAM ARCHED METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM ARCHED METAL ROOFSTANDING SEAM ARCHED METAL ROOF
'ARCHITECTURAL' COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOF
'OGEE' SHAPED METAL GUTTER
'OGEE' SHAPED METAL GUTTER
'OGEE' SHAPED METAL GUTTER
'OGEE' SHAPED METAL GUTTER
BITUMINOUS MEMBRANE
@ LOW SLOPE ROOF
PARAPET
WALLS
'ARCHITECTURAL' COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOF
'ARCHITECTURAL' COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOF
STONE TILE @ BALCONY
PORCH ROOF BELOW
WOOD TRELLIS
BELOW
BITUMINOUS MEMBRANE
@ LOW SLOPE ROOF
STANDING SEAM
ARCHED METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM
ARCHED METAL ROOF
SKYLIGHT
SKYLIGHT
BITUMINOUS MEMBRANE
@ LOW SLOPE ROOF
BITUMINOUS MEMBRANE
@ LOW SLOPE ROOF
BITUMINOUS MEMBRANE
@ LOW SLOPE ROOF
9/12
9/129/12 9/12 9/129/129/12
9/12
9/129/129/12
9/129/129/129/129/12
9/129/129/12
9/12 9/129/129/12
9/12
9/12
9/129/12
LOW SLOPE ROOF
LOW
SLOPE
ROOFHIP
HIPHIPLOW SLOPE ROOF 9/12LOW SLOPE ROOF
HIPVALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPHIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPHIPVALLEYHIPVALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYHIPRIDGE
RIDGERIDGE
RIDGERIDGE RIDGERIDGERIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGEVALLEYHIPHIPLOW
SLOPE
ROOF
9/129/129/12HIPLOW
SLOPE
ROOF
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ROOF PLAN
67
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-719
-11
03/06/17
04/25/17A.
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
10'-1"8'-1"10'-1"27'-10"'ARCHITECTURAL' COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
'ARCHITECTURAL' COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
FAUX-CRETE QUOINS
FAUX-CRETE QUOINSFAUX-CRETE COLUMNS O/ STR. POSTDEC. FAUX-CRETE PILASTERS W/ CAP AND BASE
FAUX-CRETE CASING & KEYSTONE
WROUGHT IRON BALUSTRADE
FAUX-CRETE PILASTERS W/ CAP, BASE AND PICTURE MOLDING
WOOD TRELLIS
W/ SHAPED ENDS
FAUX-CRETE COLUMNS
O/ STR. POST
WROUGHT IRON BALUSTRADE
FAUX-CRETE COLUMNS O/ STR. POST ALUM. CLAD WOOD
FRAMED WINDOWS
INTEGRAL COLOR COAT SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH
FAUX-CRETE CROWN @
SOFFITED EAVE
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF @ ARCHED
DORMERS W/ FAUX-CRETE EAVE TRIM
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF @ ARCHED
DORMERS W/ FAUX-CRETE EAVE TRIM
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
514.08'
PLATE
514.08'
PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
502.92'PLATE 502.92'PLATE
12
9
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
27'-10"10'-1"8'-1"10'-1"9'-4"FAUX-CRETE COLUMNS
O/ STR. POST
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF @ ARCHED
DORMERS W/ FAUX-CRETE EAVE TRIM
ALUM. CLAD WOOD
FRAMED WINDOWS
FAUX-CRETE CASING
@ OPENINGS
FAUX-CRETE CROWN
@ FLAT ROOF EAVE
WROUGHT IRON BALUSTRADE
WROUGHT IRON BALUSTRADE
WOOD TRELLIS
W/ SHAPED ENDS
FAUX-CRETE CROWN @
SOFFITED EAVE
'OGEE' SHAPED METAL GUTTER
'ARCHITECTURAL' COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
INTEGRAL COLOR COAT
SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH
FAUX-CRETE PILASTERS
W/ CAP, BASE AND PICTURE
MOLDING
FAUX-CRETE QUOINS
FAUX-CRETE SHAPED
BELLY BAND
SHAPED FAUX-
CRETE CASING
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF @ ARCHED
DORMERS W/ FAUX-CRETE EAVE TRIM
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
514.08'
PLATE
514.08'
PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
502.92'PLATE 502.92'PLATE
524.50'
PLATE
524.50'
PLATE
12
9
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FRONT (NORTHEAST) ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
LEFT (SOUTHEAST) ELEVATION
VIEW
VIEW
68
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-819
-12
03/06/17
04/25/17A.
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
27'-10"10'-1"8'-1"10'-1"ALUM. CLAD WOOD FRAMED DOORS
FAUX-CRETE COLUMNS
O/ STR. POST
FAUX-CRETE QUOINS
FAUX-CRETE BELLY BAND
WROUGHT IRON
BALUSTRADE
WROUGHT IRON BALUSTRADE
WOOD TRELLIS
W/ SHAPED ENDS
FAUX-CRETE CROWN @
SOFFITED EAVE
'OGEE' SHAPED METAL GUTTER
'ARCHITECTURAL' COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
INTEGRAL COLOR COAT SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH
FAUX-CRETE CROWN
@ FLAT ROOF EAVE
FAUX-CRETE QUOINS
FAUX-CRETE CROWN @
SOFFITED EAVE
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF @ ARCHED
DORMERS W/ FAUX-CRETE EAVE TRIM
FAUX-CRETE CROWN @
SOFFITED EAVE
FAUX-CRETE COLUMNS ON FAUX-CRETE PILASTERS
W/ CAP, BASE AND PICTURE MOLDING
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
514.08'
PLATE
514.08'
PLATE
524.50'
PLATE
502.92'PLATE 502.92'PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
12
9
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
27'-10"10'-1"8'-1"10'-1"9'-4"FAUX-CRETE COLUMNS O/ STR. POST
CARRIAGE STYLE GARAGE DOOR W/ LITES
WROUGHT IRON BALUSTRADE
FAUX-CRETE CROWN @
SOFFITED EAVE
'OGEE' SHAPED METAL GUTTER
'ARCHITECTURAL' COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
INTEGRAL COLOR COAT SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF @ ARCHED
DORMERS W/ FAUX-CRETE EAVE TRIM
FAUX-CRETE PILASTERS W/ CAP,
BASE AND PICTURE MOLDING
FAUX-CRETE CASING
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF @ ARCHED
DORMERS W/ FAUX-CRETE EAVE TRIMSKYLIGHT
FAUX-CRETE COLUMNS ON FAUX-CRETE
PILASTERS W/ CAP, BASE AND PICTURE
MOLDING
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
514.08'
PLATE
514.08'
PLATE
524.50'
PLATE
524.50'
PLATE
502.92'PLATE 502.92'PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
12
9
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR (SOUTHWEST) ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
RIGHT (NORTHWEST) ELEVATION
VIEW
VIEW
69
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-919
-13
03/06/17
04/25/17A.
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
10'-1"9'-4"10'-1"27'-10"3'-61/2"1'-0"MASTER BEDROOM
STAIRWELL
STAIRWELL
BATH 2BATH 3
FOYER
LANDING
MEDIA ROOMHALL
LIGHTWELL
KITCHENHALLCOVERED
PORCH
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
514.08'
PLATE
514.08'
PLATE
524.50'
PLATE
524.50'
PLATE
502.92'PLATE 502.92'PLATE
STORAGE
12
9
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
492.83'
BASEMENT FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
504.00'
MAIN FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
515.17'
SECOND FLOOR
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
10'-1"8'-1"27'-10"3'-61/2"2'-111/2"9'-4"10'-1"10'-7"502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
502.50'
AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
514.08'
PLATE
514.08'
PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
523.25'
PLATE
502.92'PLATE 503.50'GARAGE F.F.
DINING ROOM STAIRWELL
STAIRWELL
HALL HALL
HALL
MECH./
STORAGE
GARAGE
BATH 4 CLOSET MEZZANINE LAUNDRY 2 CLOSET
TRELLISED
VERANDA
12
9
LAUNDRY/
MUD ROOM
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECTION B-B 70
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-1019
-14
03/06/17
04/25/17A.A U S T I N W A YN48° 30' 40"E219.29N70° 44' 03"W186.89S48° 12' 35"W309.97
N41° 42' 30"W164.70191001906619120PROPOSED
RESIDENCE
NEIGHBORING
RESIDENCE
NEIGHBORING
RESIDENCE
19099191021916519088
19145
(BAINTER)
(ONE-
STORY)
(ONE-STORY)
(TWO-STORY)
NEIGHBORING
RESIDENCE
NEIGHBORING
RESIDENCE
(ONE-STORY)
NEIGHBORING
RESIDENCE
(TWO-STORY)
NEIGHBORING
RESIDENCE
(ONE-STORY)
NEIGHBORING
RESIDENCE
(ONE-STORY)BAI
NTER AVENUEBBA
A
19088 STREETSCAPEA-11
A-11
A-11A-11SCALE: 1" = 40'
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
71
OF
REVISIONS
DATE:
SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:KAPUR - SOLTANI RESIDENCE19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CAAS SHOWN
A-1119
-15
03/06/17
04/25/17A.
19100
19066
19120504.00'
PLATE
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
83'-71/2"57'-11/2"19'-9"23'-0"27'-10"FLAG LOT
DRIVEWAY
PROPERTY LINES
PROPERTY LINES
1910019066
19120
504.00'
PLATE
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE
NEIGHBOR
F.F.
NEIGHBOR
F.F.
19088
240'-81/2"255'-71/4"
PROPERTY LINESPROPERTY LINESPROPERTY LINES
19100
504.00'
PLATE
530.33'
HIGHEST RIDGE19102
19088
AUSTIN
WAY
SCALE: 1" = 20'
STREETSCAPE
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SITE SECTION A
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SITE SECTION B
72
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 1
Meeting Date:July 12, 2017
Application No:SUB 15-0001, VAR 16-002, ENV 15-0005, GEO 15-0015
Type of Application:Tentative Map/Variance/ Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Location/APN: 20625 Brookwood Lane/503-23-025
Owner/Applicant:David Johnston /Jitka Cymbal
Staff Planner:Sung H. Kwon, Senior Planner
20625 Brookwood Lane
73
Page 2
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.63 acre lot located at 20625 Brookwood Lane into three
parcels with a 0.37 acre park dedication. A variance for lot frontage is requested to preserve a 48-
inch oak tree on proposed Lot 3. No trees would be impacted by this proposal.
The project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California
Environmental Quality Act which became available for a 20 day public review beginning June 16,
2017.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Adopt Resolution No. 17-019 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the
Tentative Map, Variance, and Geotechnical Clearance subject to the conditions of approval
(including City Council acceptance of the Park Dedication).
Adopt Resolution No. 17-020 recommending that the City Council accept the park
dedication.
Project Data
General Plan:M-15
Zoning:R-1 15,000
Site Area: 1.26 Acres
Average Slope:11.24% (Total)
9.38% (After park dedication)
Proposal Zoning Variance Request
Frontage
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
67.12ft.
63.23 ft.
24.13 ft.
60 ft.
Because it is off of a
cul-de-sac
No
No
Yes
Width
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
100.5 ft.
103.78 ft.
111.59 ft.
100 ft.No
No
No
Depth
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
145.39 ft.
155.49 ft.
221.57 ft.
125 ft.No
No
No
Net Site Area
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
15,442 sq. ft.
15,327 sq. ft.
20,020 sq. ft.
15,000 sq. ft.No
No
No
Allowable Floor Area
Lot 1 1,286 sq. ft.4,128 sq. ft. No
74
Page 3
Lot 2
Lot 3
-
-
4,128 sq. ft.
4,518 sq. ft.
N/A
N/A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Subdivision Description and Site Characteristics
Tentative Map approval is required pursuant to City Code Section 14-20.070. The Final Map
approval requires an action by the City Council prior to recordation of the map.
Site Description
The 1.26 acre site is located at 20625 Brookwood Lane. There are current 3 single family homes on
the site. There are a variety of large trees on the property. Specifically, there is a 48 inch Oak tree
that the applicant would like to keep.
Demolition of Structures
Two of the three homes will be demolished. An existing garage and shed will also be demolished.
Due to the age of the structures, a historic review was conducted on the three homes (See
Attachment 4). It was determined that these structures are not listed or eligible for the California
Register of Historic Resources. As such, demolition can occur without further environmental
review.
Study Session
The Planning Commission reviewed the variance concept during a study session on September 27,
2016. At this study session, most of the commission seemed supportive of the variance request to
preserve the 48-inch oak tree.
Park Dedication
The applicant proposes to subdivide the vacant lot into three single-family home parcels ranging in
size from 15,442 net sq. ft. to 20,020 sq. ft. The application also includes a park dedication and tree
protection easement.
The overall slope for the site is 11.24%. With a slope over 10%, the site would be a hillside lot and
the minimum lot size would be 40,000 sq. ft. By dedicating a steep portion of the lot to the City of
Saratoga, the resulting parcel after the park dedication would be less than 10% slope. As such the
minimum lot size would be 15,000 sq. ft. Public Works has reviewed this park dedication and
believe it will be a good addition to Wildwood Park.
Variance
The proposed subdivision includes a variance request for lot frontage for Lot 3. This reduced lot
frontage is proposed to save the 48 inch Oak tree. Without the variance, the building envelope
would be reduced and the Oak tree would have to be removed for the construction of a new house.
Grading & Drainage
The only grading that is proposed is the proposed driveway for Lot 3 (28 CY cut). Conceptual
locations for bioswales at Lot 2 and Lot 3 are also shown. No other grading is proposed.
75
Page 4
Traffic
A policy of the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan requires a transportation analysis
for all development projects resulting in 25 or more peak-hour trips. There are already 3 homes
on the property and no new trips would be generated from this subdivision.
Lot Access
The City Code requires every lot to either front on an accepted public street, a street offered for
dedication, or a minimum access street. There is sufficient access for each of the three proposed
lots.
Buildable Area
The constraints on the proposed subdivision including seatbacks, protected trees, etc. will limit
the buildable area. The applicant has provided a diagram and area calculations. See Attachment
6. The buildable area for each lot is as follows:
Buildable Area
Lot 1 5,240 sq. ft.
Lot 2 7,030 sq. ft.
Lot 3 3,086 sq. ft.
Utilities
The existing three houses Water, Gas, Electricity and Sewer Service. Will serve letters for the
subdivision has been provided. (See Attachment 7)
Geotechnical Clearance
Geo-Logic Associates prepared a Geologic Feasibility Investigation and response letter, dated
November 24, 2015 and February 22, 2016, respectively for the subdivision project which was
reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. The peer review reports states
that the proposed subdivision is constrained by potential seismically-induced settlement,
liquefaction potential, and strong seismic ground shaking. The Project Geotechnical Consultant
has satisfactorily addressed the comments of our previous geotechnical peer review and
presented a final conclusion that tested site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. The
Consultant has completed evaluations of seismically-induced dry settlement and indicated a
calculated settlement magnitude of about 1 inch. This settlement value should be provided to the
project structural engineer to be included in future house foundation designs, along with static
settlement. Site settlement does not appear sufficient to raise concerns about building collapse.
Geotechnical clearance for the subdivision was provided by staff on April 5, 2016. Each new lot
is buildable; however, each new house will require individual geotechnical clearance.
76
Page 5
NEIGHBOR CORRESPONDENCE
Public notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. On July 5, 2017, Staff
received a comment letter from neighbors at 20620 Brookwood Lane and 20626 Brookwood Lane.
These neighbors object to the three lot subdivision and the park dedication. They would prefer a
two lot subdivision.
FINDINGS
Tentative Subdivision Map Findings
The findings required for issuance of a Tentative Map Approval pursuant to City Code Section 14-
20.070 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of
those required findings:
(1)The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plans.
The subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan designation of M-15 which
allows 2.9 homes per acre. With 1.16 net acres, the maximum number of units allowed on
the existing lot is three (3) which is consistent with the proposal. The proposed parcels meet
and exceed the minimum 15,000 s. ft. lot size requirement of the R-1 15,000 zoning district.
Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth meet or exceed the minimums required by
the municipal code. The frontage for Lot 1 and Lot 2 meet or exceed the minimum
required. The applicant is requesting a variance for the frontage requirement for Lot 3. The
granting of a variance would allow this finding to be met.
(2)The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
A driveway is proposed for Lot 3. No other development or improvements are proposed
at this time. Future improvements, including but not limited to new homes and grading
and paving of private driveways, will require Design Review and/or building permits.
Future development of residential homes will be reviewed for impacts on views and
privacy. Likewise, design review approval will not be granted unless future development
is compatible with neighboring residential structures. Design review approval will also be
contingent on preserving the natural landscape.
(3)The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
The project was reviewed for geological and geotechnical hazards and constraints present on
the site. A Geotechnical Report satisfactorily addresses the recommendations of the City’s
Geotechnical Consultant. An in-depth site specific geotechnical investigation will be
prepared for each lot (including design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls,
basements, swimming pools, etc.) prior to the issuance of building permits for individual
residences.
(4)The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The site meets or exceeds the minimum required area for development of three (3) primary
dwelling units. The development meets or exceeds the zoning district standards for the
77
Page 6
development of single family homes as proposed by this subdivision. The project is
compatible with the existing and surrounding density of development.
(5)The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for the project in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15070 and
following of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The MND is based on
an Initial Study which indicates there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole
record before the City of Saratoga, that the project as mitigated may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
was properly circulated for a 20 day public review beginning June 16, 2017.
(6)The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems.
The project meets this finding. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by the Planning
Department and the Public Works Department and circulated to the following agencies:
Santa Clara County Fire Department, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose Water
Company, Pacific Gas & Electric, and local School Districts. The applicant will be required
to comply with all conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site requested
by all Agencies or Utilities having jurisdiction over the project. All structural improvements
to the property will be reviewed by the Building Department and Public Works Department.
(7)The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access or use.
The subdivision, as proposed, will not conflict with these easements. Future
improvements will be reviewed to ensure that they do not conflict with easements for
access or use. In addition, the Fire Department has noted that the adjoining cul-de-sac is
sufficient for emergency access.
(8)The proposed subdivision of land is not subject to a contract executed pursuant to
the Williamson Act.
The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.
(9)The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community
sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements.
The applicant will be required to conform to all standards, requirements, and conditions
of the Sanitary Sewer District. There is existing sewer service to the three existing homes.
Sewer service will be provided to any new replacement home.
Variance Findings
As noted in Section 15-70.060, the approving authority may grant a variance as applied for or in
modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the approving authority
makes all of the following findings:
(a)That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation
78
Page 7
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district.
The purpose of this variance is to save a 48 inch Oak tree. Saving this tree would
substantially limit the development area. By allowing a reduced frontage, a minimum
access frontage road would not be required inside the parcel, which would have reduced
the development area. Without the variance, the 48 inch tree would likely be removed.
(b)That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the
same zoning district.
The variance is only requested to save a 48 inch oak tree. The existing parcel can be
divided into three lots without a variance. In addition, there are already 3 houses on
the existing lot. The design of the 3-lot subdivision would not create a special
privilege.
(c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The frontage variance at Lot 3 would not impact emergency access. This variance
would not have any substantial impacts on the neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15070 and following of Title
14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). This MND, included as Attachment 3, is based
on an Initial Study which indicates there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before the City of Saratoga, that the project as mitigated may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a
20 day public review beginning June 16, 2017.
ATTACHMENTS
1)Resolution of Approval for Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Map
2)Resolution of Recommendation of Approval for Park Dedication
3)Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration & MMRP
4)Historic Evaluation of Structures
5)Geotechnical Clearance & Geologic Report
6)Buildable Area Diagram
7)Will Serve Letters
8)Comment letter from neighbor
9)Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plans
79
RESOLUTION NO. 17-021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV 15-005), THE
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (SUB 15-001), AND VARIANCE (VAR 16-002)
LOCATED 20625 BROOKWOOD LANE (APN 503-23-025)
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2015, an application and tentative subdivision map was
submitted by David Johnston, requesting approval to subdivide a 1.6 acre site into three parcels,
located at 20625 Brookwood. This application also includes a 0.34 acre park dedication. (The
Tentative Subdivision Map, Variance, and Park Dedication are collectively referenced as the
“Project.”) Single family homes surround the site. The site is zoned R-1 15,000 and has a
General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential: M-15; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an initial study and
Mitigated 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; and
WHEREAS, the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly
noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period beginning June 16, 2017. 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 July 12, 2017; and
WHEREAS,The MND identified potentially significant adverse effects on the
environment from the Project but found that mitigation measures proposed for the Project and
made a part of the Project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effects would occur.
WHEREAS,The City received no comments on the MND that identified any new
impacts, changes to mitigation or other information that would alter the MND’s conclusion that
all potentially adverse environmental effects of the Project would be avoided or mitigated to a
point where clearly no significant effects would occur.
