The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-08-14 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents Agenda 3 November 13, 2013 November 13, 2013 5 December 11, 2013 8 Application APTR13-0002 - An appeal of the City Arborist's denial of Tree Removal Permit (TRP13-0323) to remove one coast live oak tree located on a vacant parcel (APN 503-18-002) at the corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Pierce Road. Staff Contact: Kate Bear, 408-868-1276 Staff Report 11 Attachment 1 - Resolution for denial 15 Attachment 2 - Appeal application 19 Attachment 3 - Tree Removal Permit application 21 Attachment 4 - Public Notices 27 Update of the General Plan Noise Element (GPA13-0002), updates to various City Code articles related to noise control (ZOA13-0012),and a Negative Declaration (ENV13-0006). Staff Report 30 Attachment 1 - Resolution 34 Negative Declaration - Resolution Exhibit A 36 Noise Element - Resolution Exhibit B 67 City Code Amendments - Resolution Exhibit C 91 Attachment 2 - Community Feedback 103 Attachment 3 - Email Comments 104 Attachment 4 - Additional Comments 106 Application MOD13-0012; 15100 Park Drive (510-01-190) Singh – The applicant requests a modification to a previously approved Design Review application (PDR11-0024) to paint the exterior of a new two story single-family home a different color than was originally approved. The net site area is 28,488 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-20,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan, 408-868-1235. Staff Report 113 Attachment 1 - Resolution 117 Attachment 2 - Neighbor Notification 118 Attachment 3 - Public Hearing Notice 123 Attachment 4 - Approved Development Plans 124 Application PDR13-0018; 20269 Seagull Way (386-52-017); Eric Pang & Ying Wang - The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,056 existing two story residence and construct a new 3,199 square foot two story single-family residence and related site improvements located at 20269 Seagull Way. Staff Contact (408) 868-1235 Staff Report 139 Attachment 1 - Resolution 144 Attachment 2 - Arborist Report 148 Attachment 3 - Neighbor Notification 156 1 Attachment 4 - CalGreen Checklist 168 Attachment 5 - Public Hearing Notice 176 Attachment 6 - Project Plans 177 Application PDR13-0019; 14870 Baranga Ln. (397-18-035) Wu – The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 4,240 sq. ft. one story single-family residence with a 2,224 sq. ft. basement. The height of the new residence will not exceed 22 feet. Three protected trees have been reviewed by the City Arborist and are proposed to be removed. The net site area is 1.03 acres and zoned R-1-40,000. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati 408-868-1212. Staff Report - 14870 Baranga Ln.188 Att 1 - Resolution 193 Att 2 - Arborist Report 199 Att 3 - Neighbor Notification 207 Att 4 - Public Hearing Notice 213 Att 5 - Plans 216 2 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 08, 2014 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 November 13, 2013 December 11, 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 APTR13-0002 - An appeal of the City Arborist's denial of Tree Removal Permit (TRP13-0323) to remove one coast live oak tree located on a vacant parcel (APN 503-18-002) at the corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Pierce Road. Staff Contact: Kate Bear, 408-868-1276 Recommended action: Adopt the resolution denying the appeal and the removal of the coast live oak tree. 2. Update of the General Plan Noise Element (GPA13-0002), updates to various City Code articles related to noise control (ZOA13-0012),and a Negative Declaration (ENV13-0006). Recommended action: Adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration. 2. Approve an update to the General Plan Noise Element 3. Adopt an ordinance which includes updates to Articles 7-30 (Noise Control) and changes to Chapter 15 of the City Code. 3 3. Application MOD13-0012; 15100 Park Drive (510-01-190) Singh – The applicant requests a modification to a previously approved Design Review application (PDR11-0024) to paint the exterior of a new two story single-family home a different color than was originally approved. The net site area is 28,488 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-20,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan, 408-868-1235. Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 13-048 denying the application to alter the approved exterior color of the residence. 4. Application PDR13-0018; 20269 Seagull Way (386-52-017); Eric Pang & Ying Wang - The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,056 existing two story residence and construct a new 3,199 square foot two story single-family residence and related site improvements located at 20269 Seagull Way. Staff Contact (408) 868-1235 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 13-046 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 5. Application PDR13-0019; 14870 Baranga Ln. (397-18-035) Wu – The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 4,240 sq. ft. one story single- family residence with a 2,224 sq. ft. basement. The height of the new residence will not exceed 22 feet. Three protected trees have been reviewed by the City Arborist and are proposed to be removed. The net site area is 1.03 acres and zoned R-1-40,000. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati 408-868-1212. Recommended action: Approve Resolution No. 13-047 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 January 2, 2014 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, November 13, 2013 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ABSENSES -None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 23, 2013(Zhao/Bernald moved to approve the minutes. Motion passed. Ayes: Almalech, Grover, Hlava, Smullen & Walia. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. 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. NEW BUSINESS Application CUP09-0014; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd (386-30-039); Time-Space Investment Development LLC; The Planning Commission requested a review of the conditional use permit that was approved on October 14th, 2009 for an indoor swimming facility. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Action: Almalech/Bernald directed staff to report back to the Planning Commission in May 2014 with the following: 1) Compliance status of all conditions of approval placed on the project 2) A safety review, conducted by the City Traffic Engineer, of the turning movements of vehicles entering and leaving the project’s two driveways at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. 3) Traffic accident statistics for the segment of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road along the project’s frontage. Review the conditional use permit and determine whether any action is necessary. Motion passes. Ayes: Grover, Hlava, Smullen, Walia & Zhao. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None 5 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 CUP13-0003; 14500 Fruitvale Avenue (397-12-016); California Odd Fellows Foundation / City of Saratoga - The City of Saratoga on behalf of the California Odd Fellows Foundation is requesting approval to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit for the California Odd Fellows Foundations Fellowship Plaza to accommodate 75 additional residential units affordable to low and very-low income households to help the City meet the mandated regional housing requirements. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235. Action: Bernald/Smullen moved to adopt resolution No. 13-042 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Motion passes. Ayes: Almalech, Grover, Hlava, Walia & Zhao. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. 2. Application GPA13-0004; Paramount Drive and 14626 Big Basin Way (503-82-006 & 517-08-048); City of Saratoga - The proposed General Plan amendment would allow the City to correct the General Plan and Zoning designations of the aforementioned properties on the existing General Plan and Zoning Map. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212 Action: Adopt Resolution NO.13-037 recommending the City Council approve the General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments as shown in Exhibit 1. Zhao/Grover moved to adopt resolution No. 13-037 recommending the City Council approve the General Plan Map amendments. Motion passes. Ayes: Almalech, Bernald, Hlava, Smullen Walia. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. 3. Application PDR13-0008; 14496 Nutwood Lane (397-17-0520); Jay and Lin Denenberg - The applicant requests Design Review approval to remodel an existing approximately 3,675 square foot one story single- family home located at 14496 Nutwood Lane. Proposed improvements would include a 2,283 square foot one story addition for a total project square footage of 5,959 square feet. The project would also raise the existing roof height from 17 feet to approximately 25 feet. The net lot size is 39,589 square feet and the lot is zoned R-1-40,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 Action: The applicant has notified staff of their intention to discontinue the project. (Bernald/Walia moved to table the item. Motion passes. Ayes: Grover, Hlava, Smullen, Zhao. Noes: Walia. Absent: None. Abstain: None DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Hlava/Bernald requested to agendize a discussion of excused and unexcused absences. Motion passes. Ayes: Grover, Hlava, Smullen, Zhao. Noes: Walia. Absent: None. Abstain: None 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 6 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 November 7, 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 7 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, December 11, 2013 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ABSENSES -None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 13, 2013 - No Action 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. Applications PDR13-0025, CUP13-0005, & SUB13-0003; 12250 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (386-30- 036,037,038); TimeSpace Square LLC - The applicant is requesting Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Subdivision approval for the demolition of three existing single-story light industrial buildings and the construction of one commercial / retail building, approximately 1,835 sq. ft. in size and 20 feet in height and twelve residential townhomes, approximately 2,500 sq. ft. in size and 26 feet in height. The project is in conformance with City standards for height, setbacks, floor area, and site coverage. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: Bernald/Almalech moved to adopt resolution No. 13-043 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Motion passes. Ayes: Almalech, Bernald. Hlava, Smullen, Walia & Zhao. Noes: Grover. Absent: None. Abstain: None. 2. Applications PDR13-0024, CUP13-0006, & VAR13-0005; 12540 Saratoga Avenue (386-11-005); Victor Kasik – The applicant is requesting Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approval for the 8 construction of a new 400 square foot detached garage within a rear setback. Variance approval is required because the applicant is proposing a 10 foot wide driveway when the City code requires a driveway width of 12 feet. The project is conformance with City standards for height, setbacks, floor area and site coverage. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: Bernald/Walia moved to adopt resolution No. 13-041 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Motion passes. Ayes: Almalech, Bernald, Grover, Hlava, Smullen, Walia & Zhao. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. 3. Application PDR13-0009; 19231 Monte Vista Avenue (397-09-015); Hung and Tina Nguyen / TDH Design - The applicant requests Design Review approval to replace an existing 3,540 square foot home with a new 5,915 square foot single-story home. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Action: Bernald/Grover moved to adopt resolution No. 13-044 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Motion passes. Ayes: Almalech, Bernald, Grover, Hlava, Smullen, Walia. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: Zhao. 4. Application PDR13-0012; Saratoga Vista Avenue (393-39-025); Li / Timeline Design - The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new 3,348 square foot two-story home on a vacant lot. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Action: Bernald/Walia moved to adopt resolution No. 13-035 denying the project. Motion passes. Ayes: Almalech, Bernald, Grover, Walia. Noes: Hlava, Smullen, Zhao. Absent: None. Abstain: None 5. Application ZOA13-0010–Zoning Amendment for Single Room Occupancy Buildings(SRO); City of Saratoga - California Senate Bill 2 (SB2) requires General Plan Housing Elements to include polices for the provision of transitional housing opportunities often referred to as Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing. The City's Housing Element includes a policy that the City amend the zoning code to encourage and facilitate Single-Room Occupancy Units consistent with State law. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 Action: Almalech/Bernald moved to adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 15-19.035 (C-N(RHD)) to establish development standards for Single Room Occupancy Buildings. Motion passes. Ayes: Almalech, Bernald, Grover, Hlava, Smullen, Walia & Zhao. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of excused and unexcused absences. Action: Grover/Almalech moved to establish criteria for excused absences.Motion passes. Ayes: Almalech, Bernald Grover, Hlava, Smullen, Walia & Zhao. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT 9 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 December 5, 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 10 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./ Location APTR13-0002; APN 503-18-002, corner of Pierce Rd and Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd Type of Application: Appeal of the denial of a Tree Removal Permit Application to remove one coast live oak Appellant: Marc Kocir Staff: Kate Bear, City Arborist Meeting Date: January 8, 2013 APN: 503-18-002 Director: James Lindsay 12795 Saratoga Sunnyvale Page 1 of 4 11 SUMMARY APPEAL DESCRIPTION: The property owner, Mr. Marc Kocir, is appealing the denial of an application for a Tree Removal Permit (TRP13-0323) to remove one coast live oak tree located on a vacant parcel (APN 503-18- 002). The property is located at the corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Pierce Road, next to 12795 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The appellant wants to remove the tree to facilitate the sale of the property and because he has concerns that a person could be injured if a main trunk failed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal upholding the City Arborist’s decision to deny the permit. BACKGROUND: In November 2013, the appellant applied for a permit to remove five protected trees located on a vacant parcel at the corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Pierce Road – one redwood, three trees of heaven and one coast live oak. Staff approved the removal of four of the five trees, as the redwood and trees of heaven were in poor health and met the criteria allowing their removal. The oak did not meet the criteria for removal, and its removal was denied. It was not in imminent danger of failure and it did not cause damage to or threaten damage to any structures. The oak was found to be in good health and was the largest tree on the property. It has four main stems, ranging from 13 to 26 inches in diameter. When the application was under review, alternatives such as pruning the tree were recommended to the appellant. Pruning to remove dead limbs and raise the canopy of the tree would reduce the weight on each trunk while maintaining its good health. The property is for sale, and the appellant has stated that prospective buyers are deciding not to make an offer because they cannot be assured that the oak can be removed to construct a new house. In addition, the appellant is concerned that a main stem may fail and injure someone walking near the tree. The appellant submitted letters from two arborists recommending removal of the oak along with the permit application. Both letters stated that the risk of failure of one or more trunks was high over time, due to the presence of included bark where the trunks joined. The presence of included bark is common in oak trees. Although there is included bark between stems, and the risk of a stem failing is possible, because the lot is vacant, the consequence of a trunk failure would be insignificant. There is no target present in the form of a house or other structure and people do not live on the lot. Criteria for the Removal of a Protected Tree Pursuant to City Code Article 15-50.080, there are criteria that must be met “overall” for the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit. They are listed below. Sometimes a tree needs to meet only one criterion to qualify for a removal permit, such as when it is diseased and cannot be restored to good health. More often, several of the criteria must be met to make the findings overall, allowing a tree to Page 2 of 4 12 be removed. It is significant to consider whether there are alternatives to the removal of the tree in question. Following are staff’s findings with respect to each criterion. Criterion #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. The coast live oak does not meet this criterion. It is in good health, and not diseased. The tree as a whole is not in imminent danger of failing, even though several main trunks join at the base. Even if a stem failed, there is no target because the lot is vacant. The oak does not damage or threaten damage to any structures and does not interfere with utility services. Criterion #2: The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The coast live oak tree does not meet this criterion in that there are no improvements on the property that can be damaged by the tree. Criterion #3: The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This tree does not meet this criterion, in that the tree’s root system does absorb rain water and prevent runoff. The property is flat, so erosion control is not a major concern in this situation. Criterion #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. Removal of the coast live oak tree partially meets this criterion. There are other trees on the property that provide privacy and screening. This tree does provide significant shade, removal of pollutants from the air, scenic beauty and erosion control. The appellant has indicated that this tree provides a negative value to the property and his general welfare, in that residents who have been interested in buying the lot have decided not to because of the tree’s presence. Criterion #5: The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. There is sufficient room on the property for this and other trees so this criterion does not apply. Criterion #6: Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. There is an alternative to removing the coast live oak. It can be retained, pruned and a new house built on the lot while accommodating the oak. Criterion #7: Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the coast live oak is in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. Criterion #8: Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and Application No. APTR13-0002/ TRP13-0323; APN 503-18-002 Page 3 of 4 13 Application No. APTR13-0002/ TRP13-0323; APN 503-18-002 Page 4 of 4 the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. The tree grows on private property and no information with respect to public health and safety has been provided. Criterion #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. Removal of the coast live oak does meet this criterion in that the owner of the property cannot sell the lot with the tree on it. In summary, removal of the coast live oak is not supported by Section 15-50.080 of the City Code. Criteria #1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 do not support the removal of the tree, and Criteria #4 and 9 do. Criteria #5 and 8 are not applicable. Overall, the Appellant has met not the burden of proof for the removal of the coast live oak. NEIGHBOR CORRESPONDENCE Staff has received one comment letter (Attachment 5) in support of denying the appeal. GROUNDS OF APPEALS The appellant is concerned that a main stem will fail and injure someone. He is also finding that the property, which is for sale, is not attracting offers because prospective buyers want assurances that the oak could be removed to construct a new home. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and deny the Appeal by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution denying the Appeal and the removal of one coast live oak tree 2. Appeal application and letter from Mr. Marc Kocir, 12795 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road 3. Tree Removal Permit Application TRP13-0323 4. Public Hearing Notice, List of Addresses for mailing 5. Public comments 14 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.14-001 FOR DENIAL OF APPEAL Application #APTR13-0002/TRP13-0323 Kocir / Vacant lot at APN 503-18-002 The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-described application: I. Project Summary The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of the denial of an application for a Tree Removal Permit (TRP13-0323) for the removal of one coast live oak tree at the address listed above. The owner wants to remove this tree to facilitate the sale of this property, which currently is a vacant lot. He has expressed concern about the tree’s structure and the possibility of main trunks splitting out of the tree. II. Right to Appeal City Code Sections 15-90.010 allows an appeal of an administrative determination or decision made by the Community Development Director to be taken to the Planning Commission by the applicant or any interested person pursuant to any of the provisions of the City Code. III. Planning Commission Review On January 8, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Appeal of the denial of the Tree Removal Permit Application, at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Tree Removal Permit Application, the Appeal, the Staff Report on the Appeal, correspondence, and presentations from the Appellant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. IV. Environmental Review The Appeal is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Article 19 - 15303(a), which provides that CEQA does not apply to the construction of a new single family residence or second unit. V. Findings for the Removal of a Protected Tree Pursuant to City Code Article 15-50.080, there are criteria that must be met “overall” for the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit. They are listed below. The Planning Commission considered each criterion below and determined whether they were met, overall, and whether the tree qualified for removal. 15 Criterion #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. The coast live oak does not meet this criterion. It is in good health, and not diseased. The tree as a whole is not in imminent danger of failing, even though several main trunks join at the base. Even if a stem failed, there is no target because the lot is vacant. The oak does not damage or threaten damage to any structures and does not interfere with utility services. Criterion #2: The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The coast live oak tree does not meet this criterion in that there are no improvements on the property that can be damaged by the tree. Criterion #3: The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This tree does not meet this criterion, in that the tree’s root system does absorb rain water and prevent runoff. The property is flat, so erosion control is not a major concern in this situation. Criterion #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. Removal of the coast live oak tree partially meets this criterion. There are other trees on the property that provide privacy and screening. This tree does provide significant shade, removal of pollutants from the air, scenic beauty and erosion control. The appellant has indicated that this tree provides a negative value to the property and his general welfare, in that residents who have been interested in buying the lot have decided not to because of the tree’s presence. Criterion #5: The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. There is sufficient room on the property for this and other trees so this criterion does not apply. Criterion #6: Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. There is an alternative to removing the coast live oak. It can be retained, pruned and a new house built on the lot while accommodating the oak. 2 Application No. APTR13-0002; 12795 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road 16 Criterion #7: Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the coast live oak is in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. Criterion #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. The tree grows on private property and no information with respect to public health and safety has been provided. Criterion #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. Removal of the coast live oak does meet this criterion in that the owner of the property cannot sell the lot with the tree on it. In summary, removal of the coast live oak is not supported by Section 15-50.080 of the City Code. Criteria #1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 do not support the removal of the tree, and Criteria #4 and 9 do. Criteria #5 and 8 are not applicable. Overall, the Appellant has met not the burden of proof for the removal of the coast live oak. VI. Appeal Determination Section 1. After careful consideration of the tree removal permit application, the appeal, and other exhibits and evidence submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. APTR13-0002 (the appeal of the denial of the removal of one coast live oak tree) and Application TRP13-0323 (an application to remove the coast live oak), are denied. 