The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-26-13 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents Agenda 3 June 12, 2013 Draft Minutes 5 Application SUB13-0002 - 18771 Allendale Avenue (389-27- 041) Eiko Shimizu/HMH, Incorporated - The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an existing 41,382 square foot lot. Parcel 1 would be 19,896 square feet and Parcel 2 would be 16,146 square feet. The site is located within the R-1-12,500 zoning district. Staff Contact: James Lindsay (408)868-1231 Staff Report 7 Att. 1 - Resolution 13 Att. 2 - Neighbor Notification 19 Att. 3 - PC Notice for Mailing 24 Att. 4 - Aerial Photos 25 Att. 5 - Tent. Map 26 Application SUB10-10-0001 & ENV10-0001 – Mt. Eden Road (503-13-127, 128) Irany / Karr - The applicant currently owns a 13.8 acre parcel. They have submitted an application to subdivide the parcel into two parcels. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres. An Initial Study / Negative Declaration was required because both proposed lots have average slopes greater than 20%. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from May 1, 2013 – May 21, 2013. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the ND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the ND up to the May 21, 2013 date. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 Staff Report - Mt. Eden Rd.27 Att. 1 - Resolution 32 Att. 2 - IS/ND for Mt. Eden Rd.38 Att. 3 - Arborist Report 56 Att. 4 - Noticing 60 Att. 5 - Tentative Map, Exhibit 'A'63 Application PDR12-0004 & ENV12-0001 – 20440 Arbeleche Lane (397-27-029) Asgari / Lokzadeh - The applicant has requested to demolish the existing single-family residence and cottage, totaling 1,500 sq. ft. in order to construct four, two-story apartment units and associated parking. The size of the units will range between 1186 sq. ft. to 1,430 sq. ft. An Initial Study / Negative Declaration was required because both project is near riparian habitat. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 4, 2013 – June 24, 2013. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212. Staff Report - 20440 Arbeleche Lane 64 Att. 1 - Resolution 72 Att. 2 - IS/MND for 20440 Arbeleche Lane 79 1 Att. 3 - Arborist Report 104 Att. 4 - Photos of Site 114 Att. 5 - Neighbor Notifications 133 Att. 6 - Noticing 139 Att. 7 - Plan Set, Exhibit 'A'144 2 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 26, 2013 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 12, 2013 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC 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. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF 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. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. Application SUB13-0002 - 18771 Allendale Avenue (389-27-041) Eiko Shimizu/HMH, Incorporated - The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an existing 41,382 square foot lot. Parcel 1 would be 19,896 square feet and Parcel 2 would be 16,146 square feet. The site is located within the R-1- 12,500 zoning district. Staff Contact: James Lindsay (408)868-1231 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 13-022 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 2. Application SUB10-10-0001 & ENV10-0001 – Mt. Eden Road (503-13-127, 128) Irany / Karr - The applicant currently owns a 13.8 acre parcel. They have submitted an application to subdivide the parcel into two parcels. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres. An Initial Study / Negative Declaration was required because both proposed lots have average slopes greater than 20%. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from May 1, 2013 – May 21, 2013. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the ND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the ND up to the May 21, 2013 date. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 3 Recommended action: Approve Resolution No. 13-025 adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 3. Application PDR12-0004 & ENV12-0001 – 20440 Arbeleche Lane (397-27-029) Asgari / Lokzadeh - The applicant has requested to demolish the existing single-family residence and cottage, totaling 1,500 sq. ft. in order to construct four, two-story apartment units and associated parking. The size of the units will range between 1186 sq. ft. to 1,430 sq. ft. An Initial Study / Negative Declaration was required because both project is near riparian habitat. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 4, 2013 – June 24, 2013. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212. Recommended action: Approve Resolution No. 13-026 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the project subject to conditions of approval. NEW BUSINESS DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on June 20, 2013 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. 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 4 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 12, 2013 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting with modifications of May 22, 2013 (6:0:1(Zhao)) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC 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. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF 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. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. Application PDR13-0012; 14451 Fruitvale Avenue(397-17-007); Paulson Lee - The applicant requests Design Review approval to replace an existing 2,113 square foot one-story home with a new 5,369 square foot two-story home and related site improvements. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 Action: Continued to July 24, 2013 meeting. (7:0) 2. Application PDR13-0006; 14921 Sobey Road (397-04-127); Brian Vajdic - The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new 5,215 square foot two story single family home with a 1,055 square foot basement and related site improvements. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 13-024 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. (7:0) 3. Application ADR13-0009 / CUP13-0001; 15285 Sobey Road (397-07-044) Murali Jammula - The applicant requests Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Administrative Design Review (ADR) approval to construct a new detached 864 sq. ft. garage within the required rear setback. The maximum height of the proposed accessory structure will be no higher than 10 ft. No protected trees are required for removal. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 5 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 13-021 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. (7:0) 4. Application PDR13-0002; 19491 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (ROW); Chris Coones - Forzatelecom - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to upgrade wireless telecommunications equipment at an existing installation on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road near Fruitvale Avenue. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 13-023 approving the project with the following changes: (7:0) #10 - Screening. The applicant will install appropriate landscape screening or fencing in accordance with the Public Works and Community Development Departments (e.g., obtaining an encroachment permit). #11 - Colors and materials. The applicant will paint the antennas an earthtone color to blend in with the adjacent foliage. NEW BUSINESS DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on June 6, 2013 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. 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 6 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 26, 2013 Application: SUB13-0002 Location / APN 18771 Allendale Avenue / 389-27-041 Applicant/Owner: HMH, Inc / Eiko Shimizu Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner 18771 Allendale Avenue 7 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately 0.95-acre (41,382 square feet) parcel located at 18771 Allendale Avenue into two lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map application SUB13-0002 by adopting resolution 13-022. PROJECT DATA: Zoning: R-1-12,500 General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-12.5). Parcel Size: Gross/Net: 41,382 sq. ft. / 36,155 sq. ft. Average Slope: Level Site PROPOSAL CODE REQ./ALLOWANCE CONFORMANCE Parcel 1: Net parcel size: 19,896 net square feet 15,000 net square feet for a corner lot Conforms Frontage: 129.7 feet 65 feet Conforms Width: 156 feet 100 feet Conforms Depth: 130 feet 120 feet Conforms Floor Area: 1,907 existing 4,440 square feet Conforms Setbacks: Front: 53 feet 25 feet Conforms Interior Side: 26 feet 10/15 feet Conforms Exterior Side 19 feet 25 feet Existing Nonconforming Rear: 34 feet 10/10 feet Conforms Parcel 2: Net parcel size: 12,500 net square feet 16,146 net square feet Conforms Frontage: 100.5 feet 65 feet Conforms Width: 100 feet 90 feet Conforms Depth: 160 feet 120 feet Conforms Floor Area: TBD 4,206 square feet TBD Setbacks: Front: 25 feet 25 feet Conforms Sides: 10/15 feet 10/15 feet Conforms Rear: 25/35 feet 25/35 feet Conforms Page 2 of 6 8 Application No. SUB13-0002 / 18771 Allendale Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately .95- acre (41,382 square feet) parcel located at 18771 Allendale Avenue into two lots. The proposed parcel size for Parcel 1 would be approximately 0.46 acres (19,896 square feet) and Parcel 2 would be approximately 0.37 acres or (16,146 square feet). Parcel 1 would have street frontage on both Allendale Avenue and Via Alto Court and Parcel 2 would have frontage on Via Alto Court. A portion of the lot extends to the center line of Allendale Avenue and that area (5,322 square feet) within the street right-of-way would be dedicated to the City. The existing 1,907 square foot one story single-family residence would remain. Parcel 1 (the location of the existing home) would have street frontage on both Allendale Avenue and Via Alto Court. Parcel 2 would be a vacant parcel and would have frontage on Via Alto Court. The property is zoned R-1-12,500 (Single Family Residential) with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-12.5). Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Compliance The City’s Subdivision and Zoning regulations are the implementation tools of Saratoga’s General Plan and the State of California Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum standards for lot sizes, depths, widths, and frontages. It also regulates building placement, modifications to natural topography and ordinance-protected tree removal. The existing house has an existing nonconforming exterior side setback of 19 feet when 25 feet is required. This proposed tentative map will have no affect on this existing nonconforming setback. Other than the existing nonconforming exterior side setback of Parcel 1, the proposed Tentative Parcel Map complies with all minimum zoning standards with regard to parcel size, configuration, and setbacks. City Department/Outside Agency Review This Tentative Parcel Map has been reviewed by the Public Works Department, the City Arborist, and the following agencies. No concerns or objections have been received. • Santa Clara County Fire • West Valley Sanitation District • Pacific Gas and Electric • San Jose Water Company • Campbell Union School District Trees Parcel 2 contains several fruit trees in poor condition. No trees are currently requested for removal. The City Arborist will review the trees during the review of a future Design Review application to construct a residence on Parcel 2. Page 3 of 6 9 Application No. SUB13-0002 / 18771 Allendale Avenue Neighbor Notification The applicant did conduct neighbor outreach by showing copies of the map to adjacent neighbors for their review. Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a Planning Commission agenda item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s website in advance of the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library in advance of the meeting. A Public Notice was also sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. No additional concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) because the project is 1) dividing property in an urbanized area that is zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels, 2) the project is in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, 3) no variances or exceptions are required, 4) all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, 5) the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and 6) the parcel does not have an average slope greater that 20 percent. TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any of the following nine findings (Municipal Code Section 14- 20.070(b)). (1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (M-12.5) defined as 3.48 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the R-1-12,500 district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the City Code. (2) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan in that the proposed subdivision does not include improvements and a future residence and associated utility connections on Parcel 2 would be reviewed during Design Review and building permit applications; the density of the subdivision would not exceed 3.48 dwelling units per acre and future development would be limited to 45 percent impervious coverage. The proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the zoning code and are compatible with the existing density in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate a single-family residence. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Page 4 of 6 10 Application No. SUB13-0002 / 18771 Allendale Avenue (3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed building envelopes and surrounding areas are relatively level. The existing conditions do not include physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the subdivision application may result in the construction of one additional single-family residence. Approximately two dwelling units per acre are proposed which is consistent with the general plan maximum dwelling unit per acre designation of 3.48 residences per acre. The potential for the construction of a single-family home on Parcel 2 is consistent with the surrounding uses and densities in the area. Densities in the immediate surrounding area are predominantly characterized by low-density single-family residential uses (5) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (6) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health or safety problems in that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the Municipal Code and General Plan. The Tentative Parcel Map has been reviewed by the West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, the City Arborist, Pacific Gas & Electric, School Districts, and the Planning Department and Public Works Departments. All structural improvements to the property would be reviewed by the Community Development Department. The project site is located in Zone X on the Flood Insurance Maps by FEMA. This designation incorporates the vast majority of properties within the City. (7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access or use. The design of the subdivision would not conflict with easements for access or use. Access to both parcels would be provided by public streets. There are no access easements in the area that would be affected by the subdivision. (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. The proposed subdivision of land is not subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing public sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements. The West Valley Sanitation District Page 5 of 6 11 Application No. SUB13-0002 / 18771 Allendale Avenue Page 6 of 6 operates a sewer line in Via Alto Court and Allendale Avenue and will provide adequate service to the parcels. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution for approval 2. Neighbor review forms 3. Public hearing notice and copy of mailing labels for project notification 4. Aerial photo of subject site and surrounding neighborhood 5. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A) 12 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO: 13-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION SUB13-0002 LOCATED AT 18771 ALLENDALE AVENUE WHEREAS, on April 2, 2013, an application was submitted by HMH, Incorporated on behalf of Eiko Shimizu requesting Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately 0.95-acre (41,382 square feet) parcel located at 18771 Allendale Avenue into two lots. A portion of the lot extends out to the center line of Allendale Avenue and that area (5,322 square feet) would be dedicated to the City. The proposed size of Parcel 1 would be approximately 0.46 acres (19,896 square feet) and Parcel 2 would be approximately 0.37 acres (16,146 square feet). The property is zoned R-1-12,500 (Single Family Residential) with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-12.5). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013, 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 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) because the project is 1) dividing property in an urbanized area that is zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels, 2) the project is in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, 3) no variances or exceptions are required, 4) all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, 5) the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and 6) the parcel does not have an average slope greater that 20 percent. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use LU 1.1 which provide that the city shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-family detached residences and Land Use Policy LU 1.3 which provides that the city shall ensure that existing undeveloped sites zoned single-family detached residential remain so designated. 13 Resolution No. 13-022 Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code and the Planning Commission cannot make any of the negative findings contained in City Code Section 14- 20.070(b). Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves SUB13-0002, located at 18771 Allendale Avenue, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 26th day of June 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission Exhibit 1 14 Resolution No. 13-022 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUB13-0002 18771 ALLENDALE AVENUE (APN 389-27-041) A. GENERAL 1. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 2. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or 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 Community Development Director 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. The 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. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. An application for Design Review shall be submitted for any proposed single-family homes to be constructed on Parcel 2. C. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT 15 Resolution No. 13-022 6. The developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fees will be determined upon submittal of the improvement plan. District approval will be in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees. D. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7. 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. 8. 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 the 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. f. One copy of the approved Tentative Map. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 and conditions of approval, prior to Final Map approval. 12. The owner (applicant) shall dedicate 10 feet wide Public Service Easement (PSE) along 16 Resolution No. 13-022 Allendale Avenue and along Via Alto Court. The easement shall be shown on the Final Map. 13. The owner (applicant) shall grind smoothly existing tripping hazard in the sidewalk along Allendale Avenue prior to Final Map approval. 14. An Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department is required for all new driveway approaches, utility connections, and all other improvements in any portion of the public right-of-way or of a public easement prior to commencement of the work in the public right-of-way or public easement. 15. 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. 16. 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 subdivision 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 and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 18. The owner/applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The applicant shall use and maintain Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for the site design and storm water treatment. 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. E. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 20. The applicant shall coordinate with PG&E early in the development of the project to promote safe and reliable maintenance and operation of existing utility facilities. Any proposed development plans shall provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent interference with PG&E easements. 21. The installation of new gas and electric facilities and/or the relocation of existing PG&E facilities will be performed in accordance with common law or Rules and Tariffs as authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission. F. CITY ATTORNEY 22. Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action 17 Resolution No. 13-022 G. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 23. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions. 18 19 20 21 22 23 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 26th day of June 2013, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: SUB13-0002 / 18771 Allendale Avenue OWNER: Eiko Shimizu APN: 389-27-041 DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately .95-acre (41,382 square feet) parcel located at 18771 Allendale Avenue into two lots. The existing one story single-family residence would remain on Parcel 1. Parcel 1 would have street frontage on both Allendale Avenue and Via Alto Court and Parcel 2 would have frontage on Via Alto Court. The proposed parcel size for Parcel 1 would be approximately .46 acres (19,896 square feet) and Parcel 2 would be approximately .37 acres or (16,146 square feet). The parcel is zoned R-1-12,500. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, June 17, 2013. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Senior Planner (408) 868-1235 24 25 26 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 26, 2013 Application: SUB10-0001 / ENV10-0001 Location / APN Mt. Eden Road / 503-13-127, 128 Applicant/Owner: Irany / Karr Staff Planner: Michael Fossati, Planner Mt. Eden Road 27 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately 13.8 acre parcel located on Mt. Eden Road into two lots. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres. Environmental review is required because both proposed lots have average slopes greater than 20%. The parcel is zoned Hillside-Residential (HR). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 13-025 adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the project subject to conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA: Zoning: Hillside Residential General Plan Designation: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). Parcel Size: Parcel 1 – 3.85 acres / Parcel 2 – 9.92 acres Average Slope: Parcel 1 – 29.8% / Parcel 2 – 24.8% PROPOSAL CODE REQ./ALLOWANCE CONFORMANCE Parcel 1: Net parcel size: 3.85 acres 3.85 acres Conforms Frontage: 891 feet 80 feet Conforms Width: 747 feet 100 feet Conforms Depth: 150 feet 150 feet Conforms Setbacks: Front: 30 feet 30 feet or 20% of depth Conforms Sides: 75 feet 20 feet or 10% of width Conforms Rear: 50 feet 50 feet or 25% of depth Conforms Parcel 2: Net parcel size: 9.92 acres 3.33 acres Conforms Frontage: 80 feet 80 feet Conforms Width: 477 feet 100 feet Conforms Depth: 615 feet 150 feet Conforms Setbacks: Front: 123 feet 30 feet or 20% of depth Conforms Sides: 48 feet 20 feet or 10% of width Conforms Rear: 153 feet 50 feet or 25% of depth Conforms Page 2 of 5 28 Application No. SUB10-0001 / Mt. Eden Rd PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an 13.8 acre parcel located at on Mt. Eden Road into two lots. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres with a 29.8% slope, fronting Mt. Eden Road. Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres, also fronting Mt. Eden Road, but with the main portion of the lot substantially setback from the road. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Compliance The City’s Subdivision and Zoning regulations are the implementation tools of Saratoga’s General Plan and the State of California Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum standards for lot sizes, depths, widths, and frontages. It also regulates building placement, modifications to natural topography and ordinance-protected tree removal. There are no improvements or structures on the parcel. Both of the proposed new parcels comply with all minimum zoning standards with regard to parcel size, configuration, and setbacks. City Department/Outside Agency Review This Tentative Parcel Map has been reviewed by the Public Works Department, the City Arborist, and the following agencies. No concerns or objections have been received. • Santa Clara County Fire • Cupertino Sanitation District • Pacific Gas and Electric • San Jose Water Company • Los Gatos – Saratoga Joint Union High School • Saratoga Union School District Neighbor Notification Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Attachment 3). The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a Planning Commission agenda item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s website in advance of the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library in advance of the meeting. Staff has not received any communications regarding the project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from May 1, 2013 – May 21, 2013. 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. No comments have been received. Page 3 of 5 29 Application No. SUB10-0001 / Mt. Eden Rd TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any of the following nine findings (Municipal Code Section 14- 20.070[b]). (1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan in that proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) defined as 0.5 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the municipal code for the HR zoning district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage that meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code. (2) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan because the proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the zoning code and are compatible with the existing density in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate a single-family residence. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the municipal code, for any new single-family residence on Parcel 1 or Parcel 2. At the time an application to construct a single-family residence is filed with the Community Development Department, the mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences shall be examined. (3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The applicant is not proposing any development at this time. Yet, in discussions with the applicant, the proposed use would be residential in nature. The property is physically suitable for residential development, as long as it is consistent with City Code. (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the density allowance for Residential Hillside Conservation is 0.5 dwelling units per acre. Parcel 1 is proposed at 3.85 acres and Parcel 2 is proposed at 9.92 acres. (5) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site is already surrounded by low impact development within the rural area. The project, as proposed, will continue the use of single-family residential development(?), which is consistent with the existing neighborhood. Page 4 of 5 30 Application No. SUB10-0001 / Mt. Eden Rd Page 5 of 5 (6) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems because the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the Municipal Code and General Plan. The Tentative Parcel Map has been reviewed by the all applicable agencies. All structural improvements to the property would be reviewed by the Community Development Department, once received. (7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access or use. The design of the subdivision would not conflict with easements for access or use because access to both lots can be obtained by Mt. Eden Road, which is a public street. There are no access easements in the direct area that would be affected by the subdivision. (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. The proposed subdivision of land is not subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing public sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements. The Cupertino Sanitation District operates a sewer along Mt. Eden Road and will provide adequate service to the parcels. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution for approval 2. IS/ND for Mt. Eden Road 2. Arborist Report – Mt. Eden Road 3. Public hearing notice and copy of mailing labels for project notification 4. Reduced Plan (Exhibit A) 31 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO: 13-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV10-0001) AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION (SUB10-0001) LOCATED ON MOUNT EDEN ROAD (503-13-127,128) WHEREAS, the City has received an application requesting a subdivision of a 13.8 acre parcel into two parcels, located on Mount Eden Road. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres. The proposed parcels are located in the Hillside Residential (NR) zoning district. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (ND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from May 1, 2013 – May 21, 2013. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the ND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the ND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on June 26, 2013. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use LU 1.1 which provide that the city shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-family detached residences and Land Use Policy LU 1.3 which provides that the city shall ensure that existing undeveloped sites zoned single-family detached residential remain so designated. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any of the nine findings contained in Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b). Staff has provided evidence, which does not support the findings. 32 Resolution No. 13-025 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves SUB10-0001 and ENV10-0001, located on Mount Eden Road, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 26th day of June 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission 33 Resolution No. 13-025 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUB13-0002 18771 ALLENDALE AVENUE (APN 389-27-041) A. GENERAL 1. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 2. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or 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 Community Development Director 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. The 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. 34 Resolution No. 13-025 B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. An application for Design Review and Geotechnical Clearance shall be submitted for any proposed single-family residences to be constructed on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. C. CUPERTINO SANITATION DISTRICT 6. The developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fees will be determined upon submittal of the improvement plan. District approval will be in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees. D. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7. 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. 8. 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 the 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. f. One copy of the approved Tentative Map. 9. 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. 10. 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. 35 Resolution No. 13-025 11. 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 and conditions of approval, prior to Final Map approval. 12. An Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department is required for all new driveway approaches, utility connections, and all other improvements in any portion of the public right-of-way or of a public easement prior to commencement of the work in the public right-of-way or public easement. 13. 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. 14. 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 subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 15. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fees prior to Final Map approval. 16. The owner/applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The applicant shall use and maintain Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for the site design and storm water treatment. The owner/applicant shall provide the Director of Public Works with a plan describing how owner/applicant will implement all BMPs and other measures required to reduce the stormwater runoff impacts of the project, as described in and required by the City’s NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2009-0074. The measures included in this plan shall include, but are not limited to, construction site control measures, plans for storm drain stenciling, and landscaping measures. This plan must be submitted for approval to the Director of Public Works with the subdivision application of Parcel 2 including paying City any fees for reviewing the plan, inspection and reporting. 17. 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. E. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 20. The applicant shall coordinate with PG&E early in the development of the project to promote safe and reliable maintenance and operation of existing utility facilities. Any proposed development plans shall provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent interference with PG&E easements. 21. The installation of new gas and electric facilities and/or the relocation of existing PG&E facilities will be performed in accordance with common law or Rules and Tariffs as authorized 36 Resolution No. 13-025 by the California Public Utilities Commission. F. CITY ATTORNEY 22. Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action G. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 23. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions. H. GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 24. Subdivision Geotechnical and Civil Requirements. A geotechnically feasible access route and residential building envelope shall be identified by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist within Parcel 2. If a bridge is selected to cross the creek, then the alignment of the bridge and necessary geotechnical design measures for establishment of stable bridge abutments shall be addressed. The foundation type and any special geotechnical design criteria for the residence site within Parcel 2 shall be addressed. A Tentative Subdivision Map shall be prepared illustrating a geotechnically feasible house site and access route for each parcel. Depicted driveways shall be consistent with City standards. Estimates of grading volumes to establish driveways and house pads shall be provided. Any supplemental site geologic or geotechnical investigation needed to demonstrate the suitability of access routes and house sites shall be completed. 25. Parcel 1 Geotechnical and Civil Design Clarifications - The location and floor level of any proposed basement shall be depicted for the proposed Parcel 1 development. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall clarify skin friction design criteria for foundation piers with consideration of the distribution of undocumented fill materials. Typically end bearing is neglected for cast-in-place piers (unless bottom cleaning can be confirmed). The consultant shall consider appropriate remedial grading of existing fill materials to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts to utilities attached to the residence or adverse settlement impacts to hardscape. The consultant shall consider a larger diameter pier and deeper pier embedment into in-place materials below undocumented fill to conform with standards of practice in the City. 37 Environmental Initial Study & Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Owners: Fred & Chris Irany and Robert & Carol Karr Public Review Period: May 1, 2013 to May 21, 2013 38 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 2 1. Project title: Irany/Karr Subdivision - Subdivide 13.8 acre parcel into two parcels 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 4. Project location/APN: Mount Eden Road; Saratoga, CA 95070 503-13-127 / 503-13-128 5. Project sponsor name and address: Fred & Chris Irany 13937 Pierce Road Saratoga CA 95070 Robert and Carol Karr 13951 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 6. General plan designation: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) 7. Zoning: Hillside Residential (HR) 8. Description of project: The applicant currently owns a 13.8 acre parcel. They have submitted an application to subdivide the parcel into two parcels. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres (see Figure 2). Environmental review is required because both proposed lots have average slopes greater than 20%. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project is located on a northeastern portion of Mt. Eden Road in Saratoga, California. The property does not have a dedicated address, as it is currently vacant with no structures. The general plan designation for the property is RHC and the zoning is HR. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes on large lots which are all zoned HR. Mt Eden Road is located to the south of the parcel. 10. Other public agencies whose review is required San Jose Water Company Cupertino Sanitary District Pacific Gas & Electric 39 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 3 Figure 1: Project Location 40 Figure 2: Tentative Map - Irany/Karr 41 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 7 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required Signature: Date: April 30, 2013 Printed Name: Michael Fossati 42 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 43 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 7 I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: a-d) The proposed location and associated subdivision are not proposing any new construction and are not located on a scenic highway. The project will not affect scenic vista’s, substantially damage scenic resources, substantially degrade existing visual character or create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Aesthetics (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 44 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 8 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION: a-e) The property is not zoned for farm or agricultural land uses and it is not under a Williamson Act contract. No forest land, as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) exists on the property. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Agricultural and Forest Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project is limited to a subdivision of an existing parcel. The project does not include any construction or modifications to the site that could affect air quality. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air Quality (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 45 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 9 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-f) The project site is currently undeveloped. The applicant is not proposing any construction in order to modify any existing habitat, interrupt any hydrology on the site, interfere with the movement of any native resident, remove any trees, or conflict with any provisions of any Habitat Conservation Plan. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Biological Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a-d) The project includes a subdivision of an existing parcel and no physical development or site modifications are proposed that could impact Cultural Resources. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) 46 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 10 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. The subdivision was reviewed by the City’s Geologist and it was determined that the subdivision itself would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, as the subdivision does not propose any construction or physical development. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Geology and Soils. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site and City of Saratoga General Plan) 47 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 11 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is included in the body of environmental document. While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to provide the public and decision-makers as much information as possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding the project’s direct and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the environmental document. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a-b) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are proposed which would be create a source of greenhouse gas emissions which would significantly impact the environment or conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation regarding reducing greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 48 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 12 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? DISCUSSION: a-h) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being proposed. The site is not included on any list of hazardous material sites. The site is not located within two miles of a public airport, nor is there a relevant airport land use plan. There are no known private airstrips in the vicinity. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, nor expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to hazards and hazardous materials. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 49 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 13 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 DISCUSSION: a-j) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being proposed. The project would have no affect on groundwater supplies, would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, or create new surface runoff nor degrade water quality. The project would not expose housing or people to flooding hazards, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-c) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being proposed. The project has been designed to meet the required standards regarding width, depth, and net lot size of the City Code. The project would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any known habitat conservation or natural community plans of the City of Saratoga. The project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan nor the regulations contained in Chapter 15 of the City Code. There is no known applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan in the vicinity of the project. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Land Use and Planning. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) 50 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 14 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: a-b) The project site is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral deposits of value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Mineral Resources. (Sources: City Staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan) XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: a-f) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being proposed. No noise or vibration would be associated with the project. The project is not located 51 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 15 within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Noise impacts. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project) XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a-c) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being proposed. The project may indirectly induce population growth, but the growth would be substantial. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project) XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 52 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 16 DISCUSSION: a) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being proposed. The project may indirectly induce population growth, but the growth would be substantial. The project would have no effect on public safety, school, parks, or other public facilities. Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Public Services. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project) XV. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a-b) The project does not include residential construction that could affect population and/or housing. The project would have no effect on the use of existing neighborhood, regional or other recreational facilities, nor does the project require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Recreation. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan) XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 53 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 17 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION: a-f) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being proposed. The project will not conflict with any City plan, ordinance, or policy or applicable congestion management program. The proposed project would not result in a change in traffic patterns, substantially increase hazards due to a design feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed project will not conflict with any adopted policies or plans supporting alternative transportation. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan) XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: 54 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Irany / Karr Subdivision Page 18 a-g) The project site is an undeveloped lot requesting a subdivision within a residential zoning district, without any proposal for new construction. No physical development or site modifications are being proposed. The project would have no effect on existing utilities and service systems. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Utilities and Service Systems. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project) XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a-c) This environmental document discusses the possible environmental impacts associated with a subdivision of one 13.85 undeveloped parcel into two undeveloped parcels. Parcel 1 would be 3.85 acres and Parcel 2 would be 9.92 acres. No new development is proposed as part of this project. Because the project includes no proposed construction or physical medications to the site it can be seen that the project would have no effect on any resident habitat nor would it threaten any rare or endangered species. The project would not have cumulative impacts or cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES: 1. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation, Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and Safety Element) 2. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map 3. City staff reviews of the project. 