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2017, 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. All comments on the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration raised during the public and agency comment period and at the Public Hearing(s) on
the Project were considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed
and considered the information in the MND, staff report, public comments, and other documents
in the administrative record for completeness and compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines.
80
Resolution No.17-021 Page 2
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: With respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
1.Notice of the public review period and meetings concerning the MND was given
as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines; and
2.All interested parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the
opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the MND
prior to this action by the Planning Commission; and
3.All comments raised during the public comment period on the MND and during
the meeting were responded to adequately; and
4.The Planning Commission was presented with and has reviewed all of the
information in the administrative record; and
5.The MND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and the MND represents the Planning
Commission’s independent judgment. The Planning Commission has considered
the information contained in the MND and the record in considering the Project
and related actions; and
6.Based on the entire record of this matter, there is no evidence that the Project may
have a significant effect on the environment; and
7.The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is
based are located in the City of Saratoga Community Development Department
and are maintained by the Director of that Department.
8.The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration
pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA.
9.The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan dated July 12, 2017 and hereby made a part of this Resolution
(“MMRP”).
10.The Planning Commission hereby directs the Community Development
Department Director to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures
required in the Project as specified in the MMRP to mitigate significant
environmental effects, as described in the MND.
81
Resolution No.17-021 Page 3
Section 2: The project is consistent with Saratoga General Plan Land Use Policy LU 1.1
which affirms that the city shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family
detached residences; Open Space Element Policy 11.a which provides that the City shall ensure
that projects are designed in a manner that minimizes disruption to important wildlife, riparian
and plant habitats; and Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City
shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design
Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in: (1) That the proposed
map or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; (2) That
the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (3) That the site is physically
suitable for the proposed density of development; (4) That the design of the subdivision or
building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (5) That the design
of the subdivision or building site or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public
health or safety problems; (6) That the design of the subdivision or building site or type or
improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. In this connection,
the advisory agency may grant tentative approval if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted
to the advisory agency to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site; and (7) That the
discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision or building site into an existing community
sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State
regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of
the State Water Code.
Section 4:The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on an Initial Study which
indicates there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of
Saratoga, that the project as mitigated may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves applications
SUB15-001 and VAR 16-002, for the project located at 20625 Brookwood Lane.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 12th day of
July 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Tina K. Walia
Chair, Planning Commission
82
Resolution No.17-021 Page 4
EXHIBIT 1
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, 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.
83
Resolution No.17-021 Page 5
6.Tentative Subdivision Map. The development shall be located and constructed to include
those features, and only those features, as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map
denominated Exhibit "A". A final map shall be prepared substantially in accord with the
tentative map as approved. Any substantial change to the tentative may require additional
review by the Planning Commission. All proposed changes to the Tentative Subdivision
Map must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded
set of plans highlighting the changes.
7.Compliance with Fire Department. All requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire
Department are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as
part of the Approved Plans. Future development shall be reviewed for compliance with
Fire Department requirements.
8.Prior to the recording of the final map, City Council approval of the park dedication
shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map shall be obtained and the dedication completed
prior to or concurrently with recordation of the final map.
9.The two homes and accessory structures identified to be demolished shall be demolished
prior to the recordation of the final map.
10.The proposed tree protection easement shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final
map. The tree protection easement shall not allow any work within the easement. The 26
ft. radius shall be measured from the edge of the tree trunk rather than the center of the
trunk.
Public Works
11.Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner
(applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an
authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at
all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also
show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City
Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land
Surveyors Act.
12.The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial
conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents
required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination.
The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the
Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items:
a.Two copies of map checking calculations.
b.Two copies of Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within
ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map.
c.Two copies of each map referenced on the Final Map.
d.Two copies of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map.
e.Two copies of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will
facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer.
84
Resolution No.17-021 Page 6
13.The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at
the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination.
14.Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final
Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to
defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as
determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to
guarantee the setting of interior monuments.
15.The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required
easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the
approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval.
16.New good neighbor-type redwood fence between the property and Wildwood Park shall be
constructed during the development of each parcel along all parcel lines bordering the Park.
17.Improvements to Brookwood Lane cul-de-sac will be required during development or re-
development of each parcel as part of the Engineering Review conditions. The scope of
improvements shall be determined by the City Engineer at the time of each parcel
development/redevelopment.
18.Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with
satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the
subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the
subdivision.
9.The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public
agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivi-
sion improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall
be provided to City Engineer.
17.The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park Development fee prior to Final Map
approval.
18.The owner/applicant shall provide the Director of Public Works with a plan describing
how owner/applicant will implement all Best Management Practices (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 (as amended by Orders R2-2011-0083 and R2-2015-0049) (“NPDES
Permit”). 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 enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement,
which shall contain all of the provisions required by the NPDES Permit and provide a
funding mechanism(s), satisfactory in form and content to the Director of Public Works,
85
Resolution No.17-021 Page 7
to ensure permanent funding for the maintenance of the stormwater treatment systems or
hydro modification controls developed on the property as well as inspection and
reporting. Upon owner/applicant's request, the City will initiate proceedings to create an
assessment district, which, if approved, shall be a satisfactory funding mechanism for this
maintenance, inspection, and reporting.
19.All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and
Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of
preventing storm water pollution.
20.Geotechnical Clearance for the Tentative Map application is granted. Each individual
parcel development will be based on the Geologic Feasibility Investigation and Response
Letter prepared by Geo-Logic, dated November 24, 2015 and February 22, 2016,
respectively. Additionally, site specific design-level geotechnical investigations shall be
prepared for each parcel and design recommendations provided to the building
designer(s) for each parcel.
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.
CEQA
30.Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Basic Construction Measures. To limit the project’s
construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following BAAQMD-
recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included in the project’s
grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications:
a.All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered three times per day.
b.All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
c.All visible mud or dirt track-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 is prohibited.
d.All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e.All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible.
f.Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to five 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.
86
Resolution No.17-021 Page 8
g.All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h.Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective
action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
31. Mitigation Measure – BIO-1: Special-Status and Migratory Birds. Demolition activities
could result in direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds by causing the destruction or
abandonment of occupied nests. To ensure compliance with the MBTA/MBTRA and the
CFGC the measures outlined below shall be performed.
a.A pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be completed by a qualified biologist
no more than 14 days prior to demolition.
b.If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these
activities, a qualified biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free
buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 50
feet for other species such as song birds), to ensure that no nests of species
protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Wildlife Code will be disturbed
during the removal of structures.
c.If either a nesting raptor or a nesting songbird is found within the suggested buffer
zones, a qualified biologist can monitor the activity of the nesting birds to
determine if a smaller buffer can be used to ensure the birds will not be disturbed.
31. Mitigation Measure – BIO-2: Special-Status Bats. Maternity colonies of bats are also
protected by California Fish and Game Code. Although the homes are currently occupied,
there is a potential for a maternity colony of bats to occupy the buildings and trees in the
immediate vicinity. The demolition of the buildings could result in the loss of a maternity
colony located in these structures or in nearby trees immediately adjacent to the
structures. To minimize potential impacts on a maternity colony of bats, the following
measures will be implemented.
a.Within 30 days prior to the demolition of any building, a qualified biologist will
conduct a survey for evidence of bat use of said buildings and trees within 100
feet of construction. If evidence is observed, or if potential roost sites are present
in areas where evidence of bat use might not be detectable, emergence and
acoustic surveys will be conducted to determine if the bat colony is active and to
identify the specific location and species of the bat colony. If live bats are
detected in the work area, work may not proceed until CDFW has been consulted.
Contractor or others may not attempt to disturb (e.g., shake, prod) roosting
features to coax bats to leave. Such actions would constitute “harassment” under
the CCR.1
b.If a maternity roost of any bat species is present, the bat biologist will determine
the extent of a construction-free buffer (typically 100 feet) around the active roost
1 14 CCR § 251.1 states: Except as otherwise authorized in these regulations or in the Fish and Game Code, no person shall harass, herd or drive
any game or nongame bird or mammal or furbearing mammal. For the purposes of this section, harass is defined as an intentional act which
disrupts an animal's normal behavior patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.87
Resolution No.17-021 Page 9
that will be maintained. This buffer will be maintained from April 1 until the
young are flying, usually around mid-August.
c.If a non-breeding bat roost (i.e., a non-maternity roost, or a roost occupied
between September 1 and March 31) is found in a structure that must be
physically disturbed, bats should be excluded using a one-way door to avoid
injury or mortality to individuals during demolition.
31. Mitigation Measure – CUL-1: Disposition of Cultural Resources. The discovery of
undocumented human remains or unknown significant archaeological resources would be
evaluated according to the City’s specific protocol for the treatment of the uncovered
human remains and/or resources. The protocol entails the process of identifying the
human remains and the contact of appropriate parties, such as the Native American
Heritage Commission and interested Native American tribes, to determine Most Likely
Descendant for further consultation on the disposition of the remains. The disposition of
the discovered human remains would be conducted in consultation with appropriate
parties as identified by the City.
The following condition shall be placed on all improvement plans, building plans, and
grading plans and shall be implemented as necessary:
In the event that known or suspected Native American remains are encountered or
significant archaeological materials are discovered, the following measures will be
implemented:
a.Ground - disturbing activities shall be immediately stopped if suspected Native
American remains and/or significant historic or archaeological materials are
discovered. Examples of significant historic or archaeological materials include,
but are not limited to, concentrations of historic artifacts (e.g., bottles, ceramics) or
prehistoric artifacts (chipped chert or obsidian, arrow points, groundstone mortars
and pestles), culturally altered ash-stained midden soils associated with pre-contact
Native American habitation sites, concentrations of fire-altered rock and/or burned
or charred organic materials, and historic structure remains such as stone-lined
building foundations, wells or privy pits. Ground-disturbing project activities may
continue in other areas that are outside the discovery locale.
b.An “exclusion zone” where unauthorized equipment and personnel are not
permitted shall be established (e.g., taped off) around the discovery area plus a
reasonable buffer zone by the Contractor Foreman or authorized representative, or
party who made the discovery and initiated these protocols, or if on-site at the time
or discovery, by the Monitoring Archaeologist (typically 25 to 50 feet for single
burial or archaeological find).
c.The discovery locale shall be secured (e.g., 24 hour surveillance) as directed by the
City or County if considered prudent to avoid further disturbances.
d.The Contractor Foreman or authorized representative, or party who made the
discovery and initiated these protocols shall be responsible for immediately
contacting by telephone the parties listed below to report the find and initiate the
consultation process for treatment and disposition: 1) the City of Saratoga
Community Development Director; 2) the Contractor’s Point(s) of Contact; 3) The
88
Resolution No.17-021 Page 10
Coroner of the County of Santa Clara (if human remain s found); and 4) The Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento.
e.If human remains are discovered, the Coroner has two working days to examine the
remains after being notified of the discovery. If the remains are Native American
the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. The NAHC is responsible for
identifying and immediately notifying the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. (Note: NAHC policy holds that the Native American
Monitor will not be designated the MLD.)
f.Within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC, the MLD will be granted
permission to inspect the discovery site if they so choose. Within 24 hours of their
notification by the NAHC, the MLD may recommend to the City’s Community
Development Director the recommended means for treating or disposing, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The
recommendation may include the scientific removal and non-destructive or
destructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American
burials.
g.If the MLD recommendation is rejected by the City of Saratoga the parties will
attempt to mediate the disagreement with the NAHC. If mediation fails then the
remains and all associated grave offerings shall be reburied with appropriate dignity
on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
31. Mitigation Measure – HAZ-1: Abatement of Lead-Based Paints. Prior to proposed
building demolition, construction finish materials that are suspect for containing lead-
based paint will be tested, and pending laboratory analysis, will not be subjected to any
process which renders them friable unless proper engineering controls and worker
protection procedures are initiated.
******************END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ******************
89
RESOLUTION NO. 17-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF A DEDICATION OF LAND FROM APN 503-
23-025 TO WILDWOOD PARK
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2015, an application and tentative subdivision map was
submitted by David Johnston, requesting approval to subdivide a 1.6 acre site into three parcels,
located at 20625 Brookwood together with a proposed 0.34 acre dedication of land to Wildwood
Park; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an initial study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the subdivision 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 and the MND was adopted by the Planning Commission on July 12,
2017 (If proposed independently the park dedication would be exempt from CEQA under class
16); and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed
dedication and recommended its approval; and
WHEREAS,the dedication would expand the area of Wildwood Park available for
public use and help protect open space in Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2017, the Planning Commission approved the Tentative
Subdivision Map subject to a condition that the park dedication be approved by the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, after careful consideration of the application, CEQA
documentation, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection
with this matter, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the City Council accept the park dedication.
RECOMMENDED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 12th day of July
2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Tina K. Walia
Chair, Planning Commission
90
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
BROOKWOOD LANE
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY
CITY OF SARATOGA
PLANNING DIVISION
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
JUNE 2017
91
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT INFORMATION 1
INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING 7
OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED 8
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 8
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST DETERMINATION 9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 10
1. Aesthetics 10
2. Agricultural Resources 11
3. Air Quality 12
4. Biological Resources 19
5. Cultural Resources 24
6. Geology And Soils 27
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 30
8. Hazards And Hazardous Materials 33
9. Hydrology And Water Quality 35
10. Land Use And Planning 38
11. Mineral Resources 39
12. Noise 40
13. Population And Housing 43
14. Public Services 44
15. Recreation 45
16. Transportation/Traffic 46
17. Utilities And Service Systems 47
18. Mandatory Findings Of Significance 49
REPORT PREPARATION 52
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 53
ATTACHMENT 1 55
92
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 ii
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Site Location 4
Figure 2. Aerial View of Project Site 5
Figure 3. Proposed Tentative Map 6
TABLES
Table 1. Project-Related Construction and Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions 14
Table 2. Cancer Risk and Chronic Non-Cancer Health Risks at the Closest Sensitive 16
Receptors Due to DPM Exposure During Project Construction and Operation
Table 3. Cumulative Risk and Hazard Impacts at MEI from Existing Permitted 17
Stationary Sources
Table 4. Cumulative Risk and Hazard Impacts at MEI from Existing Mobile Sources 17
Table 5. Cumulative Risk and Hazard Impacts at MEI from Proposed Project and 18
Existing Stationary and Mobile Sources
Table 6. Project-Related GHG Emissions 32
93
JUNE 2017 1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING DIVISION
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title:
Brookwood Lane
Residential Subdivision
Project Location:
20625 Brookwood Lane
City of Saratoga (Figure 1)
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Saratoga, Planning Division
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Sung H. Kwon, Senior Planner
(408) 868-1212
Property Owner:
David Johnston
20625 Brookwood Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
Project Applicant
David Johnston
20625 Brookwood Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
General Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential: M-15
Zoning:
Single Family Residential, R-1-15,000
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources
Code, ' 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ' 15000 et seq.), the purpose of
CEQA review is to inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant
environmental effects of proposed activities and to identify the ways that environmental damage can be
avoided or significantly reduced. In order to determine whether the CEQA review process applies to
proposed activities, the activity must be defined as a “project.” Section 15002(d) of the CEQA Guidelines
(Guidelines) provides direction for the determination of activities qualifying as projects, with further
clarification by CEQA Section 15378(a).
Once it has been determined that the action is a “project” as defined by CEQA, a Lead Agency (e.g.
cities, counties, etc.) will normally take up to three separate steps in deciding which environmental review
document to prepare for a project subject to CEQA. In the first step, the Lead Agency examines the
project to determine whether the project is subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process
does not need to proceed any further. The agency may prepare a Notice of Exemption (NOE), (Guidelines
Sections 15061 and 15062.) If the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and
conducts an Initial Study (Section 15063) to determine whether the project may have a significant effect
on the environment. If the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant effect, the Lead Agency prepares a Negative Declaration. (Guidelines Sections 15070 et
seq.) If the Initial Study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the Lead Agency takes the
third step and prepares an EIR. (Guidelines Sections 15080 et seq.)
The City of Saratoga Staff and Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. (GGC) have reviewed the CEQA
Guidelines to determine whether this proposed project would qualify for exemption from CEQA review.
Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, of CEQA identifies a list of 33 classes of projects which have been
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and “which shall, therefore, be exempt
94
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 2
from the provisions of CEQA.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300) The list of 33 classes of projects
exempt from CEQA includes a wide array of activities.
The proposed project application includes four principal activities: 1) the demolition of two single-family
residences and accessory structures; 2) a minor subdivision of the 1.6-acre subject parcel into three single-
family lots consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the property; and
3) dedication of 0.34 acre to the City for park use in conjunction with the adjoining Wildwood Park; and
4) approval of a variance for frontage length on one of the project lots.
The proposed demolition of the two residences and accessory structures would be consistent with the
Class 1 Categorical Exemption, Existing Facilities, as specified by CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. This
exemption indicates the following activity:
Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency‘s determination. The
types of “existing facilities“ itemized below are not intended to be all inclusive of the types of projects
which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no
expansion of an existing use. Examples include but are not limited to:
(l) Demolition and removal of individual small structures listed in this subdivision:
(1) One single-family residence. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be
demolished under this exemption.
The proposed project site is within the urbanized part of the city of Saratoga and the proposed demolition
of two single-family residences and accessory structures would be exempt from further CEQA review.
In addition, the project’s proposal to transfer ownership of 0.34-acre to the City for park uses would
qualify for Class 16 Categorical Exemption, Transfer of Ownership of Land In Order to Create Parks, as
provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15316. This exemption states:
Class 16 consists of the acquisition, sale, or other transfer of land in order to establish a park where the land
is in a natural condition or contains historical or archaeological resources and either:
(a) The management plan for the park has not been prepared, or
(b) The management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural condition or preserve the historic
or archaeological resources. CEQA will apply when a management plan is proposed that will
change the area from its natural condition or cause substantial adverse change in the significance
of the historic or archaeological resource.
The proposed dedication of parkland would potentially enhance and expand the recreational benefits
offered by Wildwood Park, adjoining the project site to the west.
Finally, the proposed minor subdivision of the project site’s remaining 1.26 acres into three single-family
lots would accommodate the retention of one of the three single-family residences on the subject site and
allow the construction of replacement single-family housing on two of the newly created residential lots.
The proposed minor subdivision would generally be consistent with the Class 15 Categorical Exemption,
Existing Minor Land Divisions, as specified by CEQA Guidelines Section 15151. This exemption
indicates the following activity:
Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or
industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and
zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local
standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2
years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
95
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 3
The proposed project would conform to all but one of the provisions of the Class 15 exemption. The
proposed subdivision requires a zoning variance due to a reduced frontage of Lot 3 on Brookwood Lane.
The reduction of frontage for Lot 3’s configuration is the result of the applicant’s desire to include a Tree
Protection Easement for a large native oak tree that is located on this particular lot. The retention of this
oak tree and all other trees on the project site would maintain the character of the subject property and the
overall neighborhood, and would be a beneficial effect of the proposed project.
As indicated in the language of CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, the requirement for a zoning variance
would preclude the use this exemption. The frontage for Lot 2 is 24 feet and the Saratoga Zoning
Ordinance (Section 15-12.070 - Site frontage, width and depth.) for the R-1-15,000 zoning district prescribes a
frontage of 70 feet, with allowance of a 60-foot frontage on a cul-de-sac turnaround where 75% or more
of the frontage abuts the turnaround. The proposed project site is located at the end of Brookwood Lane,
fronting on the street’s turnaround.
The California Public Resources Code, Division 13. Environmental Quality, includes:
§ 21080. DIVISION APPLICATION TO DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS;
NONAPPLICATION; NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARATION
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary
projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to,
the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the
issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the
project is exempt from this division.
As a result, the proposed project would not qualify for exemption from CEQA environmental review as
indicated in Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, of the CEQA Guidelines and requires the preparation of
the following initial study to determine whether there are potentially significant environmental impacts of
the project and the possible revisions in project design and plans could mitigate such impacts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location and Existing Conditions
The project site is located at the end of Brookwood Lane, approximately 900 feet southwest of its
intersection with Saratoga – Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga. The project site location and site vicinity are
presented in Figure 1. The Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office identifies the site as Assessor Parcel
Number (APN) 503-23-025.
The project site is a polygon-shaped property encompassing approximately 1.6 acres (69,705 square feet
[s.f.]). Figure 2 presents an aerial view of the subject property and surrounding development. Figure 3
shows the Tentative Map for the proposed project.