3 Application No. APTR13-0002; 12795 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road 17 4 Application No. APTR13-0002; 12795 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road APPEAL DENIED AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION DENIED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 8th day of January, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _______________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 a public hearing on an appeal of the denial of a Tree Removal Permit, which scheduled to be considered on Wednesday, the 8th day of January, 2014, 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. – noon and 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION #: APTR13-002; TRP13-0323 APN: 503-18-002 APPELLANT/ADDRESS: Marc Kocir, 12795 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road DESCRIPTION: The appellant is appealing the denial of a permit to remove 1 coast live oak tree growing on a vacant lot at the corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Pierce Road. 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 5 pm, Monday, December 23, 2013. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 150 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. Kate Bear City Arborist (408) 868-1276 27 NOTE TO SARATOGA NEWS: THIS IS A LEGAL AD. Please typeset text. Any questions should be directed to Abby Ayende at 868-1222 (Publish December 24, 2013) NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA’S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearings on Wednesday, the January 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. – noon and 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. If you have questions, please call the City Arborist, Kate Bear, at 408 868-1276. 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(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. A site visit will be held on the day preceding the hearing date listed above as part of the standard Site Visit Committee agenda. Site visits occur between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing and visit the site listed above and may visit other sites as well. For more information please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868-1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. APPLICATION APTR13-002, 12795 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road (503-18-002), Kocir – The appellant is appealing the denial of tree removal permit application TRP13-0323, for the removal of one coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) growing in the northwest section of a vacant lot. 28 12/12/2013 Page 1 of 1City of Saratoga Vacant Lot APN 503-18-002 TRP13-0323; APTR13-0002 Radius Notification Parcel Report Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip 39301032 12820 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD RONNOCO SARATOGA PROP LP 43612 EXCELSO DR FREMONT, CA 94539 39301032 , 39301032 12840 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD RONNOCO SARATOGA PROP LP 43612 EXCELSO DR FREMONT, CA 94539 50318002 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD MILLER MILDRED L 12795 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 50318004 12841 PIERCE RD WALB DAVID A AND NANCY J P. O. BOX 343 SARATOGA, CA 95070 50318005 12861 PIERCE RD WAGNER JOACHIM S AND COLEEN R 12861 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 50318059 PIERCE RD CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT 20833 STEVENS CREEK BLVD SUITE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 50318086 12848 JEPSEN CT SCHMIEDT JAMES B AND CAROL A T 12848 JEPSEN CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 50318087 12826 JEPSEN CT DEBELLA GLENN B AND SHARON R T 12826 JEPSEN CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 50318091 12795 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD KOCIR MARC L 12795 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 50381018 12848 PIERCE RD ROMEO JOSEPH C TRUSTEE 12848 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 50381019 12840 PIERCE RD OVERHULSE MICHAEL AND DIANE 12840 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 Affected Parcels 12 GEO10 29 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: January 8, 2013 Application: GPA13-0002 / ZOA13-0012 / ENV13-0006 General Plan Noise Element / Noise Ordinance Update Location City Wide Owner/Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration. 2. Approve an update to the General Plan Noise Element 3. Adopt an ordinance which includes updates to Articles 7-30 (Noise Control), and various changes to Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code. BACKGROUND: The current General Plan Noise Element was prepared in 1988. That report included noise level contour maps for that time period as well as projected noise level contour maps for the year 2005. These noise contour maps were prepared prior to the construction of Highway 85. Early this year the City Council approved a contract with Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. to work with the Community Development Department to update the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. Community Meetings The Community Development Department held two community meetings to provide the public the opportunity to discuss noise issues affecting the community. The first meeting was held on August 20, 2013 at the Fireman’s Hall on Oak Street and the second meeting was held on August 27, 2013 at the Saratoga Library. Both meetings were well attended by the public. A summary of the noise related issues discussed during the meetings is included as Attachment #2 Staff has also received numerous emails related to noise issues and a summary of these comments is included as Attachment #3 30 ZOA13-0006 Planning Commission Study Sessions In addition to the community meetings, the Planning Commission held two public study sessions to review the Noise Element and the Noise Ordinance. Notice of these sessions was provided to all interested parties as well as posted on a dedicated Noise Element Update web page. At the October 8, 2013 Study Session, the Planning Commission reviewed the noise policies of the existing General Plan Noise Element. This discussion also included a review of the update traffic noise contour maps and a review of the public comments that had been received to date. The Commission also provided an opportunity for the public to comment. At the November 12, 2013 Study Session, the Commission reviewed and commented on the existing Noise Ordinance and reviewed the initial draft of the revised General Plan Noise Element. The Commission’s discussion of the draft Noise Element included a review of updated text, tables, and revised Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures. The Commission also provided an opportunity for the public to comment. DISCUSSION: Noise Element The draft Noise Element includes updated text, table, and revised Goals, Policies, and Procedures and incorporates the Commission comments from the two Study Sessions. One of the more significant changes in the Element is the simplification of the goals to convert much of the detail contained within the goals to policies and implementation procedures. Also included in the revised Element is a discussion of environmental noise fundamental such the frequency spectrum of sound, the variation of sound with time, the human perception of sound levels, and the effects of noise on people. Besides the modifications to the draft Noise Element as discussed above, the revised Element includes the following new Policies and Implementations: Policy 2.2 – New residential development is to be designed and constructed to provide an interior noise level of DNL 45 dB or less in habitable rooms (due to outdoor sources) Policy 2.3 – Residential outdoor open space intended for use and enjoyment should be designed to meet a goal of DNL 60 dB. Where this goal cannot feasibly be met by incorporating reasonable measures, such as strategic site layout and noise barriers, DNL 65 dB might not be considered acceptable. This policy does not apply to private exterior boundaries. Policy 2.6 – The City recognizes that certain community uses and events are inherent to a suburban environment. Policy 2.7 – Noise generated by equipment and amplified sound shall meet adopted standards. Policy 2.8 – The City shall enforce regulations pertaining to home occupations and not permit those that create noise beyond the property boundaries. Page 2 of 4 31 ZOA13-0006 Implementation 1.3.2 – City Contracts should encourage the use of equipment that incorporates the latest noise reduction techniques. Noise Ordinance The purpose of the Noise Ordinance is to implement the goals and policies contained in the General Plan Noise Element and the City uses the Noise Ordinance as an enforcement tool to regulate noise to preserve the quiet residential atmosphere of the City. During the Planning Commission’s discussion of the Noise Ordinance, the Commission continually referred back to the community’s noise concerns. The draft Noise Ordinance includes new regulations to address noise from barking dogs and other animals. Another significant change to the draft Noise Ordinance included removing “ambient” as a method of measuring background noise. This was replaced with “Leq” which is the measure of noise over a set period of time at the location of the noise event. The existing Noise Element included Noise Standards expressed in dBA for various land uses that lacked clarity and increased the difficulty of noise enforcement. The revised standards, included in Section 7-30.040 of the draft Noise Element, include the more accurate method of Leq to depict the average permissible noise levels for each land use category as well as Lmax to limit the maximum noise level. Outdoor music is allowed at establishments with an outdoor music permit. The existing Noise Ordinance limits the volume of this music to a maximum of 73 dBA as measured 25 feet from the source of the sound. In response to a comment from a local business, the Commission requested staff to review traffic noise levels recorded along Big Basin Way to confirm the statement that existing roadway noise has made it difficult for the outdoor music to be heard. The average Lmax for the traffic noise along Big Basin Way Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (during allowed music times) was 87 dBA and the average Leq for those days was 69 dBA. Therefore, staff is recommending a 5 dBA increase to the maximum noise level for outdoor music. The recommended 78 dBA maximum is the same noise level allowed for leaf blowers throughout the City. Changes to the time-limits for indoor music are also being recommended so they coincide with the definition of night time. Figure NE-1 in the draft Noise Element illustrates common sound levels including a jackhammer which can reach 100 dB at 25-feet away. The current Noise Ordinance permits construction noise up to 83 dBA measured 25-feet away which would be very difficult to meet with common mechanical construction equipment. Therefore, staff is recommending increasing the allowance for construction noise to 100 dBA measured 25-feet away. Initial Study/Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts The update to the General Plan Noise Element is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared pursuant CEQA requirements and it was determined that the adoption of the revised Noise Element would not have a potentially significant effect on the environment. A Notice of Intent Negative Declaration was published in the Saratoga News and filed with the County Recorder for a public review period from Page 3 of 4 32 ZOA13-0006 Page 4 of 4 December 17, 2013 through January 6, 2014. A copy of the Initial Study / Negative Declaration is included as Attachment #1A Alternatives The Commission and staff discussed possible implementation text for Noise Element Policy 2.6 “The City recognizes that certain community uses and events are inherent to a suburban environment” at the last study session. Staff did not receive direction to address this Policy specifically in the Noise Ordinance but if the Commission wishes to do so we suggest the following additional section in the Noise Ordinance under exceptions: 7-30.060 Exception for Specific activities (g) Non-amplified noise from community uses and events that are inherent to a suburban environment including but not limited to playgrounds, sport facilities and fields, and common recreational areas. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution for Approval with the following Attachments. • Exhibit A – Negative Declaration • Exhibit B – Noise Element • Exhibit C – Ordinance 2. Summary of Noise Issues from the two Community Meetings 3. Summary of the email comments received regarding noise impacts prior to the Community Meetings. 4. Correspondence received since November 12, 2013. 33 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO: 13- Applications GPA13-0002, ZOA13-0012, and ENV13-0006 Update of the General Plan Noise Element including updates to Articles 7-30 (Noise Control), 15-11 (Agricultural District), 15-18 (Professional Administrative), 15-19 (Commercial), 15-55 (Conditional Use Permits) and 15-80 (Miscellaneous Regulations) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines with respect the above described application: WHEREAS, the Noise Element is one of seven general plan elements mandated by state law and its contents are specified in Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Noise Element is to characterize existing and potential future environmental noise levels for use in various land-use planning processes and is intended to be used by the community in the goal of preserving the quiet residential environment of Saratoga. This is done by controlling noise in all zone districts to levels that are compatible with existing and future land uses; WHEREAS, the Community Development Department in association with Charles M. Salter Associates, Incorporated have prepared updates to the General Plan Noise Element and Article 7-30 (Noise Control) of the City Code; and WHEREAS, a purpose of Article 7-30 (Noise Control) of the City Code is to implement the goals and policies contained in the Noise Element, and WHEREAS, modification to Articles 15-11 (Agricultural District), 15-18 (Professional Administrative), 15-19 (Commercial), 15-55 (Conditional Use Permits) and Article 15-80 (Miscellaneous Regulations) would provide consistency within the City Code; and WHEREAS, public participation opportunities were provided through several means including, two community meetings, two Planning Commission study sessions, and the City of Saratoga Website; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the draft Noise Element and amendments to Article 7-30 (Noise Control) at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the draft Noise Element and amendments to the City Code, the Staff Report, CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing, and 34 WHEREAS, environmental review was completed in the form of an Initial Study and it was determined that the proposed adoption of the Noise Element and the amendments to the City Code would not result in potential significant impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from December 17, 2013 through January 6, 2014 and represents the City’s independent judgment and analysis. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Noise Element Update is consistent with the City of Saratoga General Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The legislation described in the recitals is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the Project. Section 3: After careful consideration of the staff report, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts (Exhibit A), an updated Noise Element (Exhibit B), and amendments to Articles 7-30 (Noise Control), 15-11 (Agricultural District), 15-18 (Professional Administrative), 15-19 (Commercial),15-55 (Conditional Use Permits) and 15-80 (Miscellaneous Regulations) of the City Code (Exhibit C). PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 8th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission Exhibit A – Negative Declaration Exhibit B – Noise Element Exhibit C – Ordinance 2 35 Initial Study and Negative Declaration City of Saratoga Noise Element Prepared for The City of Saratoga By December 10, 2013 ! ! ! ! 36 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 1-2 1 Introduction 1.1 Initial Study/Negative Declaration This%Initial%Study/Negative%Declaration%has%been%prepared%in%accordance%with%the% California%Environmental%Quality%Act%(CEQA),%which%can%be%found%in%the%California% Public%Resources%Code%Section%21000%et%seq.,%and%the%CEQA%Guidelines%found%in% California%Code%of%Regulations%Title%14,%Chapter%3,%Section%15000%et%seq.,%as%amended.% % Pursuant%to%CEQA%Guidelines%Section%15074%(California%Code%of%Regulations%Title%14,% Chapter%3)%when%considering%adoption%of%a%Negative%Declaration%the%Lead%Agency%is% bound%by%the%following:% A. Any%advisory%body%of%a%public%agency%making%a%recommendation%to%the%decisionS making%body%shall%consider%the%proposed%negative%declaration%before%making%its% recommendation.% B. Prior%to%approving%a%project%the%Lead%Agency%shall%consider%the%proposed% negative%declaration%together%with%any%comments%received%during%the%public% review%process.%The%decisionSmaking%body%shall%adopt%the%proposed%negative% declaration%only%if%it%finds%on%the%whole%of%the%record%before%it%that%there%is%no% substantial%evidence%that%the%project%will%have%a%significant%effect%on%the% environment%and%that%a%negative%declaration%reflects%the%Lead%Agency’s% independent%judgment%and%analysis.% C. When%adopting%a%negative%declaration,%the%Lead%Agency%shall%specify%the%location% and%custodian%of%the%documents%or%other%material%which%constitute%the%record%of% proceedings%upon%which%its%decision%is%based.% D. When%adopting%a%negative%declaration,%the%Lead%Agency%shall%also%adopt%a% program%for%reporting%on%or%monitoring%the%changes%which%it%has%either%required% in%the%Project%or%made%a%condition%of%approval%to%avoid%or%mitigate%significant% environmental%impacts.% E. A%Lead%Agency%shall%not%adopt%a%negative%declaration%for%a%project%within%the% boundaries%of%a%comprehensive%airport%land%use%plan%or,%if%a%comprehensive% airport%land%use%plan%has%not%been%adopted,%for%a%project%within%two%nautical% miles%of%a%public%use%airport,%without%first%considering%whether%the%project%will% 37 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 1-3 result%in%a%safety%hazard%or%noise%problem%for%persons%using%the%airport%or%for% persons%residing%or%working%in%the%project%area.%% In%the%case%of%the%Proposed%Project,%advisory%board%is%the%Planning%Commission%and%the% decision%making%body%is%the%City%Council%of%Saratoga.%% LEAD AGENCY/CONTACT The%Lead%Agency%for%this%Initial%Study/Negative%Declaration%is%the%City%of%Saratoga.% During%the%20Sday%comment%period,%please%mail%comments%on%this%Initial%Study/% Negative%Declaration%to%the%project%manager%for%the%Lead%Agency%at%the%following% address:% City%of%Saratoga;%Planning%Division% Christopher%Riordan%AICP,%Senior%Planner% 13777%Fruitvale%Avenue% Saratoga,%CA%95070% ! 1.2 Project Information PROJECT TITLE General%Plan%Noise%Element%Update% LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City%of%Saratoga;%Planning%Division% 13777%Fruitvale%Avenue% Saratoga,%CA%95070% CONTACT PERSON Christopher%Riordan%AICP,%Senior%Planner% PROJECT LOCATION City%of%Saratoga% PROJECT SPONSOR NAME City%of%Saratoga;%Planning%Division% 38 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 1-4 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Citywide% ZONING Citywide% % BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The%proposed%project%is%an%update%to%the%City’s%existing%Noise%Element.%The%Noise% Element%is%a%mandatory%element%of%the%General%Plan,%as%required%by%§%65302(f)%of%the% California%Government%Code.%The%Noise%Element%must%analyze%and%quantify%current%and% project%noise%levels%that%contribute%to%the%community%noise%environment.%%The%Noise% Element%is%intended%to%be%used%by%the%community%for%the%goal%of%preserving%the%quire% residential%environment%of%Saratoga,%by%controlling%noise%in%all%zone%districts%to%levels% that%are%compatible%with%existing%and%future%land%districts.%% % OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED None.%However,%the%City%will%submit,%as%required,%the%Initial%Study/Negative%Declaration% for%the%Noise%Element%and%the%draft%Noise%Element%itself%to%other%potentially%interested% government%agencies%at%the%local,%regional,%state%and%federal%levels%for%their%review%and% comment.%% % %% 39 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 1-5 1.3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Environmental%factors%that%may%be%affected%by%the%Project,%as%defined%by%the%California% Environmental%Quality%Act%are%listed%alphabetically%below.%Factors%marked%with%a%filled% in%block%(X)%were%determined%to%be%potentially%affected%by%the%Project,%involving%at%least% one%impact%that%has%been%identified%as%a%“Potentially%Significant%Impact”%with%mitigation% measures%identified%that%would%reduce%the%impact%to%a%less%than%significant%level,%as% indicated%in%the%Environmental%Checklist%(Chapter%3)%and%the%related%discussion%that% follows.%Unmarked%factors%(%)%were%determined%to%not%be%significantly%affected%by%the% Project,%based%on%the%discussion%provided%in%Chapter%3.%% %% ☐%Aesthetics%☐%Greenhouse%Gas% Emissions% ☐%Population%/%Housing% ☐%Agriculture%Resources%☐%Hazards%and%Hazardous% %Materials% ☐%Public%Services% ☐%Air%Quality%%☐%Hydrology%and%Water% %Quality% ☐%Recreation% ☐%Biological%Resources%☐%Land%Use%/Planning%%☐!!Transportation/Traffic% ☐%Cultural%Resources%☐%Mineral%Resources%☐%Utilities/%Service% Systems% ☐%Geology/Soils%%☐%Noise%%☐%Mandatory%Findings%of% Significance% 40 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 1-6 1.4 Lead Agency’s Determination On%the%basis%of%the%evaluation%in%this%Initial%Study:% % ! !!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 % %%% % %% 41 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 2-7 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Location and Setting The%City%of%Saratoga%is%located%in%the%western%portion%of%Santa%Clara%County%just% southwest%of%the%major%metropolitan%community%of%San%José,%and%approximately%35% miles%south%of%San%Francisco.%Saratoga%is%at%the%southern%end%of%the%San%Francisco% Peninsula.%It%covers%an%area%of%12.4%square%miles,%with%an%elevation%of%410%feet,%and%has%a% population%of%30,677%people.%% The%northern,%southern%and%eastern%portions%of%the%community%are%sited%on%a%historic% alluvial%plain%shared%with%the%adjacent%communities%of%Cupertino,%San%Jose,%Los%Gatos,% and%Monte%Sereno.%The%western%portion%consists%of%lowSlying%foothills%of%the%Santa%Cruz% Mountains%and%is%adjacent%to%unincorporated%areas%within%Santa%Clara%County.%% Major%regional%access%to%the%community%is%provided%by%State%Route%85%(SRS85),%a%sixS lane%freeway%linking%to%US%280%in%Cupertino%and%US%101%to%the%north%in%Mountain%View,% US%101%south%in%San%Jose,%and%to%SR17%to%north%San%Jose%and%southwest%to%Santa%Cruz% County.%Local%roadways%linking%Saratoga%to%surrounding%communities%include%SaratogaS Los%Gatos%Road,%Saratoga%Avenue,%Highway%9%and%SaratogaSSunnyvale%Road.%% % 2.2 Project Description The%Noise%Element%is%a%mandatory%element%of%the%General%Plan%required%by%§65302(f)%of% the%California%Government%Code.