4. Tentative Subdivision Map (prepared by Westfall Engineers, March 2012) 55 Page 1 of 1 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application #:ARB 09-0039 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Mt. Eden Road subdivision Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owners: Fred and Chris Irany & Robert and Carol Karr Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN 503-13-127 Report History: #1 Date: September 21, 2010 INTRODUCTION The applicants have submitted a plan to subdivide a parcel on Mt. Eden Road into two parcels, one with a building site and a second remainder parcel. Plans for a proposed house have also been submitted, but no application for design review of the house has been received. This report will address only the subdivision application. A separate arborist report will be required once an application for design review has been received. This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed. No trees are requested for removal in order to subdivide the parcel, and subdivision of the parcel will not impact any protected trees. SITE VISIT, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Architectural plans were submitted for review by Craftsmen’s Guild. They will not be reviewed for this report. Civil plans submitted for review for this report were prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. They include a Preliminary Map dated December 2009, and a Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, dated July 2010. A number of oak trees protected by City Code are located on the parcel to be created. Subdividing the parcel does not have any impact on protected trees. FINDINGS Per Article 15-50.080, the project was reviewed, and no trees are requested or approved for removal for parcel subdivision; the project does not include any new construction. It is possible to access the proposed parcel from Mt. Eden Road without impacting trees. There is a building envelope that would allow construction of a house without requiring the removal of protected trees. The trees on the property do create constraints to any proposed design, in that grading, addition of fill soil, excavation for a basement, installation of utilities, or drainage should remain at least 25 feet from any protected tree on the property. 56 Mt. Eden Road subdivision Page 2 of 2 REQUIREMENTS 1. This report shall be made available to any prospective buyers of the lot. 2. No protected tree is authorized for removal, pruning or encroachment pursuant to this project. Attachments: Map showing original and proposed parcels Map showing enlargement of proposed parcel with trees 57 Mt. Eden Road subdivision 58 Mt. Eden Road subdivision This house design has not been reviewed or approved for the parcel. A separate submittal for design review will be necessary. 59 60 61 62 63 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 26, 2013 Application: Design Review PDR12-0004 / Environmental Review ENV12-0001 Location / APN: 20440 Arbeleche Lane / 397-27-029 Owner / Applicant: Ezzat Lokzadeh / Fatemah Asgari Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 64 2 20440 Arbeleche Lane SUMMARY ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Multi-Family Residential (R-M 4,000) Multi-Family Residential PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE 34,776 (net lot size) 19% (including creek) GRADING REQUIRED 124 cubic yards for the outdoor parking (62 c.y. of cut and 62 c.y. of fill) . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested to demolish the existing single-family residence and cottage, totaling 1,500 square feet to construct four, two-story apartment units and associated parking. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared because the project is near riparian habitat. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 4, 2013 – June 24, 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 13-026 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 65 PROJECT DATA Net Lot Size: 34,776 sq. ft. Proposed Allowed Type A – 2 Bedroom Unit 1st floor: 2nd floor: Garage Total Type B,C, & D – 4 Bedroom Unit 1st floor: 2nd floor: Garage: Total 441 sq. ft. 530 sq. ft. 215 sq. ft. 1,186 sq. ft. 535 sq. ft. 680 sq. ft. 215 sq. ft. 1,430 sq. ft. Floor Area not limited in multi-family districts. Proposed Building Coverage 3,793 sq. ft. (10.9%) 40% Maximum of structures Setbacks * Front: Side (North): Side (East): 25’ 22’ 25’ from top bank of creek 25’ 22’ 22’ from top bank of creek Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 437’ 440’ 438.5’ 465.2’ (26.7’) Maximum Building Height is 468.5’ (30 Feet) * Per City Code Section 15-06.430(b), a lot bounded by only three lot lines will not have a rear lot line. 3 66 Pursuant to City Code Section 15-46.020(a)(1), any new structure within a multi-family residential zoning district requires design review approval from the Planning Commission. The application proposes four residential structures. SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Site Description The project site is a heavily wooded parcel located east of the intersection of Highway 9, Big Basin Way, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and Saratoga Avenue. Surrounding land uses include townhomes and condominiums located to the north, east and south of the property and a commercial property known as “Neal’s Hollow” located to the west. The property currently has a main residence, cottage, and small storage shed located on the northeastern portion of the site. Saratoga Creek runs along the eastern border of the property. Initial Submittal The application was received by the City in March 2012. The initial proposal included seven apartment homes with a request to remove eight trees (six being protected). After numerous meetings and discussions with staff, the applicant has revised the design that includes four apartment homes with a request to remove three trees (two being protected). Building Design The proposed apartment homes follow a craftsman theme that includes a low-pitched gabled roof, lap siding for the lower level with shingle siding for the upper, double-hung sash windows and extended eaves and decorative beams. Portions of the exterior (near the powder rooms, next to the garages) would be cladded with stone veneer. The proposed roof is a composition shingle. The exterior colors include a mixture of “Downing Stone” gray Hardie shingle panel walls with “Sage Green Light” windows, overhanging beams, and trim. The roof color would be a “shadow gray” CertainTeed presidential composition tile. Accents include Roycroft “Bronze Green” for the upper levels and “classic light buff” for the front doors. A color and material board will be available at the public hearing. Detail Colors and Materials Building Ext. Gray ‘Downing Stone’ and Grayish-Green ‘Bronze Green’ Hardie panels, in both plank lap siding and shingle straight edge paneling. Windows Light Grayish-Green ‘Bronze Green’ Millgard windows. Roofing Medium Dark Brown ‘Shadow Gray’ Certainteed Presidential composition tile. Accents / Columns Reddish-Brown “Aspen” stone veneer Building Height & Setbacks 4 67 The allowable height for Multi-Family Residential (R-M) zoning district is 30 feet. The heights of the proposed structures are approximately 27 feet as measured from the average grade to the topmost roof ridge. The proposed site is an irregularly shaped and most similar to a flag lot. Per City Code, the front lot line (on a flag lot) is the interior lot line most parallel to and nearest the street from which the means of access is obtained. Therefore, the lot line shared with Neal’s Hollow would be considered the front lot line. The required setback for that line is 25 feet. The side setbacks are based on the width of the site and the height of the proposed structure in R-M zoning districts. In general, the minimum required setback is 10 percent of the site width, with a maximum required setback of 25 feet. If a proposed structure is over 14 feet, than one foot of setback shall be added for every two feet of height over 14 feet. The average width of the site is 151 feet, which requires a 15 foot side setback for a 14 foot structure. The proposed structures are approximately 27 feet tall, which increased the 15 foot setback by an additional six feet. The new required setbacks are 21 feet. The project, as proposed exceeds the required side setbacks by placing structures 22 feet from the northern property line and 25 feet from the top bank of Saratoga Creek †, near the eastern property line. As stated above, all height and setback requirements are compliant with the City Code. Landscaping The site has a heavily wooded look to it and includes about 33 protected trees on the property. The applicant has not proposed a new landscape plan, because they wish to keep the majority of existing rural landscape intact. The flatwork proposed would be in the form of pavers, since they will be less harmful to the existing trees as traditional concrete. Two Monterey Pines, one in poor health and one dead, are being proposed for removal as part of the project. All of the other existing trees currently on the site (which includes a 40” Douglas Fir, 35” Sycamore, 33” Redwood, 40” Oak, and a row of 19 Redwoods and Sycamores along the western property line) would be preserved and protected during the time of construction. A security bond in the amount of $158,210 and appropriate tree fencing are required conditions by the City Arborist. Parking † Per City Code Section 15-46.035(a), where a protected creek passes through or along a building site or is otherwise located on the site, and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat, building setbacks for any new construction shall be measured from the top of the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the property lines of the site. 5 68 City Code Section 15-35.030. a multi-family dwelling requires one parking space within a garage and one and one-half parking spaces for each dwelling unit. The project proposed four multi-family dwellings, which would require 10 parking spaces (four within a garage and six additional spaces). The applicant has proposed 12 parking spaces (four within a garage and eight additional parking spaces). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Energy Efficiency Per City Code Section 16-47.040, all new multi-family buildings shall comply with all mandatory measures in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code. The project has proposed to incorporate energy efficient measures such as developing multiple bedroom units, diverting and recycling job site construction waste, reducing light pollution by shielding light fixtures and directing light downward, utilizing environmentally preferable exterior side furnishings and engineered lumber. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant sent out seven certified letters to neighboring property owners. She received three letters in return. One of the letters (the Homeowners Association for Summerhill) informed the applicant that they would post the notice for other homeowners to review. Staff also sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Attachment X). The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. Staff has not received any comments on the project. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-46.040 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The project meets this finding because the multiple structures being proposed are not only harmonious with one another regarding size, height, craftsman-style architecture and natural, earth tone colors and exteriors, but they match a similar architectural theme developed by the Summerhill townhome development located adjacent to the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The proposal does not include any signage. Any future signage will be required to meet the City sign code requirements. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation 6 69 systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. This finding can be met because the applicant has designed the project to accommodate existing trees and vegetation on the site. Approximately 91% of the existing trees will be preserved, which includes numerous redwoods, oaks and sycamores. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. The colors and materials would blend with the natural landscape because the proposed non-reflective color tones include different shades of grays, greens, and similar earth tones, within the color spectrum similar to other multi- family residences in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The proposed project would utilize flat, composition tile as the roofing material. The proposed roof color is non-reflective and in a color tone blend of medium dark to medium brown. The applicant has not proposed mechanical equipment on the rooftop, because all of the equipment will be located on the ground and outside of the required setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project would be compatible with other developments within the multi-family zoning district because the nearby area is comprised of two-story commercial and multi-family residential structures with similar heights. This finding can be made in the affirmative. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 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. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 4, 2013 – June 24, 2013. 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 June 26, 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 13-026 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval – 20440 Arbeleche Lane 7 70 8 2. IS/MND for PDR – 20440 Arbeleche Lane 3. Arborist Report – 20440 Arbeleche Lane 4. Photos of Site 5. Neighbor Notifications 6. Public hearing notice, mailing addresses, and map for project notification 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.” 71 RESOLUTION NO. 13-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV12-0001) AND APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW (PDR12-0004), LOCATED AT 20440 ARBELECHE LANE (397-27-029) WHEREAS, an application was submitted for Design Review approval approval to demolish an existing one-story residence and cottage in order to construct four, two-story apartment units and associated parking. The size of the units will range between 1,186 sq. ft. to 1,430 sq. ft. Design Review approval is required because any new structure within a multi-family residential zoning district requires design review approval from the Planning Commission. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 1, 2013 – June 24, 2013. 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 June 26, 2013. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013, 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 consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 1.1 in that the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached residences and LU 1.2 to continue to review all residential development proposals to ensure consistency with Land Use Element goals and Policies. Section 3: 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 will be constructed with the architectural features and landscaping being harmonious with such features that include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances, any proposed signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance, proposed landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural 72 Resolution No. 13-026 appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced, colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective, roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition, and the proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the removal of two protected trees meets the criteria established in Section 15-50.080(a). Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV12-0001 and approves application PDR12-0004 for the project located at 20440 Arbeleche Lane, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 26th day of June 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission 73 Resolution No. 13-026 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ENV12-0001 AND PDR12-0004 20440 ARBELECHE LANE (397-27-029) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 74 Resolution No. 13-026 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated April 23, 2013 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition No. 4, above. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. City Arborist Reports dated May 3, 2013, and all other future updated reports onto separate construction plan pages; d. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions dated November 28, 2012 onto separate plan pages; e. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; f. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16- 75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10. Landscaping. Sufficient landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department. 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 11. Private Road Condition. The applicant will be required to provide the City a videotape record of existing conditions of the access road prior to zone clearance. The applicant will be required to repair the access road, taking into account damage or erosion due to natural causes, to the existing condition prior to planning final and building occupancy. 12. Stormwater - The owner/applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The applicant shall use and maintain Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the site design and storm water treatment. 75 Resolution No. 13-026 ARBORIST 13. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Report. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated May 3, 2013, and all other future updated reports, are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. GEOLOGIST 14. Compliance with Geotechnical Clearance Conditions Memorandum. All requirements in the Geotechnical Clearance memorandum dated November 28, 2012, and all other conditions, as specified by the City Geologist are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. PUBLIC WORKS 15. Fees. The owner (applicant) shall pay all applicable fees prior to Zone Clearance. 16. Encroachment Permit. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 17. Trail Easement Dedication. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT. The property owner shall record a deed restriction, satisfactory to the Community Development Director, dedicating a 12 foot wide pedestrian trail easement along Saratoga Creek within the 25-foot creek setback to the City of Saratoga as provided in the Trail Easement Agreement and depicted on the Trails Master Plan included in the Open Space Conservation Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan. The property owner shall prepare a legal description and the plat plan for the trail easement dedication and submit to the City Public Works Department for review and approval. The exact location of the trail easement is subject to approval by the Public Works Department. This Trail Easement shall be recorded on the deed prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Building Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL 18. Habitat Mitigation. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following: • Should project construction be scheduled to commence between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting birds within the onsite trees as well as all trees within 250 feet of the site. This survey will occur within 30 days of the on-set of construction. • If pre-construction surveys undertaken during the nesting season locate active nests within or near construction zones, these nests, and an appropriate buffer around them (as determined by a qualified biologist) will remain off-limits to construction until the nesting season is over. Suitable setbacks from occupied nests will be established by a qualified biologist and maintained until the conclusion of the nesting season. 76 Resolution No. 13-026 19. Creek Mitigation. The project sponsor shall: Setback the proposed structures no closer than 25 feet from the top bank of Saratoga Creek. Erect construction fencing that will be placed along the creek to ensure that construction activities do not inadvertently impact those areas Require the project to follow best management practices To minimize the impacts of light and glare entering the creek corridor, lighting should be avoided at the edge of the creek corridor. All lighting on the property should be directed away from the creek corridor whenever possible. 20. Stormwater Mitigation. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following measures: • The project sponsor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction of the proposed project. It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), but it must be maintained on-site and made available to Water Board or City staff upon request. The SWPPP shall include specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At a minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and adhesives) with storm water. Ingress and egress from construction sites shall be carefully controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and shall include both dry and wet weather inspections. 21. Geology Mitigation. The project sponsor shall be required to provide the following: • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e. including building, setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The geotechnical consultant shall ensure that the grading plan identifies and appropriately mitigates all previously placed site fill materials. The result of the plan review shall be summaries in a letter by the geotechnical consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building and grading permits. • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Consultant shall observe the drilling of foundation piers to verify adequate embedment into competent native materials. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a 77 Resolution No. 13-026 letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. 78 Environmental Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration 20440 Arbeleche Lane – Arbeleche Apartments Owners: Fatemeh Asgari / Ezzat Lokzadeh Public Review Period: June 4, 2013 to June 24, 2013 79 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 2 1. Project title: Arbeleche Apartments 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 4. Project location/APN: 20440 Arbeleche Lane; Saratoga, CA 95070 397-27-029 5. Project sponsor name and address: Fatemeh Asgari & Ezzat Lokzadeh 20440 Arbeleche Lane Saratoga CA 95070 6. General plan designation: Multi-Family Residential (RMF) 7. Zoning: R-M-4,000 8. Description of project: The applicant has requested to demolish the existing single-family residence and cottage, totaling 1,500 sq. ft. in order to construct four, two-story townhome style apartment units and associated parking. The size of the units will range between 1186 sq. ft. to 1,430 sq. ft. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project is located east of the intersection of Highway 9, Big Basin Way, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and Saratoga Avenue. Surrounding land uses include multi-family townhomes and condominiums located to the north, east and south of the property and a commercial property known as “Neale’s Hallow” located west. 10. Other public agencies whose review is required San Jose Water Company West Valley Sanitation District Pacific Gas & Electric Santa Clara County Fire Department 80 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 3 Figure 1: Project Location 81 82 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 5 83 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 6 84 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 7 85 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 8 Figure 6: Topographic Boundary Survey – Arbeleche Apartments 86 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 7 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required Signature: Date: June 4, 2013 Printed Name: Michael Fossati 87 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 10 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 88 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 11 I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: a) The proposed apartment project will not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas because the project location lies behind and existing commercial structure and tucked away from any public right-of- ways. b) The proposed location of the project will not substantially impact scenic resources, including trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c) The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site as it consists of replacing an existing main residence and cottage with four well designed, modern apartment residences and associated parking. This impact will be less than significant. d) The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare because the proposed colors and materials of the project are earth tone, muted and natural. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Aesthetics (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12 and §15-45) II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 89 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 12 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION: a-e) The proposed location is not zoned for farm or agricultural land uses and it is not under a Williamson Act contract. No forest land, as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) exists on the property. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Agricultural and Forest Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project is limited to the construction of multi-family apartments within a multi-family zoning district. The residential use will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality plan, violate any air quality standards, result in the considerable net increase of air 90 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 13 pollutants, expose sensate receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air Quality (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a) Of the 20 special status animal species potentially occurring in the area, a total of three may reside within the project area. Site development may result in mortality of those species which are protected by State and Federal law. In order to mitigate this issue, the City has implemented the following mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The project sponsor shall incorporate the following:  Should project construction be scheduled to commence between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting birds within the onsite trees as well as all trees within 250 feet of the site. This survey will occur within 30 days of the on-set of construction.  If pre-construction surveys undertaken during the nesting season locate active nests within or near construction zones, these nests, and an appropriate buffer around them (as determined by a qualified biologist) will remain off-limits to construction until the 91 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 14 nesting season is over. Suitable setbacks from occupied nests will be established by a qualified biologist and maintained until the conclusion of the nesting season. b) The project location is adjacent to a riparian habitat, yet, because the existing community is already categorized as relatively low quality habitat due to the urban setting, the proposed project will not significantly alter the site. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The project sponsor shall:  Setback the proposed structures no closer than 25 feet from the top bank of Saratoga Creek.  Erect construction fencing that will be placed along the creek to ensure that construction activities do not inadvertently impact those areas  Require the project to follow best management practices  To minimize the impacts of light and glare entering the creek corridor, lighting should be avoided at the edge of the creek corridor. All lighting on the property should be directed away from the creek corridor whenever possible. c) The project will not substantially affect federally protected wetlands because no construction is proposed within Saratoga Creek. Furthermore, BIO-2 will require that any proposed structure will be no closer than 25 feet from the top bank of the creek, which is demonstrated on the plan set. d) The developed area of the site where the proposed project will occur does not constitute a movement corridor for native wildlife. There will minimal encroachment into the riparian habitat of Saratoga Creek, while the creek itself will be avoided. Site development will have little effect on home range and dispersal movements of native wildlife moving through the site. Therefore, this project will result in a less than significant effect on regional wildlife movements. e) The project has been reviewed and cleared by the City Arborist. Implementation of the arborist requirements will reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The project sponsor shall follow:  The entire City of Saratoga arborist report, dated May 3, 2013, which includes the report on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, within the building final set of plans. Mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Biological Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, Biotic Evaluation of Asgari Property Report (Live Oak Associates) dated 1/27/2012 and Supplemental Letter to Biotic Evaluation (Live Oak Associates, dated 2/12/2013) 92 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 15 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a-d) A cultural resource evaluation was carried out for the project at 20440 Arbeleche Drive in February 2001, where it was revealed that no recorded archaeological sites are within the proposed project area. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, Cultural Resource Evaluation for 20440 Arbeleche Lane in the City of Saratoga, California (Archaeological Resource Management) dated 02/25/2001. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 93 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 16 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? DISCUSSION: a) According to the Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, authored by City Geologist, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., “Construction will involve demolition of two existing single-story buildings. New improvements also include an emergency fire truck turnaround, access roadway and parking areas. Current plans do not indicate project grading volumes, but it appears that required grading for site development is relatively minor.” The major concern by the City Geologist was the possibility of liquefaction. The following mitigation measure would reduce the possible impact to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The project sponsor shall be required to provide the following:  Geotechnical Plan Review – The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e. including building, setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The geotechnical consultant shall ensure that the grading plan identifies and appropriately mitigates all previously placed site fill materials. The result of the plan review shall be summaries in a letter by the geotechnical consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building and grading permits.  Geotechnical Construction Inspections – The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Consultant shall observe the drilling of foundation piers to verify adequate embedment into competent native materials. 