The elevations for the project site range from approximately 455 feet at Brookwood Lane to 490 feet
above mean sea level at the westernmost corner of the property. The homes and most of the site are
situated on a flat sill with slope occurring at the edge of Brookwood lane and as the project site
approaches Wildwood Park. Saratoga Creek is located 180 feet from the closest edge of the project, the
southern corner of the parcel. The project site is currently developed with three residences, two garages,
and a large shed.
The General Plan land use map designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential (M-15);
zoning for the project site is also Single Family Residential (R-1-15,000) district, consistent with the
General Plan designation. The R-1-15,000 Single Family Residential zoning district includes permitted
uses such as single-family dwellings, transitional and supportive housing, accessory structures (e.g.
96
Regional Location
Springer AveSpringer AvePaul AveElva AveSaratoga Ave
Saratoga Cr
e
e
k
Marion R
d
Burns
WayBig Basin WayBig Basin W
a
y Oak St4t
h
S
t
3r
d
S
t
4th
S
t
4th St
Canyon
Vi
e
w
Dr
Saratoga Sunnyvale RdBrookwood L n
Wildwood WayT erra c e C t
WildwoodParkCanyon View DrSar
at
oga Lo
s
G
ato
s R
d
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
FIGURE 1
Source: Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. (2017 )
NO SCALE
PROJECT SITE LOCATION
BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 97
PROJECT
SITE
FIGURE 2
Source: Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. (2017 )
AERIAL VIEW OF PROJECT AREA
BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 98
FIGURE 3PROPOSED PROJECT TENTATIVE MAP
Source: Westfall Engineers, Inc. (October 2016)BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
99
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 7
garages, carports, etc.), swimming pools, recreational courts, and antenna facilities. Conditional uses for
this district extend to accessory structures, community facilities, institutional facilities, religious and
charitable institutions, nursing homes and day care facilities, public utility and services structures, stables,
and cemeteries.
Regional access to the project site is available from State Highway 85 (West Valley Freeway), located
approximately 1.8 miles northeast of the project site. Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga – Sunnyvale Road, and
Brookwood Lane provide local access to the site. Brookwood Lane extends to the southwest from its
intersection with Saratoga – Sunnyvale Road for approximately 920 feet, presently terminating at the
project site’s eastern boundary. The street serves several single-family residences fronting on either side
of the roadway, including the three residences on the project site.
Project Description
The proposed project is a Tentative Map application for a three-lot subdivision of a 1.6-acre parcel, with a
park dedication of 0.34 acres. As part of this subdivision, a variance for lot frontage is requested in order
to save a 48-inch oak tree on the project site. A tree protection easement for this tree is proposed and no
trees are proposed for removal.
An existing driveway would serve proposed Lots 1 and 2. A driveway easement crossing Lot 2 would be
created to maintain access to Lot 1. Lots 1 and 2 would not require any grading; future grading would
only occur on Lot 3 for access from Brookwood Lane. A preliminary grading plan and conceptual
stormwater plan has been submitted to the City.
Three homes and a shed currently exist on the subject property. The house and garage on proposed Lot 1
would remain. The other structures on the site (two homes, two garages, and a shed) would be
demolished and removed prior the Final Map approval. Future design review approval for any new
residential structures would be required for Lots 2 and 3.
The current project proposal does not include the development of any new residences on the site. The
proposed project’s Lots 1, 2, and 3 would encompass net areas of 15,442 s.f., 15,327 s.f., and 20,020 s.f.,
respectively. These lot sizes would allow corresponding maximum areas of 4,128 s.f. for each of Lots 1
and 2, and 4,518 s.f. for Lot 3. The Tentative Map shown in Figure 3 identifies the configuration of the
three proposed lots, easements, setbacks, and existing trees on project site.
The proposed project also includes the dedication of 0.34 acre of the 1.6-acre parcel for park use. The
western portion of the site adjoins the City’s Wildwood Park and the additional dedicated area would be
incorporated into Wildwood Park.
As discussed above, the proposed project includes an application for a variance from required lot frontage
of Lot 3 along Brookwood Lane. The need for the variance results from the inclusion of a proposed tree
protection easement on this lot to preserve and protect a 48-inch oak tree, a prominent landscape feature
of the proposed project site. The guidelines for granting a variance by the City are presented in Section
15-70.060 of the Saratoga Municipal Code.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The predominant land use in Saratoga is residential, most of which is low density, single-family on
individual lots. Saratoga is almost built out with the exception of the hillside areas and Williamson Act
properties.1
In the project area, medium density residential uses, per General Plan Land Use designation, surround the
site to the north, east, and south; open space-outdoor recreation use in the form of the City’s Wildwood
1 There are approximately 900 acres of vacant land in the Saratoga.
100
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 8
Park adjoins the western site boundary. Land uses in the vicinity of the proposed residential development
are indicated on the aerial view of the project site in Figure 2.
OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED
Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreements): None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and no
mitigation measures would be required.
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gases Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems
101
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 9
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 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.
Sung Kwon, Senior Planner
City of Saratoga
Date
102
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 10
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. Aesthetics - Would the project:
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?
1a, c. Scenic Vistas and Visual Character
The project site consists of approximately 1.6 acres at the end of Brookwood Lane, approximately 900
feet southwest of its intersection with Saratoga – Sunnyvale Road and within an urbanized portion of
Saratoga. The subject property is comprised of one parcel with APN 503-23-025 that is currently used for
residential purposes, with three residences on the site. The site slopes slightly to the east toward
Brookwood Lane.
Adjoining open space and private landscaping restrict distant views and preclude views to potentially
scenic vistas. Views available to the public are limited to those from Brookwood Lane and Wildwood
Park. The views from Wildwood Park are screened or filtered by mature trees in the park and on the
project site’s western perimeter. The proposed project would remove two of the residences and accessory
structures, providing an improved view of existing landscaping and native trees throughout the subject
property. Potential residential development of proposed Lots 2 and 3 would restore views of the site that
would be similar to current, pre-project views. Consequently, the proposed project would have no
significant adverse effects on scenic resources.
1b. Scenic Resources Within a State Scenic Highway
Highway 9 is a State Scenic Highway and it traverses the southern portion of the city of Saratoga. There
are no state-designated scenic highways in the project vicinity and, therefore, the project would not affect
scenic resources within a state scenic highway. As a result, the project would have no impacts on state
scenic highway resources.
1d. Light or Glare
The project site is developed with three single-family residences and subject to sources of light or glare.
The proposed demolition of two residences would remove existing sources of light or glare, a beneficial
impact of the proposed project. Potential future development of two new residences could include
exterior lighting for Lots 2 and 3. The plans for the new residences will need to conform to the design
standards stipulated by City Building Code, which will ensure that project lighting would not adversely
affect adjacent properties.
Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Aesthetics impacts.
103
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 11
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. Agriculture and Forestry 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 Dept. of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would
the project:
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 in 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?
2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e. Farmland, Agricultural, and Forestry Uses
The 1.6-acre site presently encompasses one parcel developed with three residences and accessory
structures. The project site is surrounded by single-family residential properties, constraining agricultural
use of the site. Given the small size of this parcel, current zoning, and the urban development surrounding
the proposed site, project development would have no impact on the conversion of the site to a non-
agricultural use.
Mitigation Measures – Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Agricultural and Forest Resources.
104
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 12
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3. Air Quality - Would the project:
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?
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?
3a. Air Quality Planning
When compared to federal standards, the San Francisco Bay Area air basin (SFBAAB) is classified as
“marginal nonattainment” for ozone and “nonattainment” for inhalable particulates (PM2.5). When
compared to state standards, the SFBAAB is classified as “nonattainment” for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.
To address these exceedances, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the MTC and ABAG, prepared the
Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAOS) in September 2005 and Particulate Matter Implementation
Schedule (PMIS) in November 2005. The PMIS discusses how the BAAQMD implements the California
Air Resources Board’s 103 particulate matter control measures. The BAAQMD recently adopted the 2010
Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which updates the BAOS. The consistency of the proposed project with the
most recently adopted regional air quality plan, the CAP, is determined by comparing the project’s
consistency with the Saratoga General Plan. Since the CAP is based on population projections of the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that are based on the City’s General Plan in effect at the
time the CAP was approved, consistency of the project with the General Plan would indicate consistency
with the CAP. The proposed project would not increase the City’s population because there are three
existing residences on the project site and after project implementation, a maximum of three residences
could eventually be developed on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project is considered to be
consistent with the CAP.
3b. Air Quality Standards
Regulatory and Planning Framework. The BAAQMD is responsible for attaining and/or maintaining air
quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) within Federal and State air quality
standards. Specifically, the BAAQMD has the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels
throughout the Basin and to develop and implement strategies to attain the applicable Federal and State
standards. In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and updated its CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines, which provides guidance for assessing air quality impacts under CEQA.
However, on March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the
BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court issued a writ of
mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the
BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. On August 13, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the 105
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 13
Alameda County Superior Court judgment that invalidated the BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds of
significance. The Court directed that the Superior Court vacate the writ of mandate issued in March
2012, ordering the BAAQMD to set aside its June 2010 resolution (Res. #2010-06) “Adopting Thresholds
for Use in Determining the Significance of Projects’ Environmental Effects Under the California
Environmental Quality Act.” Although the California Supreme Court has granted review in the litigation
to hear one particular issue of law, the granting of review does not alter the result in the Court of Appeal,
though the latter court’s decision is no longer a published, citable precedent. And the legal cloud created
by the trial court decision no longer exists. Local agencies such as the City of Saratoga may rely on the
BAAQMD thresholds.
Significance Thresholds. Exercising its own discretion as lead agency and similarly to multiple other San
Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions, the City of Saratoga has decided to rely on the thresholds within the
Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD.2 The BAAQMD
Options and Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent
with the thresholds outlined within the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Although BAAQMD failed
to comply with CEQA before completing its 2010 recommendations, City staff believes that these
recommendations, which are listed as follows, still represent the best available science on the subject of
what constitute significant air quality effects in the SFBAAB:
§ NOX and ROG: 54 pounds/day
§ PM10: 82 pounds/day
§ PM2.5: 54 pounds/day
In addition to establishing the above significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions, the
BAAQMD also recommended (BAAQMD, 2009) the following quantitative thresholds to determine the
significance of construction-related and operational emissions of toxic air contaminants from individual
project and cumulative sources on cancer and non-cancer health risks:
§ Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million for individual projects and >100 in a million (from all
local sources) for cumulative sources;
§ Increased non-cancer risk of >1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) for individual projects and
>10.0 Hazard Index (from all local sources) for cumulative sources; and
§ Ambient PM2.5 increase: >0.3 µg/m3 annual average for individual projects and >0.8 µg/m3 annual
average (from all local sources) for cumulative sources.
Project Emissions. The project’s emissions would be associated with demolition of two existing
residences on the project site as well as construction and operation of two potential future residences and
they have been estimated and compared to the above significance thresholds in Table 1. As shown in this
table, the project’s demolition/construction-related and operational air pollutant emissions would not
exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, and would therefore result in a less-
than-significant impact. However, the BAAQMD recommends that all Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures be implemented for all construction projects, whether or not demolition/construction-related
emissions exceed these significance thresholds. Therefore, the project’s demolition/construction-related
and operational increases in criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report. October. Available online at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.
106
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 14
TABLE 1
PROJECT-RELATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Project Activity
Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOX CO
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Project Constructiona
– 2017 Maximum Daily Emissions 3.0 28.4 16.3 1.7 1.6
– 2018 Maximum Daily Emissions 11.6 17.4 13.9 1.1 1.0
Significance Thresholds 54 54 - 82 54
Exceeds Significance Thresholds? No No -b No No
Project Operation (2018)
– Area Source Emissions 2.2 0.0 2.8 0.4 0.4
– Energy Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
– Mobile Source Emissions 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1
Total 2.2 0.2 3.2 0.5 0.5
Significance Thresholds 54 54 - 82 54
Exceeds Significance Thresholds? No No -b No No
Average Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Project Activity ROG NOX CO
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Project Constructiona
– 2017 Maximum Daily Emissions 0.2 1.2 0.9 0.1 0.1
– 2018 Maximum Daily Emissions 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.1
Significance Thresholds 10 10 - 15 10
Project Operation (2018)
– Area Source Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
– Energy Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
– Mobile Source Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Significance Thresholds 10 10 - 15 10
Exceeds Significance Thresholds? No No - No No
NOTES: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; exhaust PM10 = particulate
matter less than 10 microns; exhaust PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns.
a Construction assumptions: demolition would occur over 5 days using 1 loader, 1 tractor/loader/backhoe, and 22 truck trips (11 truckloads)
traveling 20 miles each way; grading would occur over 10 days using 1 grader, 1 dozer, 1 loader/backhoe; construction would occur over 200
days using 1 crane, 1 forklift, 1 gen set, 1 loader/backhoe; and 3 welders; and paving would occur over 10 days using 1 mixer, 1 paver, 1
paving equipment, 1 roller, and 1 loader/backhoe.
b CO: If localized carbon monoxide estimated emissions exceed 550 pounds/day, more detailed analysis is required. Therefore, emissions
below this threshold indicate that CO emissions would be less than significant.
SOURCE: Criteria pollutants were estimated using CalEEMod (Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1). The model output for this analysis is
available for public review at the City of Saratoga Community Development Department, located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,
CA 95070, between 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Thursday.
3c. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
To address cumulative impacts on regional air quality, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of
significance for construction-related and operational criteria pollutants and precursor emissions. These
thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria pollutants and
precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality
conditions. If daily average or annual emissions exceed these thresholds, the project would result in a
cumulatively significant impact. Since the project’s demolition/construction-related and operational
107
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 15
criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed the above significance thresholds, the project’s contribution
is also considered to be less than cumulatively considerable.
3d. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates vehicle fuels with the intent to reduce emissions.
Diesel exhaust is a serious concern throughout California. The CARB identified diesel engine particulate
matter as a toxic air contaminant and human carcinogen. The exhaust from diesel engines includes
hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are toxic. Many of these toxic
compounds adhere to the diesel particles, which are very small and can penetrate deeply into the lungs.
Diesel engine particulate matter has been identified as a human carcinogen. Mobile sources such as
trucks, buses, and automobiles are some of the primary sources of diesel emissions. Studies show that
diesel particulate matter concentrations are much higher near heavily traveled highways and intersections.
The cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust is much higher than the risk associated with any other
toxic air pollutant routinely measured in the region. Diesel exhaust contains both pulmonary irritants and
hazardous compounds that can affect sensitive receptors such as young children, senior citizens, or those
susceptible to chronic respiratory disease such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Potential sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population
that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with
illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.
The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air
pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic
respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity
include single-family residences located to the north (on Springer Avenue), east (20613 Brookwood
Lane), and south (20620 and 20626 Brookwood Lane). To the west, playground facilities at Wildwood
Park are located approximately 100 feet from the closest structure that is proposed to be demolished. The
closest school is Saratoga Elementary School (14592 Oak Street), and it is located approximately 0.22
mile to south. The Village Preschool is located approximately 0.26 mile to the southeast.
The residence located 115 feet or more to the east (20613 Brookwood Lane) is the closest sensitive
receptor to project construction, and is considered to be the maximally-exposed individual (MEI).
Operation of two potential future residences on the project site would not generate toxic air contaminants
(TACs) that would pose a health risk to adjacent or nearby uses. However, demolition of two existing
residences and potential future construction of two residences would generate combustion emissions from
operation of off-road construction equipment on the project site and could expose adjacent and nearby
receptors to diesel particulate matter (DPM or PM2.5) and other toxic air contaminants (TACs) that are
associated with various health risk factors. Due to the proximity of sensitive receptors to the project site, a
screening-level construction-related health risk analysis was completed for the project at the MEI.3 DPM
exhaust emissions for on-site project demolition of two existing residences and potential future
construction of two new residences from off-road heavy equipment were calculated using the CalEEMod
computer model. The results of the health risk screening for project construction and operation are
summarized in Table 2.
3 The BAAQMD’s Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (May, 2012; available online at
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools) was used to complete this
refined screening-level health risk assessment. The BAAQMD recommends a two-tiered approach for screening-level health risk
assessments: a screening-level dispersion model is initially applied to project emissions using generally over-predictive
assumptions and if the predicted health risk is not within acceptable levels, then a more sophisticated dispersion modeling is
necessary.
108
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 16
TABLE 2
CANCER RISK AND CHRONIC NON-CANCER HEALTH RISKS AT THE CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
DUE TO DPM EXPOSURE DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
PM2.5 Exposure, a Excess Cancer Risk,b and
Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index from
Project Construction Activities and
Operation at Closest Receptors
Construction-Related Parameters
Maximum One-Hour PM2.5 1.91 µg/m3
Annual Average PM2.5 (one-hour x 0.1) 0.091 µg/m3
Annual Average PM2.5 Significance Threshold 0.3 µg/m3
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No
Age-Weighted Excess Risk for Infants 8.2 in a million
Children 2.5 in a million
Adults 0.8 in a million
Cancer Risk Significance Threshold Excess Cancer Risk >10 x 10-6
Exceeds Threshold? No
Chronic Non-Cancer Chronic/Acute Hazard Index 0.04/0.22
Chronic Non-Cancer Significance Threshold Hazard Index >1.0
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No
NOTES:
a The predicted maximum one-hour DPM concentration is 1.91 μg/m3 would result from on-site total project DPM emissions of 0.0730 tons. The
hourly to annual scaling factor is 0.1. AERSCREEN output thus indicates that project construction would produce a maximum annual DPM
concentration of 0.091 μg/m3.
b The excess individual cancer risk factor for DPM exposure is approximately 300 in a million per 1 µg/m3 of lifetime exposure (DPM (µg/m3) x
ASF x 300 x 10-6) / 70 years. More recent research has determined that young children are substantially more sensitive to DPM exposure risk.
If exposure occurs in the first several years of life, an age sensitivity factor (ASF) of 10 should be applied. For toddlers though mid-teens, the
ASF is 3.
SOURCES: A screening-level individual cancer analysis was conducted to determine the maximum PM2.5 concentration from diesel exhaust.
This concentration was combined with the DPM exposure unit risk factor to calculate the inhalation cancer risk from project-related construction
activities at the MEI. The EPA AERSCREEN air dispersion model was used to evaluate concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 from diesel exhaust.
The model output for this analysis is available for public review at the City of Saratoga Community Development Department, located at 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070, between 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Thursday.
As indicated in this table, construction-related PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the above-listed
significance thresholds for lifetime cancer and non-cancer health risks (including infants, which have the
highest age sensitivity factor). Therefore, the project’s construction-related health risks would be less than
significant.
In addition to the above construction-related risk and hazard impacts, sensitive receptors in the project
vicinity would be exposed to cumulative risk and hazard impacts from the project’s construction-related
emissions in combination with existing stationary and mobile sources within approximately 1,000 feet of
the project area. In addition to project construction, possible local stationary or vehicular source emissions
must be added to this concentration to determine the cumulative total. Specifically, the BAAQMD
requires that existing stationary and mobile emissions (i.e. freeways or roadways with more than 10,000
vehicles per day) sources within 1,000 feet of the project area also be considered. Any potential
cumulative health risk would, therefore, derive from project activities plus any existing identified risk
109
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 17
sources within the project vicinity. Based on a review of BAAQMD records,4 there is one existing
permitted stationary source located within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site (Table 3). In
addition, there is one mobile source located within 1,000 feet of the site with average daily traffic
volumes exceeding 10,000 (Table 4).
TABLE 3
CUMULATIVE RISK AND HAZARD IMPACTS AT MEI FROM EXISTING PERMITTED STATIONARY
SOURCES
Site # Facility Name Street Address City Distance
Excess
Cancer
Risk
Chronic
Hazard
Index
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
G12008 Saratoga 76 14395 Big
Basin Way
Saratoga 590 14.003 0.023 -
TABLE 4
CUMULATIVE RISK AND HAZARD IMPACTS AT MEI FROM EXISTING MOBILE SOURCES
Direction
Roadways with ADT of
>10,000 Distance ADT
Excess Cancer Risk
(cases in a million)a
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
N-S Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road 750 feet 17,500 0.79 0.016
NOTES: There were no freeways located within 1,000 feet of the project site.
a Source of ADT volumes: City of Saratoga, Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Update, Background Report and Goals, Policies, and
Implementation Measures, Figure 3, p. 11, November 17, 2010.
SOURCE: BAAQMD, Risk & Hazards, Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator, April 16, 2015. Available online at
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. Accessed on March 24, 2017.
Table 5 presents total cumulative emissions at the MEI from the proposed project (Table 2), stationary
sources (Table 3), and mobile sources (Table 4). As indicated in this table, cumulative emissions would
not exceed the cumulative significance thresholds for cancer risk, non-cancer risk, and PM2.5
concentrations, a less-than-significant cumulative impact. In addition, the project’s contribution to
cumulative construction-related risk and hazard impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
3e. Odors
Project construction would generate nuisance diesel odors associated with operation of diesel construction
equipment on-site (primarily during initial grading phases), but this effect would be localized, sporadic,
and short-term in nature. Therefore, temporary impacts from nuisance diesel odors on adjacent residential
receptors (located as close as approximately 170 to 285 feet to the west) are considered to be less than
significant.