%The%Noise%Element%must%analyze%and%quantify,%to%the% extent%practicable,%current%and%projected%noise%levels%from%the%following%noise%sources:% major%traffic%thoroughfares,%passenger%and%freight%railroad%operations,%commercial%and% general%aviation%operations,%industrial%plants,%and%other%ground%stationary%noise% sources%contributing%to%the%community%noise%environment.%%Noise%levels%for%these% sources%must%be%shown%on%noise%contour%maps%prepared%on%the%basis%of%noise% monitoring%or%modeling%techniques,%and%the%resulting%noise%contours%must%be%used%to% guide%land%use%decisions%to%reduce%noise%impacts%(§65302(f)%of%the%California% Government%Code).% % 42 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 2-8 The%proposed%Noise%Element%would%update%Saratoga’s%original%Noise%Element,%adopted% in%1988.%The%Noise%Element%is%intended%to%be%used%by%the%community%for%the%goal%of% preserving%the%quiet%residential%environment%of%Saratoga,%by%controlling%noise%in%all% zone%districts%to%levels%that%are%compatible%with%existing%and%future%land%districts.%The% updated%element%contains%five%chapters:%% 1. Introduction% 2. Environmental%Noise%Fundamentals% 3. Noise%Environment%in%Saratoga%% 4. Acoustical%Standards% 5. Goals,%Policies%and%Implementations% % The%Draft%Noise%Element%is%attached%as%an%appendix%to%this%negative%declaration.%Figure! 1%shows%the%existing%(2013)%noise%contours.%Figure!2%depicts%the%projected%future%traffic% noise%levels,%calculated%based%on%projected%traffic%volume%for%major%roadways.%The% Circulation%Element%of%the%General%Plan%contains%the%estimated%future%traffic%volume% data%for%City%roadways%in%2030.%Estimated%future%traffic%volumes%for%State%Route%85%are% based%on%a%Caltrans%estimate%of%3%percent%growth%per%year.%%It%should%be%noted%that%the% future%noise%contours%simply%portray%conditions%that%would%result%from%traffic%already% projected%and%included%in%the%Circulation%Element,%rather%than%from%any%projects% proposed%as%part%of%the%Noise%Element%update.%% % Table!1%shows%the%difference%between%existing%and%projected%future%noise%levels,% measured%as%a%daySnight%average%sound%level%(DNL),%at%key%road%segments.%Traffic%noise% levels%are%expected%to%increase%by%between%1%and%3%decibels%(dB)%from%existing%to% projected%2030%conditions.%% % Table 1: Roadway Traffic Noise Levels (Exiting and Projected Future) Noise Levels (dB) Roadway Start to End of Roadway Existing DNL at 50' Future DNL at 50' Difference Prospect Road Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Miller Avenue 69 70 1 Prospect Road Miller Avenue to Lawrence Expressway 70 71 1 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Prospect Road to Cox Avenue 71 72 1 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Cox Avenue to Saratoga Avenue 70 71 1 Pierce Road Surrey Lane to Comer Dr. 59 60 1 Cox Avenue Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Saratoga Avenue 66 67 1 Saratoga Avenue Lawrence Expressway to Cox Avenue 72 73 1 Saratoga Avenue Cox Avenue to SR 85 73 74 1 Saratoga Avenue SR 85 to Fruitvale Avenue 72 73 1 Saratoga Avenue Fruitvale Avenue to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 68 69 1 43 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 2-9 Big Basin Way Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Pierce Road 68 69 1 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga Avenue to Allendale Avenue 69 70 1 Fruitvale Avenue Allendale Avenue to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 65 66 1 Allendale Avenue Fruitvale Avenue to Quito Road 64 65 1 Quito Road Saratoga Avenue to Allendale Avenue 68 69 1 Quito Road Allendale Avenue to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 66 67 1 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Saratoga Avenue to Fruitvale Avenue 67 68 1 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Fruitvale Avenue to Quito Road 72 73 1 SR 85 (Cupertino) to Saratoga Avenue 84 86 3 SR 85 Saratoga Avenue to (Los Gatos) 84 87 3 % 44 Saratoga San Jose Monte Sereno Los Gatos Cupertino SANTA CLARA COUNTY QUITO RDPIERC E R D COX AVE PROSPECT RD SARATOGA AVEFRUITVALE AVESARATOGA SUNNYVALE RDALLENDALE A V E BIG BASIN WAY COX AVE QUITO RDPIERCER DSARATO GAAVEC ON G RE S S S P R I N G SRDTHELMA AVE HERRIMAN AVE SOBEY RD SOBEYRDOAKSTR E ID L N SCULLYAVETITUSAVEDEVON AVERADOYKA DRBROOKGLENDRVERDE VISTA LN D O UG LASS LN THREE OAKS WAY S A R A T O G A L O S G ATOSRDALOHAAVE M ONTEVISTA DRPROSPECTRDARROYODEARGUELLOM T E D E NR D SEA G ULLW A Y MARTHA AVE D A G M A R D R PIERCE RD AFTONAVE COMER D R 85 Existing Traffic Noise Contours City of Saratoga Figure 1 Source: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc, 2013; City of Saratoga, 2013; ESRI, 2013; Dyett and Bhatia, 2013. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Existing Noise Contours DNL 55 to 60 dB DNL 60 to 65 dB DNL 65 to 70 dB DNL 70 to 75 dB DNL >75 dB City of Saratoga Major Highway Major Roads Railroads G LEN BRAED R H A R L E IG H D R VILLA OA K S L N T O L L GA TE RD COLLEGECIR45 Saratoga San Jose Monte Sereno Los Gatos Cupertino SANTA CLARA COUNTY QUITO RDPIERC E R D COX AVE PROSPECT RD SARATOGA AVEFRUITVALE AVESARATOGA SUNNYVALE RDALLENDALE A V E BIG BASIN WAY COX AVE QUITO RDPIERCER DSARATO GAAVEC ON G RE S S S P R I N G SRDTHELMA AVE HERRIMAN AVE SOBEY RD SOBEYRDOAKSTR E ID L N SCULLYAVETITUSAVEDEVON AVERADOYKA DRBROOKGLENDRVERDE VISTA LN D O UG LASS LN THREE OAKS WAY S A R A T O G A L O S G ATOSRDALOHAAVE M ONTEVISTA DRPROSPECTRDARROYODEARGUELLOM T E D E NR D SEA G ULLW A Y MARTHA AVE D A G M A R D R PIERCE RD AFTONAVE COMER D R 85 Future (2030) Traffic Noise Contours City of Saratoga Figure 2 Source: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc, 2013; City of Saratoga, 2013; ESRI, 2013; Dyett and Bhatia, 2013. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Future Noise Contours DNL 55 to 60 dB DNL 60 to 65 dB DNL 65 to 70 dB DNL 70 to 75 dB DNL >75 dB City of Saratoga Major Highway Major Roads Railroads G LEN BRAED R H A R L E IG H D R VILLA OA K S L N T O L L GA TE RD COLLEGECIR46 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-12 3 Environmental Checklist This%Environmental%Checklist%provides%technical%analysis%and%discussion%of% environmental%impacts%in%support%of%the%City%of%Saratoga’s%determination%regarding%the% appropriateness%of%a%Negative%Declaration%as%the%environmental%review%process%for%the% Project.%% % ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This%section%provides%an%evaluation%of%the%potential%environmental%impacts%of%the% Project.%These%potential%impacts%are%based%on%the%Environmental%Checklist%in%the%CEQA% Guidelines%Appendix%G%and%each%checklist%item%is%followed%by%a%detailed%discussion%and,% if%necessary,%mitigation%measures%to%reduce%impacts%to%a%less%than%significant%level.%% The%level%of%significance%is%determined%by%considering%the%predicted%magnitude%of%the% Project’s%potential%for%significant%impacts.%The%following%levels%of%impact%significance% are%described%in%this%initial%study:% % % No!Impact%–%Impact%does%not%apply%to%the%projects%like%the%one%involved.% Less!than!Significant!Impact%–%Impact%would%not%result%in%a%substantial%and%adverse% change%in%the%environment%and%would%not%require%mitigation.% Less!than!Significant!Impact!with!Mitigation%–%Impact%may%result%in%a%substantial%or% potentially%substantial,%adverse%change%in%the%environment;%the%incorporation%of% mitigation%measures%would%reduce%the%potentially%significant%impact%to%a%less%than% significant%level.% Potentially!Significant!Impact!–!Impact%may%result%in%a%substantial%or%potentially% substantial,%adverse%change%in%the%environment.% % % %% 47 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-13 3.1 Aesthetics ! DISCUSSION a-d) Aesthetics This%update%to%the%General%Plan%Noise%Element%characterizes%the%existing%and%potential% future%environmental%noise%levels%and%regulates%noise%to%levels%that%are%compatible%with% existing%and%future%land%uses.%Implementation%of%the%updated%Noise%Element%would%not% have%a%negative%impact%on%aesthetics%as%it%does%not%propose%any%projects,%programs%or% actions%that%could%reasonably%be%expected%to%adversely%affect%scenic%vistas,%damage% scenic%resources,%degrade%the%visual%character%of%any%sites,%or%create%substantial%light%or% glare.%% Implementing%Policy%4.3.1%of%the%updated%Noise%Element%describes%that%noise%abatement% measures%should%be%considered%in%the%design%of%roadways,%which%may%include%sounds% barriers.%However,%this%would%be%a%continuation%of%existing%policies,%and%any%sound% barriers%must%conform%with%City%policies%and%standards%regarding%visual%and%aesthetic% resources%and%quality.%In%addition,%impacts%that%may%result%from%any%new%sound%barriers% would%be%evaluated%in%subsequent%projectSspecific%CEQA%review.%Therefore,%there%would% be%no%impact%on%aesthetics%or%scenic%resources.%% 3.2 Agricultural Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ! b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ! c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ! d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ! Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 48 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-14 % DISCUSSION a – e) Farmland and Forestland In%the%City%of%Saratoga,%there%are%a%number%of%agricultural%lands%of%varying%sizes,% including%approximately%109%acres%of%land%currently%under%Williamson%Act,%and%several% hundred%acres%of%land%under%Williamson%Act%contracts%within%the%City’s%sphere%of% influence.%This%update%to%the%General%Plan%Noise%Element%does%not%propose%any%actions% that%would%directly%or%indirectly%affect%the%agricultural%or%forestland%resources%in% Saratoga.%%Adoption%of%the%General%Plan%Noise%Element%goals%and%policies%would%not% result%in%changes%to%areas%designated%for%agriculture%or%forestry%and%are%consistent%with% 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 forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ! b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ! c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined 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? ! 49 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-15 the%General%Plan%Open%Space/Conservation%Element.%Therefore,%the%proposed%Project% would%have%no%impact%on%agricultural%resources.%% % 3.3 Air Quality Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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: 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) Air Quality Since%this%update%to%the%General%Plan%Noise%Element%does%not%propose%any%construction,% development,%or%increase%in%vehicle%traffic,%implementation%of%the%element%is%anticipated% to%have%no%negative%impacts%on%air%quality.%Policies%under%the%“Air%Quality”%section%of%the% Open%Space/Conservation%Element%of%the%General%Plan—with%which%the%Noise%Element% is%consistent—are%intended%to%require%projects%to%comply%with%Bay%Area%Air%Quality% Management%District%(BAAQMD)%measures%to%reduce%air%pollutants.%Therefore,%there% would%be%no%impact%to%air%quality.%%% % 50 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-16 3.4 Biological Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ! b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and 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) Biological Resources According%to%the%General%Plan%Open%Space/Conservation%Element,%Saratoga%is% characterized%by%a%diverse%array%of%wildlife%and%plant%species,%divided%into%two%discrete% habitat%types—the%urbanized%area%and%the%hillside%area.%This%update%to%the%General%Plan% Noise%Element%characterizes%future%and%existing%and%potential%future%noise%sources%with% the%goal%of%preserving%the%quiet%residential%environment%of%Saratoga,%and%does%not% propose%any%actions%that%would%result%in%the%development%of%a%specific%site%or%have%an% 51 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-17 effect%on%areas%designated%for%protection%of%biological%resources,%in%both%urbanized%and% hillside%areas.%Policies%under%the%“Biological%Resources”%section%of%the%Open% Space/Conservation%element%of%the%General%Plan%—with%which%the%Noise%Element%is% consistent—are%intended%to%require%projects%to%protect%and%enhance%biological% resources.%Therefore,%there%would%be%no%impact%to%biological%resources.! % 3.5 Cultural Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ! b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ! c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ! d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ! DISCUSSION a-d) Cultural Resources Saratoga%has%adopted%a%Historic%Preservation%Ordinance%to%protect%irreplaceable% heritage%resources,%and%has%eight%historic%landmarks,%which%are%included%on%the% National%and%State%of%California%Historic%Registers.%The%City%Council%has%also%designated% the%brick%portion%of%Austin%Way%west%of%Highway%9%and%Saratoga%Avenue%between% Fruitvale%Avenue%and%14301%Saratoga%Avenue%as%heritage%lanes.%%%Implementation%of%the% General%Plan%would%not%have%an%impact%on%cultural%resources%in%Saratoga,%as%it%does%not% propose%any%projects,%programs%or%actions%(including%ground%disturbance)%that%could% reasonably%be%expected%to%cause%a%substantial%adverse%change%to%a%historical%or% archaeological%resources,%or%affect%the%heritage%lanes.%%The%Noise%Element%would%be% consistent%with%the%Historic%Preservation%Ordinance%and%goals%and%policies%in%the% General%Plan%protecting%cultural%resources.%Therefore,%there%would%be%no%impact%to% cultural%resources.! % 52 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-18 3.6 Geology and Soils Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ! i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ! ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ! iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ! iv) Landslides? ! b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ! c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ! d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ! e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ! DISCUSSION a-e) Geology and Soils The%General%Plan%Safety%Element%describes%natural%and%manSmade%hazards%within%the% City,%and%indicates%that%areas%of%the%City%may%be%subject%to%geologic%and%seismic%hazards.% The%updated%Noise%Element%characterizes%existing%and%potential%future%environmental% noise%levels%with%the%goal%of%preserving%the%quiet%residential%environment%of%Saratoga.% The%Noise%Element%does%not%propose%any%construction%or%development%projects%that% 53 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-19 could%be%reasonably%expected%to%expose%people%or%structures%to%geologic%risks,%or%have% adverse%impacts%related%to%soils%and%geology.%Therefore,%there%would%be%no%impact.%%% Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: 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) Greenhouse Gas Emissions This%update%to%the%General%Plan%Noise%Element%characterizes%the%existing%and%potential% future%noise%level%to%control%noise%to%levels%that%are%compatible%with%existing%and%future% land%uses,%and%does%not%propose%any%projects%or%actions%that%would%emit%GHGs.%Adoption% of%the%Noise%Element%will%not%generate%GHG%emissions%within%the%City.%Therefore,%there% would%be%no%impact%to%climate%change%or%GHG%emissions.% % 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ! b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ! 54 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-20 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ! d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ! e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? ! f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? ! g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ! h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ! DISCUSSION a – h) Hazards and Hazardous Materials This%update%to%the%General%Plan%Noise%Element%does%not%propose%any%actions%that%would% directly%result%in%development%of%a%specific%site%or%have%an%effect%on%areas%of%the%City.% The%Safety%Element%of%the%General%Plan%provides%generalized%mapping%and%information% related%to%hazardous%materials.%Implementation%of%the%Noise%Element%would%not%conflict% with%the%Safety%Element%and%does%not%propose%projects%that%are%expected%to%have% negative%impacts%related%to%hazardous%materials.%Therefore,%there%would%be%no%impact% to%hazards%and%hazardous%materials.%%%%%% 55 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-21 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ! b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ! c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ! d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? ! e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ! f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ! g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ! h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? ! i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ! j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ! 56 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-22 DISCUSSION a-j) Hydrology and Water Quality Since%the%Noise%Element%does%not%propose%any%construction%or%development%projects,%its% implementation%is%not%anticipated%to%have%negative%effects%on%hydrology%or%water% quality.%The%General%Plan%Open%Space/Conservation%Element%contains%goals,%policies% and%implementation%measures%for%watershed%protection%and%to%protect%and%enhance% water%quality.%No%additional%impacts%related%to%hydrology%and%water%quality%would% occur%as%a%result%of%the%Noise%Element.%% % 3.9 Land Use and Planning Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? ! b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ! c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ! DISCUSSION a-c) Division of an Established Community or Conflict with Plans Implementation%of%the%updated%Noise%Element%is%not%anticipated%to%have%an%impact% related%to%land%use%and%planning%as%it%does%not%propose%any%projects,%programs%or% actions%that%could%reasonably%be%expected%to%physically%divide%an%established% community;%conflict%with%applicable%land%use%plans,%policies%or%regulations;%or%conflict% with%any%habitat%conservation%plan%or%natural%community%conservation%plan.%Rather,%the% Noise%Element%is%intended%to%control%noise%in%all%zone%districts%to%levels%that%are% compatible%with%existing%land%uses.%Therefore,%there%would%be%no%impact%to%land%use%or% applicable%plans.%% % 57 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-23 3.10 Mineral Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ! b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ! DISCUSSION a – b) Mineral Resources According%to%the%General%Plan%Open%Space/Conservation%Element,%currently%there%are% no%mines%or%quarries%known%to%be%operating%in%Saratoga%or%its%Sphere%of%Influence.% Implementation%of%the%updated%Noise%Element%would%not%have%an%impact%on%mineral% resources%as%it%does%not%propose%any%projects,%programs%or%actions%that%could% reasonably%be%expected%to%result%in%the%loss%of%availability%of%a%locallySimportant%mineral% resource%recovery%site.% %% 3.11 Noise Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. NOISE — Would the Project: 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? ! 58 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-24 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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) Noise This%update%to%the%Noise%Element%characterizes%existing%and%future%environmental%noise% levels%in%the%City.%The%Noise%Element%does%not%include%new%noiseSgenerating%policies,% but%projects%future%noise%levels%based%on%traffic%conditions%that%would%result%from%traffic% already%projected%and%included%in%the%General%Plan%Circulation%and%Scenic%Highway% Element.%% Figures%1%and%2%show%the%existing%and%projected%future%noise%conditions.%There%is%a% projected%expansion%of%areas%exposed%to%noise%in%the%55%to%60%dB%range%and%60%to%65%dB% range,%particularly%along%the%Highway%85,%and%northeast%of%Highway%85%along%Prospect% Road,%Saratoga%Avenue,%and%Quito%Road.%Areas%along%already%exposed%to%higher%noise% levels%along%these%main%thoroughfares%are%predicted%to%expand.%%Future%noise%levels%are% expected%to%increase%between%1%to%3%dB%at%key%roadway%segments%due%to%roadway% traffic,%as%shown%in%Table%1.%As%described%in%the%draft%Noise%Element,%a%change%of%1%dB%in% sound%level%cannot%be%perceived%and%a%3%dB%change%is%considered%a%justSnoticeable% difference.%The%increases%in%exposure%to%higher%noise%levels%reflect%levels%of%traffic% projected%in%the%General%Plan%Circulation%and%Scenic%Highway%Element,%and%the% associated%Negative%Declaration.%% The%Noise%Element%is%intended%to%preserve%the%quiet%residential%environment%of% Saratoga.%The%goals,%policies%and%implementation%measures%in%the%Noise%Element%are% intended%to%maintain%or%reduce%noise%levels%in%the%City%to%avoid%exposure%to% unacceptable%or%harmful%noise%and%to%promote%land%use%compatibility%by%addressing% noise%exposure%from%existing%and%new%noise%sources.%The%goals%of%the%Noise%Element— to%maintain%or%reduce%noise%levels%in%the%City%to%avoid%exposure%to%unacceptable%or% harmful%noise;%to%promote%landSuse%compatibility%by%addressing%noise%exposure%from% existing%noise%sources;%to%promote%landSuse%compatibility%by%addressing%noise%exposure% from%new%noise%sources;%and%to%maintain%or%reduce%noise%levels%generated%by%the% ground%transportation%system—are%intended%to%ameliorate%noise%levels%citywide.%% 59 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-25 Implementation%of%the%Noise%Element%would%not%have%a%negative%impact%related%to%noise% as%it%does%not%propose%any%projects,%programs,%or%actions%that%could%reasonably%be% expected%to%degrade%the%community’s%noise%environment.%Therefore,%there%would%be%no% impact%to%noise.% % 3.12 Population and Housing Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ! b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ! c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ! DISCUSSION a-c) Population and Housing Since%the%proposed%Noise%Element%does%not%propose%any%projects,%programs%or%actions% that%could%be%reasonably%expected%to%induce%substantial%population%growth%in%the%area,% or%displace%substantial%numbers%or%people%or%of%existing%housing%units,%implementation% of%the%Noise%Element%is%not%anticipated%to%have%an%impact%related%to%population%and% housing.%Therefore,%there%would%be%no%impact%to%population%and%housing.%% % 3.13 Public Services Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES — 60 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-26 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact 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: i) Fire protection? ! ii) Police protection? ! iii) Schools? ! iv) Parks? ! v) Other public facilities? ! DISCUSSION a) Public Services As%described%in%the%General%Plan%Safety%Element,%Fire%Protection%for%the%City%of%Saratoga% is%provided%by%the%Santa%Clara%County%Fire%Department.%and%the%Saratoga%Fire% Protection%District..%The%Santa%Clara%County%Sherriff’s%Office%West%Valley%Patrol%Divisions% serves%the%City%of%Saratoga%for%law%enforcement%services.%As%of%February%2013,% according%the%General%Plan%Safety%Element,%four%elementary%school%districts,%three%high% school%districts%and%two%community%college%districts%serve%Saratoga.%%According%to%the% Open%Space/Conservation%Element,%the%City%contains%approximately%87%acres%of% parkland,%of%which%63%acres%have%been%improved%for%park%purposes.%% The%update%to%the%Noise%Element%contains%goals,%policies%and%implementation%measures% to%control%noise%levels%and%maintain%the%quiet%residential%environment%for%Saratoga.% These%goals,%policies%and%implementation%measures%are%consistent%with%other%General% Plan%elements.%Implementing%the%Noise%Element%would%not%generate%new%demand%for% new%or%physically%altered%government%facilities,%or%increase%the%demand%for%fire%or% police%protection,%schools,%parks%,%or%other%public%facilities.%There%would%be%no%impact%on% public%services.%% 3.14 Recreation Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION — 61 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-27 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact 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) Recreation The%General%Plan%Open%Space/Conservation%Element%describes%parks,%open%space% resource%and%other%recreation%within%the%City%of%Saratoga,%including%the%Montalvo% Arboretum,%Upper%Stevens%Creek%Park,%Sanborn%County%Park,%and%a%network%of%multiS use%trails%in%the%community.%The%Open%Space/Conservation%Element%also%provides%goals% and%policies%to%ensure%that%parks%and%trails%are%developed,%protected,%and%preserved.%% Implementation%of%this%update%to%the%Noise%Element%does%not%propose%any%actions%that% would%conflict%with%the%Open%Space/Conservation%Element,%or%result%in%the%development% of%a%specific%site%or%change%an%area,%and%would%have%no%impact%on%the%availability%of% existing%parks%or%recreational%facilities.