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. b) The project will not result in substantial soil erosion as the project will be significantly setback from the top bank of Saratoga Creek. The possible impact is less than significant. c) There is a possibility of potential liquefaction, but by following GEO-1, the possible impact will become less than significant. d) The project may be located in an area where expansive soil can be found, yet by following GEO-1, the possible impact will become less than significant. e) The project location is within the city limits and will have access to adequate waste water disposal systems. 94 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 17 Mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Geology and Soils. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site and City of Saratoga General Plan) VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is included in the body of environmental document. While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to provide the public and decision-makers as much information as possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding the project’s direct and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the environmental document. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a-b) The proposed project involves the construction of four townhome style apartments and associated parking. As shown, the proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and zoning district and would not conflict with any plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 95 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 18 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? DISCUSSION: a-h) The project consists of the development of four townhome style apartments. All site modifications proposed will not involve in the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.. The site is not included on any list of hazardous material sites. The site is not located within two miles of a public airport, nor is there a relevant airport land use plan. There are no known private airstrips in the vicinity. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, nor expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to hazards and hazardous materials. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 96 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 19 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 DISCUSSION: a) The project would not violate any water quality standards because the site, as conditioned, must provide adequate wastewater facilities for the proposed apartment units. The project has been reviewed and cleared by the West Valley Sanitation District with the belief that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed four units. b) The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supply because the project will not be constructed within the creek corridor, where groundwater is typically fed from. c) The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site because, as conditioned, the project will be required to dispose and provide treatment of stormwater that complies with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Standards and implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. d) See (c) above. e) See (c) above. f) See (c) above. g) The project will not be placed within a 100 year flood hazard area because it is setback 25 feet from the adjacent Saratoga Creek. h) See (g) above. i) The project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding because the project will have to comply with current building code regulations, which includes, but not limited too, appropriate pier and grade foundations and sufficient load bearing structures and details. 97 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 20 j) The project location is not near an area that would be affected by seiche, or tsunami. The creek is on a substantially lower grade; therefore mudflow will not result in impacting the site. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-c) The project includes the construction of four townhome style apartments with associated parking. The project has been designed to meet the required standards regarding setbacks, site coverage, floor area and height of the City Code. The project would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any known habitat conservation or natural community plans of the City of Saratoga. The project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan nor the regulations contained in Chapter 15 of the City Code. There is no known applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan in the vicinity of the project. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Land Use and Planning. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: 98 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 21 a-b) The project site is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral deposits of value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Mineral Resources. (Sources: City Staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan) XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: a-f) The project includes the construction of four townhome style apartment units and associated parking. Once constructed, the use includes residential living quarters for future residents. During construction, the applicant will be required to follow the standards established by the City’s Noise Ordinance. Since there will be a greater number of dwelling units than that is currently there, the ambient noise levels could potentially increase, but they would not increase to a substantially permanent levels. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Noise impacts. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project, Chapter 15 of the City Code, Article 7-30 of the City Code) XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 99 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 22 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a-c) The project includes the construction of four townhome style apartments with associated parking. The project will induce population growth, but the growth would not be substantial. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people because the proposed four apartments are replacing one main residence and one cottage. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project) XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: a) The developed site currently has one main residence and one detached cottage located on the property. Those structures will be replaced with four townhome style apartments and associated parking. The density of the site will increase, but only marginally, with a net increase of two dwelling units. The small increase in resident population associated with the project is not expected to substantially increase usage of any of these facilities, such that new facilities would be needed to maintain service standards. 100 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 23 Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Public Services. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project) XV. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a-b) The project may increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks, since the project will potentially increase the population of the area, but the increase would not such that it would substantially deteriorate a recreational facility or require the expansion or construction of a new recreational facility. As conditioned, the project applicant will be required to dedicate a trail easement, consistent with proposed future trails, as shown in the City of Saratoga’s Circulation and Scenic Highway Element in the City’s General Plan. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Recreation. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan) XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 101 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 24 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION: a-f) The developed site currently has one main residence and one detached cottage located on the property. Those structures will be replaced with four townhome style apartments and associated parking. The project site has a general plan and zoning designation to allow multi-family residential uses, which is being proposed. The increased density of the project may potentially increase traffic to and from the site, but the increase would not substantially affect the traffic flow or traffic patterns of the area. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan) XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: a-g) The developed site currently has one main residence and one detached cottage located on the property. Those structures will be replaced with four townhome style apartments and associated parking. The project would have minimal effect on existing utilities and service systems, yet those impacts would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new wastewater facilities or require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. The project has been reviewed by the sanitation district and solid waste hauler that will serve the project site and, as determined, there is adequate capacity to handle the increased density proposed by the project. 102 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 25 No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Utilities and Service Systems. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project, discussions with West Valley Sanitation and Waste Connections) XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a) Of the 20 special status animal species potentially occurring in the area, a total of three may reside within the project area. Site development may result in mortality of those species which are protected by State and Federal law. In order to mitigate this issue, the City has implemented the mitigation measure BIO-1 and BIO-2 in order to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. b) The project, as proposed, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project includes the construction of four townhome style apartments within a multi-family zoned district. The project property is located near a protected creek, but the applicant has provided a 25 foot structure setback from the top bank of the creek to mitigate impacts to the waterway. c) The project will have a less than significant impact on creating a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project will be constructed to meet the standards and objectives of the Saratoga City Code and State of California Building Code. GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES: 1. Biotic Evaluation – Asgari Property, Live Oak Associates, dated January 27, 2012 2. Biotic Evaluation Update Letter – Evaluation of proposes site plan for the Arbeleche Apartment project, Saratoga, California (PN 1595-01), Live Oak Associates, dated February 12, 2013 3. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation, Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and Safety Element) 4. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map 5. Cultural Resource Evaluation for 20440 Arbeleche Lane, Archaelogical Resource Management, dated February 25, 2001. 103 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. Application #: ARB12-0022 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 20440 Arbeleche Lane Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Ezzat Lokzadeh Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-27-029 Email: njavanmard123@yahoo.com Report History: #1 Date: Plans received March 29, 2012 Report done May 14, 2012 New design submitted: #2 – This report replaces report #1 Plans received November 5, 2012 Report completed November 7, 2012 New design submitted: #3 – This report replaces report #2 Plans received January 23, 2013 Report completed February 5, 2013 #4 – This report replaces report #3 Plans received April 29, 2013 Report completed May 3, 2013 PROJECT SCOPE The project proposes to demolish the existing buildings and construct four new two story apartment units with parking. Pines #62 and 63 are requested for removal as part of the project. Both trees meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced as part of the project. One magnolia shown on the plans to be removed is not protected by City Code, and may be removed at any time without a permit. CLEARANCE – with conditions This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the Conditions of Approval at the end of this report. PLAN REVIEW Plans Reviewed: A new design was prepared by Paragon Design Group, Inc. (not dated) and received by the Arborist on April 29, 2013. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet A-1, Proposed Exterior Elevations and Site Maps; Sheet A-2, Proposed Site Plan; Sheets A-3 and A-4, Proposed Floor Plans and Exterior Elevations. Revised civil plans were prepared by TS Civil Engineering, Inc. and dated April 22, 2013. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet C-1, Topographic Boundary Survey and Existing Page 1 of 7 104 20440 Arbeleche Lane Conditions; Sheet C-2, Existing Conditions , Topo/Demo Plan; Sheet C-3, Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; Sheet C-4, Preliminary Utility Plan; and Sheet C-5, Preliminary Grading and Drainage, Cross Sections and Details. For the initial submittal, an arborist report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates dated February 6, 2012, and a biotic evaluation report prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc. and dated January 27, 2012, were provided. TREE INFORMATION An arborist report prepared by Barrie D. Coate and dated April 9, 2013 reviewed the revised design and was submitted along with the plans. The designated Project Arborist for this project will be Barrie D. Coate and Associates. Tree Inventory: Thirty three trees protected by City Code were inventoried and appraised for the project. Each tree has been marked with a round aluminum tag, numbered from #41 – 73, for ease of identification. Inventoried trees include two Douglas firs (#41 and 72), one black acacia (#42), twenty coast redwoods (#43 – 60, 66 and 73), three California sycamores (#61, 65 and 69), three Monterey pines (#62, 63 and 64), one black walnut (#67), one California bay (#86) and two coast live oaks (#70 and 71). Data for each tree can be found in the Tree Inventory Table attached to the end of this report. Locations of trees and protective fencing are shown on the attached copy of the site plan. Tree Removals: Trees 62 and 63 are protected by City Code and requested for removal as part of the project. See the Findings section below for a detailed discussion of these two trees. Tree Protection: Chain link fencing is required around individual trees or groups of trees for protection during construction, and work is not permitted within these fenced areas. Fences are to be posted with signs indicating that they are for the protection of trees and may not be taken down or moved without prior approval from the City Arborist. Areas that require fencing are shown on the map attached to the end of this report and locations are shown on the Site Plan. No equipment is permitted on site until after the City Arborist inspects and approves tree protection fencing. See the Conditions of Approval for tree protection specifications. Douglas fir #41: This large tree is in good condition and serves as the focal point of the property upon entry. The proposed new driveway extends to about 13 feet from the trunk of this tree. The recommendation from Barrie Coate, to preserve the raised mound of soil to the east side of the trunk must be adhered to in order to protect this tree. He further recommends that fill soil used to raise the grade even with the mound be of a sandy loam. The new driveway may be contained with a curb on top of grade. To minimize compaction from vehicles on the driveway the use of biaxial geogrid is recommended. This material is commonly used to spread the load of heavy vehicles on roadways. Installation of the driveway should be monitored by the Project Arborist to ensure adequate protection of