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints
typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations,
food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The project would not include any uses
identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors. No new or unusual sources of nuisance odors
would be associated with the proposed memory care facility. Therefore, the project’s potential for
nuisance odor problems would be less than significant.
4 BAAQMD, Risk & Hazards, Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool, Santa Clara County, May 30, 2012. Available online
at http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. Accessed on March 24,
2017. 110
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 18
TABLE 5
CUMULATIVE RISK AND HAZARD IMPACTS AT MEI FROM PROPOSED PROJECT AND EXISTING
STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCES
Type
Excess Cancer Risk
(cases in a million)
PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m3)
Chronic
Hazard
Acutea
Hazard
Stationary Sources 14.00 - 0.023 -
Roadways 0.79 0.016 - -
Proposed Project (worst-case)b 8.2 0.191 0.04 0.22
Maximum Cumulative 22.99 0.207 0.063 0.22
Significance Threshold 100 0.8 10 10
NOTES:
a Based upon the ratio of speciated organic gases to DPM in diesel exhaust relative to peak 1-hour concentrations.
b Maximum project-related PM2.5 emissions for construction are listed for purposes of evaluating the project’s maximum impact.
SOURCES: Tables 2, 3, and 4.
Mitigation Measures – Air Quality (AQ)
Although the project’s construction-related air pollutant emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s
applicable significance thresholds, the BAAQMD recommends that the following measures be
implemented on all construction projects to reduce the project-related construction emissions:
AQ-1: Basic Construction Measures. To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria
pollutant emissions, the following BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract
specifications:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered three times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-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 is
prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five 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.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Significance After Mitigation: Although the project’s demolition/construction-related and operational
air pollutant emissions would be less than significant, the BAAQMD recommends that all Basic
111
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 19
Construction Mitigation Measures be implemented for all construction projects, whether or not
demolition/construction-related emissions exceed these significance thresholds. Therefore, the project’s
demolition/construction-related and operational increases in criteria pollutant emissions would be less
than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
The following evaluation of biological resources on the subject property derives in part from a Biological
Resource Review and Assessment prepared by David Johnston, consulting biologist, in March 2017
(included as Attachment 1). The purpose of this report is to identify special-status wildlife and botanical
species that could potentially be affected as a result of the proposed subdivision project at this location.
In addition to the assessment of the biological resources on the project site, these reports include
recommendations for the preservation and conservation of these resources through project site design.
The Biological Assessment was reviewed by Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. to ensure accurate
representation of biological conditions on the site and complete evaluation of potential effects on the
site’s biological resources.
4a, 4b, 4c, 4d. Special-Status Species, Sensitive Natural Communities and Wetlands, Protected
Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Movement, Corridors, Nursery Sites
The proposed project involves the subdivision of one residential parcel, Assessor Parcel Number (APN)
503-23-025, with a gross area of 1.6 acres. The subject parcel is located at 20625 Brookwood Lane, 900
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4. Biological Resources - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local 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
Wildlife or U.S. 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?
112
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 20
feet southwest of its intersection with Saratoga – Sunnyvale Road. The proposed project includes the
demolition of two residences, the preservation of one residence, and creation of three residential lots for
the existing home and two new residences. The project proposal does not include the construction of two
new residences.
The proposed project site was developed with residential uses in the late 1940s and includes three gravel
driveways connecting the homes to Brookwood Lane. The driveways are interconnected and a small
portion of the driveways and an access road on the southwest are paved as they leave the cul-de-sac of
Brookwood Lane.
Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats
Anthropogenic Habitats. Anthropogenic habitats are those dominated by plant species introduced by
humans and established or maintained by human disturbances or activities (Holland and Keil, 1990).
Some are entirely artificial such as areas under active cultivation (e.g., rowcrops, orchards, vineyards,
ornamental landscaping). Others include areas used as rangeland or pasture, and areas influenced by
urban or suburban landscaping or plantings. On such sites, the native vegetation has typically been
removed by clearing in preparation for cultivation, landscaping, or development. Cleared areas that are
planted with or colonized by non-indigenous plant species can create distinct communities dominated by
annual grasses and forbs, shrubs, or trees. Some of these communities are only perpetuated with direct
human intervention such as irrigation or grazing, while have naturalized and are able to persist without
artificial means. In some situations, introduced non-indigenous species invade native habitats, altering the
composition of the native understory or canopy, or both.
Remnants of the historic fruit and nut orchards remain on the project site. Anthropogenic habitats within the
project area consist of mature non-native and native trees, ornamental shrubs and planted landscaping.
Non-native tree species observed on the project site include Santa Rosa plum (Prunus salicina), walnut
(Juglans regia x hindsii), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), orange (Citrus ‘var’), lemon (Citrus ‘var’),
and olive (Olea europaea). Native trees observed on the project site include California bay (Umbellularia
californica), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), coast live oak
(Quescus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and California buckeye (Aesculus californica). Large
shrubs include non-native oleander (Nerium oleander), pyracantha (Pyracantha sp.), camellia (Camellia
japonica), and native coyote bush (Bacharis pilularis).
Many native and non-native animal species are well adapted to anthropogenic habitats, while others have
benefited greatly from urbanization and anthropogenic effects. These species are attracted by certain
resources readily available in anthropogenic settings such as forage, water and shelter while being tolerant
of human disturbances such as noise, lighting, and the movement of people and machinery. Many
mammals are attracted to human development providing a source of food (e.g., rubbish, garden plants, pet
food, and pets themselves).
Mature ornamental trees may support a variety of birds by providing roosting, nesting, and foraging
opportunities. Common birds that can nest and roost in such trees include passerines (i.e, perching birds)
such as black phoebe, bushtit, CA scrub-jay CA towhee, chestnut-backed chickadee, house finch, house
sparrow, mourning dove, northern mockingbird, oak titmouse, and red-shouldered hawk, among many
others. Common mammals likely to occur in this habitat within the BSA include eastern fox squirrel,
mule deer, raccoon, striped skunk, and Virginia opossum, among others.
Special-status Biological Resources
Special-status Plant Species. The potential for occurrence of the target species can be ruled out due to a
lack of suitable habitat, lack of suitable soils, geographic location of the project site relative to known
occurrences, or that the fact that their presence within the project footprint is not expected due to the
113
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 21
highly disturbed nature of the property. None of these species is considered to have any potential for
occurrence within the project footprint due to a lack of suitable habitat and the site’s high degree of
alteration as a result of cultivation and clearing.
Project implementation would not result in significant direct, indirect and/or cumulative impacts to
special-status plant species. No impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are warranted.
Special-status Animal Species. Special-status animal species include listed as Endangered, Threatened,
Rare, or as Candidates for listing under the FESA or CESA. Other species regarded as having special-
status include special animals, as listed by the CDFW. Additional animal species receive protection under
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)5 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)6. The
CFGC provides specific language protecting birds and raptors7, “fully protected birds”8, “fully protected
mammals”9, “fully protected reptiles and amphibians”10 and “fully protected fish”.11
Most special-status wildlife species that are known to occur in the Saratoga area, or are known to occur in
stream or riparian habitats in the South Bay, are absent from the project vicinity. These species are not
expected to occur on the site because (a) the habitats required by these species are absent from the project
site; (b) the site is outside the range of the species; and (c) the species has been extirpated from the project
vicinity. Several other special-status species, such as the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus),
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi) or western red bat (Lasiurus
blossevillii) may occur on the project site only as occasional foragers or migrants. Vaux’s swifts are
sometimes seen foraging high above the project site in summer and early fall months and Cooper’s hawks
sometimes forage or migrate through the site in fall and spring months. These species are not expected to
breed on the site, and the project would not have a substantial effect on these species. Table 1 of the
Biological Assessment (included herein as Attachment 1) provides a list of special-status wildlife species
and an evaluation of their potential to occur on the project site.
Special-status Species Potentially Occurring on the Project Site. The Biological Assessment includes a
discussion of special-status animal species that could find suitable or marginally suitable habitat on the
project site. The Biological Assessment provides detailed information for each of these species’ critical
habitat, habitat suitability and occurrence data, and potential project-related effects if the species were to
occur on the site prior to project development.
§ San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat. The only special-status wildlife species that could
potentially breed on or immediately adjacent to the site is the San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). Project impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat (SFDW) are expected to be minimal, because the project is developed and woodrat nests
are more typically closer to the riparian area. No woodrat nests were observed on the project area.
Consequently, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on the SFDW
habitat.
5 16 USC 668, et seq.
6 16 U.S.C. 703-711
7 §§3503 and 3503.5
8 CFGC §3511
9 CFGC §4700
10 CFGC §5050
11 CFGC §5515
114
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 22
§ California Red-legged Frog. The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) is
California’s largest native frog. The species is generally restricted to riparian and lacustrine
habitats in California and northern Baja California. Red-legged frogs prefer deep, quiet pools
(usually more than 2 feet deep) in creeks, rivers, or lakes below 5000 feet in elevation.12 Breeding
habitat requirements include fresh water emergent or dense riparian vegetation, especially
willows adjacent to shorelines. Red-legged frogs can survive in seasonal bodies of water that are
dry for short periods if a permanent water body or dense vegetation stands are nearby. Red-legged
frogs are often found in summer months in summer foraging habitat that would not be suitable for
breeding; these individuals presumably move seasonally between summer foraging habitat and
winter breeding habitat. Critical Habitat was updated and re-designated in April 2006.13 No
portion of the 20625 Brookwood Lane project site is within designated Critical Habitat.
If the California red-legged frog occurred within the reach of Saratoga Creek nearest the subject
property, then potential foraging habitat might occur within any dense vegetation in upland areas.
However, the upland area between the top-of-bank and the project site is fully developed, and
therefore not considered habitat for California red-legged frogs. This development continues both
upstream and downstream of the site, making Saratoga Creek in this vicinity unable to sustain a
red-legged frog population over the long term. The California red-legged frog is currently
considered extirpated from this reach of Saratoga Creek and throughout most of Santa Clara
Valley. It is therefore not expected to occur on or in the vicinity of the project site.
§ Nesting Birds. Bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California
Fish and Game Code may nest in the trees and vegetation within and adjacent to the proposed
project site. There is potential for demolition activities to impact nesting birds, if active nests are
removed or otherwise disturbed during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31).
§ Roosting Colonies of Bats. Maternity colonies of bats are also protected by California Fish and
Game Code. Although the homes are currently occupied, there is a potential for a maternity
colony of bats to occupy the buildings and trees in the immediate vicinity. The demolition of the
buildings could result in the loss of a maternity colony located in these structures or in nearby
trees immediately adjacent to the structures.
Project implementation could therefore result in direct, indirect and/or cumulative impacts to special-
status animal species. Such impacts would be considered a significant adverse effect pursuant to CEQA.
4e. Tree and Biological Protection Ordinances
The City of Saratoga recognizes the importance of creeks and trees to the community and has established
policies and guidelines for the preservation of these natural resources.
Protected Trees. A permit from the City is required prior to the removal of, pruning of, or encroachment
on any protected tree. Under the Saratoga Municipal Code,14 a protected tree is defined as
(a) Any native tree having a DBH of six inches or greater.
(b) Any other tree having a DBH of ten inches or greater.
12 Jennings and Hayes, 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and
Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.
13 USFWS, 2006. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California red-legged
frog, and Special Rule exemption associated with final listing for existing routine ranching activities; Final Rule. Federal
Register 71(71):19244-19292.
14 Section 15-50-050
115
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 23
(c) Any street tree, as defined in Section 15-50.020(v), regardless of size.
(d) Any heritage tree, as defined in subsection 15-50.020(1) regardless of size.
(e) Any tree required to be planted or retained as a condition of any approval granted under this
Chapter or Chapter 14 of this Code.
(f) Any tree required to be planted as a replacement, as provided in Section 15-50.170 of this Article.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 15-50.060, it is unlawful for any person to remove, damage,
prune, or encroach upon, or cause to be removed, damaged, pruned, or encroached upon any protected
tree, located on any private or public property in the City without first having obtained a tree removal,
pruning or encroachment permit issued pursuant to this Article and authorizing the proposed action.
The proposed project would preserve and protect all of the trees on the site. A tree protection easement is
proposed for a 48-inch coast live oak on Lot 3, thereby necessitating the use of a variance as part of the
subdivision application.
4f. Habitat Conservation Plans
The proposed project would not be in conflict with any approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources (BIO)
As proposed, the project would not result in significant direct impacts. To ensure that project
implementation does not result in significant adverse effects on the site’s biological resources, the
following impact avoidance measures shall be incorporated into the project design.
BIO-1: Special-Status and Migratory Birds. Demolition activities could result in direct or indirect
impacts to nesting birds by causing the destruction or abandonment of occupied nests. To
ensure compliance with the MBTA/MBTRA and the CFGC the measures outlined below shall
be performed.
a. A pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be completed by a qualified biologist no more
than 14 days prior to demolition.
b. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities,
a qualified biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be
established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other species such
as song birds), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California
Fish and Wildlife Code will be disturbed during the removal of structures.
c. If either a nesting raptor or a nesting songbird is found within the suggested buffer zones, a
qualified biologist can monitor the activity of the nesting birds to determine if a smaller
buffer can be used to ensure the birds will not be disturbed.
With the incorporation of these measures, impacts to special-status and other migratory bird species
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level pursuant to the guidelines of CEQA.
BIO-2: Special-Status Bats. Maternity colonies of bats are also protected by California Fish and
Game Code. Although the homes are currently occupied, there is a potential for a maternity
colony of bats to occupy the buildings and trees in the immediate vicinity. The demolition of the
buildings could result in the loss of a maternity colony located in these structures or in nearby
trees immediately adjacent to the structures. To minimize potential impacts on a maternity
colony of bats, the following measures will be implemented.
116
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 24
a. Within 30 days prior to the demolition of any building, a qualified biologist will conduct a
survey for evidence of bat use of said buildings and trees within 100 feet of construction. If
evidence is observed, or if potential roost sites are present in areas where evidence of bat
use might not be detectable, emergence and acoustic surveys will be conducted to
determine if the bat colony is active and to identify the specific location and species of the
bat colony. If live bats are detected in the work area, work may not proceed until CDFW
has been consulted. Contractor or others may not attempt to disturb (e.g., shake, prod)
roosting features to coax bats to leave. Such actions would constitute “harassment” under
the CCR. 15
b. If a maternity roost of any bat species is present, the bat biologist will determine the extent
of a construction-free buffer (typically 100 feet) around the active roost that will be
maintained. This buffer will be maintained from April 1 until the young are flying, usually
around mid-August.
c. If a non-breeding bat roost (i.e., a non-maternity roost, or a roost occupied between
September 1 and March 31) is found in a structure that must be physically disturbed, bats
should be excluded using a one-way door to avoid injury or mortality to individuals during
demolition.
Significance After Mitigation: The project’s potential impacts on biological resources would be reduced
to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5. Cultural Resources - Would the project:
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?
5a. Historical Resources
The project site is a 1.6-acre parcel site developed with three residences and accessory structures in a
residential suburban area. The proposed project would not affect any historic resources, as there are no
historic resources located on the property.
15 14 CCR § 251.1 states: Except as otherwise authorized in these regulations or in the Fish and Game Code, no person shall
harass, herd or drive any game or nongame bird or mammal or furbearing mammal. For the purposes of this section, harass is
defined as an intentional act which disrupts an animal's normal behavior patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, breeding,
feeding or sheltering. 117
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 25
5b, 5c, 5d. Archaeological Resources, Disposition of Human Remains, and Paleontological
Resources
The project site has been used for residential purposes since the 1940s. The proposed project would
involve the demolition of two residences and associated accessory structures on the site, removal of
demolition debris, and subdivision of the parcel into three residential lots. One existing residence would
remain in the northern part of the parcel and is designated as Lot 1 in the proposed subdivision. New Lots
2 and 3 would be vacant and available for new residential development with single-family homes, or
other uses as discussed in the Project Description section of this initial study.
There are has been no previous evaluation of the project site for archaeological resources, and historic
residential use of the site would result in a low potential for the occurrence of visible archaeological
resources on the site. To the extent that the proposed demolition of site structures would have a low
probability of disturbing potential archaeological resources, the project would have no direct effects upon
archaeological resources. Additionally, a review of records maintained by the University of California
Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley indicates that the closest paleontological resources recorded in
Santa Clara County occur south of Los Gatos.
Future residential development of the project site for up to two single-family homes would require
excavation, trenching, and grading on the site. These activities could have the potential for disturbing
unknown archaeological and/or paleontological resources on the two new lots. In order to avoid this
indirect effect of the proposed subdivision, the City will require a subsequent environmental review for
any proposed residential development of the two new lots, and that review will need to include a review
of the proposed lots for archaeological sensitivity and the potential for disturbance of unknown resources.
Consequently, the City will require appropriate literature and records reviews by a qualified archaeologist
as a condition of approval for future residential use of the two new lots created by the proposed
subdivision. Implementation of the condition of approval regarding treatment of discovered
archaeological resources would preclude any potential effects from the project on paleontological
resources that might occur on the project site.
Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources (CUL)
The City will require monitoring of ground disturbing activities for archaeological resources and
reporting of uncovered resources. The following measure will ensure that potentially significant effects
upon cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels:
CUL-1: Disposition of Cultural Resources. The discovery of undocumented human remains or
unknown significant archaeological resources would be evaluated according to the City’s
specific protocol for the treatment of the uncovered human remains and/or resources. The
protocol entails the process of identifying the human remains and the contact of appropriate
parties, such as the Native American Heritage Commission and interested Native American
tribes, to determine Most Likely Descendant for further consultation on the disposition of the
remains. The disposition of the discovered human remains would be conducted in consultation
with appropriate parties as identified by the City.
The following condition shall be placed on all improvement plans, building plans, and grading
plans and shall be implemented as necessary:
In the event that known or suspected Native American remains are encountered or significant
archaeological materials are discovered, the following measures will be implemented:
a. Ground - disturbing activities shall be immediately stopped if suspected Native American
remains and/or significant historic or archaeological materials are discovered. Examples
of significant historic or archaeological materials include, but are not limited to, 118
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 26
concentrations of historic artifacts (e.g., bottles, ceramics) or prehistoric artifacts
(chipped chert or obsidian, arrow points, groundstone mortars and pestles), culturally
altered ash-stained midden soils associated with pre-contact Native American habitation
sites, concentrations of fire-altered rock and/or burned or charred organic materials, and
historic structure remains such as stone-lined building foundations, wells or privy pits.
Ground-disturbing project activities may continue in other areas that are outside the
discovery locale.
b. An “exclusion zone” where unauthorized equipment and personnel are not permitted shall
be established (e.g., taped off) around the discovery area plus a reasonable buffer zone by
the Contractor Foreman or authorized representative, or party who made the discovery
and initiated these protocols, or if on-site at the time or discovery, by the Monitoring
Archaeologist (typically 25 to 50 feet for single burial or archaeological find).
c. The discovery locale shall be secured (e.g., 24 hour surveillance) as directed by the City or
County if considered prudent to avoid further disturbances.
d. The Contractor Foreman or authorized representative, or party who made the discovery
and initiated these protocols shall be responsible for immediately contacting by telephone
the parties listed below to report the find and initiate the consultation process for treatment
and disposition: 1) the City of Saratoga Community Development Director; 2) the
Contractor’s Point(s) of Contact; 3) The Coroner of the County of Santa Clara (if human
remain s found); and 4) The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in
Sacramento.
e. If human remains are discovered, the Coroner has two working days to examine the
remains after being notified of the discovery. If the remains are Native American the
Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. The NAHC is responsible for identifying and
immediately notifying the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the Amah Mutsun Tribal
Band. (Note: NAHC policy holds that the Native American Monitor will not be designated
the MLD.)
f. Within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC, the MLD will be granted permission to
inspect the discovery site if they so choose. Within 24 hours of their notification by the
NAHC, the MLD may recommend to the City’s Community Development Director the
recommended means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific
removal and non-destructive or destructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials.
g. If the MLD recommendation is rejected by the City of Saratoga the parties will attempt to
mediate the disagreement with the NAHC. If mediation fails then the remains and all
associated grave offerings shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a
location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
Significance After Mitigation: With the incorporation of the measures outlined above, potential
impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level pursuant to the guidelines
of CEQA.