% % 3.15 Transportation and Traffic Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ! 62 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-28 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ! c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ! d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ! e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ! f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ! DISCUSSION a-f) Transportation and Traffic The%General%Plan%Circulation%and%Scenic%Highway%Element%describes%the%City%of% Saratoga’s%existing%transportation%system,%circulation%issues,%scenic%highways%and% corridors,%future%conditions%and%goals,%policies%and%implementation%measures%to% maintain%and%improve%the%transportation%system.%The%projected%future%(2030)%traffic% noise%contours%in%the%Noise%Element%are%derived%from%the%traffic%volumes%in%the% Circulation%and%Scenic%Highway%Element.%This%update%to%the%General%Plan%Noise%Element% does%not%propose%any%projects%or%actions%that%would%result%in%the%development%of%a% specific%site%or%change%and%areas%within%the%City.%Implementation%of%the%Noise%Element% could%therefore%not%be%reasonably%expected%to%cause%a%substantial%increase%in%traffic,% exceed%traffic%level%of%service%standards,%result%in%a%change%in%air%traffic%patterns,% substantially%increase%trafficSrelated%hazards,%result%in%inadequate%emergency%access,% result%in%inadequate%parking%capacity,%or%interfere%with%alternativeStransportation% modes.%No%impacts%related%to%transportation%or%traffic%are%anticipated.%% % 63 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-29 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ! b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ! 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) Utilities and Service Systems Implementation%of%the%Noise%Element%would%not%have%an%negative%impact%on%utilities% and%service%systems%as%it%does%not%propose%any%projects,%programs%or%actions%that%could% reasonably%be%expected%to%exceed%wastewater%treatment%requirements;%result%in%the% construction%or%expansion%of%water,%wastewaterStreatment%or%stormwaterSdrainage% facilities;%result%in%insufficient%water%supplies%or%landfill%capacity;%or%violate%solidSwaste% related%regulations.%%No%additional%impacts%related%to%utilities%and%service%systems%are% anticipated%as%a%result%of%the%project.%% % 64 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3-30 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Would the Project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range or a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ! b) 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) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ! DISCUSSION a, c) Quality of Environment and Adverse Effects on Human Beings Implementation%of%the%Noise%Element%would%not%degrade%the%quality%and%extent%of%the% environment%nor%result%in%adverse%effects%on%human%beings.%% b) Cumulative Impacts The%updated%Noise%Element%is%entirely%consistent%with%the%other%elements%of%the%General% Plan%and%would%not%result%in%new%additional%cumulative%impacts.%%% % 65 City of Saratoga Noise Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration 4-31 4 Resources Consulted City%of%Saratoga%Draft%Updated%Noise%Element%to%the%General%Plan%(November,%2013)% City%of%Saratoga%General%Plan%Introduction%and%Background%(May%1983)% City%of%Saratoga%General%Plan%Circulation%and%Scenic%Highway%Element%(November% 2010)% City%of%Saratoga%General%Plan%Land%Use%Element%(June%2007)% City%of%Saratoga%General%Plan%Open%Space%and%Conservation%Element%(June%2007)% City%of%Saratoga%General%Plan%Noise%Element%(August%1988)% City%of%Saratoga%General%Plan%Safety%Element%(February%2013)% 66 CITY OF SARATOGA Updated Noise Element of the General Plan DRAFT 22 December 2013 Prepared for: City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. 130 Sutter Street, Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.397.0442 Fax: 415.397.0454 CSA Project Number: 13-0257 67 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element Adopted: ____________TBD Previously Adopted: August 17, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose and Goal of Noise Element ................................................................................................ 4 II. Environmental Noise Fundamentals ................................................................................................ 4 Frequency Spectrum ..................................................................................................................... 4 Variation of Sound with Time ......................................................................................................... 5 Level of Sound .............................................................................................................................. 5 Propagation of Sound .................................................................................................................... 7 Effects of Noise on People ............................................................................................................. 7 III. Noise Environment in Saratoga ...................................................................................................... 8 Road Traffic .................................................................................................................................. 8 Rail .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Aircraft ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Commercial .................................................................................................................................. 8 Existing Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 8 Future Traffic Noise Levels .......................................................................................................... 10 IV. Acoustical Standards ................................................................................................................... 10 Land-Use Compatibility ................................................................................................................ 10 Standards Related to State Regulations ........................................................................................ 12 Municipal Regulations and Noise Reduction Techniques ................................................................. 12 V. Goals, Policies, and Implementations ........................................................................................... 14 Appendix A: Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix B: Methodology and References .......................................................................................... 19 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 19 Noise Measurement Map ............................................................................................................. 19 References and Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 19 Appendix C: Existing Noise Contours .................................................................................................. 21 Appendix D: Projected Future Noise Contours ..................................................................................... 23 19 December 2013 Page 2 68 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element List of Tables Table NE-1: Noise measurement locations and results Table NE-2: Land-use compatibility guidelines Table NE-A1: Existing roadway noise and noise contour distances Table NE-A2: Projected future (2030) roadway noise and noise contour distances List of Figures Figure NE-1: How loud is it? (common sound levels) Figure NE-2: Existing traffic noise contours Figure NE-3: Projected future (2030) traffic noise contours 19 December 2013 Page 3 69 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element I. INTRODUCTION The Noise Element of the General Plan provides a basis for comprehensive local programs to control and abate environmental noise and to protect citizens from excessive exposure. The Noise Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of California Planning law Section 65302 (f), which requires a Noise Element as one of the seven mandatory elements. The Noise Element has been prepared in recognition of the guidelines adopted by the State Office of Noise Control pursuant to the Health and Safety Code. The Noise Element quantifies the community noise environment in terms of noise exposure contours for both the near and long-term levels of growth and traffic activity. Purpose and Goal of Noise Element The purpose of the Noise Element is to characterize existing and potential future environmental noise levels for use in various land-use planning processes. The Noise Element is intended to be used by the community in the goal of preserving the quiet residential environment of Saratoga. This is done by controlling noise in all zone districts to levels that are compatible with existing and future land uses. II. ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE FUNDAMENTALS Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Environmental noise is a part of modern society, such as noise from transportation vehicles, machinery, people, and other devices. Some sounds that are desirable to one person might be noise to another individual. Therefore, objective measures have been developed to characterize noise environments. These measures include the following aspects of sound: • The frequency spectrum of the sound • The time-varying character of the sound • The intensity or level of the sound Frequency Spectrum The “frequency” of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is cycles per second (cps) or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The frequency and level content of a sound is called its sound spectrum. To permit comparisons of sounds having quite different spectra, frequency weighting methods have been devised to correlate with human response (i.e., perceived loudness). “A-weighting” progressively de-emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range. The unit of A-weighted sound levels is sometimes abbreviated “dBA.” 19 December 2013 Page 4 70 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element Variation of Sound with Time Although a single sound level value can adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources, which results in a relatively steady noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources could include traffic, wind in trees, or continuous industrial processes and are relatively constant from moment to moment but usually vary from hour to hour with community activities (e.g., traffic levels). Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These might include nearby activities such as single vehicle passbys, train horns, or aircraft flyovers that cause the environmental noise level to vary from moment to moment. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. “L10” is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period and is considered a good measure of typical maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. The “L90” is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is commonly used to describe the noise. A single number called “Leq” is also widely used. The term “Leq” originated from the concept of a so-called Equivalent Sound Level that contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period. In other words, the Leq is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime, exterior noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime. However, most household noise also decreases at night; thus, exterior noise intrusions become noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep at night are more sensitive to noise. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was developed. The descriptor is called the DNL (Day-Night Average Sound Level), which represents the 24-hour average sound level with a 10 dB “penalty” for noise occurring at night. Level of Sound It has been found that the human ear responds logarithmically to changes in sound pressure levels. Therefore, sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. A decibel is a logarithmic unit used to describe the intensity or level of a sound with respect to a standardized reference sound level. With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report: 1. Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dB in sound level cannot be perceived. 2. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference. 3. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. 4. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response. 19 December 2013 Page 5 71 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element 5. Sound levels do not combine arithmetically. Instead, they sum logarithmically, in a manner similar to the Richter scale, which is used for measuring the intensity of earthquakes. The following two examples illustrate this: - If the existing noise level at a particular location is 60 dB, and a new source of sound with a similar spectrum is introduced that also measures 60 dB, the result is not 120 dB; it is 63 dB. - If the existing noise level at a particular location is 60 dB, and a new sound source with a similar spectrum is introduced that measures 50 dB, the result is not 110 dB; it is still 60 dB. The new source is so much quieter than the existing one that it does not significantly contribute to the resulting sound level. Additional definitions of acoustical terms are listed in Appendix A. Common sound levels found in the environment are identified in Figure NE-1. FIGURE NE-1: HOW LOUD IS IT? Sound Level in A-weighted Decibels (dB) Jet takeoff (at 200') – 120 – Threshold of pain Rock music band – 110 – Jackhammer (at 25') – 100 – Motorcycle accelerating (at 25') – 90 – Power lawn mower (at 20') – 80 – Steady urban traffic (at 25') – 70 – Normal conversation (at 3') – 60 – Daytime street, no nearby traffic – 50 – Inside average residence – 40 – Inside quiet home – 30 – Rustling leaves – 20 – Mosquito (at 3') – 10 – – 0 – Threshold of hearing 19 December 2013 Page 6 72 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element Propagation of Sound As sound propagates away from a source, the level is attenuated with increasing distance. In general, sound radiating from a single object (called a “point” source), like a train horn or rooftop fan, is reduced by 6 dB for every doubling of distance. Noise radiating from a long single source or long continuous series of similar sources (called a “line” source) is attenuated by 3 dB for every doubling of distance. A roadway with varying levels of continuous traffic behaves similar to a line source with noise levels attenuated by between 3 and 4.5 dB per doubling of distance in typical conditions. Noise levels can also be reduced by intervening structures. For example, a noise barrier wall or even a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dB to 10 dB. Structures also act to insulate people inside these structures from exterior noise. Common home construction methods generally provide a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 dB to 30 dB with closed windows. Effects of Noise on People The typical effects of noise on people are summarized below. The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually only produce effects in the first four categories. • Annoyance is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is a very individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. What one person considers acceptable can be intolerable to another of equal hearing capability. For example, some people like the sound of trains, while others do not. • Physiological responses are those measurable noise effects on the human body, such as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. While such effects can be induced and observed, the extent to which these physiological responses cause harm or are a sign of harm is not known. • Sleep interference is a major concern with respect to transportation-generated noise. Sleep disturbance studies have identified interior noise levels attributed to transportation noise as a key factor of sleep disturbance. However, sleep disturbance does not necessarily equate to awakening from sleep; rather, it can refer to disruption of the sleep pattern and stages of sleep. Train and aircraft noise is a major source of complaints. • Speech interference is one of the primary concerns associated with environmental noise. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 66 dB. Steady elevated noise levels can interfere with speech. Depending on the distance between the speaker and the listener, raised voice levels may be required to overcome the background noise. • Potential hearing loss is commonly associated with occupational exposures in heavy industry or very noisy work environments. Noise levels in neighborhoods, even near very noisy airports, are not considered sufficiently loud to cause hearing loss. 19 December 2013 Page 7 73 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element III. NOISE ENVIRONMENT IN SARATOGA Noise exposure in the City of Saratoga is principally generated by vehicular traffic on highways and arterial roads. Other sources of noise include a spur rail line, distant aircraft, and commercial activities. Road Traffic Traffic noise levels depend primarily on vehicular speed and total traffic volume, but also the type of vehicle. The primary source of noise from automobiles is high-frequency tire noise. Trucks, older automobiles, and motorcycles produce significant engine and exhaust noise, and trucks can also generate wind noise. Descriptions of major roadways in the City of Saratoga are found in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Rail The Southern Pacific rail network includes a spur line extending from San Jose, across Saratoga from Prospect Road in the north to Quito Road in the southeast. Train passbys occur occasionally. For example, during a one week survey in 2013, only two train passbys were identified. Often the loudest noise source associated with rail lines is horn blasts at grade crossings which occur at Arroyo De Arguello, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue, Glen Brae Drive, and Quito Road. Locomotive, rail car, and wheel contact are other sources of noise during passbys. Aircraft Occasional aircraft flyovers are generated by facilities such as San Jose International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and Moffett Field. Aircraft noise in Saratoga is a relatively small part of the City’s noise environment. Flyovers of large aircraft from San Jose International Airport are at altitudes that make their noise noticeable, but not intrusive at ground level. Commercial Commercial concentrations and community and neighborhood shopping centers are located on Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at intersections with other arterial streets. There is also a neighborhood center on Cox Avenue. The Village is also a concentration of business activities and is the historic commercial core. Activities such as truck unloading, trash collection, landscape maintenance, HVAC equipment, and events are sources of environmental noise associated with commercial and community centers. Facilities located in the Saratoga hills are also associated with event-related noise that contributes to the noise environment in the City. Existing Traffic Noise Levels Existing traffic noise levels in the City of Saratoga are assessed via noise measurements and computer- generated noise contours. The contours are based on both traffic data and noise measurement results. A noise measurement survey was conducted in Saratoga during July 2013 to determine noise levels throughout the community. The noise survey consisted of long -term (seven-day) noise measurements at six locations along major roadways. The noise monitors were installed at a height of 12 feet above grade. Additional short-term (15-minute) measurements were conducted at an additional six associated locations along the subject roadways to compare various roadway segments. Results of the survey are listed in Table NE-1 below. Measurement locations are shown in a map in Appendix B. 19 December 2013 Page 8 74 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element TABLE NE-1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS AND RESULTS Location No. Location Description DNL at 50 feet From Centerline ST-1 Along Prospect Road between Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Miller Avenue 70 dB ST-2 Saratoga-Sunnyvale between Prospect Road and Cox Avenue 71 dB LT-3 Saratoga-Sunnyvale between Cox Avenue and Saratoga Avenue 70 dB ST-4 Cox Avenue between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue 66 dB LT-5 Saratoga Avenue between Cox Avenue and Highway 85 72 dB ST-6 Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 68 dB LT-7 Big Basin Way between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Pierce Road 68 dB ST-8 Quito Road between Saratoga Avenue and Allendale Avenue 68 dB ST-9 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road between Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue 67 dB LT-10 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road between Fruitvale Avenue and Quito Road 71 dB LT-11 Highway 85 between Prospect Road and Cox Avenue At nominal 100-foot distance: 67 to 71 dB with barrier shielding LT-12 Along railway between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue At nominal 100-foot distance: 56 dB Notes: Unless noted, DNL values are normalized to a measurement distance of 50 feet from the roadway centerline. ‘LT’ and ‘ST’ indicates long-term and short-term measurement locations, respectively. DNL at short-term measurement locations are estimated based on comparison with long-term data. Source: Charles Salter Associates, 2013 19 December 2013 Page 9 75 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element The Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Traffic Noise Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to calculate traffic noise levels along major roadways in Saratoga using traffic data from Circulation Element traffic study. Appendix C provides a summary of the results and calculated nominal distances to several noise contour levels for the existing condition. The analysis of city-wide traffic noise levels and associated policies were primarily based on these annualized average daily traffic data. The noise measurement results were used to verify these calculations. The measurements were in-line with calculation results. The noise contour map of existing conditions generated for highways and major arterials in Saratoga is contained in Appendix C. The map indicates the noise exposure levels associated with these roadways. Actual conditions on each property will vary from the contours, particularly at longer distances, due to such factors as elevation, terrain, noise barriers, and screening. In establishing noise contours for land-use planning, it is customary to ignore noise attenuation afforded by such factors. The result is a worst-case estimate of the noise environment. The assumption is that it is preferable to overestimate the potential noise at a site than to underestimate the noise environment and allow for potentially incompatible land-use development. However, Saratoga noise contours do account for the depression of Highway 85 and the virtually continuous noise barriers flanking the roadway since these features have a significant effect on the traffic noise levels in the surrounding areas. Future Traffic Noise Levels Projected future traffic noise levels in the City of Saratoga were calculated based on projected traffic volume data for major roadways. Estimated future traffic volume data for City roadways in 2030 are published in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Estimated future traffic volume for Highway 85 are based on a Caltrans estimate for growth of 3-percent per year. Appendix D provides a summary of the results and calculated nominal distances to several noise contour levels for the future (2030) condition and also a map illustrating the noise contours. From existing conditions, traffic noise levels are expected to increase by between 1 and 3 dB. IV. ACOUSTICAL STANDARDS A. Land-Use Compatibility (Exterior Noise Impacts) The exterior noise land-use compatibility guidelines shown in Table NE-2 are those recommended as being environmentally acceptable for approval of new development in the City of Saratoga, consistent with the previous noise element, and in line with communities similar to the City of Saratoga and State guidelines. Noise in the City of Saratoga is generated by a variety of sources. Land-use compatibility for new development may take into account the nature of the sources and receivers under consideration. For example, community uses and events within residential neighborhoods are commonly desirable features even though such facilities may have a noise characteristic that varies from typical residential areas. 