tree #41. Page 2 of 7 105 20440 Arbeleche Lane Acacia #42: This young acacia is in good condition and grows right next to the proposed driveway. It is likely that this tree will be compromised with construction of the new driveway. Barrie Coate recommends removing this tree in his report. The plans show it to be retained. Either excavation for the driveway should remain at least 6 feet from the trunk of the tree, or it should be requested for removal. Coast redwoods #43 – 60: These redwoods provide a screen for the adjacent property. They are all fairly healthy. They can be adequately protected with fencing during construction. Construction of the drainage swale between the trees and the property line should be accomplished either by adding small amounts of fill soil to raise the sides of the swale, or excavation by hand, leaving all exposed roots that measure two inches or more intact. The submitted detail does not consider trees. California sycamore #61: This large sycamore is out of the way of the project and not likely to be impacted by it. Chain link fencing can adequately protect this tree. California sycamore #65: This is a very large sycamore in good condition growing close to apartment #2. The Project Arborist has recommended a pier and on grade beam foundation for a corner of this apartment that is close to the tree. Installation of the foundation should be supervised by the Project Arborist where it is under the canopy of the tree. Coast redwood #66: This large redwood is in good condition and grows near to sycamore #65 and apartment #3. Barrie Coate has recommended the use of a pier and on-grade beam foundation for a portion of this apartment. Installation of the foundation should be supervised by the Project Arborist where it is under the canopy of the tree. California sycamore #69: This is a very large sycamore in good condition growing out over the creek. To adequately protect this tree, no roots may be cut within 15 feet of the trunk. Installation of the foundation should be supervised by the Project Arborist where it is under the canopy of the tree. Coast live oak #70: This young coast live oak is in good condition and can be adequately protected during construction with tree protection fencing. Coast live oak #71: This very large coast live oak growing below the proposed guest parking area is in good condition. The new design has relocated the guest parking and drainage so that they are 40 feet from the tree. This is acceptable. Douglas fir #72: This tree grows right next to the property line fence and is in fair condition. The patio should remain at least 8 feet from the tree’s trunk. Coast redwood #73: This redwood grows next to the driveway as one enters the site, and is in good condition. The new driveway should avoid excavation within six feet of the tree’s trunk. It is acceptable to install a driveway on top of grade and to contain it with a curb placed on top of grade. Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees: Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees impacted by the project is required. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a security deposit in the amount of $158, 210 for the protection of trees #41 – 58, 65 – 66, and 68 – 73, prior to the receipt of building permits. The security deposit may be in the Page 3 of 7 106 20440 Arbeleche Lane form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and acceptance by the City. Appraisals: Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. FINDINGS Tree Removal Whenever trees are requested for removal as part of a project, specific tree removal criteria must be met and certain findings made. If trees are approved for removal as part of the project, they may be removed after the building permit for the project has been issued. New trees become a condition of approval for the project to replace trees approved for removal. Trees #62 and 63 are requested for removal. Tree #62 is dead and tree #63 is in poor condition. Both trees meet removal criteria #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and qualify for removal. Tree removal criteria have been attached to the end of this report for reference. Replacement trees Two trees in 15 gallon containers shall be planted to replace the two pines. They may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This entire arborist report, including the Tree Inventory Table and attached map showing locations for trees and protection fencing, shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans. 2. Barrie D. Coate and Associates shall be the designated Project Arborist. 3. Trees #62 and 63 are requested for removal as part of the project. Both trees meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced as part of the project. 4. Tree Protection Security Deposit – $158,210 a. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit prior to obtaining Building Division permits. b. The deposit shall be for trees #41 – 58, 65 – 66, and 68 – 73 which are potentially impacted by construction. c. The tree protection security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project to ensure the protection of the trees. d. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City, the bond will be released. Page 4 of 7 107 20440 Arbeleche Lane 5. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”. e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting. 6. The Project Arborist shall monitor the following work: a. Demolition of structures inside of tree protection fencing. b. Installation of the driveway under the canopy of tree #41. c. Creation of bioswale under trees 43 – 50. d. Installation of foundations of apartments under the canopy of trees #65, 66, 68 and 69. 7. The applicant shall hire the Project Arborist to monitor the work listed above and prepare a report for the City following work that requires monitoring. The report shall include photos and documentation of how work was carried out. 8. The bioswale shall be constructed in a manner that roots measuring two inches or more in diameter are retained and worked around. 9. Installation of the driveway under the canopy of tree #41 shall incorporate special materials to mitigate the compaction of soil and spread out the weight of vehicles. 10. The new driveway shall be constructed on top of grade within the following distances: a. 2 feet from acacia #42 b. 6 feet from redwood #73 c. 15 feet from Douglas fir #41 11. Two new trees in 15 gallon containers shall be planted to replace the two pines approved for removal as part of the project. They may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property. 12. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 13. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 during all construction work. Page 5 of 7 108 20440 Arbeleche Lane 14. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 15. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards. 16. The grassy swale along the line of coast redwoods (trees #43 – 60) shall be constructed by hand and under the supervision of the Project Arborist. All roots measuring two inches or more in diameter shall be retained and worked around 17. The deck for apartment #4 shall be supported by piers. Holes for piers shall be hand dug for the first two feet. Any roots measuring two inches in diameter or larger shall be retained and worked around. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 18. The drainage dissipater pit has been designed to remain about 40 feet from oak tree #71. This is acceptable. 19. Landscaping under oaks: a. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy. b. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oaks. 20. Irrigation controllers, valve boxes and lateral irrigation lines shall be located outside of tree canopies. 21. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies. Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies. 22. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. ATTACHMENTS: Tree Removal Criteria Tree Inventory Table dated May 14, 2012 Map showing protective fencing around trees from the April 9, 2013 report by Barrie D. Coate Page 6 of 7 109 20440 Arbeleche Lane TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes; (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area; (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices; (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree; (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article; (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Page 7 of 7 110 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueDouglas fir 41 Pseudotsuga menziesii 44.5 50 80 80 Good High 2 $16,000 Black acacia 42 Acacia melanoxylon 14 25 90 80 Good High 2 $1,040 Coast redwood 43 Sequoia sempervirens 10.6 15 90 80 Good Moderate 2 $1,210 Coast redwood 44 Sequoia sempervirens 10.7 25 90 90 Good High 2 $2,030 Coast redwood 45 Sequoia sempervirens 11.5 25 90 90 Good High 2 $730 Coast redwood 46 Sequoia sempervirens 7 15 70 70 Fair Moderate 2 $520 Coast redwood 47 Sequoia sempervirens 7.2 10 60 80 Fair Moderate 2 $1,850 Coast redwood 48 Sequoia sempervirens 15.2 30 80 80 Good High 2 $2,090 Coast redwoodCoast redwood 49 Sequoia sempervirens 11.8 15 50 60 Good Low 2 $1,480 Coast redwood 50 Sequoia sempervirens 16 20 80 80 Good High 2 $1,600 Coast redwood 51 Sequoia sempervirens 11.8 20 80 80 Good Moderate 2 $2,840 Coast redwood 52 Sequoia sempervirens 15.9 25 80 80 Good High 2 $2,880 Coast redwood 53 Sequoia sempervirens 16 25 80 80 Good High 2 $2,600 Coast redwood 54 Sequoia sempervirens 15.2 25 80 80 Good Moderate 3 $2,640 Coast redwood 55 Sequoia sempervirens 15.3 25 80 80 Good Moderate 3 $2,840 Coast redwood 56 Sequoia sempervirens 9.2 15 60 80 Fair Low 4 $2,600 Coast redwood 57 Sequoia sempervirens 10.6 15 60 80 Fair Moderate 4 $1,000 20440 Arbeleche Lane May 14, 2012 111 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueCoast redwood 58 Sequoia sempervirens 6.5 10 40 40 Poor Low 5 $290 Coast redwood 59 Sequoia sempervirens 8 10 80 80 Good Moderate 5 $1,030 Coast redwood 60 Sequoia sempervirens 8.8 20 80 80 Good High 5 $11,600 California sycamore 61 Platanus racemosa 29 60 70 70 Good High 5 $11,800 Monterey pine 62 Pinus radiata 27 000DeadRemove5 $0 Monterey pine 63 Pinus radiata 21 20 20 50 Poor Remove 5 $350 Monterey pine 64 Pinus radiata 23 30 30 50 Poor Low 5 $730 California sycamore 65 Platanus racemosa 37 50 70 70 Good High 2 $18,200 Coast redwood 66 Sequoia sempervirens 35 30 80 80 Good High 2 $19,500 Black walnutBlack walnut 67 Juglans hindsii 17, 17 35 50 50 Fair Moderate 2 $3,500 California bay 24, 20, 20 68 Umbellularia californica16, 12, 10, 8 50 50 30 Fair Moderate 1 X X $23,600 California sycamore 69 Platanus racemosa 44 50 60 50 Good High 2 $16,900 Coast live oak 70 Quercus agrifolia 11 30 80 80 Good High 2 $2,160 Coast live oak 71 Quercus agrifolia 40 70 70 70 Good High 4 $26,400 Douglas fir 72 Pseudotsuga menziesii 19, 9 25 60 50 Fair Moderate 2 $2,920 Coast redwood 73 Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 25 70 80 Good High 2 $9,900 Total appraised value $184,930 Should any tree listed above be removed or damaged beyond repair, owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal to its appraised value. Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 20440 Arbeleche Lane May 14, 2012 112 20440 Arbeleche Lane Tree protection fence locations determined by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, are ap- proved by the City of Saratoga. Kate Bear, City Arborist. May 3, 2013 73 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 26th day of June, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: PDR12-0004 / 20440 Arbeleche Ln. APPLICANT/OWNER: Fatemeh Asgari / Ezzat Lokzadeh APN: 397-27-029 DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested to demolish the existing single-family residence and cottage, totaling 1,500 sq. ft. in order to construct four, two-story townhome style apartment units and associated parking. The size of the units will range between 1186 sq. ft. to 1,430 sq. ft. An Initial Study / Negative Declaration was required because both project is near riparian habitat. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 4, 2013 – June 24, 2013. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, June 24, 2013. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. Michael Fossati Planner (408) 868-1212 139 APN Owner Address City, State, Zip 397-22-015 SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DIST 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-018 SARATOGA CITY OF SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-021 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH INC 14370 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-023 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH 20390 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-032 JOSEPH & SUSAN D LONG PO BOX 95 SARATOGA CA 95071 397-22-033 DIPA H PATEL 20411 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-044 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH 14370 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-045 JOHN L OSTROWSKI 3417 TICE CREEK DR #8 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 397-22-066 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH 20390 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-067 SARATOGA FIRE DIST SCC P.O.BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94042 397-23-007 BIERACH FAMILY TR 20355 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-001 SARATOGA CITY OF 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-007 SARATOGA CITY OF 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-010 BO KOOK & ANNA PARK 14165 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-011 RAJIV & MINAKSHI MATHUR 14185 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-012 DANIEL E KAYPAGHIAN 14200 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-013 JAGDEEP & KAREN SINGH 14190 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-014 PAUL S CLARKE 14180 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-017 BREWER M L 14170 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-018 CYNTHIA A KERR 14160 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-022 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 397-27-025 GROVER B & MARYANN STEELE 20410 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-026 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 397-27-028 DAN W & GWEN L NEALE 129 WHITNEY AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 397-27-029 EZZAT LOKZADEH 20440 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-030 SUMMERHILL CREEKSIDE LLC 777 CALIFORNIA AVE PALO ALTO CA 94304 397-27-032 NEAL FAMILY LLC 230 MT HERMON RD #204 SCOTTS VALLEY CA 95066 397-27-033 LIN & CAI XIAOHUA SHEN 20520 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-034 THANH VAN WHITE 10705 DUBLIN CANYON RD PLEASANTON CA 94588 397-27-035 ARUN A & ANYA K IYENGAR 20580 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-036 JASON C & KATHLYN HUNTER 20890 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-037 YANBIN & DONG LI 20850 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-038 FARSHAD & MEHRI E HAGHIGHI 20810 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-31-003 ROBERT K LOUDEN 14285 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-31-004 TERRACE SPRINGS LLC 14527 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 397-31-005 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 397-31-008 DAVID L & SONJA A GUNN 14215 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-31-011 G & G MCCANDLESS PROPS LLC P.O. BOX 1962 LOS ALTOS CA 94023 397-31-017 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 397-31-020 ENGINEERING INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC 14395 SARATOGA AVE #220 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-001 JOSEPH P YONG P O BOX 714 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-002 EVELYN E DUGGAN 261 HARTZ AVE DANVILLE CA 94526 397-33-003 GRACE S HSU 14347 SARATOGA AVE #B SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-004 KAIMENG HUANG 18136 ARROYO LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-005 PATRICIA I CHUI 14349 SARATOGA AVE #B SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-006 PERRY ROPP 14349 SARATOGA AVE #C SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-007 BRUCE J & JAIME L BARCLAY 14351 SARATOGA AVE #A SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-008 DENNIS W & SHIULIEN KUO KING 14351 SARATOGA AVE #B SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-009 THOMAS & CHRISTINE M CSUBAK 19646 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-010 ROBERT W PENNELL 1432 CERRO VERDE SAN JOSE CA 95120 397-33-011 MULJADI JACK TR/FAM TR 14353 SARATOGA AVE D SARATOGA CA 95123 397-33-012 MARK H PIERCE 15070 BECKY LN MONTE SERENO CA 95030 397-33-013 BRAD R WATSON 14353 SARATOGA AVE #C SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-014 GERALDINE E MANN 19986 MALLORY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-015 MALEKSALEHI ELIZABETH L TR 14355 SARATOGA AVE D SARATOGA CA 95011 397-33-016 ANTHONY J & MARGARET J CANNIZZARO 19540 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 397-33-017 KAREN E BURGNER 14355 SARATOGA AVE #C SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-018 RAY W PERSICO 14761 6TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-019 JONATHAN W MULHOLLAND 14357 SARATOGA AVE #D SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-020 DOLLIE S LEY 19944 CHARTERS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-021 DAVID A & SUSAN H JOHNSON 18403 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-022 MAHTAB BRUDNY 14359 SARATOGA AVE A SARATOGA CA 94558 397-33-023 MARJORIE M BUENROSTRO 14359 SARATOGA AVE #B SARATOGA CA 95070 140 397-38-001 TABARI K & DORIS M KAM 16177 RIDGECREST AVE MONTE SERENO CA 95030 397-38-002 KATHLEEN J FILICE 14333 SARATOGA AVE 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-003 JAMES M & MARY A CAMPBELL 15495 LOS GATOS BLVD #9 LOS GATOS CA 95032 397-38-004 LESLIE E CASE 14333 SARATOGA AVE #4 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-005 JACQUELINE D ANDERSON 14333 SARATOGA AVE #5 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-006 RAJU FAMILY 1999 REVOC TRUST 19015 SPRING BROOK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-007 FARSHAD & NEDA GHAHGHAHI 14333 SARATOGA AVE #7 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-008 JOSEPHINE A CHRISTENSEN 14333 SARATOGA AVE #8 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-009 SURESH KUMAR & UPASANA KAUL BHAT 14333 SARATOGA AVE #9 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-010 JANNA C MACOY 6627 DARTMOOR WAY SAN JOSE CA 95129 397-38-011 NORMA SUTTER 14333 SARATOGA AVE #11 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-012 CATHERINE A CLIFTON 14333 SARATOGA AVE #12 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-013 JIE & HSU WEN-JUNG CHEN 13901 RIVER RANCH CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-014 HOLLICE & JEAN OBRIEN 2422 VILLA NUEVA WAY MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040 397-38-015 SHERI AMIRI 14333 SARATOGA AVE #15 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-016 PERRY T ZHENG 14333 SARATOGA AVE #16 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-017 BRIX FAMILY TR 14333 SARATOGA AVE 17 SARATOGA CA 397-38-018 IVAN MIN-HONG & JACQUELINE A LEE 14333 SARATOGA AVE #18 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-019 DANUT MANEA 14333 SARATOGA AVE #19 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-020 MAYLING WANG 20740 4TH ST #11 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-021 RADHIKA MAHAJAN 14333 SARATOGA AVE 21 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-022 NICKSON FAMILY TR 14333 SARATOGA AVE 22 SARATOGA CA 397-38-023 SUJAN CHAKRABORTY 14333 SARATOGA AVE 23 SARATOGA CA 95030 397-38-024 PERRY RICHARD L TR/TR 14333 SARATOGA AVE 24 SARATOGA CA 397-39-001 JULIE R BILLINGTON 14345 SARATOGA AVE #11 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-002 PRASHANT CHATTERJEE 14345 SARATOGA AVE #12 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-003 ELIZABETH AVVAKUMOVITS 14345 SARATOGA AVE #13 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-004 ELIZABETH A LESLIE 14345 SARATOGA AVE #14 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-005 WILLIAM SILVEIRA P O BOX 334 CUPERTINO CA 95015 397-39-006 JENNIFER CHANG 14345 SARATOGA AVE #16 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-007 ALYCE M & DAVID M KRAMER 14345 SARATOGA AVE #17 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-008 NAM & TRUONG NANCY LAM 14345 SARATOGA AVE #18 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-009 WILLIAM E LAGERSTROM 14345 SARATOGA AVE #21 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-010 GARY J & PATRICIA A VICK 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-011 MARK P PALAIMA 14345 SARATOGA AVE #23 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-012 LANI R SMITH 14345 SARATOGA AVE #24 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-013 HIROHIDE & JONIE O TAKATSUJI 14345 SARATOGA AVE 25 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-014 ROBERT S & JOAN V SEIPEL 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLOW SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-015 HELLENS C R VON 1909 E MEDLOCK DR PHOENIX AZ 85016 397-39-016 AURELIO & JING RIOS 14271 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-017 WILLIAM W REYES 14345 SARATOGA AVE #31 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-018 REZVAN ZAREBAGHBIDI 14345 SARATOGA AVE #32 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-019 ROBERT B & MARY R ABINGTON 14345 SARATOGA AVE #33 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-020 AUSAFF & MOHAMMAD A CHAUDHRY 12380 INDIAN ROCK WAY LOS GATOS CA 95033 397-39-021 PETER A TAFARELLA 14345 SARATOGA AVE #35 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-022 SARATOGAN 77 S COLINAS LN SAN JOSE CA 95119 397-39-023 BAHRAM NADIMI 14345 SARATOGA AVE #37 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-024 JEAN L & PHIL Z YOUNG 14345 SARATOGA AVE #38 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-025 SUZANA SEBAN 172 CLIPPER ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 503-23-010 DONALD K & MAYA BERNARDO 20544 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-011 ALLEN TRUST 20530 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-012 HOWARD O ALLEN 20520 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-014 NEALE FAMILY LLC 230 MT HERMON RD #204 SCOTTS VALLEY CA 95066 503-23-015 ALDO & HEIDI J OLIVERI 14225 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-017 MARGARET SEAGRAVES 13371 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-018 MARGARET SEAGRAVES 13371 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-019 GORDON A & HELEN J DUNCAN 316 NICHOLSON AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 503-23-020 CHICH-HSING & HSIAO-JEN TSAO 20567 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-021 YUAN HAI MEI 20571 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-022 IAN & HELEN WHITING 20601 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-027 VIRGINIA B HIGGINS 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-028 VIRGINIA B HIGGINS 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-029 HUGH A & GLORIA M JACOBS 20510 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-054 MYONG SHIN WOO 18800 TERRACE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 141 503-23-055 JOHN R & ROZ A FAZIO 18820 TERRACE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-056 JANICE & JOEL S CHAFFIN 18880 TERRACE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-057 CATHERINE D & MARK D WILSON 18815 TERRACE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 503-24-034 RONALD W & BARBARA S WORDEN 14505 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 503-24-038 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 503-24-078 MATTHEW & THERESA HARRIGAN 14401 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 503-24-079 DENNIS M CUNNINGHAM 16 KITE HILL RD SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 142 Notification Map APN: 397-27-029 500’ Radius Subject Address: 20440 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 143 ZONING MAP AEREAL VIEW OF THE SITE GENERAL PLAN MAP LOT R-M-4,000 RMF = RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY • PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS • • & SITE MAPS • • Proposed Arbeleche Apartments • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA A-1 APPLICANTS NAME: FATEMEH ASGARI SITE LOCATION:20440 ARBELECHE (OWNER ADDRESS SAME)SARATOGA, CA 95070-5439 APN:397-27-029 SITE PARCEL MAP FRONT ELEVATION TYPE C & D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION TYPE A scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION TYPE B scale 1/8" = 1'-0" PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 office@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 REV. 04-22-2013 144 63 (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED HEALTH=0% DEAD TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK 40" D. FIR 35" SYC. 33" REDWOOD 40" OAK44" SYC. sycamore 22" WALLNUT FIRE TURN-A-ROUND 2 3 4 1 1 CAR GARAGE 1 CAR GARAGE 1 CAR GARAGE 1 2 SARATOGA CREEK SARATOGA CREEK PATIO DECK N ORTH • P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N • SCALE. 1""=10'-0"5'-0"25'-0" SETBACK± 33' OPEN RAIL OAK SITE DATA: SITE SIZE 34,000 S.F. 1 UNIT PER 4,000 S.F. = 16,000 S.F. 4 UNITS ON SITE OK.25'-0" SETBACKREDWOODS REDWOODS OUTLINE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING OUTLINE OF NEW EXISTING RESIDENTAIL BUILDING EXI S T I N G PAR K I N G ARE A EXI S T I N G PAR K I N G ARE A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DATA: 1 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT UNIT (2 STORY) 3 4 BEDROOM APARTMENT UNITS (2 STORY) 4 COVERED PARKING 1 DISABLE PARKING 5 FULL SIZE PARKINGS 2 COMPACT PARKINGS 12 TOTAL PARKING SPACES A-2 EXISTING NEW MOTOR COURT 2 5 ' - 0 "16'22'1 CAR GARAGE DECK 4 5 3 7 8 compact compact A B C D A/C UNIT 61 62 (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED 64 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 50 51 52 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 41 (18) 65 (11) 66 (10) 67 (9) 73 42 68 (8) 69 (7) 70 71 72 1 CAR GARAGE + 25 ' BAY13' MIN.4'-0"6 6 A/C DECK DECK DECK + 8 ' A/C DOUGLAS FIR A/C HEALTH=50% monterey pine sycamore HEALTH=40%REDWOODS HEALTH=0% DEAD TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK 40" D. FIR 35" SYC. 33" REDWOOD 40" OAK44" SYC. sycamore 22" WALLNUT FIRE TURN-A-ROUND 2 3 4 1 1 CAR GARAGE 1 CAR GARAGE 1 CAR GARAGE 1 2 SARATOGA CREEK SARATOGA CREEK PATIO DECK N ORTH • P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N • SCALE. 1""=10'-0"5'-0"25'-0" SETBACK± 33' OPEN RAIL OAK SITE DATA: SITE SIZE 34,000 S.F. 1 UNIT PER 4,000 S.F. = 16,000 S.F. 4 UNITS ON SITE OK.25'-0" SETBACKREDWOODS REDWOODS OUTLINE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING OUTLINE OF NEW EXISTING RESIDENTAIL BUILDING EXIS T I N G PAR K I N G ARE A EXIS T I N G PAR K I N G ARE A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DATA: 1 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT UNIT (2 STORY) 3 4 BEDROOM APARTMENT UNITS (2 STORY) 4 COVERED PARKING 1 DISABLE PARKING 5 FULL SIZE PARKINGS 2 COMPACT PARKINGS 12 TOTAL PARKING SPACES A-2 EXISTING NEW MOTOR COURT 2 5 ' - 0 "16'22'1 CAR GARAGE DECK 4 5 3 7 8 compact compact A B C D A/C UNIT 61 62 63 64 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 50 51 52 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 41 65 66 67 73 42 68 69 70 71 72 1 CAR GARAGE + 25 ' BAY13' MIN.4'-0"6 6 A/C DECK DECK DECK + 8 ' rev. 01-15-2013 A/C DOUGLAS FIR A/C HEALTH=50% monterey pine HEALTH=50%sycamore HEALTH=40%REDWOODS PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 ofﬁce@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 PROTECTIVE FENCE typ. PROTECTIVE FENCE KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE PROTECTIVE FENCE typ. lemon 10" mag.±12'8'1 2 ' ±12' + 15 ' (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED SHADED AREA INDICATES NO EXCAVATION AREA ALL BUILDING FOUNDATION @ THIS AREA SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY PIER AND ON-GRADE BEAM FOUNDATION @ THIS CORNER SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY PIER AND ON-GRADE BEAM FOUNDATION @ THIS CORNER SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY PIER AND ON-GRADE BEAM LEMON ACCESS ROAD NOTE: ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF (E) GRADE AND CONTAINED WITH CURB ON TOP OF (E) GRADE TO PRESERVE TREE 73 & 42 THE AREA OF PIRT TYPE FOUNDATION SHALL HAVE EXPLORATORY DRILLING AS PER ARBORIST (BARRIE COATE) RECOMENDATIONS TREE NUMBER NOTE: FIRST NUMBER BY CITY ARBORIST REPORT. 2ND NUMBER IN PARENTESIS (-) BY PROJECT ARBORIST REPORT, TYP. PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 office@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 REV. 04-22-2013 145 LINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINEN• PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS & EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS •A-3 UNIT 1 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS walk-in closet BEDROOM 12' X 11' BEDROOM 11' X 11'closet BATH BATH REF KITCHEN 10' X 8' LIVING 9' X 11'POWDER UP1 CAR GARAGE 10' X 20' CLR. DINING 9' X 8' C.L. PATIO REAR ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LEFT SIDE ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENUPCL 1 CAR GARAGE 10' X 20' CLR. POWDER BEDROOM 10' X 9' DECK LIVING 10' X 10' KITCHEN 8' X 10' BREAKFAST OPEN RAIL ON DECK RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR FRONT LEFT SIDE ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REARFRONT FRONT ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LOWER LEVEL TYPE B scale 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL TYPE B scale 1/8" = 1'-0" ROOF PLAN TYPE B680 S.F. 535 S.F. 1 CAR GARAGE 215 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LOWER LEVEL TYPE A 441 S.F. 1 CAR GARAGE 215 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL TYPE B 530 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING TYPE A 530 S.F. UNIT 2 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 office@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 REV. 04-22-2013 146 • PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS & EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS •A-4 LINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENLINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENdwUP CL 1 CAR GARAGE 10' X 20' LIVING 10' X 10' POWDER REF KITCHEN 8' X 8'BEDROOM 10' X 9' DINE 8'X 7' DECK UPCL 1 CAR GARAGE 10' X 20' CLR. POWDER BEDROOM 10' X 9' DECK LIVING 10' X 10' KITCHEN 8' X 10' BREAKFAST DECK OPEN RAIL ON DECK RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION, TYPE C scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REARFRONT 438 436 434 432 F.F. 440 DECK ELEV. 439.50 FINISH & EXISTING GRADE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION TYPE D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR FRONT 438 436 434 (E) GRADE UNITS 3 & 4 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONSscale 1/8" = 1'-0" LOWER LEVEL TYPE D 535 S.F. 1 CAR GARAGE 215 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL TYPE D 680 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LOWER LEVEL TYPE C 535 S.F. 1 CAR GARAGE 215 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL TYPE C 680 S.F. ROOF PLAN TYPE D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENLINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENROOF PLAN TYPE C scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION C scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION C scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 office@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 REV. 04-22-2013 147