119
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 27
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6. Geology and Soils - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? 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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The following review geologic and soils conditions on the project site is derived from information
provided in the Safety Element (2013) of the City’s General Plan. The Safety Element indicates areas
subject to geological and soils issues such as landslide hazards, seismic-related hazards, and liquefaction
potential.
It should be noted that the proposed project entails the demolition of existing residences and accessory
structures on the project site, thereby reducing the extent of potential for injury to site residents and
damage to structures on the site. However, the project includes the subdivision of the project parcel into
three residential lots, the retention of an existing residence on one of the new lots, and the potential for the
development of two new single-family residences on the project site. The discussion geologic and soils
impacts addresses the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed project.
Future residential development of Lots 2 and 3 on the project site would require grading, excavation, and
trenching activities. Chapter 16, Building Regulations, of the Saratoga Municipal Code includes Section
16-17.060(d), Grading Permit requirements:
Engineered grading requirements. Application for a grading permit shall be accompanied by
two sets of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soils engineering report
and engineering geology report. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by an
120
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 28
individual licensed by the State to prepare such plans or specifications when required by the
Building Official.
The soils engineering report and engineering geology report required as a condition of approval for future
residential development on the site will need to identify geological and soils hazards, and provide design
recommendations that address all such geological and soils conditions.
6a. Seismic Hazards and Landslides
The greater San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of the most
active seismic regions in the United States. Several major fault zones pass through the Bay Area in a
northwest direction that have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century strong enough to cause
structural damage. The faults causing such earthquakes are part of the San Andreas Fault System, a major
rift in the earth's crust that extends for at least 700 miles along western California. The San Andreas Fault
System includes the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, Calaveras Fault Zones, and other faults.
During 1990, the U.S. Geological Survey cited a 67 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter
magnitude 7, similar to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, would occur on one of the active faults in the
San Francisco Bay Region in the following 30 years. Recently, this probability was increased to 70
percent, as a result of studies in the vicinity of the Hayward Fault. A 23 percent probability is still
attributed specifically to the potential for a magnitude-7 earthquake to occur along the San Andreas Fault
by the year 2020.
Fault Rupture. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone16 and based
on mapping of geologic hazards by Santa Clara County, the proposed project site is not crossed by any
active fault zones.17 Therefore, impacts related to the potential for fault rupture would be less than
significant.
Groundshaking. Ground shaking is the cause of most damage during earthquakes and an earthquake of
moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable
ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. The three faults that would most
likely produce strong groundshaking at the project site include the San Andreas Fault located about 13
miles to the southwest, the Calaveras Fault located approximately 8.5 miles to the northeast, and the
Sargent Fault located approximately 10 miles to the southwest.
The Association of Bay Area Governments has estimated the degree of groundshaking that could occur in
the San Francisco Bay area on a regional basis and estimates that the project area would experience very
strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the regional faults.18 The geotechnical
study for the proposed project concludes that the subject site is likely to be subject to very strong to
violent ground shaking during its life span due to a major earthquake in one of the above-listed fault
zones.
To resist seismic forces, the proposed buildings would need to be constructed using the appropriate
seismic design criteria specified in the California Building Code (CBC). The criteria are determined on
the basis of soil type, the magnitude of the controlling seismic event, slip rate of the nearest fault, and
16 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982. State of California Special Studies Zones, Saratoga, Revised Official Map.
January 1. Available online at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/CUPERTINO/maps/CUPERTINO.PDF.
17 The County of Santa Clara, 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26. Accessed at
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/GIS/GeoHazardZones/Documents/GeohazardMapsATLAS2.pdf.
18 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014. Earthquake and Hazards Program, Santa Clara County Earthquake Hazard.
Accessed at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/santaclara/ on January 6, 2014.
121
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 29
distance to the nearest active fault. The structural design for the proposed homes would be based on
Chapter 16 of the 2016 CBC.
Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied
statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead and live loads. Therefore, structures
designed in accordance with the CBC should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2)
resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist
major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. While
conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that
significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, it is
reasonable to expect that a well-designed and well-constructed structure would not collapse or cause loss
of life in a major earthquake.
As part of its review, the City of Saratoga Community Development Department’s Building Division
would review the planned design to confirm compliance with the CBC. Because compliance with the
current CBC, subject to approval as part of future building permit review process, should ensure that the
buildings constructed under the proposed project do not collapse or cause loss of life in a major
earthquake, adverse impacts related to groundshaking would be less than significant.
Liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a
temporary, but essentially total, loss of shear strength because of pore pressure build-up under the
reversing cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquakes. The project site is identified as located within
a Liquefaction Hazard Zone19 The geotechnical and soils report required for any future residential
development on the site would need to address this soils constraint with appropriate design
recommendations.
Landslides. The subject site and the surrounding area are generally level, but are gently to steeply sloping
along the eastern side of the parcel. The project site is not located within the Landslide Hazard Area
identified by the City’s Safety Element. The potential for seismically-induced landsliding is negligible.
Therefore, impacts related to landslides and related phenomena would be less than significant.
Ground Subsidence. Ground subsidence may occur when poorly consolidated soils densify as a result of
earthquake shaking. The geotechnical and soils report required for any future residential development on
the site would need to address this soils constraint with appropriate design recommendations.
Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading may occur when a weak layer of material, such as a sensitive silt or
clay, loses its shear strength as a result of earthquake shaking. Overlying blocks of competent material
may be translated laterally towards a free face. Such conditions would need to be evaluated as part the
geotechnical study and report that would be required for future residential development proposed for Lots
2 and 3.
6b. Erosion Hazards
Without proper soil stabilization controls, demolition activities such foundation removal and exposure of
bare soils can increase the potential for soil loss and erosion by wind and stormwater runoff through the
removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of areas of loose soil. The potential for soil erosion exists
during the demolition period when the existing cover has been removed and before new vegetation or
hardscape is installed. The project applicant has prepared a grading and drainage plan that is required by
the City as a condition of approval for the project. This plan identifies a minor amount of grading that
would be required for access to Lot 2 and drainage control measures to be implemented on the subject
property to ensure that potential erosion hazards are avoided during demolition and grading.
19 City of Saratoga, 2013. City of Saratoga General Plan Safety Element. February 20.
122
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 30
6c, 6d, 6e. Geologic Stability and Soil Engineering Constraints
Unstable Geologic Units or Soil. The project site is not located within a Santa Clara County Compressible
Soil or Landslide Hazard Zone20 indicating that neither of these potential hazards would affect the project
site. Further, the project would not include construction of subsurface structures that would involve
substantial excavations that could become unstable. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Expansive Soil. The geotechnical and soils report required for any future residential development on the
site would need to address this soils constraint with appropriate design recommendations.
Soils Incapable of Supporting Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems. The project site
is located within the Saratoga city limits and the area is served by the community’s sewer system. No
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be required for the project. Therefore, there
would be no impact related to having soils capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures – Geology and Soils
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because geologic, seismic and soil
engineering impacts would be less than significant or there would be no impact.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7. Greenhouse Gases - Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any
applicable threshold of significance?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted
by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.”
These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by
transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength
heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone,
and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-
highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for
approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest
contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. GHGs are typically reported in
the “carbon dioxide equivalent” measure (CO2e).21
Significance Thresholds and Criteria. Exercising its own discretion as lead agency and similarly to other
San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions, the City of Saratoga has decided to rely on the thresholds within
20 The County of Santa Clara, 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26. Accessed at
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/GIS/GeoHazardZones/Documents/GeohazardMapsATLAS2.pdf65tg
21 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in “carbon-
dioxide-equivalents,” which represent a weighted average based on the heat absorption (or “climate change”) potential of each
gas. This allows the total GHG emissions resulting from a project or activity to be expressed as a single number that represents
the total carbon footprint resulting from that project or activity.
123
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 31
the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD.22 The BAAQMD
Options and Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent
with the thresholds outlined within the BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines23 BAAQMD’s
recommended thresholds are as follows:
§ Compliance with a Qualified Climate Action Plan or
§ Meet one of the following thresholds:
- 1,100 MT CO2e per year; or
- 6.7 MT CO2e per capita per year (residential) / 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per
year (mixed use)
For purposes of this report, project compliance with the 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold is used as the
primary basis to determine significance.
7a. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Short-term GHG emissions would be generated by project-related construction activities. In addition,
project implementation would also contribute to long-term increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from
direct sources (traffic increases and minor secondary fuel combustion emissions from space heating).
Development occurring as a result of the proposed project would also result in other indirect operational
increases in GHG emissions as a result of electricity generation to meet project-related increases in
energy demand. Electricity generation in California is mainly from natural gas-fired power plants.
However, since California imports about 20 to 25 percent of its total electricity (mainly from the
northwestern and southwestern states), GHG emissions associated with electricity generation could also
occur outside of California. Space or water heating, water delivery, wastewater processing and solid
waste disposal also generate GHG emissions.
The CalEEMod 2016.1.1 computer model was used to calculate GHG emissions that would be generated
by the demolition of two existing residences on the project site as well as potential future construction and
operation of two residences, and results are presented in Table 6.
As indicated in Table 6, project construction would generate up to approximately 125 metric tons of CO2-
equivalents (MT CO2e) per year.24 The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for
construction-related GHG emissions, but the project’s estimated construction-related GHG emissions are
expected to have a less-than-significant impact on global climate change. For comparison purposes, this
emissions rate is well below this report’s operational threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per
year, which would be an indication that the project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be less
than significant. The proposed project would also be subject to the existing CARB regulation (Title 13 of
the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485), which limits idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor
22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report. October. Available online
at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.
23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2011 and May 2012. Available
online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.
24 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in “carbon
dioxide-equivalents” or CO2e, which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat absorption (or “global warming”)
potential. When CO2 and non-CO2 GHG emissions are considered together, they are referenced as CO2e, which add
approximately 0.9 percent to CO2 emissions from diesel equipment exhaust (California Climate Action Registry, General
Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1, January 2009. Available online at: http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-
reporting-protocol.html. Accessed on June 14, 2011).
124
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 32
vehicles, and compliance with this regulation would further reduce GHG emissions associated with
project construction vehicles (compliance with idling limits is required under Mitigation Measure AQ-1
in Section 3, Air Quality).
TABLE 6
PROJECT-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
GHG Source Project MT CO2e/year
Construction Emissions
2017 116.5
2018 91.6
Potential Operational Emissions
- Area 0.4
- Energy 8.9
- Mobile 19.2
- Waste 1.3
- Water 0.5
Total 30.3
CEQA Significance Threshold <1,100 MT CO2e
SOURCE: The CalEEMod output for this analysis is available for public review at the City
of Saratoga Community Development Department, located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070, between 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Thursday.
As indicated in Table 6, project construction would generate up to approximately 125 metric tons of CO2-
equivalents (MT CO2e) per year.25 The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for
construction-related GHG emissions, but the project’s estimated construction-related GHG emissions are
expected to have a less-than-significant impact on global climate change. For comparison purposes, this
emissions rate is well below this report’s operational threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per
year, which would be an indication that the project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be less
than significant. The proposed project would also be subject to the existing CARB regulation (Title 13 of
the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485), which limits idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor
vehicles, and compliance with this regulation would further reduce GHG emissions associated with
project construction vehicles (compliance with idling limits is required under Mitigation Measure AQ-1
in Section 3, Air Quality).
The BAAQMD also encourages implementation of construction-related GHG reduction strategies where
feasible, such as: using alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment such
that these vehicles/equipment comprise at least 15 percent of the fleet; using local building materials such
that these materials comprise at least 10 percent of all construction materials; and recycling or reusing at
least 50% of construction waste or demolition materials. None of these measures is specifically proposed
25 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in “carbon
dioxide-equivalents” or CO2e, which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat absorption (or “global warming”)
potential. When CO2 and non-CO2 GHG emissions are considered together, they are referenced as CO2e, which add
approximately 0.9 percent to CO2 emissions from diesel equipment exhaust (California Climate Action Registry, General
Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1, January 2009. Available online at: http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-
reporting-protocol.html. Accessed on June 14, 2011).
125
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 33
as part of the project, but the project would be required to divert at least 50% of non-hazardous
construction and demolition debris per the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance.26
Project operation is estimated to generate approximately 30.3 MT CO2e per year. Such an increase would
not exceed this report’s significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the project’s
operational GHG emissions would be less than significant.
If new residences are constructed on the two parcels created by the proposed project, compliance with
mandatory residential CALGreen measures in effect at the time of construction will help to further reduce
the project’s construction-related and operational GHG emissions. CALGreen measures include
stormwater management, energy efficiency, water conservation, durability/reduced maintenance,
construction waste reduction, pollution control, and air quality measures.27 Compliance with these
mandatory measures as well as any elective CALGreen measures would help to further reduce the
project’s construction-related and operational GHG emissions.
7b. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, Policies, and Regulations
California has passed a number of bills related to GHG emissions and the Governor has signed at least
three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has
not yet established CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions. GHG statutes and executive
orders (EO) include EO S-1-07, EO S-3-05, EO S-13-08, EO S-14-08, EO S-20-04, EO S-21-09, AB 32,
AB 341, AB 1493, AB 3018, SB 97, SB375, SB 1078 and 107, SB 1368, and SB X12. AB 32 establishes
regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to reduced statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by
2020. Pursuant to this requirement, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its Scoping Plan,
which contains the main strategies to achieve required reductions by 2020. As indicated above, the project
would not exceed this report’s significance threshold of 1,100 MT. This threshold is based on the
BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which in turn, relates to AB 32 GHG reduction goals.
Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions would not conflict with plans and policies adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions nor would it hinder the state's GHG reduction goals established by
AB 32, a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measures – Greenhouse Gases
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because GHG impacts would be
less than significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
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?
26 City of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 16-72.020.
27 The City’s CALGreen Residential Checklist of mandatory and elective items is available online at:
http://www.saratoga.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=7125. Accessed on April 21, 2017.
126
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 34
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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?
8a, 8b, 8c, 8d. Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Release of or Exposure to
Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Emissions or Use of Extremely Hazardous Materials
Existing structures (two residences, a garage, and a shed) are proposed to be demolished as part of the
project. If these buildings contain asbestos or lead-containing paint, demolition could result in airborne
release of hazardous building materials, such as asbestos fibers or lead dust. Nearby residents and park
users at Wildwood Park could be exposed to any airborne releases of these materials. Saratoga
Elementary School and Village Preschool are located within approximately one-quarter mile of the
project site and these schools could also be subject to such releases.
Proposed demolition would be required to comply with state and federal regulations for inspection and
removal of hazardous building materials, including asbestos-containing materials and lead-containing
substances. If found to be present in building materials to be removed, asbestos and/or lead abatement
practices such as containment and removal would be required prior to demolition or renovation. In
addition, the project applicant will be required to obtain clearance for asbestos removal from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Therefore, due to
existing regulations, the potential for public health hazards associated with the release of airborne
asbestos fibers at the project site would be considered less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1 would be required to reduce potential health hazards associated with lead-based paints to
a less-than-significant level.
8e, 8f. Airports and Private Airstrips
The nearest airports or airstrips to the project site are the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
Airport and Reid Hillview Airport, located approximately 9 and 13 miles to the northeast, respectively.
Therefore, there is no impact associated with safety hazards due to location of the project within 2 miles
of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
127
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 35
8g. Emergency Plans
The project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency
evacuation plan. During demolition of four existing structures on the project site and potential future
construction of new residences on the project site, project contractors will be required to comply with Fire
Department Standard Details and Specifications, which include maintaining adequate emergency access
for fire engines and paramedics to on-site structures and structures on adjacent properties. The SCCFD
has determined that Brookwood Lane has adequate design capacity for fire department equipment and
services. Therefore, the project’s impact on emergency response would be less than significant.
8h. Wildland Fire Hazards
According to the Saratoga General Plan Safety Element, the project site is located in a very high fire
hazard zone. Fire protection would be provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). To
ensure adequate fire protection service can be provided during construction and use of future residences
of the subdivided site, the two potential future residences developed on the site will be required to meet
SCCFD requirements for minimum fire flow, automatic fire sprinklers, hydrant spacing/location, building
access requirements, etc. as discussed in Section 14, Public Services. Therefore, impacts related to
wildland fire hazards would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures – Hazards (HAZ)
In addition to implementing asbestos abatement requirements, the project applicant will implement the
following additional measure to mitigate other public health risks associated with lead-based paints to a
less-than-significant level:
HAZ-1: Abatement of Lead-Based Paints. Prior to proposed building demolition, construction finish
materials that are suspect for containing lead-based paint will be tested, and pending
laboratory analysis, will not be subjected to any process which renders them friable unless
proper engineering controls and worker protection procedures are initiated.
Significance After Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, potential public
health risks associated with lead-based paints would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project:
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?
128
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 36
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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?
The project site is generally level, sloping slightly to the east, with an elevation of approximately 472
above mean sea level. Saratoga Creek is located southeast of Brookwood Lane, approximately 200 ft.
southeast of the subject property. Presently, runoff flows from the project site are not treated for the
removal of urban pollutants and water contaminants. Surface flows are characterized as sheet flows that
collect and generally percolate on-site.
9a, 9f. Water Quality
Water quality degradation is regulated by the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program. This program was established by the Clean Water Act to control and reduce
pollutants carried to water bodies from point and non-point discharges. In California, the NPDES
permitting program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through nine
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The NPDES permit for the City of Saratoga is a
permit that is issued to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP),
an association of thirteen cities/towns in the Santa Clara Valley (including Mountain View), Santa Clara
County, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. SCVURPPP participants share a common NPDES
permit, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRSP) Order No. R2-2009-0074, to discharge
stormwater to South San Francisco Bay. To reduce pollution in urban runoff to the "maximum" extent
practicable, the SCVURPP incorporates regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed at
improving the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of Santa Clara Valley. The
section C.3 provisions of the MRSP address stormwater quality controls and treatment provisions for new
development and redevelopment projects.
With regard to the MRSP C.3 requirements for new development and redevelopment, section C.3.b.
identifies regulated projects that would be subject to the stormwater control provisions of the permit.
Section C.3.b.ii(3) defines regulated projects as redevelopment projects that create 10,000 s.f. or more of
impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential
129
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 37
housing subdivisions (i.e., detached single-family home subdivisions, multi-family attached subdivisions
(town homes), condominiums, and apartments), mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes
redevelopment projects on public or private land that fall under the planning and building authority of a
Permittee.
Demolition (and future construction) activities would have the potential to degrade local water quality
temporarily through discharges of runoff from disturbed areas on the construction site into Saratoga
Creek. There would be a potential for erosion and downstream sedimentation if soil materials exposed
during project construction were accidentally released. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more
acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of
development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General
Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General
Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). Construction
activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as
stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the
original line, grade, or capacity of the facility.
The proposed demolition would occur on a 1.26-acre area (55,089 s.f.), with demolition confined to the
immediate areas of the two residences and accessory structures proposed for demolition. The proposed
project would not create new or replace existing impervious surfaces on the subject property. Under the
provisions of section C.3, the project would not be considered a “Regulated Project” and would not be
subject to C.3 requirements. Additionally, potential future residential construction of Lots 2 and 3 on the
site would disturb less than one acre, and is not part of a larger common plan of development; the project
would be exempt from coverage under the General Permit for construction activities.
The City’s Residential Design Guidelines would require that stormwater be retained on-site to the
maximum extent possible and directed away from adjoining properties. This requirement would ensure
that adjacent downstream properties would not be adversely affected by any changes in drainage resulting
from such future development. Grading proposed for future development on the new lots would require a
grading permit and compliance with permit requirements, including implementation of interim and
permanent erosion control measures, and would reduce erosion hazards and associated degradation of
downstream water quality to less than significant levels. The City is presently reviewing conceptual
grading and drainage plans to ensure consistency with City Code requirements. Additionally, the
proposed project would include the formation of an Assessment District to address and accommodate
infrastructure improvements to serve the site. The Assessment District shall be created to assure
compliance with Clean Water Act requirements per C.3 provision of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit. Appropriate storm water treatment devices shall be required during
development or redevelopment of each parcel. Therefore, compliance with City’s Residential Design
Guidelines and grading permit requirements (if applicable) would ensure that future drainage impacts on
adjacent properties would be less than significant.
9b. Groundwater Resources
As indicated in Section 6, Geology and Soils, a soils engineering report and engineering geology report
required as a condition of approval for future residential development on the site would need to identify
geological and soils hazards, and provide information concerning groundwater levels for the project site.
For the proposed project, the removal of impervious surfaces on the subject property would promote on-
site infiltration of stormwater and marginally enhance groundwater recharge. The proposed project would
not require the extraction or use of groundwater resources.
130
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 38
9c, 9d, 9e. Drainage
The project site consists of a 1.6-acre parcel developed with three residences and accessory structures.