19 December 2013 Page 10 76 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element TABLE NE-2: NEW DEVELOPMENT LAND-USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Outdoor Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), in dB Land-Use Category Normally Acceptable1 Conditionally Acceptable2 Normally Unacceptable3 Residential - Single-family - Multi-family up to 60 up to 65 > 60 to 70 > 65 to 70 > 70 > 70 Open Space4/Parks up to 60 > 60 to 70 > 70 Commercial/Office up to 65 > 65 to 75 > 75 Public and quasi-Public Facilities up to 60 > 60 to 65 > 65 TABLE NOTES Sound levels above are as measured at the exterior of the proposed location of the new development (e.g., residential unit, commercial building, etc.) rather than at the property boundary of the source or the property to be developed. Refer to Table LU-1 (Land-Use Element) for detailed descriptions of land-use categories and land-uses for which these guidelines apply. These guidelines are derived from the California Department of Health Services, Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan, 2003. The State Guidelines have been modified to reflect standards for the City of Saratoga. 1 Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction. There are no special noise insulation requirements. 2 Conditionally Acceptable – New construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is conducted and needed noise insulation features included in the design. 3 Normally Unacceptable – New construction should be discouraged and may be denied as inconsistent with the General Plan and City Code. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. 4 Outdoor open space noise standards do not apply to private balconies/patios. Land-use planning can provide an effective means of mitigating adverse noise impacts by separating noise-sensitive areas from noise sources. Site-specific noise mitigation structures, such as sound walls or structural soundproofing, can then be avoided or reduced. In developed areas, however, there is not always sufficient land to allow adequate separation of population concentrations from transportation systems, which are the major sources of noise. Site-specific noise abatement measures must be taken in these instances. Control of noise can be accomplished by controlling noise at the source in the new development, buffering the pathway of sound waves with barriers or increased distance, controlling the transmission of noise through structures, and by enclosing or protecting the receiver of noise. 19 December 2013 Page 11 77 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element B. Land-Use Compatibility (Interior Noise Impacts) - Standards Related to State Regulations Traditionally, the State of California Building Code has included sound insulation standards to reduce exterior-to-interior noise intrusion to habitable rooms of multi-family residential buildings. An interior noise level standard of DNL 45 dB is established for the City of Saratoga as the maximum allowable noise level in all residential buildings including single-family homes (due to outdoor noise sources). The State of California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) includes interior noise standards for non-residential buildings. Currently, the CALGreen Code prescribes an interior noise level standard of Leq(h) 50 dB as the maximum allowable hourly average noise level during any hour of operation in certain commercial/office buildings (due to outdoor noise sources). This standard is established for the City of Saratoga as the maximum allowable noise level in all non-residential buildings (due to outdoor noise sources). C. Municipal Regulations for Existing Noise Sources Community responses to existing noise sources have centered on equipment, animals, and events. The City of Saratoga City Code includes regulations on sources of noise to limit noise transfer across property lines and administrative controls regarding animals. Typical limits address operating levels and restricted hours. Further restrictions on equipment noise might be approp riate as improved technology is developed. Noise control standards are incorporated into the City Code to limit the level of noise from a source which may be transferred at the property plane between adjoining properties in the City and are described in greater detail below. Noise control standards of the City Code (e.g., the Noise Control Ordinance at City Code Article 7-30 are applied two ways. They are used to address potential noise from new/proposed equipment that is submitted for permit. In addition, the standards are to address complaints of noise transfer between properties. The objective limits contained in the Noise Control Ordinance are developed to establish standards for unacceptable noise levels generated by equipment, animals, amplified sound systems and other sources. Zoning Standards The principal use of zoning standards is related to noise compatibility and separating incompatible land-uses for new development. In addition, zoning standards can regulate specific details of development design or construction, such as limiting building heights, and requiring buffer strips, noise barriers, and sound-insulating constructions. Physical noise reduction techniques that can be utilized fall into the four major categories shown below. These physical techniques vary widely in their noise reduction characteristics, their costs, and in their applicability to specific locations and conditions D. Noise Reduction Techniques Education should be made available to increase awareness of noise compatibility issues and noise control measures. 19 December 2013 Page 12 78 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element Acoustical site planning uses the arrangement of buildings on a tract of land to reduce noise impacts by capitalizing on a site’s natural characteristics. Opportunities for successful acoustical site planning are determined by the size of the lot, the terrain, and the zoning restrictions. Acoustical site planning techniques include: • Placing as much distance as feasible between the noise source and the noise sensitive activity. • Placing noise-compatible activities such as parking lots, open space, and commercial facilities, between the noise source and the sensitive activity. • Using buildings as noise barriers. • Orienting noise-sensitive buildings to face away from the noise sources. For example, houses placed near the front of long narrow lots can have deep rear yards available to act as noise buffers from a neighboring noise source. Acoustical architectural design incorporates noise-reducing concepts in the layout of individual buildings. The areas of architectural concern include building height, room arrangement, window placement, and balcony and courtyard design. For example, in some cases, noise impacts can be reduced if the building is limited to one story and if bedrooms and living rooms are placed in the part of the building farthest from the noise source, while kitchens and bathrooms are placed closer to the noise source. Acoustical building construction is the treatment of the various parts of a building to reduce interior noise impacts. It includes the use of walls, windows, doors, roof assemblies, and penetrations in the building envelope that have been treated to reduce sound transmission into a building. The use of dense materials, structural isolation, and air-spaces within assemblies are primary noise reduction techniques. Acoustical construction is one of the most effective ways of reducing interior noise. Noise barriers can be erected between noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Barrier types include berms made of sloping mounds of earth, walls, fences, and combinations of these materials. The choice between these depends on a variety of factors including the desired level of sound reduction, space, cost, safety, privacy, and aesthetics. Solid wall barriers might reflect sound from one side of a highway to the other, slightly increasing sound levels. Earth berms deflect sound upward and tend to eliminate this condition; a combination of the two is usually recommended where possible for this reason. 19 December 2013 Page 13 79 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element V. GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATIONS Goal #1 Maintain or reduce noise levels in the City to avoid exposure to unacceptable or harmful noise. Policy 1.1 The City shall maintain an up-to-date Noise Element in accordance with State regulations. Implementation 1.1.1 The City should periodically measure and monitor noise levels in the City to identify changes. Policy 1.2 The City shall use the planning and code enforcement processes to discourage activities, practices, or land uses that create or result in excessive noise exposure. Implementation 1.2.1 The City should review and revise the Noise Ordinance and enforcement processes to appropriately reflect changing conditions and technological developments. Policy 1.3 The City shall require that all City-owned and operated equipment and equipment operated under contract with the City meet City noise standards. Implementation 1.3.1 New purchases of City fleet equipment should be considered if there are significant advances in equipment noise reduction technology. Implementation 1.3.2 City contracts should encourage use of equipment that incorporates the latest noise reduction techniques. Policy 1.4 The City shall encourage public awareness and education of noise issues and acoustical standards as key ingredients in controlling unwanted noise and its effects on the quality of life in Saratoga. Implementation 1.4.1 The City should provide a resource (e.g., a website) devoted to public awareness of City noise standards, policies, and procedures. 19 December 2013 Page 14 80 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element Goal #2 Promote land-use compatibility by addressing noise exposure from existing noise sources. Policy 2.1 An acoustical analysis is to be conducted for Residential and Quasi-Public development where the noise level exceeds Outdoor DNL 60 dB to determine measures needed to reduce noise impacts to meet City noise standards. Policy 2.2 New residential development shall be designed and constructed to provide an interior noise level of DNL 45 dB or less in habitable rooms (due to outdoor sources). Policy 2.3 Residential outdoor open space intended for use and enjoyment shall be designed to meet Outdoor DNL 60 dB. This policy does not apply to private exterior balconies. Where this goal cannot feasibly be met by incorporating reasonable measures, such as strategic site layout and noise barriers, DNL 65 dB may be approved upon compliance with the City Variance Ordinance. Policy 2.4 New office/commercial development shall be designed and constructed to reduce daytime interior noise levels in accordance with State CALGreen standards prescribing an interior noise level standard of Leq(h) 50 dB as the maximum allowable hourly average noise level during any hour of operation. Policy 2.5 Parks and recreational areas should be protected from excessive noise to permit the enjoyment of sports and other leisure time activities. Parks and other recreational areas which are impacted by outside noise sources should be provided with noise protection devices, including barriers and landscaping. Park design should locate passive recreation areas away from noise sources. Policy 2.6 The City recognizes that certain community uses and events are inherent to a suburban environment. Implementation 2.6.1 Update City Noise Control Ordinance to specifically address sources that are found to be most impactful to the community, such as noise generated by equipment, animals and amplified sound. Policy 2.7 Noise generated by equipment, animals and amplified sound shall meet adopted standards. Implementation 2.7.1 The City should continue to enforce the restrictions in the Noise Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code. 19 December 2013 Page 15 81 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element Policy 2.8 The City shall enforce regulations pertaining to home occupations and not permit those that create noise beyond the property boundaries. Goal #3 Promote land-use compatibility by addressing noise exposure from new noise sources. Policy 3.1 Changes in use and development shall be reviewed for noise impacts to neighboring land uses. Policy 3.2 New development shall be required to utilize appropriate measures to reduce noise impacts to the adopted noise standards; and acoustical analysis may be required by the approving authority. Goal #4 Maintain or reduce noise levels generated by the ground transportation system. Policy 4.1 The City should work with other agencies to mitigate the effect of existing and future transportation noise sources. Policy 4.2 The City should consider the implementation of alternative transportation methods in order to reduce cumulative traffic levels and noise generation. Implementation 4.2.1 The City should continue traffic reduction programs outlined in the goals, policies, and implementation actions in the Circulation Element. Policy 4.3 The City should design new or improved roads in Saratoga with careful consideration given to both long and short-term noise impacts. Implementation 4.3.1 Noise abatement measures should be considered in the design of new and improved roadways. Policy 4.4 The City should discourage through traffic in residential neighborhoods to reduce noise impacts. Policy 4.5 Continue to describe truck routes in order to direct truck traffic away from noise-sensitive land uses. Policy 4.6 Municipal speed limits and State of California Vehicle Code noise regulations are intended to reduce traffic noise in the City. Implementation 4.5.1 Continue to coordinate enforcement of speed limits and State regulations related to vehicles that generate unacceptable noise. 19 December 2013 Page 16 82 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS Average Daily Traffic (ADT): The total volume during a given time period in whole days greater than one day and less than one year divided by the number of days in that time period, commonly abbreviated as ADT. A-Weighting: A frequency weighting applied to sound pressure levels to better correlate with the loudness of sounds as perceived by the human ear. All sound levels discussed in this Element are A-Weighted. The unit of A-weighted sound levels is sometimes abbreviated “dBA”. Continuous Noise: On-going noise, the intensity of which remains at a measurable level (which might or might not vary) without interruption over an indefinite period or a specified period of time. Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL): An A-Weighted sound level averaged on the basis of sound energy for a 24-hour noise exposure including a 10 dB penalty added to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours. dB (Decibel): A standardized unit of sound pressure level. Increasing values related to louder sounds. Decible represents the logarithm of the ratio of measured acoustical energy and a standard reference of 20 microPascals. Frequency: The time rate of repetition of a periodic phenomenon (in cycles per second or hertz). Hours, Daytime: Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Hours, Evening: Between the hours of 7:00 p.m and 10:00 p.m. Hours, Nighttime: Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Land-Use Area: Reasonably homogenous and identifiable areas composed of similar general types of land uses such as residential, commercial, or industrial districts. L10 and L90 Sound Levels: The sound level that is exceeded, cumulatively, during 10, 50, or 90 percent of a specified time period, respectively. “L10” is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period and is considered a good measure of typical maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. The “L90” is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is commonly used to describe the noise level. Leq, Equivalent Sound Level: The average A-weighted noise level over a stated time period. Loudness: The attribute of an auditory sensation relating to its intensity or magnitude. Loudness depends primarily upon the sound pressure of the stimulus, but it also depends upon the frequency and wave form of the stimulus. Noise Exposure Contours: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant levels of noise exposure. DNL is the metric utilized herein to describe community exposure to noise. Sound Insulation: (1) the use of structures and materials designed to reduce the transmission of sound. (2) The degree by which sound transmission is reduced by means of sound insulating structures and materials. 19 December 2013 Page 17 83 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY AND REFERENCES Methodology The Noise Element was prepared to accomplish two tasks. One was to comply with Section 65302 (f) of the Government Code which states that a Noise Element is a mandatory element of a General Plan. The other task is to establish a City-wide policy document that stipulates that the preservation of the City of Saratoga’s “relatively quiet” acoustic environment is necessary and beneficial for the General health and welfare of all residents. To accomplish both of these tasks, the following methodology was utilized. During the writing of the Noise Element some parts of the methodology were emphasized more than others due to the acoustical characteristics inherent to the City of Saratoga. • Preliminary identification of problem noise areas • Collection of data on existing and proposed transportation sound sources • Collection of information on general sound levels throughout the City • Review of information from published sources regarding effects of sound on human activities, health, and well-being • Survey of noise control regulations from other jurisdictions • Preparation of standards that relate sound levels to types of land use and environmental factors • Formulation of policy statements and implementation alternatives • Citizen input and awareness To update the Noise Element, additional transportation noise measurements were conducted throughout the City, revised models of existing and projected future noise contours were generated, content was refined to reflect updated State Guidelines on the preparation of Noise Elements, and updated community feedback was gathered. The following notes summarize input received at two community meetings: Noise Issues from 20 August 2013 meeting at Fireman’s Hall • Noise levels may be too low in current ordinance, needs to be real and practical • Motorcycles engines are too loud • Construction Noise – Sunday work, better information should be provided to contractors • Maintain existing noise standards for residential • Look at noise emitted from community functions – Schools, Clubs, Hakone • Leaf Blowers – compare with other cities (popular issue) • Garbage Trucks – time of pick up, too noisy in the morning • Barking Dogs – need better regulations and enforcement (popular issue) • The volume of outdoor music in the village is better this year than last • Review strict dB levels – children playing can exceed allowable noise levels Not all noise is the same – the type of noise can make a big difference Amplified noise vs. voices • Construction Noise – compressor can be less noisy than a hammer Noise Issues from 27 August 2013 meeting at Saratoga Library • Create Noise Web Page • Animal Noise – Turkeys, chickens, roosters • Community uses – schools can be sources of noise 19 December 2013 Page 18 84 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element • Barking Dogs (popular issue) • Home Occupation Noise – home based businesses creating too much noise • Resurface Highway 85 to reduce noise • Leaf Blowers – consider banning gas powered leaf blowers • Motorcycle noise • Allendale and Quito Bus – bus stopping in front of house with loud speaker being heard • Hakone – noise from events. Stop amplification of noise after certain hours • Construction noise – limit hours. Better information should be provided to contractors. Contact information should be made available to public/neighbors • Children’s Hospital – amplified music/excessive parties/children’s playground location, truck deliveries • Residential garbage pickup – limit hours • Backyard parties – live music • City should get out information to the community so everyone knows the rules • Tailor the type of measurement weight (A/B/C) to the type of noise • Low flying aircraft are too noisy • Declare Saratoga a Noise Adverse City • Updates should have “Common Sense” • Car key fobs and alarms are too loud Noise Measurement Map A map of noise measurement locations (see Table 1) is provided at the end of this appendix. References and Bibliography • State of California, State Planning Law, Government Code Section 65302 (f). • United States Environmental Protection Agency, Quieting in the House. • Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health, Model Community Noise Control Ordinance, April 1977. • National Association of Home Builders, Acoustical Manual. • United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of the EPA Levels Document. • Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan (Noise Control Program, California Department of Health, in coordination with the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, CA) February 1976, Revised 2003. • The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use, Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Offices of Research and Development, November 1974. 19 December 2013 Page 19 85 = Short-Term Measurement = Long-Term Measurement 86 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element APPENDIX C: EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS TABLE NE-A1: EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE AND NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES DNL at 50-foot setback Distance from Centerline to DNL Contour Street Segment in dB 70 65 60 55 Prospect Road Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to Miller Avenue 69 <50 94 202 435 Prospect Road Miller Avenue to Lawrence Expressway 70 <50 101 218 470 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Prospect Road to Cox Avenue 71 60 128 276 595 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Cox Avenue to Saratoga Avenue 70 51 110 237 511 Pierce Road Surrey Lane to Comer Dr. 59 <50 <50 <50 96 Cox Avenue Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to Saratoga Avenue 66 <50 56 121 261 Saratoga Avenue Lawrence Expressway to Cox Avenue 72 68 147 316 680 Saratoga Avenue Cox Avenue to SR 85 72 72 156 335 723 Saratoga Avenue SR 85 to Fruitvale Avenue 72 69 149 322 693 Saratoga Avenue Fruitvale Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road 68 <50 76 164 354 Big Basin Way Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to Pierce Road 68 <50 76 164 353 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga Avenue to Allendale Avenue 69 <50 86 185 399 Fruitvale Avenue Allendale Avenue to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 65 <50 <50 105 226 Allendale Avenue Fruitvale Avenue to Quito Road 64 <50 <50 98 210 Quito Road Saratoga Avenue to Allendale Avenue 68 <50 80 172 371 Quito Road Allendale Avenue to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 66 <50 57 123 265 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Saratoga Avenue to Fruitvale Avenue 67 <50 65 139 301 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Fruitvale Avenue to Quito Road 71 62 134 288 620 SR 85 (Cupertino) to Saratoga Avenue 75 101 217 468 1009 SR 85 Saratoga Avenue to (Los Gatos) 75 114 245 528 1137 Notes: DNL values are normalized to a measurement distance of 50 feet from the roadway centerline. DNL values for SR 85 are also normalized for comparison purposes and account for shielding from terrain and barriers (even though a 50-foot setback is within the right-of-way). Source: Charles Salter Associates, 2013 19 December 2013 Page 21 87 City ofSaratogaExistingTraffic NoiseContours DNL 55 to 60 dB DNL 60 to 65 dB DNL 65 to 70 dB DNL 70 to 75 dB > DNL 75 dBCSA ProjectNo. 13-02571 Oct. 201388 City of Saratoga DRAFT Noise Element APPENDIX D: PROJECTED FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS TABLE NE-A2: PROJECTED FUTURE (2030) ROADWAY NOISE AND NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES DNL at 50-foot setback Distance from Centerline to DNL Contour Street Segment in dB 70 65 60 55 Prospect Road Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to Miller Avenue 70 51 110 237 510 Prospect Road Miller Avenue to Lawrence Expressway 71 55 119 256 552 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Prospect Road to Cox Avenue 72 70 151 324 699 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Cox Avenue to Saratoga Avenue 71 60 129 279 601 Pierce Road Surrey Lane to Comer Dr. 60 <50 <50 52 112 Cox Avenue Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to Saratoga Avenue 67 <50 66 142 305 Saratoga Avenue Lawrence Expressway to Cox Avenue 73 80 172 370 798 Saratoga Avenue Cox Avenue to SR 85 74 88 190 408 880 Saratoga Avenue SR 85 to Fruitvale Avenue 73 81 175 378 813 Saratoga Avenue Fruitvale Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road 69 <50 89 192 414 Big Basin Way Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to Pierce Road 69 <50 89 192 413 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga Avenue to Allendale Avenue 70 <50 101 217 468 Fruitvale Avenue Allendale Avenue to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 66 <50 57 123 266 Allendale Avenue Fruitvale Avenue to Quito Road 65 <50 53 115 247 Quito Road Saratoga Avenue to Allendale Avenue 69 <50 94 202 434 Quito Road Allendale Avenue to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 67 <50 67 144 311 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Saratoga Avenue to Fruitvale Avenue 68 <50 76 164 352 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Fruitvale Avenue to Quito Road 73 74 159 343 739 SR 85 (Cupertino) to Saratoga Avenue 77 150 324 698 1503 SR 85 Saratoga Avenue to (Los Gatos) 78 170 365 787 1695 Notes: DNL values are normalized to a measurement distance of 50 feet from the roadway centerline. DNL values for SR 85 are also normalized for comparison purposes and account for shielding from terrain and barriers (even though a 50-foot setback is within the right-of-way). Source: Charles Salter Associates, 2013 19 December 2013 Page 23 89 City ofSaratogaFuture (2030)Traffic NoiseContours DNL 55 to 60 dB DNL 60 to 65 dB DNL 65 to 70 dB DNL 70 to 75 dB > DNL 75 dBCSA ProjectNo. 13-02571 Oct. 201390 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE INCLUDING ARTICLES 7-30 (NOISE CONTROL), 15-11 (AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT), 15-18 (PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE), 15-19 (COMMERCIAL),15-55 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS) AND 15-80 (MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS) The Planning Commission recommends that the Saratoga City Code be amended as set forth below. Text to be added is indicated in bold double underlined font (e.g., underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font is readopted by this ordinance. 1. Barking Dogs 7-20.190 Barking dogs. Noise caused by dogs shall be governed by the provisions of Section 7-30.095. It shall be unlawful for any person to harbor, keep or maintain any dog in the City which disturbs the peace and quiet of one or more persons in the immediate neighborhood by loud barking or making unusual noises. "Loud barking" means barking, howling or baying by day or night at frequent and/or extended periods of time so as to be a nuisance to one or more persons occupying a house or houses in an immediate neighborhood and preventing such person or persons from the comfortable enjoyment of their homes. "Loud barking" does not mean barking where a dog is in the act of protecting or resisting trespassers upon its premises. The burden of proof of such an act of protection or resistance to trespassers by a dog is upon the person owning, harboring, controlling, maintaining, possessing or having charge of the dog. 2. Noise Article 7-30 NOISE CONTROL Sections: 7-30.010 Purposes of Article. 7-30.020 Definitions. 7-30.030 Exemptions. 7-30.040 Noise standards. 7-30.050 General noise restriction. 7-30.060 Exceptions for specific activities. 7-30.070 Exhaust fans. 7-30.080 Authority to require noise study. 7-30.090 Exception permits. 91 7-30.095 Animals and Birds. 7-30.100 Violations of Article; enforcement; penalties. 7-30.010 Purposes of Article. This Article is adopted for the following purposes: (a) To maintain or reduce noise levels in the City to avoid exposure to unacceptable or harmful noise generated by equipment and/or amplified sound that is protect the citizens of the City from excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community subject to regulation and control by the City; (b) To maintain and preserve the quiet residential atmosphere of the City; (c) To implement the goals and policies contained in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan by addressing noise transfer between properties; (d) To promote land-use compatibility by addressing noise exposure from existing and new noise sources establish noise standards for various land uses and activities within the City; (e) To prohibit noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of a neighborhood or causes discomfort or annoyance to persons of normal sensitivities. 7-30.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Acoustic music means live vocal or instrumental music that is not electrically enhanced or modified to project or transmit sound through amplifiers, loudspeakers, microphones, or similar devices or combinations of devices which are intended to increase the volume, range, distance or intensity of music. (b) Ambient noise level means the composite of noise from all sources, near and far, constituting the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location, excluding the noise source in question. (c)(b) Amplified music means live or recorded music projected or transmitted by electronic equipment including, but not limited to, amplifiers, loudspeakers, microphones, or similar devices or combinations of devices which are intended to increase the volume, range, distance or intensity of music. (d)(c) Approving authority means the council, commission, officer or official of the City having the authority to initially approve or deny a particular type of application. (e)(d) Background music means recorded music played through permanently mounted speakers which is clearly incidental to the primary use, and (at any location five feet or more from the source of the sound) allows for normal conversation levels and conforms to the ambient noise standards in Section 7-30.040(a). (f)(e) Daytime means the twelve-hour period from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. 92 (g)(f) Decibel or dB means a standardized unit of sound pressure level. Increasing values related to louder sounds. Decibel represents the logarithm of the ratio of measured acoustical energy and a standard reference of 20 microPascals. (h)(g) Decibel A Scale or dBA means a measure of decibels using the "A" scale or "A" weighted network of the sound level meter. (i) Director means the Community Development Director (j)(h) Evening means the three-hour period from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. (i) Leq (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level as defined in ANSI S1.1) means the average A-weighted noise level over a stated time period. (j) Lmax means the typical maximum A-weighted noise level measured using the “slow” meter response. (k) Nighttime means the nine-hour period from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. of the following day. (l) Noise level means the maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak level produced by a noise source or group of sources, as measured with a sound level meter. (m) Outdoor music event means the playing of acoustic or amplified music outdoors at one commercial establishment. (n) Property plane means a vertical plane located at and perpendicular to the property line which determines the property boundaries in space of the parcel over or from which the sound in question is audibly transmitted. (o) Single event noise means noise generated from a single source which is distinguishable from the ambient noise level. (p)(m) Sound level meter means an instrument comprised of a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter and frequency weighing networks, used for measuring sound levels in decibel units. 7-30.030 Exemptions. The following sources of noise shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article: (a) Emergencies. Persons and equipment engaged in essential activities necessary to preserve, protect or save lives or property from imminent danger, loss or harm. (b) Alarm systems. Any outside audible alarm system for which a permit has been issued pursuant to Article 6-10 of this Code, and which complies with the requirements set forth in Section 6-10.060 of said Article. 7-30.040 Ambient noise Noise standards. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (b) of this Section, all proposed uses and developments shall comply with the following ambient noise standards for the various zoning districts land uses and times of day as indicated below. The indoor standards apply to noise produced by exterior noise sources. No person shall cause, produce, or allow to be produced any noise that exceeds these noise standards at any point outside the property boundary on which the noise is generated. 93 (Insert the Following Table) Maximum Permissible Noise Levels Generated (dBA) Daytime (7:00 am to 7:00 pm) Evening (7:00 pm to 10:00 Nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) Land Use Average Leq Maximum Lmax Average Leq Maximum Lmax Average Leq Maximum Lmax Residential (single and multi-family) Outdoor 55 65 45 55 40 50 Open Space/Parks 60 70 50 60 45 55 Commercial/Office 65 75 60 70 55 65 Public and quasi-Public Facilities 60 70 55 65 50 60 (Remove the Following Table) Land Use Daytime Evening Nighttime Residential Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA 30 dBA Public park Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA Office/Commercial Outdoor 65 dBA 55 dBA 50 dBA Indoor 50 dBA 40 dBA 35 dBA (a) The following land uses are hereby declared to be noise sensitive areas: (1) Nursing, convalescent, and retirement homes; (2) Schools, while in session; (3) Places of worship, while services are being conducted. (4) Libraries, during hours of operation. The ambient noise standards for uses and developments to be located in and of the noise sensitive areas listed above shall be as follows: 94 (Remove the Following Table) Daytime Evening Nighttime Outdoor 50 dBA 45 dBA 45 dBA Indoor 35 dBA 30 dBA 30 dBA 7-30.050 General noise restriction. (a) No person shall cause, produce, or allow to be produced, in any residential zoning district, any single event noise more than six dBA above the ambient noise level at the location where the single event noise source is measured. (b) No person shall cause, produce or allow to be produced, in any office or commercial district, any single event noise more than eight dBA above the ambient noise level at the location where the single event noise source is measured. (b) The single event Subject noise levels shall be measured with a sound level meter as follows: (1) With respect to noise originating upon a particular site, the measurement can be taken at any point outside of the property plane boundary for that site. (2) With respect to noise originating from a dwelling unit constituting part of a multi-family development, the measurement can be taken at any point beyond the exterior walls of such unit or at any point within the habitable interior of another dwelling unit located on the same site. (3) With respect to any situation not described in subsection (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this Section, the measurement shall be taken at the point where the noise source is located. (3) Noise shall be measured at a point at least four feet above the ground/floor and adjacent to a wall or similar large acoustically reflective surface if any is located on the site receiving the noise generated. (4) Noise shall be measured with a Class I or II sound level meter set utilizing the “A” Weighting scale and the “slow” meter response. (5) Minimum measurement time shall be ten minutes. 7-30.060 Exceptions for specific activities. Exceptions for specific activities, so long as the noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise does not exceed eighty-three dBA or any lesser level specified below, shall be permitted to exceed the standards set forth in Section 7-30.050 under the following conditions: (a) Residential construction. Residential construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City 95 permit, may be conducted between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the exception of the following: (1) Construction, alteration or repair activities that do not require a City permit may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. (2) Construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. Such activities shall not exceed 100 dBA measured at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise. (3) Temporary construction activities authorized by the Director upon his/her determination of an emergency. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit. (b) Commercial construction. Construction, alteration or repair activities in Commercial and Professional and Administrative Office Zoning Districts which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Such activities shall not exceed 100 dBA measured at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise . Commercial construction shall be prohibited on Saturday, Sunday and other holidays. The Director may grant temporary exemptions upon his/her determination of an emergency. (c) Subdivision construction Site construction and improvements. Subdivision construction activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Such activities shall not exceed 100 dBA measured at any point twenty- five feet from the source of noise. Subdivision construction shall be prohibited on Saturday, Sunday and other holidays. The Public Works Director may grant temporary exemptions upon his/her determination of an emergency. (d) Garden tools. Powered garden tools except gasoline-powered leaf blowers may be utilized between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on Sundays through Saturdays. Gasoline- powered leaf blowers may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday only. No gasoline-powered leaf blowers shall be allowed on Sundays. The noise level of all garden tools including gasoline-powered leaf blowers shall not exceed seventy-eight dBA at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise. (e) Pool and spa equipment. Pool and spa equipment located within twenty feet of a side property line shall only be operated between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. Noise from such equipment shall not exceed fifty dBA twenty-five feet from the source of noise. (f)(e) Set-up and cleaning of commercial establishments. Set-up and cleaning activities conducted at restaurants and other commercial establishments located immediately adjacent to a residential area, which generate any noise audible to the occupants of the adjacent residences, including noise generated by the operation of delivery or service vehicles, shall not begin prior to one hour before the normal opening time of the establishment or extend later than one hour after 96 the normal closing time of the establishment, or such other times as may be specified in a use permit, license, or other entitlement granted by the City for such establishment. (g)(f) Indoor live or recorded music. Commercial establishments in commercial zoning districts may have live or recorded music played inside a building. All doors and windows within the commercial establishment shall be kept closed after 910:00 P.M. when live or recorded music is being played except that doors may be opened for ingress or egress if closed immediately after use. The noise level shall not exceed seventy-three dBA before 910:00 P.M. and sixty-three shall comply with the standards set forth in Section 7-30.040 dBA after 910:00 P.M. as measured by a sound level meter five feet outside the building. (f) Animals. Noise caused by animals shall be governed by the provisions of Section 7- 20.190 concerning barking dogs and Section 15-11.020(h) concerning the keeping of animals as pets. 7-30.070 Exhaust fans. All exhaust fans and mechanical equipment shall be enclosed for the purpose of soundproofing, subject to the Planning Director's review and approval. Exhaust fans lawfully constructed prior to August 2, 1991, shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Director no later than two years from the date of notice from the City to the owner. 7-30.080 Authority to require noise study. As a condition for the granting of any license, permit or development approval the Community Development Director or approving authority may require the preparation of a noise study to determine whether the proposed activity will comply with the noise standards contained in this Article. The cost of such study shall be paid, in advance, by the applicant. If the study predicts that any of the noise standards will be violated the approving authority may require implementation of mitigation measures to reduce the noise impacts, and may further require the conduct of additional studies after the activity is commenced to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. If the violation cannot be prevented or corrected through mitigation measures, the approving authority may deny or revoke the license, permit or development approval. 7-30.090 Exception permits. (a) General noise exception permit. If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that immediate compliance with the requirements of this Article would be impractical or unreasonable, the Director may issue a permit to allow exception from any or all of the provisions contained in this Article, with appropriate conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by such exceptions. Any such permit shall be for an initial term as specified by the Director, not to exceed thirty days. Longer terms up to one hundred twenty days may be granted by the Planning Commission. In determining whether an exception permit should be issued and the nature and scope of any conditions to be imposed, the Director shall consider the following factors: 97 (1) The level and intensity of the noise; (2) The level and intensity of the background noise, if any; (3) The proximity of the noise to residential areas; (4) The time of day when the noise occurs; (5) The duration of the noise, and whether it is recurrent, intermittent or constant; (6) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates or to which it is transmitted. (b) Outdoor music permits—CH Zoning District. This Section 7-30.090(b) shall expire April 1, 2014, and thereafter outdoor music shall not be allowed in the CH Zoning District, unless a later enacted ordinance that becomes effective on or before April 1, 2014, deletes or extends that expiration date. An outdoor music permit may be issued on an annual basis to a commercial establishment located within the CH Zoning District subject to the requirements contained in this Section for the purposes of allowing the playing of acoustic and/or amplified music outside a building. Background music does not require an outdoor music permit. (1) Each outdoor music permit shall be subject to conditions requiring coordination and cooperation among holders of outdoor music permits such that acoustic and/or amplified music played outside a building at the same date and time shall be limited by blocks as described below: a. Two events in Block One situated between 3rd Street and Saratoga Los Gatos Road separated by at least two hundred feet. b. One event in Block Two situated between 3rd and 4th Street. c. One event in Block Three situated between 4th and 5th Street. d. One event in Block Four situated west of 5th Street. (2) Outdoor acoustic and/or amplified music is permitted at establishments holding an outdoor music permit during the following days and times provided that it does not exceed the specified maximum decibel level seventy-eight dbA as measured twenty-five feet from the source of the sound: a. Fridays, 5:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M., seventy-three dbA. b. Saturdays, 4:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M., seventy-three dbA. c. Sundays, 11:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., seventy-three dbA. The above decibel levels shall be measured twenty-five feet from the source of the sound. (3) The Director may condition an outdoor music permit on such other requirements that the Director determines are necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. (4) Continuing jurisdiction and permit revocation. The Director shall retain continuing jurisdiction over each permit and may modify (by deleting or adding conditions to) or revoke an outdoor music permit to the extent the Director deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare, or if the permit holder fails to meet any of the conditions of the permit or to adequately address changed circumstances. 98 (5) Denial of a permit. The Director may deny an outdoor music permit if the applicant has had an outdoor music permit revoked within the past twelve months or if the applicant is not in compliance with the City Code or a use permit issued pursuant to the City Code. (6) Hearings and appeals from administrative decisions. Prior to denial, modification, or revocation of a permit, the Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the intent to deny, modify, or revoke the permit, the reasons for such intended decision, and that the applicant may within five days after receipt of such notice file with the Director a written request for a meeting with the Director. A determination of the Director to approve, conditionally approve, deny, modify or revoke a permit may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article 15-90 for appeals from administrative decisions and notwithstanding Section 15-90.020, the decision of the Planning Commission on the appeal shall be final and not subject to appeal to the City Council. 7-30.095 Animals and Birds It shall be unlawful for any person to harbor, keep or maintain any animal or bird in the City which howls, barks, meows, squawks, or makes other noises continuously and/or incessantly for a period of ten (10) minutes or intermittently for one-half hour or more which disturbs the peace and quiet of one or more persons and preventing such person or persons from the comfortable enjoyment of their home. "Loud barking" does not mean barking where a dog is in the act of protecting or resisting trespassers upon its premises. The burden of proof of such an act of protection or resistance to trespassers by a dog is upon the person owning, harboring, controlling, maintaining, possessing or having charge of the dog. 7-30.100 Violations of Article; enforcement; penalties. (a) The violation of any provision contained in this Article shall constitute an infraction and a public nuisance. (b) It shall be the duty of all policemen, all deputies of the County Sheriff performing police services in the City, all Community Service Officers and the Planning Director to enforce the provisions of this Article. (c) In addition to the penalties for infraction offenses and the procedures for nuisance abatement as set forth in Chapter 3 of this Code, any noise level and its source in violation of any of the provisions of this Article may be summarily abated, which may include, but is not limited to, removal, dismantlement and taking into custody the source of such noise, and in this regard, the confiscation of any machine or device used to violate any of the provisions of this Article is hereby authorized to be held for use as evidence in any proceeding that may be brought for such violation. 