Presently, any runoff flows on the project site are not treated for the removal of urban pollutants and
water contaminants. Surface flows generally collect on-site and percolate on-site. No surface
impoundments, wetlands, natural catch basins, settling ponds, or lagoons are located on the subject
property. No drywells were identified on the subject property.
The proposed development for the project site would include the removal of project site’s existing
impervious surface materials related to structures proposed for demolition. The removal of these
impervious surfaces would allow for on-site infiltration of stormwater on the parts of the site that were
previously covered. Consequently, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would
result in flooding on- or off-site. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff.
9g – 9j. Flood Hazards, Seiches
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
(May 18, 2009) for Saratoga, the project site is located in Zone X, consisting of areas with 0.2% annual
chance of flood, areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or
with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from one percent chance
flood. The FEMA Flood Zones maps of the 2013 General Plan Safety Element also indicate that the
project site is located outside mapped 100-year flood hazard areas.
The Saratoga Safety Element (2013) identifies the potential for seiches (seismic waves) at the Lake Ranch
Reservoir, which is located southwest of the city, in Saratoga’s Sphere of Influence. The Safety Element
estimates that water released from this reservoir as a result of a seiche would be comparable to the 100-
year flood hazard levels and it would flood areas along Quito/Saratoga Creek if the seiche caused a
northeasterly flow. These zones are located in the western and southwestern hillside areas of the city,
generally outside (upstream) of flood zones located along Saratoga Creek. Therefore, project
implementation would not be significantly affected by potential flood impacts resulting from a seiche
(seismic wave) at the Lake Ranch Reservoir, a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measures – Hydrology and Water Quality
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because hydrologic and water
quality impacts would be less than significant or mitigated to less than significant by conformance with
the City’s Residential Design Guidelines and Code requirements.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10. Land Use and Planning - Would the project:
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?
131
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 39
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
10a, 10c. Divide an Established Community, Conflict with Habitat Conservation or Natural
Community Conservation Plans
The proposed project would entail the demolition of two single-family residences and accessory
structures on a 1.6-acre project site at the end of Brookwood Lane. The subject property is surrounded by
residential and open space uses. The proposed project would not cause any physical divisions of the City
or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
10b. Project Consistency with Land Use Plans and Policies
The project site is currently single-family residential uses. The General Plan land use map designation for
the project site is Medium Density Residential: M-15; zoning for the project site is Single Family
Residential, R-1-15,000 district, consistent with the General Plan designation. The R-1-15,000 Single
Family Residential zoning district includes permitted uses such as single-family dwellings, transitional
and supportive housing, accessory structures (e.g. garages, carports, etc.), swimming pools, recreational
courts, and antenna facilities. Conditional uses for this district extend to accessory structures, community
facilities, institutional facilities, religious and charitable institutions, nursing homes and day care
facilities, public utility and services structures, stables, and cemeteries.
The project applicant proposes to subdivide the 1.6-acre parcel into three residential lots covering 1.26
acres, and dedicate 0.34 acre for park use as part of the adjoining Wildwood Park. One of the new lots
would contain an existing single-family residence that would remain as part of the subdivision. The
demolition of two other residences on the site would facilitate the creation of two new parcels for future
residential development. The proposed project does not include the development of these two lots with
new residences. The introduction of this initial study provides an overall discussion that explains the need
for a variance to implement the proposed subdivision. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent
with the City’s land use plans and policies, and the intent of these land use planning instruments to guide
development within the community.
Mitigation Measures – Land Use and Planning
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because land use impacts would be
less than significant or there would be no impact.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11. Mineral Resources - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
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?
132
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 40
11a, 11b. Mineral Resources
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.
Mitigation Measures – Mineral Resources
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because there would be no
significant impact on mineral resources.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12. Noise - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 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?
Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, nursing homes, places of
worship, and open space areas. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the
nighttime hours. Single-family residences on Springer Avenue adjoin the project’s northern, while the
residence at 20613 Brookwood Lane adjoins the project’s eastern boundary. There are two residences
(20620 and 20626 Brookwood Lane) located adjacent to the project’s southern boundary. The closest
school is Saratoga Elementary School (14592 Oak Street), and it is located approximately 0.22 mile to
south. The Village Preschool is located approximately 0.26 mile to the southeast.
Significance Thresholds
Saratoga General Plan Noise Element. Table NE-2 of the Saratoga Noise Element includes land use
compatibility noise guidelines for various land use categories including single- and multi-family
residential, parks/open space, public/quasi-public facilities such as schools or hospitals, and
commercial/office. The proposed project would fall under the single-family residential land use category
and the City’s guidelines indicate that noise levels up to 60 dBA (DNL)28 are considered to be Normally
28 DNL: a Day-Night noise descriptor, also expressed as Ldn. The DNL or Ldn divides the 24-hour day into the daytime period of
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime period of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime noise levels are penalized by 10 133
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 41
Acceptable, noise levels between 60 and 70 dBA (DNL) are defined as Conditionally Acceptable, and
above 70 dBA (DNL), noise levels are considered to be Normally Unacceptable. When noise levels are
Normally Acceptable, normal conventional construction is sufficient to provide acceptable interior noise
levels and there are no special noise insulation requirements. Where noise levels are Conditionally
Acceptable, new construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of noise reduction
requirements is conducted and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. New
construction is discouraged where noise levels are Normally Unacceptable. If new construction does
proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.
Saratoga Noise Ordinance. The Saratoga Noise Ordinance (Section 7-30.060) limits construction noise to
100 dBA at 25 feet from the source and restricts construction activities to the hours between 7:30 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction activities are
allowed on Sundays or weekday holidays except for minor residential construction activities (not
requiring a City permit or not exceeding 50% of the main or accessory structure).
Section 7-30.040 also limits noise levels that can be generated by each use. Since the project site is zoned
for residential use, the maximum permissible outdoor noise level that can be generated at the property’s
northern boundary is as follows:
• Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.): 55 dBA (Leq) / 65 dBA (Lmax)
• Evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.): 45 dBA (Leq) / 55 dBA (Lmax)
• Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.): 40 dBA (Leq) / 50 dBA (Lmax)
12a. Noise Compatibility of Proposed Uses
The closest potential source of noise in the project vicinity is Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Big Basin
Way. The Noise Element also includes existing and future (2030) traffic noise contour maps. When traffic
noise levels from these two roadways are considered, existing noise levels at the project site are estimated
at 55 dBA (DNL) or less. By 2030, future traffic noise levels are estimated to range between 55 and 60
dBA (DNL).29 The City’s noise compatibility guidelines indicate that noise levels up to 60 dBA (DNL)
are considered Normally Acceptable for single-family residential uses, whereby normal conventional
construction is sufficient to provide acceptable interior noise levels and there are no special noise
insulation requirements. Since existing and future noise levels on the site are estimated to not exceed 60
dBA (DNL), noise levels are considered acceptable for the proposed use.
12b. Groundborne Noise and Vibration
Since construction of project facilities would not involve use of impact equipment (i.e. pile drivers) or
construction of subsurface facilities (i.e. tunnels), generation of substantial construction-related
groundborne vibration and noise levels would not occur. Since the closest structures are located more than
100 feet away and construction-related vibration from operation of construction equipment would be
minimal, potential groundborne noise and vibration generated by project-related construction activities
would be less than significant.
decibels (dB) to account for the greater sensitivity to noise at night. DNL averages the daytime and nighttime noise levels over a
24-hour period to attain a single digit noise exposure that is expressed in dBA (a-weighted decibels).
29 Existing (2013) and Future (2030) Traffic Noise Contours Maps are included in Appendices C and D in the in the Saratoga
Noise Element (adopted on March 5, 2014).
134
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 42
12c. Long-term Noise Increases
Traffic Noise. The number of residences on the project site would ultimately remain the same and the
project would not generate any net new trips or cause any long-term traffic increases on local roadways.
Therefore, the project would also not result in any long-term traffic noise increases on local roadways (no
impact).
On-site Noise Sources. Project implementation would remove two existing residences and the noise
typically associated with residential use. If two new residences are ultimately developed on proposed Lots
2 and 3, there would be no change in land use and noise typically associated with residential use would
occur once again on proposed Lots 2 and 3. There would be no change in noise associated with the
existing residential use on Lot 1 since the residence on this lot would be retained, although residential
noise may be more noticeable if future residences are located closer to existing adjacent home. At present,
surrounding residences are located more than 100 feet from the existing on-site residences that are
proposed to be demolished. However, if a residence is constructed on proposed Lot 3, it could be located
as close as 50 feet from the existing residence to the south (20620 Brookwood Lane). Any perceptible
increase in noise is not expected to be significant because any equipment associated with this future
residence would be subject to Noise Ordinance noise limits.
12d. Short-term Noise Increases
Proposed construction on the project site would result in temporary noise increases due to the operation of
heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 80 to 96 dBA (Lmax) at 25 feet for most
types of construction equipment (excluding pile drivers, which are not proposed to be used for this
project).30 Therefore, typical noise levels associated with most heavy construction equipment would be
consistent with the Saratoga Noise Ordinance’s construction equipment noise limit of 100 dBA at 25 feet.
Assuming typical noise levels of up to 96 dBA at 25 feet, operation of heavy equipment could generate
noise levels as high as approximately 90 dBA at approximately 50 feet, which the minimum potential
distance between the closest residential receptor to the south (20620 Brookwood Lane) and a future
residence on Lot 3. Such exterior noise levels would be generated when equipment is being operated with
open throttles (not idling) at the closest proximity to this home and could result in interior noise levels of
up 65 dBA at the closest residence to the south (assuming windows are closed). If this future residence is
located farther away from this adjacent residence, construction noise levels would be lower. Such
maximum noise levels of construction noise would only occur for a short period when earthmoving
equipment is operating near the southern boundary of proposed Lot 3, not during the entire duration of
house construction. Given the short-term nature of construction-related noise increases, such temporary
noise impacts on adjacent and nearby residences are considered to be less than significant with
enforcement of the Saratoga Noise Ordinance’s time restrictions and noise limit of 100 dBA at 25 feet.
Project demolition would generate eleven 40-cubic yard dumpsters or 22 truck trips to haul away
demolition debris to the nearest landfill. Off-hauling of demolition debris is proposed to occur over
approximately five working days, and generating approximately one inbound truck and one outbound
truck every three hours on Brookwood Lane over five work days. Such a small increase in truck traffic on
this street would only occur for approximately five workdays and would not significantly increase
ambient noise levels on those days. Therefore, this temporary increase in truck noise would be less than
significant.
30 U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Construction Noise Handbook, Table 9.1, RCNM Default Noise Emissions
Reference Levels and Usage Factors, August 2006. Available online at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm. Accessed on March 24, 2017.
135
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 43
12e, 12f. Airport-Related Issues
The nearest airports or airstrips to the project site are the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
Airport and Reid Hillview Airport, located approximately 9 and 13 miles to the northeast, respectively.
Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive
airport-related noise levels (no impact).
Mitigation Measures – Noise
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because the project’s noise impacts
would be less than significant or there would be no impact.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13. Population and Housing - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
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?
13a. Growth-Inducement Impacts and Displacement of Housing or Residents
The Land Use Element (2007) of the Saratoga General Plan indicates that Saratoga has not experienced
substantial population growth for several decades. By 1979, most of the vacant, developable land was
built upon. Most population growth since 1980 has been largely due to changes in household size within
existing dwellings. Because Saratoga is nearly built out, except for hillside areas, there has been little new
housing construction over the past 25 years, other than demolition and replacement of existing housing
stock.
The proposed project involves the demolition of two residences and accessory structures and the
subdivision of the project site into three residential lots. One existing residence on the site would remain
on one (Lot 1) of the newly created lots. The residential Lots 2 and 3 would allow for the replacement of
the two demolished single-family homes. The project site is surrounded by residential development and
open space/recreational land that is not available for future development. Therefore, the proposed
subdivision would not induce substantial population growth through extension of roads or other
infrastructure.
13b, 13c. Displacement of Housing or Residents
The subject property consists of one parcel containing three single-family residences. Since the proposed
project would retain one existing single-family lot and residence, and create two new single-family
residential lots, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or persons,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Mitigation Measures – Population and Housing
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because impacts on population and
housing would be less than significant.
136
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 44
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14. Public Services -
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
14a. Public Services
Fire Protection. Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) provides fire suppression, emergency
medical services, technical rescue, hazardous materials mitigation, fire prevention, public education, and
emergency preparedness to approximately 134 square miles of Santa Clara County, California. SCCFD is
an accredited agency that provides Insurance Services Office (ISO) Class 2/8 services to 213,053
residents in 134 square miles that includes the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and adjacent unincorporated areas.
The Department is divided into five service divisions: Administrative Services, Fire Prevention Division,
Operations Division, Training Division, and Support Services Division and is governed by the Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors. Of the 297 total personnel, 66 comprise the daily emergency
response force, which is also augmented by 15 volunteer firefighters. These personnel respond to more
than 15,000 calls for service annually from 15 fire stations, housing 19 front line and 8 select call pieces
of apparatus.
The Saratoga Fire Station, located at 14380 Saratoga Avenue, provides fire protection and EMT services
to the project area. Originally constructed in 1924, the station was rebuilt in 2004 as a two-story four bay
station. The main apparatus bay has two double deep bays, and one single depth bay. There is an
additional, separate bay that is use by the county ambulance company. The 15,435 sq.ft. station houses a
staff of seven personnel, four engines (#’s 73, 373, 17, and 973), and a rescue vehicle (#73).
The existing residential uses in the project area, as well as the project site, are served by the SCCFD and
its services would continue to be provided to the project site upon subdivision. The proposed project does
not include the development of single-family residences; SCCFD has reviewed the project and had no
comments concerning the proposed project. The SCCFD will review any future residential development
plans and provide comments for design requirements to be incorporated into project plans. These noted
requirements include specifications for fire sprinklers, fire alarm systems, smoke alarms, water supply
requirements, access for fire personnel and equipment, and construction site fire safety. The SCCFD, City
Planning Department, and City Building Department will review the project design to ensure compliance
with fire and safety code requirements.
137
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 45
Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office (SCCSO),
West Valley Division at 1601 S. De Anza Boulevard in Cupertino. The West Valley Division of the
Sheriff’s Office serves the Cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, and Los Altos Hills, as well as the western
unincorporated areas of the county from Summit Road to Moffett Field.
The SCCSO has 77 sworn positions and 8 professional support staff assigned to the West Valley
Division. Deputies provide a full range of law enforcement responsibilities to include Patrol, Traffic,
Detectives, School Resource Officers, and Special Enforcement details. The West Valley Division
employs strategies such as community-oriented policing and also stays current on law enforcement
practices such as predictive policing. A full time analyst works directly with patrol deputies and
detectives to identify crime trends and associate case data to help bring criminals to justice.
The project site and vicinity is already served by the Sheriff’s Office and the proposed project would not
affect the existing ability to provide police protection services.
Schools. The project is located in the Saratoga Union School District for elementary and middle school
educational services, and in the Los Gatos - Saratoga Union High School District for high school service.
The proposed subdivision would not directly generate new students requiring educational services from
either of these two school districts. However, developer impact fees may be required for future residential
development on Lots 2 and 3.
Parks. Residents of the project area have opportunities for recreational activities at Wildwood Park,
adjoining the project site. Additionally, Deer Park is located approximately 0.5 mile north of the project
site. Park in-lieu fees are generally collected for any net increase in residences to help fund improvements
to City parks. The proposed project would not result in a net increase in residences and includes the
dedication of a 0.34-acre portion of the project site to the City for potential park use in conjunction with
Wildwood Park. Acceptance of this open space area benefits both the City and the proposed project,
resulting in no significant adverse effects on City’s park services.
Other Public Facilities. The City is served by the Santa Clara County Library System, which has a branch
library in Saratoga at the intersection of Allendale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue. Property taxes and
assessments fund the library operations.
Mitigation Measures – Public Services
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because there would be no adverse
impacts on public services.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15. Recreation -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
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?
138
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 46
15a, 15b. Demand for Recreational Facilities and Impacts Related to Construction of Recreational
Facilities
Project implementation would not increase the number of residential units in the city. The proposed
project includes the dedication of 0.34 acre for park use, expanding the City’s Wildwood Park size, a
beneficial effect of the proposed subdivision. The proposed project would have no direct or indirect
adverse effects on parks or the demand for new recreational facilities in the city.
Mitigation Measures – Recreation
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because the project would have no
adverse impact on recreation.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16. Transportation/Traffic - Would the project:
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?
16a, b, c, f. Impacts on the Circulation System and Conflicts with Congestion Management
Program, Conflicts with Alternative Transportation (Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access)
The proposed project would result in demolition of two residences and potential future construction of
two new residences on the two lots created by the project. Since the number of residences on the project
site would ultimately be the same, the project would not generate any net new trips or cause any long-
term traffic increases on local roadways.
Additionally, there are no airports in the project vicinity; the closest airport to the project site is San Jose
International Airport, approximately 8.5 miles northeast of the site. The proposed project would not
require or result in changes to air traffic patterns, increases in traffic levels or safety risks. Therefore, the
139
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 47
project would have no impact on level of service operation of local roadways or alternative transportation
facilities (i.e., sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus stops) in the project vicinity.
16d. Traffic Safety Hazards
Project Access. Access to existing homes on proposed Lots 1 and 2 are currently provided by an existing
shared driveway. This driveway would be maintained as access to these two lots, and therefore, no new
traffic safety hazards would be associated with continued use of the existing shared driveway. If a home is
developed on Lot 3 in the future, a new access driveway would need to be developed from Brookwood
Lane. This future driveway would have to meet City standards, and therefore, no new traffic safety
hazards would be posed by this new driveway connection to Brookwood Lane.
Construction Traffic. Project demolition would generate 11 dumpsters (40 c.y.) or 22 truck trips to haul
away demolition debris to the nearest landfill. Off-hauling of demolition debris is proposed to occur over
approximately 5 working days, and generating 2.2 truckloads or 4.4 haul truck trips per day. Assuming
work hours of approximately 6.5 hours per day, approximately 1 truck trip every 1.5 hours would be
generated. Proposed generation of approximately one inbound truck and one outbound truck every three
hours on Brookwood Lane over five workdays could contribute to short-term traffic delays, but such
effects would be less than significant due to the small number of trucks that would be generated.
Operation of haul trucks on local roadways will be prohibited during the AM and PM peak periods and
flag persons will be required to stop traffic as trucks turn to/from Brookwood Lane onto Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road. The City will include standard conditions of approval to ensure that demolition hauling
complies with the City’s traffic safety requirements for the project.
16e. Emergency Access
Emergency access to the project site and other properties on Brookwood Lane is only available from
Brookwood Lane. During demolition of four existing structures on the project site and potential future
construction of new residences on the project site, project contractors will be required to comply with Fire
Department Standard Details and Specifications, which include maintaining adequate emergency access
for fire engines and paramedics to on-site structures and structures on adjacent properties. The SCCFD
has evaluated the Brookwood Lane street configuration and determined that it is adequate for Fire
Department equipment and services. Therefore, the project’s impact on emergency response would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures – Transportation/Traffic
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because traffic impacts would be
less than significant or there would be no impact.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17. Utilities and Service Systems – Would the project:
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?
140
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 48
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 projects projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
17a, 17b, 17c, 17d, 17e. Wastewater Facilities and Service, Stormwater Drainage, Water Facilities
and Service
Wastewater Facilities and Service. The West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) provides wastewater
collection and disposal services for much of Saratoga, as well as Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, and some
unincorporated areas of the county within the district boundary. The WVSD’s system within the City of
Saratoga consists of gravity mains. The collection system flows north, exiting the City limits through
multiple trunk sewers. These systems continue to the north through the City of San Jose trunk sewers and
ultimately to the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant in Alviso.
Stormwater Drainage Facilities. Proposed storm drainage facilities are discussed above in more detail
under Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Water Facilities and Service. Water service to the project area is provided by the San Jose Water
Company (SJWC). The SJWC supplies domestic water to Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, San Jose,
Campbell, and Cupertino. Water supply sources include ground water, mountain surface water, imported
surface water, and the Cupertino Water System. Groundwater is pumped from over 100 wells that draw
water from the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin. Surface water imported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta and purchased from the SCVWD comprises 51 percent of SJWC’s supply. A smaller portion is
impounded in local reservoirs in Santa Clara County. Local surface water from the watershed in the Santa
Cruz Mountains is 10 percent of SJWC’s supply.