99 3. The keeping of animals in the Agricultural (A) Zoning District 15-11.020 Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the agricultural district: (a) Single-family dwellings. (b) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use, including barns, farm out-buildings, storehouses, garden structures; green houses, workshops and one guest house. (c) Raising of field crops, fruit and nut trees, vegetables, horticultural specialties and timber. (d) Processing of products produced on the site. (e) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 15- 40 of this Chapter. (f) Stables and corrals for the keeping for private use of one horse for each forty thousand square feet of net site area; provided, however, that in the equestrian zone only, one additional horse may be permitted on the first forty thousand square feet of net site area, and an additional horse may be permitted for each additional forty thousand square feet of net site area. All horses shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7-20.220 of this Code. (g) Swimming pools used solely by person’s resident on the site and their guests. (h) The keeping for private use of a reasonable number of domestic dogs, cats and other small mammals, birds, fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set forth in Article 7-20 of this Code, and subject also to the following restrictions: (1) All animals shall be kept as pets only, and not for sale, breeding, experimental or commercial purposes. (2) Animals shall at all times be confined to the site, unless restrained or caged and under the direct control of the owner or person having custody of the animal. (3) No animals shall be permitted which are vicious, poisonous, wild, dangerous, capable of raucous outcry or other noise disturbing to the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public health, safety or welfare, and all such animals are hereby declared to be a public nuisance. The factors to be considered in determining whether the number of animals upon a site is reasonable shall include, but are not limited to, the size of the site or portion thereof on which the animals are kept; the type of animals and extent of noise, odor or other adverse impacts upon the occupants of neighboring properties the animals may cause by their presence on the site; the proximity of other dwelling units; the manner in which the animals are confined upon the site; and the propensity of the animals to cause injury or damage to persons or property. (i) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications, subject to design review under Article 15-44 100 4. Removing references to noise in the Professional Administrative and Commercial District 15-18.040 General restrictions on use. (a) All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading areas and temporary Christmas tree sales. (b) No sales, production, repair or processing shall take place on any site except to the extent customarily carried on in connection with a permitted or conditional use. (c) No use shall be permitted which emits air pollutants, solid or liquid wastes or dangerous radioactivity, or which creates odor, noise, vibration, glare or electrical disturbance detectable beyond the boundaries of the site, or which involves any hazard of fire or explosion. (d) No use shall be permitted which creates an emission which endangers human health or causes damage to animals, vegetation or property. 5-19.020 General regulations. The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City: (c) Expressly prohibited uses. Without limiting the application of Section 15-05.055(a) of this Chapter, the following uses are expressly declared to be prohibited in all commercial districts: (1) Any use which emits air pollutants, solid or liquid wastes, radioactivity, or other discharge which endangers human health or causes damage to animals, vegetation or property. (2) Any use which creates offensive odor, noise, vibration, glare or electrical disturbance, detectable beyond the boundaries of the site, or creates a hazard of fire or explosion. (3) Any use involving drive-through service, such as restaurants and financial institutions with drive-through windows. (4) Any use involving automotive body work, such as collision repair, painting, dismantling or customizing. (5) Mini-storage facilities. (6) Outdoor sales or storage of motor vehicles. 5. Emergency or Stand-by Generators – Conditional Use Permit 15-55.065 Director review and hearing. (a) Unless the application otherwise requires design review or other approval by the Planning Commission, the following uses may be permitted by a conditional use permit issued by the Director in accordance with this Article: (1) Conditionally permitted uses not exceeding four thousand square feet in area in any commercial district ("Commercial CUPs"); and 101 (2) Installation or replacement of a generator in any A, R-1, HR, R-OS or commercial district pursuant to subsection 15-80.030(k) ("Generator CUPs"). (b) Prior to making a final decision on any conditional use permit application, the Director shall mail to the applicant, all property owners whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the subject property, and to others as deemed by the Director to be interested or affected a Notice of Intent specifying the proposed decision. All interested or affected parties will have fifteen calendar days from the date of the notice in which to review the application, provide written comments to the Director, and make written request for a public hearing or notice of a hearing if one is to be held. The Director shall make a final written decision on the application after the close of the review period or, if a public hearing is requested, after the close of the public hearing. The Director shall mail notice of the decision to the applicant and to any party that has made written request for a copy of such notice prior to the close of the public hearing. (c) If a public hearing is requested the Director shall conduct a public hearing or refer the application for a hearing and decision before the Planning Commission at such time as the Director shall determine. The action of the Director to refer a matter to the Planning Commission is not subject to appeal. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons who have timely requested such notice in writing. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once not less than ten days prior to the date of the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the City. 15-80.030(k) Emergency or stand-by generators. No emergency or stand-by generator shall be allowed in any required front, side or rear setback area. All emergency or stand-by generators shall be required to meet all applicable requirements of the City Code, including Article 7- 30 concerning noise. Outside a required front, side, or rear setback area, an emergency or stand-by generator may be permitted upon the granting of a conditional use permit. Any application for such a permit must be accompanied with information from the manufacturer documenting the noise generation characteristics of the generator. A noise assessment study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for all proposed generators. The noise assessment study shall confirm the generator meets all applicable requirements of the City Code, including Article 7- 30 concerning noise. This restriction shall not apply to generators for which the owner provides evidence of installation prior to July 1, 2004, provided, however, that removal of nonconforming generators may be required as a condition of approval for any design review application involving expansion or reconstruction of more than fifty percent of the main dwelling, as described in Article 15-45. END OF AMENDMENTS 102 Noise Issues from August 20, 2013 meeting at Fireman’s Hall • Noise levels may be to low in current ordinance. Needs to be real and practical • Motorcycles engines are too loud • Construction Noise – Sunday work, better information should be provided to contractors • Maintain existing noise standards for residential • Look at noise emitted from community functions – Schools, Clubs, Hakone • Leaf Blowers – compare with other cities (popular issue) • Garbage Trucks – time of pick up, too noisy in the morning • Barking Dogs – need better regulations and enforcement (popular issue) • The volume of outdoor music in the village is better this year than last • Review strict dB levels – children playing can exceed allowable noise levels Not all noise is the same – the type of noise can make a big difference Amplified noise vs voices • Construction Noise – compressor can be less noisy than a hammer Noise Issues from August 27, 2013 meeting at Saratoga Library • Create Noise Web Page • Animal Noise – Turkeys, chickens, roosters • Community uses - schools can be sources of noise • Barking Dogs (popular issue) • Home Occupation Noise – home based businesses creating too much noise • Resurface Highway 85 to reduce noise • Leaf Blowers – consider banning gas powered leaf blowers • Motorcycle noise • Allendale and Quito Bus – bus stopping in front of house with loud speaker being heard • Hakone – noise from events. Stop amplification of noise after certain hours • Construction noise – limit hours. Better information should be provided to contractors. Contact information should be make available to public/neighbors • Children’s Hospital – amplified music/excessive parties/children’s playground location, truck deliveries • Residential garbage pickup – limit hours • Backyard parties – live music • City should get out information to the community so everyone knows the rules • Tailor the type of measurement weight (A/B/C) to the type of noise • Low flying aircraft are too noisy • Declare Saratoga a Noise Adverse City • Updates should have “Common Sense” • Car key fobs and alarms are to loud 103 Noise Element and Ordinance Update Email Comments Received * • All residential noise should be managed to as low of level as possible and reasonable to maintain Saratoga’s quiet rural residential feel. • Currently Saratoga’s noise ordinance allows noise levels louder the most similar Cities. No increase in noise levels should be allowed if the goal is to maintain Saratoga’s residential feel. • In residential areas, distinctions should be made between noise coming from a single family home and yard, compared to a facility in a residential area that has larger group memberships or events which can have more frequent, louder and larger activities that can cause neighborhood nuisances and issues. • The noise of kids playing in their own yard on an occasional basis should not be lumped with the noises of kids playing at facilities that can have larger groups of kids on a more frequent basis. • All uses and noises from non-single family home facilities located in a residential neighborhood should have well managed events with a clear understanding of the requirements so that their noise does not create impacts to the residences and neighbors. • Major noise concern: Sound emanating from West Valley Waste Management garbage trucks starting promptly at 6am. There is a very significant noise issue for my family that starts routinely at exactly 6:00am Monday morning when the West Valley trucks begin their standard routes on Maria Lane. There is the loud truck exhaust noise (due to very old trucks), but the more disturbing noise comes from the "back up alert beepers" on these trucks. Due to the hillside roads and tight turn-around areas, these back up alerts seem like they are nearly constant for the first 30 mins of their Monday routine as these trucks transverse Maria Lane, Blue Hills and Parker Ranch streets. And these alerts are just as effective as an alarm clock going off at 6am due - which is exactly their purpose - waking my entire family whether they needed to be up or not. Since the roads served at this early hour are "in the hills", the annoying noise travels easily to all homes in the area and is very disturbing for anyone wanting to sleep in beyond 6am. One potential remedy: simply start the trucks at a more reasonable "business hour", like 7:30am or 8am. At least by that time, most people are already awake and the impact will be greatly less pronounced. • Loud pool filters are not much of a problem, but when they are, everybody knows. When they go bad, the noise is loud as far as three or more houses away. Citizen education could help residents resolve these noise problems sooner. Construction activity can be obnoxious seven days per week. I don't suppose there's much that can be done about, but it seems at least one house or another is undergoing remodeling continuously. • Limit all contracting activity to zones. I thought of this idea before reading that Burlingame does this. I do not know the details. I would suggest dividing Saratoga into zones, where contractor 104 activity would be limited to two days per week. For example, one zone might allow activity only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Sunday would still be valid in one or more zones, subject to any further restrictions the noise element might specify, say, no gas-powered blower operation. I would prefer one or two very bad days as opposed to six or seven annoying days. Residents could operate their own equipment (as specified) any day of the week. Specify limits for simultaneously running equipment. Two gas-powered leaf blowers running at 30 feet from a person is louder than one at 25 feet. Make provisions for reduced usage of leaf blowers and string trimmers. No yard has to be perfect every week. The exception for blowers could be seasons where leaves are falling or plants are shedding other material. Prohibit leaf blowers (gas and electric) on some holidays. My choices would be Memorial Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas, but which other holiday(s) might satisfy those of any particular religion? Ask for courtesy. Morality cannot be legislated, and neither can courtesy. - Lower the leaf blower's speed when someone passes by, especially within 25 feet. Some do this. - Do not start the equipment in the face of a passerby. In fact, wait until 25 feet separation. Establish earlier and stiffer consequences. Consider allowing code enforcement to take action without a complaint. Also, I say fine violators immediately. === Tighter control and contractor education === Are contractors licensed by the city? If so, do they need to acknowledge the noise element as far as it applies to them and agree to follow it? === Citizen education === Do all citizens know the policy? Are they willing to report violations, or would they rather put up with the noise than make waves? I recommend an education campaign. If residents and contractors both know the policy, the citizens of Saratoga will show what kinds of noise they can abide, and when. • I want to know what can be done to ban on leaf blowers in Saratoga. It's getting ridiculous. Other cities have passed bans. • Limit all aircraft to minimum 1000 foot altitude, except for police and fire in emergencies. Limit gardeners to use noisemaking implements only from 8:30 AM to 3:00PM. Limit residences to the same limits as gardeners. • No yell/scream after 7 p.m. * This is a summary of emails received. Copies of the original emails are available for review at the Community Development Department 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: January 8, 2014 Application: MOD13-0012 Location / APN: 15100 Park Drive / 510-01-190 Owner/Applicant: Umesh and Niraj Singh Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 15100 Park Drive 113 15100 Park Drive Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a modification to a previously approved Design Review application (PDR11-0024) to paint the exterior of a new two story single-family residence that is under construction a different color than was originally approved by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 13-048 denying the application to alter the exterior color of the residence from what was originally approved. Planning Commission Approval of modifications to a previously approved Design Review application is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-80.120(b). PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Project Description: On February 8, 2012, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review application for a new two-story, approximately 26 feet tall, 5,105 square foot single family residence located at 15100 Park Drive. The plans for this project are included as Attachment 5. The approved exterior materials and colors of the project included a dark tan colored stucco, off- white colored trim, and a “cultured stone” veneer as an exterior accent on the lower portion of the front façade. The roof will be covered with brown colored concrete tiles. Staff visited the project prior to completion and noticed that the exterior paint color of the house was different than the color shown on the “colors and materials board” that was approved by the Planning Commission. Staff informed the applicant that the exterior paint color of the house was to be consistent with the approved color prior to the project being “finaled” by the Building Department. The applicant expressed their desire to maintain the existing paint color as it had been applied. The applicant has submitted a revised “colors and materials board” which will be available for review during the site visit and public hearing. Materials and Colors: Detail Colors and Materials Approved Exterior Color Tan Colored Stucco “Oakwood” by Kelly Moore Proposed Exterior Color Light Tan Colored Stucco with Red Undertones “Geyser Basin” by Kelly Moore Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted signed neighbor notification forms from adjacent property owners. No neighbor concerns were noted on the forms. Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as Attachment 3. 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. Page 2 of 4 114 15100 Park Drive FINDINGS The Residential Design Handbook includes the following techniques related to 1) exterior materials to minimize a projects perception of bulk and 2) improving structures integration with the environment which include: • Use materials and colors to reduce bulk. • Use materials that blend with the environment. • Use natural, earth tone colors. • Avoid light, bright or reflective colors and materials. • Avoid extreme contrasts in color between the structure and the terrain. The applicant is proposing to paint the residence a much lighter and brighter color than what was approved by the Planning Commission. The original color is named “Oakwood” and can be described as a dark tan and the proposed color is named “Geyser Basin” and can be described as a light tan with red undertones. Staff is recommending the Commission not approve the modification because the paint color would not be consistent with the Design Review findings including: • The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. • The project is of compatible bulk and height. • The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. Design Review Findings The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has not met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the paint color of the structure will have no effect on views and privacy. (b) The project preserves the natural landscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the paint color of the structure will have no effect on the natural landscape. (c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the paint color would have no effect on Native and/or Heritage trees. (d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. This finding cannot be made in the affirmative because the proposed paint color would not be consistent with the techniques contained in the Residential Design Handbook which state that natural, earth tone colors should be used to reduce the perception of bulk and that light, bright colors are to be avoided. Page 3 of 4 115 15100 Park Drive Page 4 of 4 (e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that dark colors can reduce a projects perception of bulk but the proposed modification to paint the residence a light color could make the structure appear larger with a greater perception of bulk which would not be compatible with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district. (f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed exterior paint color would have no effect on current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence would not conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook as required by Section 15-45.055. The residence would be painted a light tan color with red undertones and this color would not minimize the mass and perceived bulk of the project and would not integrate the residential structure with the terrain. Environmental Determination: The project was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allowed for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 13-048 denying the proposed modification to the project, subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Denial for Modification of Design Review 2. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing Addresses for Project Notification 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Color and Materials Board (not attached) 5. Approved Architectural Drawings 116 RESOLUTION NO. 13-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (MOD13-0012) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15100 PARK DRIVE. WHEREAS, an application was submitted to the City of Saratoga by Umesh and Niraj Singh, requesting modification to a previously approved Design Review application (PDR11-0024) to paint the exterior of a new two story residence that is under construction a different color than what was originally approved by the Planning Commission. The approved color (“Oakwood” by Kelly Moore) is a dark tan and the applicant is requesting to paint the residence a tan color with red undertones (“Geyser Basin” by Kelly Moore). The foregoing are collectively described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, provided all interested parties a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument, and considered all 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: After careful consideration of the architectural drawings and the proposed colors and materials board and other exhibits and evidence submitted in connection with this matter, the findings for denial of an application for modification of design review set forth below are hereby made, Application No. MOD13-0012 for Modification of Design Review approval was voted on and is hereby denied by the Planning Commission. Section 4: The Planning Commission finds that the Project is inconsistent with the policies of the Residential Design Handbook and the findings for Design Review. Section 5: Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of its adoption on January 8, 2013. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 8th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission 117 118 119 120 121 122 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 8th day of January, 2014 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: MOD13-0012 / 20269 Seagull Way APPLICANT/OWNER: Eric Pang & Ying Wang APN: 510-01-190 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a modification to a previously approved Design Review application (PDR11-0024) to paint the exterior of a new two story single-family residence that is under construction a different color than was originally approved by the Planning Commission. 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 Thursday, January 2, 2014. 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 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: January 8, 2014 Application: PDR13-0018 Location / APN: 20269 Seagull Way / 386-52-017 Owner/Applicant: Eric Pang & Ying Wang Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 20269 Seagull Way 139 20269 Seagull Way Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,056 existing two story residence and construct a new 3,199 square foot two story single-family residence and related site improvements located at 20269 Seagull Way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 13-046 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060. PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 9,375 SF Average Slope: 3 % General Plan Designation: M-10 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning: R-1-10,000 Proposed Allowed/Required Proposed Site Coverage Residential Footprint Front Courtyard Front Walk and Steps Walkway & Landing Parking and Driveway Total Proposed Site Coverage 2,714 sq. ft. 101.5 sq. ft. 165.5 sq. ft. 230.0 sq. ft. 661.0 sq. ft. 3,872 sq. ft. (41.3%) Maximum Coverage allowed is 5,625 SF (60%) Floor Area Lower Level Upper Level Garage Total Floor Area 1,804.81. sq. ft. 1,021.21 sq. ft. . 