The proposed project would result in a decrease in demand for domestic water and wastewater treatment
services through the demolition and removal of two residences on the project site. The direct result of the
project would be a reduction in the use of water supply and wastewater treatment capacity. Indirect
effects of the proposed subdivision could include the development of two new residences, replacing the
two demolished houses and requiring water and wastewater treatment services. Any new homes proposed
for the project site would need to comply with Article 16-18, Residential Building Code, of the City’s
Municipal Code. Installation of water-saving fixtures that would comply with current City requirements
for water conservation and contribute to achieving community sustainability objectives, a beneficial effect
of the proposed project.
141
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 49
17f, 17g. Solid Waste
The West Valley Collection & Recycling, LLC (WVCR) is the exclusive recycling, green waste, and
garbage hauler for the City of Saratoga, Town of, the cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, and
unincorporated Santa Clara County. All recycling, green waste, and garbage are picked up by WVCR and
transported directly to the Guadalupe Landfill, located in the City of San Jose.
The Guadalupe Landfill is a Class III solid waste landfill. The total permitted capacity of the landfill is
16.5 million cubic yards. As of the end of 2008, the landfill has used approximately 4.8 million cubic
yards or 29 percent of its capacity. The projected capacity remaining as of the end of 2008 is 11.7 million
cubic yards. Currently, the landfill is expected to reach its capacity in 2031.
WVCR provides single stream recycling to single-family and multi-family residents as well as
commercial customers. Single stream recycling means all recyclables are placed in a single bin and do not
need to be sorted based on the material type (i.e. paper, plastic, metal, etc.). All recyclable materials are
sorted at WVCR’s Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the City of San Jose. WVCR also collects green
waste, or yard trimmings, from residential customers. The green waste is taken to the Guadalupe Landfill.
The implementation of the City Municipal Code (Chapter 7, Health and Sanitation, Article 7-05; and
Chapter 16, Building Regulations, Article 16-72) for solid waste handling and disposal, and recycling of
construction and demolition debris, would promote waste reduction and compliance with recycling
regulations. Consequently, the project’s impact on solid waste services would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures – Utilities and Service Systems
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required because there would be no adverse
impacts on utilities, and potential impacts on solid waste service systems would be less than significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance -
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
18a, 18c. Significant Impacts on the Natural and Man-Made Environments
This Initial Study indicates the proposed project would have a less-than-significant effect on the natural
and man-made environment except for the following:
142
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 50
§ Air Quality: The BAAQMD recommends that measures be implemented on all construction
projects to reduce the project-related construction emissions.
§ Biological Resources: Potential impacts to special-status species.
§ Cultural Resources: Potential impacts to unknown cultural resources.
§ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Demolition of residential structures may result in public health
risks associated with lead-based paints.
All mitigation measures outlined in this Initial Study for the above issues will be required to reduce the
indicated impacts to less-than-significant levels.
18b. Cumulative Impacts
When the proposed project is considered together with other proposed, approved, or recently constructed
projects in the vicinity, the proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts. There is one project
currently under construction on Brookwood Lane near its intersection with Saratoga – Sunnyvale Road.
Another project in the project vicinity involves a residential addition on 2nd Street near Big Basin Way.
The discussion below identifies by environmental topic the localized cumulative impacts from the
proposed and nearby projects and from area-wide cumulative impacts from the development projects
proposed throughout the City.
Air Quality. To address cumulative impacts on regional air quality, the BAAQMD has established
thresholds of significance for construction-related and operational criteria pollutants and precursor
emissions. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria
pollutants and precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s
existing air quality conditions. If daily average or annual emissions exceed these thresholds, the project
would result in a cumulatively significant impact. Since the project’s demolition/construction-related and
operational criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed the above significance thresholds, the project’s
contribution is also considered to be less than cumulatively considerable.
Biological Resources. Given the site’s the presence of sensitive biological habitats, potential for special-
status species habitat, and jurisdictional waters, the geographic scope of potential cumulative biological
resources impacts extends to the site, its immediate vicinity, and similar habitats throughout the city.
Project implementation would result in potential cumulative impacts on ordinance-protected trees and
special-status animal species, if they are present during construction. However, since the project’s impacts
on ordinance-protected trees and special-status animal species would be reduced to a less-than-significant
level with required mitigation (Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2), the project contribution would be
less than cumulatively considerable, a less-than-significant cumulative impact. Furthermore, since all
other projects in the city would also be required to mitigate for the loss of ordinance-protected trees,
cumulative impacts on ordinance-protected trees from cumulative development within the city are not
expected to occur.
Cultural Resources. The geographic scope of the potential cumulative archaeological and paleontological
resource impacts encompasses the project site and its immediate vicinity. There is a potential to encounter
buried archaeological or paleontological resources at the site during project construction; however,
implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce the project’s impact to a less-than-
significant level. The potential to encounter such resources associated with other cumulative projects
identified above is unknown, but does exist. However, since the project’s impacts on these resources
would be site-specific and reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation
Measure CUL-1, the project’s contribution to any such impacts would not be cumulatively considerable
and this cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
143
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 51
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The geographic scope of the potential cumulative hazards and
hazardous materials impacts encompasses the project site and its immediate vicinity. Proposed demolition
would be required to comply with state and federal regulations for inspection and removal of hazardous
building materials, including asbestos-containing materials and lead-containing substances. If found to be
present in building materials to be removed, asbestos and/or lead abatement practices such as containment
and removal would be required prior to demolition or renovation. In addition, the project applicant will
be required to obtain clearance for asbestos removal from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce
the project’s impact to a less-than-significant level. The potential to encounter such effects associated
with other cumulative projects identified above is negligible and, since the project’s impacts on these
resources would be site-specific and reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the project’s contribution to any such impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable, a less-than-significant cumulative impact.
144
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 52
REPORT PREPARATION
City of Saratoga
Erwin Ordoñez, AICP, EDFP, Director, Community Development Department
Sung Kwon, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
City Consultants
Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc.
Valerie Chew Geier Project Manager
Frederick Geier Technical Director
Dave Johnston Biological Assessment
145
JUNE 2017 53
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING DIVISION
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title:
Brookwood Lane
Residential Subdivision
Project Location:
20625 Brookwood Lane
City of Saratoga (Figure 1)
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Saratoga, Planning Division
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Sung H. Kwon, Senior Planner
(408) 868-1212
Property Owner:
David Johnston
20625 Brookwood Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
Project Applicant
David Johnston
20625 Brookwood Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
General Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential: M-15
Zoning:
Single Family Residential, R-1-15,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a Tentative Map application for a three-lot subdivision of a 1.6-acre parcel, with a
park dedication of 0.34 acres. As part of this subdivision, a variance for lot frontage is requested in order
to save a 48-inch oak tree on the project site. A tree protection easement for this tree is proposed and no
trees are proposed for removal.
An existing driveway would serve proposed Lots 1 and 2. A driveway easement crossing Lot 2 would be
created to maintain access to Lot 1. Lots 1 and 2 would not require any grading; future grading would
only occur on Lot 3 for access from Brookwood Lane. A preliminary grading plan and conceptual
stormwater plan has been submitted to the City.
Three homes and a shed currently exist on the subject property. The house and garage on proposed Lot 1
would remain. The other structures on the site (two homes, two garages, and a shed) would be
demolished and removed prior the Final Map approval. Future design review approval for any new
residential structures would be required for Lots 2 and 3.
The current project proposal does not include the development of any new residences on the site. The
proposed project’s Lots 1, 2, and 3 would encompass net areas of 15,442 s.f., 15,327 s.f., and 20,020 s.f.,
respectively. These lot sizes would allow corresponding maximum floor areas of 4,128 s.f. for each of
Lots 1 and 2, and 4,518 s.f. for Lot 3. The Tentative Map shown in Figure 3 identifies the configuration of
the three proposed lots, easements, setbacks, and existing trees on project site.
The proposed project also includes the dedication of 0.34 acre of the 1.6-acre parcel for park use. The
western portion of the site adjoins the City’s Wildwood Park and the additional dedicated area would be
incorporated into Wildwood Park.
146
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 54
As discussed above, the proposed project includes an application for a variance from required lot frontage
of Lot 3 along Brookwood Lane. The need for the variance results from the inclusion of a proposed tree
protection easement on this lot to preserve and protect a 48-inch oak tree, a prominent landscape feature
of the proposed project site. The guidelines for granting a variance by the City are presented in Section
15-70.060 of the Saratoga Municipal Code.
Project Location
The project site is located at the end of Brookwood Lane, approximately 900 feet southwest of its
intersection with Saratoga – Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project would certain significant environmental impacts and mitigation
measures would be incorporated into the project design.
DETERMINATION
In accordance with local procedures regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed
project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and on the basis of that study
recommends the following determination:
§ The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will not be required.
§ The Initial Study incorporates all relevant information regarding potential environmental effects
of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required.
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment for the following reasons:
§ As discussed in the preceding sections, the proposed project does not have the potential to
significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animal or plant
communities, or to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory.
§ As discussed in the preceding sections, both short-term and long-term environmental effects
associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
§ When impacts associated with adoption of the proposed project are considered alone or in
combination with impacts from other past, current, or probable future projects, project-related
impacts would be less than significant.
§ The above discussions do not identify any substantial adverse impacts to human beings as a result
of the proposed project.
§ This determination reflects the independent judgment of the City.
____________________________________________ _____________________
Sung Kwon, Senior Planner Date
City of Saratoga
147
INITIAL STUDY – BROOKWOOD LANE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
JUNE 2017 55
ATTACHMENT 1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
148
1
March 16, 2017
Mr. Fritz Geier
Geier and Geier Consulting, Inc.
12 Chancellor Pl, Berkeley, CA 94705
Subject: Biological Review and Special-status Species Assessment, 20625 Brookwood
Lane Project, Saratoga, CA
Dear Mr. Geier:
This letter provides the results of the Biological Review and Special-status Species
Assessment I conducted for the project site located at 20625 Brookwood Lane in
Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. The purpose of this report is to identify
special-status wildlife and bo tanical species that could potentially be affected as a result
of the proposed subdivision project (Project) at this location. The Project will include the
demolition and removal of two homes and a shed, with street addresses of 20621 and
20625 Brookwood Lane. The Project is limited to the subdivision of the parcel, not the
development of it, and no trees will be removed as a part of this project. The parcel was
developed in the 1940s and comprises three homes that are currently occupied by
residents. The report also identifies potential biotic and/or regulatory constraints and
recommends options to minimize or avoid impacts.
Although I am a co -owner of said property, I am an established consulting wildlife
biologist, and qualified to make this biotic assessment. Additionally, I have resided
immediately adjacent to the property (across the street at 20616 Brookwood lane) for
over 50 years, so my historical and ongoing observations provide a unique resource for
this assessment. I have also reviewed other pertinent information including the
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), species lists obtained from the web
site of the Sacramento office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
technical publications available from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) and other sources.
The 1.63-acre project site is developed. The site is composed of a single parcel (APN
503-23-025) developed with three homes built in the late 1940s and one shed, all totaling
approximately 5,000 square feet. The three residences, 20617, 20621, and 20625 are
currently occupied. There exist three gravel driveways connecting the homes to
Brookwood Lane. The driveways are interconnected and a small portion of the
driveways and an access road on the southwest are paved as they leave the cul-de-sac of
Brookwood lane. The parcel is connected to developed parcels to the northeast, east, and
southwest. The northwest property line is shared with Wildwood Park with coast live
oak habitat. The parcel itself is composed of mostly ornamental vegetation including
lawns mixed with scattered coast live oaks that have colonized the area since the site was
converted from a walnut orchard to a housing development in the mid-twentieth century.
The elevations for the project site range from approximately 455 feet at Brookwood Lane
149
2
to 490 feet above mean sea level at the westernmost corner of the property. The homes
and most of the site are situated on a flat sill with slope occurring at the edge of
Brookwood lane and as the project site approaches Wildwood Park. Saratoga Creek is
located 180 feet from the closest edge of the Project, the southern corner of the parcel.
The on-site developed habitat is characterized by the existing structures, hardscape,
disturbed areas, and vegetation associated with the existing residences. Vegetation
includes mature non-native and native trees, ornamental shrubs and planted landscaping.
Non-native t ree species observed on the project site include Santa Rosa plum (Prunus
salicina), walnut (Juglans regia x hindsii), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), orange
(Citrus ‘var’), lemon (Citrus ‘var’), and olive (Olea europaea). Native trees observed on
the project site include California bay (Umbellularia californica), Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), coast live oak (Quescus
agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and California buckeye (Aesculus californica).
Large shrubs include non-native oleander (Nerium oleander), pyracantha (Pyracantha
sp.), camellia (Camellia japonica), and native coyote bush (Bacharis pilularis).
Special status plant species do not occur on the project site likely due to the absence of
suitable habitat types and lack of specific microhabitats, such as those habitats with
serpentine soils. For these reasons, the project would not impact special status plants.
The results of my assessment, including the potential for occurrence of special-status
wildlife species and their legal status, are described below in Table 1. I also provide an
expanded description for special-status wildlife species that may constrain development
or are of particular interest to resource agencies.
As indicated in Table 1, most special-status wildlife species that are known to occur in
the Saratoga area, or are known to occur in stream or riparian habitats in the South Bay,
are absent from the project vicinity. These species are not expected to occur on the site
because (a) the habitats required by these species are absent from the project site; (b) the
site is outside the range of the species; and (c) the species has been extirpated from the
project vicinity. Several other special-status species, such as the sharp-shinned hawk
(Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and Vaux’s swift (Chaetura
vauxi) or western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) may occur on the project site only as
occasional foragers or migrants. Vaux’s swifts are sometimes seen foraging high above
the project site in summer and early fall months and Cooper’s hawks sometimes forage or
migrate through the site in fall and spring months. These species are not expected to
breed on the site, and the project will not have a substantial effect on these species.
The only special-status wildlife species that could potentially breed on or immediately
adjacent to the site is the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes
annectens). Project impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat are expected to be
minimal, because the project is developed and woodrat nests are more typically closer to
the riparian area. No woodrat nests were observed on the project area and in my opinion,
any potential project impacts to the woodrat would be less than significant under CEQA,
150
2
Table 1. Special-status Wildlife Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence on the 20625 Brookwood Lane Project Site.
NAME *STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ON
SITE
Federal or State Endangered or Threatened Species
Bay checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha bayensis)
FT Serpentine grasslands in the San Francisco
Bay area where primary larval host plant
(Plantago erecta) is present in high densities.
No suitable breeding habitat on or adjacent to the site
due to a lack of serpentine rock outcrops and larval
host plants. Not within critical habitat or core areas.
Absent from site.
California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
FT, CSSC Breeds in seasonal pools or stock ponds,
occurs in burrows in annual grasslands or
open woodlands most of the year.
No suitable breeding h abitat available on site due to a
lack of seasonal pools or ponds without flowing water.
No suitable aestivation habitat on site due to a lack of
ground squirrel burrows. Nearest record is
approximately 5 miles away. Absent from site.
California red-legged frog
(Rana aurora draytonii)
FT, SP, CSSC Streams, freshwater pools, and ponds with
emergent or overhanging vegetation.
No suitable breeding habitat present on site, but
previously recorded approximately 1/8-mile from the
project site in 1998, and at CNDDB-mapped locations
in Saratoga Creek as close as 1 mile from the project
area, but considered extirpated from the nearby reach
of Saratoga Creek. The negative results of several
protocol -level surveys in nearby reaches of Saratoga
Creek suggest this species has been extirpated from the
general area of the project site and is absent from the
project site.
San Francisco garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia)
FE, SE, SP Occurs in variety of habitats including
riparian areas, bur requires burrows for
hibernation nearby and requires frogs as a
prey base.
Site is outside the range of this species. Absent from
site.
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
FT, SE, SP Found near large bodies of water with
adequate perches and large trees for nesting.
Site does not provide suitable nesting or foraging
habitat; not known to nest in Saratoga vicinity. Absent
from site.
American Peregrine Falcon
(Falco peregrinus)
SE, SP Nests on cliffs or very high bridges and
buildings, forages in a variety of habitats.
Project site does not provide nesting habitat. Not
expected to occur on the site.
California Species of Special Concern
151
3
Table 1. Special-status Wildlife Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence on the 20625 Brookwood Lane Project Site.
NAME *STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ON
SITE
Merlin
(Falco columbarius)
CSSC Uses many habitats in winter and migration. Does not breed in California; could occur as an
occasional forager during migration and in winter .
Prairie Falcon
(Falco mexicanus)
CSSC
(nesting)
Occurs in open habitats such as grasslands,
desert scrub, rangelands, and croplands,
nests on cliffs.
No nesting or foraging habitat on site; not expected to
oc cur.
Cooper’s Hawk
(Accipiter cooperii)
CSSC
(nesting)
Nests in oak woodlands and other wooded
habitats; forages in a variety of habitats.
Trees on and adjacent to the site provide potential
nesting sites but not known to nest on the project site or
adjacent areas. Occasionally moves through the project
site.
Sharp-shinned Hawk
(Accipiter striatus)
CSSC
(nesting)
Nests in densely wooded habitats, such as
riparian woodlands and evergreen forests.
Forages in a variety of habitats.
Occurs as an occasional forager along th e nearby reach
of Saratoga Creek, but not known to breed in suburban
situations such as found on the project or in adjacent
areas.
Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSSC Nests and forages in grasslands and ruderal
habitats.
No suitable nesting or roosting habitat on site due to a
lack of ground squirrel burrows. Absent from site.
Vaux’s Swift
(Chaetura vauxi)
SP, CSSC Breeds in large snags and chimneys. No suitable nesting habitat on site, but known to forage
over site.
Loggerhead Shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)
CSSC
(nesting)
Nests in tall shrubs and dense trees, forages
in grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats.
Site lacks open areas required for foraging. Absent
from site.
California Yellow Warbler
(Dendroica petechia brewsteri)
CSSC Nests in dense stands of willow and other
riparian habitat
No suitable breeding habitat present. The project site is
too far away from the riparian to provide foraging
habitat and no breeding habitat occurs along the nearby
reach of Saratoga Creek.
Yellow-breasted Chat
(Icteria virens)
CSSC Nests in riparian habitat, primarily that
dominated by willows with a dense shrub
understory.
No suitable nesting habitat in the area because the
nearby riparian corridor lacks a developed understory
layer. Not known to nest in Saratoga vicinity. Absent
from site.
Tricolored Blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CSSC
(nesting)
Nests in vegetation near ponds; usually in
cattails.
No suitable habitat present. Absent from site.
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSSC Burrows in grasslands. No suitable habitat on or adjacent to the site. Absent
from site.
152
4
Table 1. Special-status Wildlife Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence on the 20625 Brookwood Lane Project Site.
NAME *STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ON
SITE
San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes
annectens)
CSSC Hardwood forest, brushlands, or riparian
forests.
Records of active nests are known from the vicinity
along Saratoga Creek . Site lacks needed understory to
provide cover for this species. No nests were observed
on the project site.
Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC Forages over many habitats; roosts in
buildings, large oaks or redwoods, rocky
outcrops and rocky crevices in mines and
caves.
Lack of suitable roosting and foraging habitat on site.
Absent from site.
Western red bat
(Lasiurus blossevillii)
CSSC Breeds in Central Valley of California in old
growth riparian habitat and in established
orchards near riparian areas; winters along
California coast in forested areas in and
along riparian corridors.
May occasional forage or move through project during
winter months but does not breed in the area.
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
White-tailed Kite
(Elanus leucurus)
SP Nests in tall shrubs and trees, forages in
grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats.
Project site does not provide foraging or nesting habitat
due to a lack of open habitats. Never recorded on
Project site and not expected to occur.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES CODE DESIGNATIONS
FE = Federally listed Endangered
FT = Federally listed Threatened
SE = State listed Endangered
CSSC = California Species of Special Concern
SP = State Fully Protected Species
153
6
although individuals of this species are protected by the California Fish and Game Code.
The California red-legged frog is discussed in greater detail below.
California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Federal Listing Status:
Threatened; State Listing Status: None. The California red-legged frog is California’s
largest native frog. The species is generally restricted to riparian and lacustrine habitats
in California and northern Baja California. Red-legged frogs prefer deep, quiet pools
(usually more than 2 feet deep) in creeks, rivers, or lakes below 5000 feet in elevation
(Jennings and Hayes 1994). Breeding habitat requirements include fresh water emergent
or dense riparian vegetation, especially willows adjacent to shorelines. Red-legged frogs
can survive in seasonal bodies of water that are dry for short periods if a permanent water
body or dense vegetation stands are nearby. Red-legged frogs are often found in summer
months in summer foraging habitat that would not be suitable for breeding; these
indiv iduals presumably move seasonally between summer foraging habitat and winter
breeding habitat. Critical Habitat was updated and re-designated in April 2006 (USFWS
2006). No portion of the 20625 Brookwood Lane project site is within designated
Critical Ha bitat.
If the California red-legged frog occurred within the reach of Saratoga Creek nearest the
20625 property, then potential foraging habitat might occur within any dense vegetation
in upland areas. However, t he upland area between the top-of-bank and the project site is
fully developed, and therefore not considered habitat for California red-legged frogs.
This development continues both upstream and downstream of the site, making Saratoga
Creek in this vicinity unable to sustain a red-legged frog population over the long term.
There are no CNDDDB-mapped records of red-legged frogs on the project site (CNDDB
2016). However, I observed an adult red-legged frog in Saratoga Creek near my
residence at 20616 Brookwood Lane for about two years from 1996 to 1998. California
red-legged frogs have also been recorded in Saratoga Creek approximately 1 mile
southwest of the project site near Toll House Road Bridge on the western edge of the City
of Saratoga (CNDDB 2016). In 1997, one juvenile was observed at this location on 26
April under a board in a seep next to Saratoga Creek by herpetologist, Dr. Mark Jennings.
A juvenile bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) was also captured at the same site approximately
one month later in May 1997. The USFWS (2006) used 0.7 miles as a reasonable
estimate of average dispersal ability between aquatic breeding habitats. If red-legged
frogs occur within dispersal distance of the project site, then some individuals may
disperse downstream along the riparian corridor adjacent to the site. However, no
California red-legged frogs have been observed in this reach or adjacent reaches, of the
Saratoga Creek for 19 years. Several formal surveys for nearby sections of Saratoga
Creek have been conducted for the California red-legged frog by Dr. Jeff Wilkinson, a
renowned herpetologist from California Academy of Sciences and H. T. Harvey &
Associates. Further, I keep notes about various vertebrates that appear on and adjacent to
the Project site, and I have seen no California red-legged frogs since 1998. The
California red-legged frog is currently considered extirpated from this reach of Saratoga
Creek and throughout most of Santa Clara Valley. It is therefore not expected to occur
on or in the vicinity of the project site.
154
7
Nesting Birds
Bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and
Game Code may nest in the trees and vegetation within and adjacent to the proposed
project site. There is potential for demolition activities to impact nesting birds, if active
nests are removed or otherwise disturbed during the breeding season (February 1 through
August 31). Construction-related activities should take place during the non-breeding
season (September 1 through January 31) to the greatest extent feasible. In compliance
with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the project construction
(building demolition and removal) will implement the following mitigation measure
described below to reduce the potential for impacts to nesting birds to a less t han
significant level. Mitigation: A pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be completed
by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to demolition. If an active nest is
found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified
biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established
around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other species such as song
birds), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and
Wildlife Code will be disturbed during the removal of structures. If either a nesting raptor
or a nesting songbird is found within the suggested buffer zones, a qualified biologist can
monitor the activity of the nesting birds t o determine if a smaller buffer can be used to
ensure the birds won’t be disturbed.
Roosting Colonies of Bats
Maternity colonies of bats are also protected by California Fish and Game Code.
Although t he homes are currently occupied, there is a potential for a maternity colony of
bats to occupy the buildings and trees in the immediate vicinity. The demolition of the
buildings could result in the loss of a maternity colony located in these structures or in
nearby trees immediately adjacent to the structures. To minimize potential impacts on a
maternity colony of bats, the following measures will be implemented:
1. Within 30 days prior to the demolition of any building, a qualified biologist will
conduct a survey for evidence of bat use of said buildings and trees within 100 feet of
construction. If evidence is observed, or if potential roost sites are present in areas where
evidence of bat use might not be detectable, emergence and acoustic surveys will be
conducted to determine if the bat colony is active and to identify the specific location
and species of the bat colony.
2. If a maternity roost of any bat species is present, the bat biologist will determine the
extent of a construction-free buffer (typically 100 feet) around the active roost that will
be maintained. This buffer will be maintained from April 1 until the young are flying,
usually around mid-August .
3. If a nonbreeding bat roost (i.e., a non-maternity roost, or a roost occupied between
September 1 and March 31) is found in a structure that must be physically disturbed,
bats should be excluded using a one-way door to avoid injury or mortality to individuals
during demolition.
155
8
I hope you find this information helpful for your Negative Declaration. Please feel free
to contact me at djohnston@harveyecology.com or 408-674-6963 with any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Dave Johnston, Ph.D.
Resident and vertebrate ecologist
20616 Brookwood Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
Literature Cited
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2016. Rarefind. California Department of
Fish and Game.
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in
California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho
Cordova, California.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants;
Designation of Critical Habitat for the California red-legged frog, and Special Rule
exemption ass ociated with final listing for existing routine ranching activities; Final Rule.
Federal Register 71(71):19244-19292.
156
City of Saratoga Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Introduction
The City of Saratoga, as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines, has prepared the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) for the Brookwood Lane Residential Subdivsion Project (Project). When a lead
agency makes findings on significant effects identified in an MND, it must also adopt a
program for reporting or monitoring mitigation measures that were adopted or made
conditions of project approval (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21081.6[a]; State CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15091[d], 15097).
This document represents the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP)
prepared by the City of Saratoga for the Project. This MMRP includes all measures required
to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. It
also identifies the timing of implementation; the agency responsible for implementing the
mitigation; and the agency responsible for monitoring the mitigation. The mitigation
measures, timing, and responsibility are summarized in Table 1. The complete
This MMRP has been prepared by the City of Saratoga, with technical assistance from Geier
& Geier Consulting, Inc., an environmental consulting firm. Questions should be directed to
Mr. Sung Kwon at the City of Saratoga.
Contact Information:
City of Saratoga
Planning Division
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 868-1212
157
158
City of Saratoga Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Brookwood Lane Residential Subdivsion Project
3
June 2017
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – Summary of Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring Responsibility1
Prior to Construction
BIO-1a: A pre-construction survey shall be completed by a qualified biologist
no more than 14 days prior to demolition.
BIO-1b: If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be
disturbed by these activities, a qualified biologist will determine the extent of a
construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest.
Project Applicant with
Construction
Contractor
City of Saratoga – Planning
Division; and the Santa Clara
County Department of
Environmental Health
BIO-2a: Within 30 days prior to the demolition of any building, a qualified
biologist will conduct a survey for evidence of bat use of said buildings and
trees within 100 feet of construction. If evidence is observed, or if potential
roost sites are present in areas where evidence of bat use might not be
detectable, emergence and acoustic surveys will be conducted to determine if
the bat colony is active and to identify the specific location and species of the
bat colony. If live bats are detected in the work area, work may not proceed
until CDFW has been consulted.
BIO-2b: If a maternity roost of any bat species is present, the bat biologist will
determine the extent of a construction-free buffer (typically 100 feet) around the
active roost that will be maintained. This buffer will be maintained from April 1
until the young are flying, usually around mid-August.
Project Applicant with
Construction
Contractor
City of Saratoga – Planning
Division; Fire Department;
and the Santa Clara County
Department of Environmental
Health
During Construction
AQ-1a-h: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant
emissions, the BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and
contract specification. Detailed specific measures are presented below.
Project Applicant with
Construction
Contractor
City of Saratoga – Building
Division
159
City of Saratoga Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Brookwood Lane Residential Subdivsion Project
4
June 2017
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring Responsibility1
BIO-1c: If either a nesting raptor or a nesting songbird is found within the
suggested buffer zones, a qualified biologist can monitor the activity of the
nesting birds to determine if a smaller buffer can be used to ensure the birds
will not be disturbed.
Project Applicant with
Construction
Contractor
City of Saratoga –Building
Inspection Division
BIO-2c: If a non-breeding bat roost (i.e., a non-maternity roost, or a roost
occupied between September 1 and March 31) is found in a structure that must
be physically disturbed, bats should be excluded using a one-way door to avoid
injury or mortality to individuals during demolition.
Project Applicant with
Construction
Contractor
City of Saratoga – Planning
Division
CUL-1a: The discovery of undocumented human remains or unknown
significant archaeological resources would be evaluated according to the City’s
specific protocol for the treatment of the uncovered human remains and/or
resources. Ground - disturbing activities shall be immediately stopped if
suspected Native American remains and/or significant historic or
archaeological materials are discovered.
CUL-1b: An “exclusion zone” where unauthorized equipment and personnel
are not permitted shall be established (e.g., taped off) around the discovery area
plus a reasonable buffer zone.
CUL-1c: The discovery locale shall be secured (e.g., 24 hour surveillance) as
directed by the City or County if considered prudent to avoid further
disturbances.
CUL-1d-g: These mitigations entail appropriate protocols for the evaluation
and disposition of cultural resources discovered at the project site.
Project Applicant with
Construction
Contractor
City of Saratoga – Planning
Division
HAZ-1: Prior to proposed building demolition, construction finish materials
that are suspect for containing lead-based paint will be tested, and pending
laboratory analysis, will not be subjected to any process which renders them
friable unless proper engineering controls and worker protection procedures
are initiated.
Project Applicant with
Construction
Contractor
City of Saratoga – Building
Division; Planning Division
160
City of Saratoga Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Brookwood Lane Residential Subdivsion Project
5
AIR QUALITY
Although the project’s construction-related air pollutant emissions would not exceed the
BAAQMD’s applicable significance thresholds, the following measures are recommended by
the BAAQMD to reduce the project’s construction emissions:
MM AQ-1: Basic Construction Measures. To limit the project’s construction-related
dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following BAAQMD-
recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included
in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times
per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soi, sand, or other loose material off-site
shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-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 is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five 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.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned
in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall
be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s
phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Biological Resources
The project’s construction-related activities, including demolition of structures, site
preparation, and grading could have potentially significant effects on special-status animal
species that could be expected on the project site or using suitable habitat on-site.
161
City of Saratoga Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Brookwood Lane Residential Subdivsion Project
6
Implementation of the following measures would reduce these potentially significant effects
to less-than-significant levels:
MM BIO-1: Special-Status and Migratory Birds. Demolition activities could result in
direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds by causing the destruction or
abandonment of occupied nests. To ensure compliance with the
MBTA/MBTRA and the CFGC the measures outlined below shall be
performed.
a. A pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be completed by a
qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to demolition.
b. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be
disturbed by these activities, a qualified biologist will determine the
extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the
nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other species such as
song birds), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA
and California Fish and Wildlife Code will be disturbed during the
removal of structures.
c. If either a nesting raptor or a nesting songbird is found within the
suggested buffer zones, a qualified biologist can monitor the activity
of the nesting birds to determine if a smaller buffer can be used to
ensure the birds will not be disturbed.
MM BIO-2: Special-Status Bats. Maternity colonies of bats are also protected by
California Fish and Game Code. Although the homes are currently
occupied, there is a potential for a maternity colony of bats to occupy the
buildings and trees in the immediate vicinity. The demolition of the
buildings could result in the loss of a maternity colony located in these
structures or in nearby trees immediately adjacent to the structures. To
minimize potential impacts on a maternity colony of bats, the following
measures will be implemented.
a. Within 30 days prior to the demolition of any building, a qualified
biologist will conduct a survey for evidence of bat use of said
buildings and trees within 100 feet of construction. If evidence is
observed, or if potential roost sites are present in areas where
evidence of bat use might not be detectable, emergence and acoustic
surveys will be conducted to determine if the bat colony is active and
to identify the specific location and species of the bat colony. If live
bats are detected in the work area, work may not proceed until CDFW
has been consulted. Contractor or others may not attempt to disturb
162
City of Saratoga Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Brookwood Lane Residential Subdivsion Project
7
(e.g., shake, prod) roosting features to coax bats to leave. Such actions
would constitute “harassment” under the CCR. 1
b. If a maternity roost of any bat species is present, the bat biologist will
determine the extent of a construction-free buffer (typically 100 feet)
around the active roost that will be maintained. This buffer will be
maintained from April 1 until the young are flying, usually around
mid-August.
c. If a non-breeding bat roost (i.e., a non-maternity roost, or a roost
occupied between September 1 and March 31) is found in a structure
that must be physically disturbed, bats should be excluded using a
one-way door to avoid injury or mortality to individuals during
demolition.
Cultural Resources
The following mitigation measures will reduce potential cultural resources impacts from structure
demolition, site preparation, and construction grading that could occur on the project site.
MM CUL-1: Disposition of Cultural Resources. The discovery of undocumented human
remains or unknown significant archaeological resources would be evaluated
according to the City’s specific protocol for the treatment of the uncovered
human remains and/or resources. The protocol entails the process of identifying
the human remains and the contact of appropriate parties, such as the Native
American Heritage Commission and interested Native American tribes, to
determine Most Likely Descendant for further consultation on the disposition of
the remains. The disposition of the discovered human remains would be
conducted in consultation with appropriate parties as identified by the City.
The following condition shall be placed on all improvement plans, building plans, and grading
plans and shall be implemented as necessary:
In the event that known or suspected Native American remains are encountered or significant
archaeological materials are discovered, the following measures will be implemented:
a. Ground - disturbing activities shall be immediately stopped if suspected
Native American remains and/or significant historic or archaeological
materials are discovered. Examples of significant historic or archaeological
materials include, but are not limited to, concentrations of historic artifacts
(e.g., bottles, ceramics) or prehistoric artifacts (chipped chert or obsidian,
arrow points, groundstone mortars and pestles), culturally altered ash-stained
1 14 CCR § 251.1 states: Except as otherwise authorized in these regulations or in the Fish and Game Code, no person shall harass, herd or drive any game or nongame bird or mammal or furbearing mammal. For the purposes of this section, harass is defined as an intentional act which disrupts an animal's normal behavior patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.
163
City of Saratoga Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Brookwood Lane Residential Subdivsion Project
8
midden soils associated with pre-contact Native American habitation sites,
concentrations of fire-altered rock and/or burned or charred organic
materials, and historic structure remains such as stone-lined building
foundations, wells or privy pits. Ground-disturbing project activities may
continue in other areas that are outside the discovery locale.
b. An “exclusion zone” where unauthorized equipment and personnel are not
permitted shall be established (e.g., taped off) around the discovery area plus
a reasonable buffer zone by the Contractor Foreman or authorized
representative, or party who made the discovery and initiated these protocols,
or if on-site at the time or discovery, by the Monitoring Archaeologist
(typically 25 to 50 feet for single burial or archaeological find).
c. The discovery locale shall be secured (e.g., 24 hour surveillance) as directed
by the City or County if considered prudent to avoid further disturbances.
d. The Contractor Foreman or authorized representative, or party who made the
discovery and initiated these protocols shall be responsible for immediately
contacting by telephone the parties listed below to report the find and initiate
the consultation process for treatment and disposition: 1) the City of Saratoga
Community Development Director; 2) the Contractor’s Point(s) of Contact;
3) The Coroner of the County of Santa Clara (if human remain s found); and
4) The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento.
e. If human remains are discovered, the Coroner has two working days to
examine the remains after being notified of the discovery. If the remains are
Native American the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. The NAHC
is responsible for identifying and immediately notifying the Most Likely
Descendant (MLD) from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. (Note: NAHC
policy holds that the Native American Monitor will not be designated the
MLD.)
f. Within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC, the MLD will be granted
permission to inspect the discovery site if they so choose. Within 24 hours of
their notification by the NAHC, the MLD may recommend to the City’s
Community Development Director the recommended means for treating or
disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated
grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and
non-destructive or destructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials.
g. If the MLD recommendation is rejected by the City of Saratoga the parties
will attempt to mediate the disagreement with the NAHC. If mediation fails
then the remains and all associated grave offerings shall be reburied with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further
subsurface disturbance.
164
City of Saratoga Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Brookwood Lane Residential Subdivsion Project
9
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following mitigation measures will reduce potential hazardous materials impacts
from structure demolition, site preparation, and construction grading that could occur
on the project site.
MM HAZ-1: Abatement of Lead-Based Paints. Prior to proposed building demolition,
construction finish materials that are suspect for containing lead-based
paint will be tested, and pending laboratory analysis, will not be
subjected to any process which renders them friable unless proper
engineering controls and worker protection procedures are initiated.
165
166
167
168
169
April 5, 2016 David Johnston 20616 Brookwood Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Via Email: djohnston@harveyecology.com RE: Geotechnical Clearance for 20625 Brookwood Lane; App# GEO15-0015 Geotechnical Clearance with conditions has been granted for the above referenced project based on the review letter prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated March 2, 2016. Geotechnical conditions of approval, the Geologist’s review letter and an Indemnity Agreement are attached. Please sign, date and return the Indemnity Agreement back to the City at your earliest convenience. Do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 868-1274 or via email at iharvancik@saratoga.ca.us if you have any questions regarding this review. Thank you. Sincerely, Iveta Harvancik Senior Engineer Public Works Department Cc (via email): City Planner, CD Department
170
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
CITY of SARATOGA
(408) 868-1274
MEMORANDUM
TO: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer DATE: March 2, 2016
FROM: Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., City Geotechnical Consultant
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review (S5255A)
RE: Johnston, 3-Lot Subdivision
GE015-0015
20625 Brookwood Lane
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the subject site
development permit application using:
• Response to City of Saratoga Peer Review (letter) prepared by Geo-Logic, dated February 22,
2016;
• Geologic Feasibility Investigation, Johnston Property (Report), prepared by Geo-Logic
Associates, dated November 24, 2015; and
• Tentative Map, Lands of Johnston (1 Sheet, 20 scale) prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated
July 2015.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into 3 parcels. Access to the subdivision will
be via Brookwood Lane. In our previous geotechnical peer review (dated January 5, 2016), we
recommended that supplemental geotechnical evaluations be completed prior to approval of the Tentative
Map Application. These evaluations primarily related to liquefaction potential and seismically-induced
dry sand settlement.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed subdivision is constrained by potential seismically-induced settlement, liquefaction
potential, and strong seismic ground shaking. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has satisfactorily
addressed the comments of our previous geotechnical peer review and presented a final conclusion that
tested site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. The Consultant has completed evaluations of
seismically-induced dry settlement and indicated a calculated settlement magnitude of about 1 inch. This
settlement value should be provided to the project structural engineer to be included in future house
foundation designs, along with static settlement. Site settlement does not appear sufficient to raise
concerns about building collapse.
171
Iveta Harvancik March 2, 2016
Page 2 S5245A
We recommend geotechnical approval of the Tentative Map Application. We understand that
foundation design for individual residences will be based on site specific design-level geotechnical
investigations.
LIMITATIONS
This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist
the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents
previously identified and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in
accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty
is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
TS:DTS:kc
172
173
MAY 16thth 2017
RE: 20625 BROOKWOOD LN., SARATOGA
To whom it may concern,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company can provide gas and electric service to the
above project in accordance with our tariffs on file with the California Public
Utilities Commission.
Our ability to provide service is pending the submission of final plans, loads
and payment of fees, if applicable.
If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 725-2045.
Sincerely,
Kameron DuQuette
Electric Engineering Estimator
Engineering & Service Planning
10900 N. Blaney Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Office: 408.725.2045
Mobile: 408.734.6587
Fax: 408.725.2252
174
From:Alan Kam
To:Sung Kwon
Subject:RE: 20625 Brookwood Lane, Saratoga - Tenantive Map
Date:Friday, March 03, 2017 2:38:39 PM
Sung,
The WVSD sanitary system has capacity for the proposed 3 unit subdivision at 20625 Brookwood
Lane in Saratoga (APN 503-23-025).
Please remind the applicant to submit a copy of the proposed Final Map (and improvement plans, if
available) to WVSD so we may review and calculate & collect the appropriate fees.
Thank you,
Alan Kam P.E.
Senior Engineer
West Valley Sanitation District
100 E Sunnyoaks Ave
Campbell, CA 95008
(408)385-3030
Akam@westvalleysan.org
From: Alan Kam
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 2:04 PM
To: 'skwon@saratoga.ca.us'
Subject: 20625 Brookwood Lane, Saratoga - Tenantive Map
Sung,
WVSD has reviewed the tentative map for the subdivision of 20625 Brookwood Lane into 3 parcels
and has the following comments:
· The existing parcel has three sanitary sewer laterals. With the proposed subdivision, the
existing sewer lateral serving the south portion of the site (which will become Parcel 3) will
traverse through Parcel 2 before entering the Public Right of Way. A new sewer lateral will
need to be constructed for Parcel 3 so it does not traverse into Parcel 2.
· Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall submit the Proposed Final Map and
improvement plans to WVSD for review and issuance of a sewer connection permit for each
of the parcels. At this time, additional sewer connection and capacity fees will be due.
WVSD will not provide clearance for recordation of the Final Map until the appropriate fees
are paid and sewer permits are issued.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks,
175
Alan Kam P.E.
Senior Engineer
West Valley Sanitation District
100 E Sunnyoaks Ave
Campbell, CA 95008
(408)385-3030
Akam@westvalleysan.org
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183