373.40 sq. ft. 3,199.42 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 99.50 100.50 100.00 125.77 (26.00 Ft.) Maximum Building Height is (25.77 Feet) Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1st Story 25’-0” 7’-6” 7’-6” 45’-0” 2nd Story 32’-0” 15’-6” 12’-6” 55’-0” 1st Story 25’-0” 7’-6” 7’-6” 25’-0” 2nd Story 25’-0” 12’-6” 12’-6” 35’-0” Grading Cut 121 CY Fill 0 CY Total 121 CY No grading limit in the R-1- 10,000 zoning district Page 2 of 5 140 20269 Seagull Way PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site Description: The site is located at 20269 Seagull Way. An existing two story 2,056 square foot residence is located on the site. Three large Coast Redwood trees are located in the front yard. The immediate neighborhood is a mix of both one and two-story homes. Project Description and Architectural Style: The existing residence will be demolished. The proposed 3,199 square foot, two-story residence would have a Mediterranean design to include a wide asymmetrical building footprint, a hipped roof with over hanging eaves, concrete tile roof, exposed rafters, front porch supported by square columns, a combination of arched and square windows, and a stucco exterior. Based on staff’s request to reduce the mass of the structure, the applicant reduced the height of the front entry and bay window by 12 inches and the overall height of the building was reduced by four inches. The proposed landscape plan illustrates that the project will predominantly feature drought tolerant landscaping including native wild flowers and shrubs. The driveway and front walkways would be comprised of concrete pavers. The project meets all City Code requirements including floor area, height, setbacks, and lot coverage. Materials and Colors: Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Wainscot & Columns Trim Grey Colored Stucco Taupe Colored Stucco Cream Colored Stucco Windows Tan Colored Vinyl Garage Door Grey Colored Steel Carriage Door Entry Door Natural Finish Wood Roof Grey Colored Concrete Slate Tile Roof Trees: The project arborist inventoried three Coast Redwood trees located in the front yard which range in size from 20.5” to 29.5”. These trees are to be preserved and will be protected during construction. No other protected trees exist on the site. A description of the trees to be preserved and protection measures are included in the arborist report which is included as Attachment #2. Residential Calgreen Measures: The project exceeds the minimum CalGreen standards for a new residence. The extra measures include: • Exceeding the California Energy Code requirements by 15 percent; • Permeable paving to be at least 20% of all parking, walkways, or patios; • A “whole house” fan; Page 3 of 5 141 20269 Seagull Way • A tankless water heater; • Low water usage irrigation system; • Energy Star appliances. The project’s Residential Calgreen Measures Checklist is included as Attachment #5. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted 12 signed neighbor notification forms from adjacent property owners. The neighbor located at 20188 Seagull Way is in support of the project and stated his desire that the three Coast Redwood trees be preserved. No other neighbor concerns were noted on the forms. Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as Attachment #3. 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 preparation of this staff report. FINDINGS Design Review Findings: The findings required for issuance of a Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15- 45 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the site placement of adjacent residences and the existing privacy afforded to their respective windows and outdoor living spaces is not unreasonably impacted or reduced by the location of the proposed two story single-family residence. The majority of the second story glazing would be located on the front and rear elevations and there are no second story balconies or decks that would affect the existing privacy of adjacent properties. (b) The project preserves the natural landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that no protected trees are proposed for removal. (c) The project preserves protected, native and heritage trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the three Coast Redwood trees located at the front of the site will be preserved. The site does not contain any heritage trees. All protected trees will be fenced to reduce the chances that these trees will be damaged during construction. (d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in affirmative in that the impression of building height as viewed from the street is reduced as the second story is centered in the footprint of the building and the structure will have wide horizontal proportions that take up the majority of the site width thereby reducing the vertical appearance of the building. There are consistent hipped roof forms with sufficient architectural articulation and projections to reduce the impression of bulk, and blank building walls are avoided by the use of windows and architectural detailing. The neutral color pallet would aid in Page 4 of 5 142 20269 Seagull Way Page 5 of 5 blending the home with the proposed landscaping. Mature Coast Redwood trees help screen the building as viewed from offsite. (e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that proposed two story home is compatible in bulk and height with the adjacent two story home as well as other two-story homes in the immediate vicinity and surrounding neighborhood. (f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that it is conditioned to meet required grading and erosion control standards. (g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project is consistent with the following - Policy 1: Minimize Perception of Bulk – building width of greater proportion than height to reduce impression of height, the use of consistent roof forms, the use of colors to reduce bulk and break up the massing, and designing structure to fit with the site and the existing neighborhood. Policy 2: Integrate Structures with Environment – the use of natural colors and using landscaping to blend with the environment. Policy 3: Avoid Interference with Privacy - controlling views to adjacent properties and locating architectural elements to minimize privacy impacts. Policy 4: Preserve Views and Access to Views – locating structure to minimize view blockage. Policy 5: Design for Energy Efficiency – designing for maximum benefit of sun and wind as well as allowing light, air and solar access to adjacent homes, and incorporating energy-saving measures into the design in excess of the minimum standards. Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 13-046 approving the project, subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 2. Arborist Report 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Cal Green Checklist 5. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing Addresses for Project Notification 6. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 143 RESOLUTION NO: 13-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 20269 SEAGULL WAY WHEREAS, on August 22, 2013, an application was submitted by Eric Pang & Ying Wang requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story single family residence located at 20269 Seagull Way. The project has a total floor area of 3,199 square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. The site is located within the R-1-10,000 Zoning District (APN 386-52-017). 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 January 8, 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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy; preserves the natural landscape and native and heritage trees; minimizes the perception of excessive bulk and is of compatible bulk and height; uses current grading and erosion methods; and follows appropriate design polices and techniques. 144 Resolution No. 13-024 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR13-0018 located at 20269 Seagull Way subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 8th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission Exhibit 1 145 Resolution No. 13-024 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR13-0006 14921 SOBEY ROAD (APN 397-04-127) 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code 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. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater 146 Resolution No. 13-024 management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the 2007 Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. Additionally, the site development plan must not restrict, obstruct or alter the existing natural drainage swale along the rear property in any way that would cause or increase erosion. 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 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 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. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. 8. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the Saratoga Building Department. 9. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the City Engineer, as applicable. 10. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the City Arborist, as applicable, prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, as applicable. 12. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the Sewer District, as applicable, prior to issuance of building permits. 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 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 8th of January, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. 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: PDR13-0018 / 20269 Seagull Way APPLICANT/OWNER: Eric Pang & Ying Wang APN: 386-52-017 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new 3,199 square foot, approximately 26 feet tall, two-story home and related site improvements. The net lot size is approximately 9,375 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Thursday, January 2, 2014. 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 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: January 8, 2014 Application: Design Review PDR13-0019 Location / APN: 14870 Baranga Lane / 397-18-035 Owner / Applicant: Xindi Wu Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 14870 Baranga Ln. 188 SUMMARY ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Single-Family Res. (R1-40,000) Very Low-Density Res. (RVLD) PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE 45,215 sq. ft. (net lot size) ±18% GRADING REQUIRED Approximately 431 cubic yards PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested to demolish an existing one-story, 3,260 sq. ft. main residence, 888 sq. ft. garage, and 68 sq. ft. shed and construct a new one-story, 4,240 sq. ft. main residence and 2,224 sq. ft. basement. The height of the proposed residence will not exceed 22 feet. Three protected trees have been reviewed by the City Arborist and are proposed to be removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 13-047 subject to conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA Net Lot Size: 33,459 sq. ft. (due to 18% slope) Proposed Allowed Floor Area Living Area: Garage: Lower Level: Total Basement 3,265 sq. ft. 695 sq. ft. 280 sq. ft. 4,240 sq. ft. 2,224 sq. ft. 5,532 sq. ft. Site Coverage Building Footprint Covered Porch Balcony Rear Deck & Stair Existing Pool Existing Pool Deck & Walk Driveway (only count 50%) Total 3,960 sq. ft. 88 sq. ft. 96 sq. ft. 1,060 sq. ft. 835 sq. ft. 1,994 sq. ft. 3,617 sq. ft. 11,650 sq. ft. (26%) 15,825 sq. ft. (35%) 189 Setbacks Front: Side (Left): Side (Right): Rear Existing 30’ 20’ 20’ 50’ Proposed 113’ 61’ 25’ 50’ Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 125’ 130.50’ 127.75’ 149.75’ (22’) Maximum Building Height is 153.75’ (26 Feet) Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(3), any new single-story structure or addition to a single story structure over eighteen feet in height requires design review approval from the Planning Commission. The application includes a single-story residence over 18 feet in height. SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Site Description The project site is within a rural residential area located approximately south of City Hall and north of Farewell Avenue and Highway 9. The area is surrounded with large single- family residential on large, deep, tree-filled lots. Building Design The proposed residence is a contemporary design that includes a stucco exterior, pre-cast concrete columns, trim and sills, cultured stone veneer wainscoting, wood-clad windows, and a two-piece clay tile roof. The material and colors include a “California beige’ exterior, ‘Sand dune tan’ colored travertine finish columns and trim, ‘Desert Blend Cobblefield’ stone veneer, and a ‘Redland clay’ multi-tone roof. Additional accents include a wood stained carriage door and a copper chimney cap, gutters and downspout. A color and material board will be available at the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Materials Building ext. ‘California beige’ colored stucco Windows ‘Sand Dune’ colored columns, trim and sills Roofing ‘Redland’ clay barrel tile. Building base ‘Desert Blend Cobblefield’ stone veneer Landscaping & Trees The site contains over 70 protected trees. The City Arborist has approved the removal of three protected trees which include one dead Monterey pine, one dead Coast Live oak, and one Arizona cypress in conflict with the proposed driveway. The combined value of all three trees is $790 and trees of this value must be planted as part of the project. as The Arborist report is included as Attachment 2. 3 190 The applicant is not proposing substantial new landscaping as the front of the site already includes mature trees and established landscaping.. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Neighbor Correspondence The applicant submitted six neighbor notification forms from neighboring property owners. Staff tried to contact the property owner of 14850 Baranga Lane to determine their exact concern, but was unable to establish contact. Staff also sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. Staff has not received any additional comments on the project as of the writing of this staff report. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the residence will be a single-story structure and be surrounded by mature landscaping, which creating a vegetated buffer which limits view and privacy impacts of adjacent residences. The applicant has also increased the required side setbacks to further limit the interference of views or privacy. . (b) The project preserves the natural landscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the majority of the new residence would be located within the building footprint of the existing residence which would preserve the existing, mature landscape along the periphery of the site. Over 69 protected trees would remain onsite. . (c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that no heritage trees are proposed for removal. The applicant has designed the residence to preserve the majority of protected trees located on the site. Of the three protected trees being proposed for removal, two are already dead. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to adequately fence and protect the remaining protected trees during project construction. . (d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has incorporated design and construction techniques such as proposing a single-story low profile design and a basement that is recessed into the property slope, as well as the use of high quality finishes such as travertine columns, trim and sills, cultured stone veneer, decorative wrought iron bars and guard railing, and a copper chimney cap, gutters and downspouts. 4 191 5 (e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the overall design of the residence is compatible in bulk and height of neighboring properties within the immediate area. The existing neighborhood includes large lots with residences with large front yard setbacks. The proposed project is significantly setback from the street and located within the center area of the property. (f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the applicant has proposed limited grading and the project includes erosion control methods such as a temporary equipment washing facility for concrete washout, fiber rolls in furrows as well as temporary drainage inlet protection and sediment control bags. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates the following design techniques: a. The proposed residence softens elevations by using different materials. (Policy 1, Technique #3) b. The project utilizes architectural features to break up the massing such as varying the roof heights, use of stone, stucco, and clay, and avoidance of large expanded walls without windows. This technique creates an effect that minimizes bulk. (Policy 1, Technique #6) c. The use of natural, earth tone colors. (Policy 2, Technique #1) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 13-047 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Arborist Report 3. Neighbor Notification 4. Public hearing notice, mailing addresses, and map for project notification 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.” 192 RESOLUTION NO. 13-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. PDR13-0019 APPROVING A NEW ONE-STORY WITH BASEMENT RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 14870 BARANGA LANE WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Xindi Wu, to demolish an existing one- story residence, in order to build a new 4,420 sq. ft. one-story residence with a 2,224 sq. ft. basement. Design Review approval is required because the proposed project is new single-story structure over eighteen feet in height. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on January 8, 2014 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 1.1 in that the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached residences and LU 1.2 to continue to review all residential development proposals to ensure consistency with Land Use Element goals and Policies. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy; preserves the natural landscape, native and heritage trees; minimizes the perception of excessive bulk and is of compatible bulk and height; uses current grading and erosion control methods; and follows appropriate design policies and techniques. Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the removal of three protected trees meets the criteria established in Section 15-50.080(a). 193 Resolution No. 13‐047 Page 2 Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR13-0019, located at 14870 Baranga Lane, subject to the above Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 8th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Com mission 194 Resolution No. 13‐047 Page 3 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR13-0019 14870 BARANGA LANE (APN: 397-18-035) 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. 195 Resolution No. 13‐047 Page 4 In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. 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 June 6, 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 3, above. 6. 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. 5 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. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; d. City Arborist Reports dated November 15, 2013, and all other future updated reports, onto separate construction plan pages; e.A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of required setback areas; by a registered Civil Engineer combined tion Plan; f. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped with the above‐required Stormwater Deten g. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and h. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 7. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 8. 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. 9. Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 10. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take into account the following: 196 Resolution No. 13‐047 Page 5 a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees 11. Fire Department Requirements. Owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 12. Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. CITY ARBORIST 13. Arborist Report. All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated November 15, 2013 and all other future updated reports, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated (in its entirety) into the plans. PUBLIC WORKS 14. Encroachment Permit. The 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. CITY GEOLOGIST 15. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. Results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 16. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not 197 Resolution No. 13‐047 Page 6 necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for retaining walls and basement prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Subsurface moisture conditions should be evaluated during basement excavation and installation of a supplemental axial subdrain beneath the basement floor should be considered if warranted by exposed conditions. The consultant shall inspect final site drainage improvements for conformance with geotechnical recommendations. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 18. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 198 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 #: ARB13-0051 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 14870 Baranga Lane Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Xindi Wu Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-18-035 Email: xindiwu@gmail.com Report History #1 Date: Plans received September 11, 2013 Report completed October 3, 2013 #2 – This report replaces report #1 Appraised values for trees received November 12, 2013 Report completed November 15, 2013 PROJECT SCOPE The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and build a new one story house with a basement and a three car garage. The plans show that the existing pool and surrounding concrete will be retained. Three trees (#268, 270 and 283) protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. A fourth tree that is not protected by City Code is also requested for removal. It may be removed at any time without a permit. CLEARANCE – with conditions This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the conditions noted below in the Conditions of Approval section. PLAN REVIEW Plans Reviewed: Architectural plans were prepared by TDH Design and dated May 2013. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet S, Site Plan; Sheet 1, Main Floor Plan; Sheet 2, Basement Floor Plan; Sheets 4 and 5, Elevations; Sheet 6, Sections; and Sheet L, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Civil plans were prepared by LE Engineering and dated June 13, 2013. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet C1, Title Sheet and Demolition Plan; Sheet C2, Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan; and Sheet C3, Details. Page 1 of 7 199 14870 Baranga Lane TREE INFORMATION An arborist report prepared by Robert Booty and dated July 15, 2013, was submitted along with the plans. The arborist report inventoried 72 trees protected by City Code and provided information on the condition of each tree. Some trees were misidentified in the report, and some locations on the map did not match up to the corresponding tree tag number. Appraised values were prepared by Walter Levison, ISA Certified Arborist WC-3172, and Registered Consulting Arborist #401. Tree names were corrected when appraised values were submitted. Tree Inventory: The submitted inventory identified 51 coast live oaks, 10 Monterey pines, 2 California peppers, 1 unknown species, 2 European olives, 1 Brazilian pepper, 2 blue gum eucalyptus, 2 coast redwoods and 1 Colorado blue spruce. Trees were marked with a numbered aluminum tag for identification in the field. A site visit found that some trees were misidentified, and their names are corrected in the next paragraph. Data for trees was listed in a table on the plans. The following are corrected names for misidentified trees. Trees #230 and 247 are Schinus terebinthefolius, Brazilian pepper; trees #260 and 261 are Eucalyptus polyanthemos, silver dollar gum; tree #262 is Cedrus deodara, deodar cedar; tree #282 is Pinus halepensis, Aleppo pine; tree #283 is Cupressus arizonica, Arizona cypress. The Tree Inventory Table on the Site Plan should be corrected on the final plans. Each tree was numbered on the site plan. In some cases the number does not correctly correspond to the tag attached to the tree in the field. These were corrected on the attached map and this information should be corrected on the Site Plan and Grading Plan in the final plan set. Tree Removals: Three trees (#268, 270 and 283) are requested for removal to build the project. They include one dead Monterey pine (268), one dead coast live oak (270) and one Arizona cypress (283) in conflict with the proposed driveway. Monterey pines #213, 277 and 281, and Aleppo pine #282 may be in conflict with construction of the new driveway, and are precariously situated at the top of a steep slope retained with a low wall. If the driveway is widened by these trees, or the retaining wall replaced, they may be seriously impacted. 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. No equipment is permitted on site until after the City Arborist inspects and approves tree protection fencing. See the Conditions of Approval for details. Locations for tree protection fencing are shown on the attached map. Oak tree #236 is a focal point for the property. It is shown in its correct location on the Site Plan, but is not shown on the civil plans, and should be shown in its correct location on the Grading and Page 2 of 7 200 14870 Baranga Lane Drainage Plan. It will be significantly impacted by installation of a sanitary sewer cleanout and line located just a few feet from the tree’s trunk. To adequately protect it, the sewer line should remain at least 10 feet from the trunk of the tree, and the first two feet should be hand dug preserving all roots measuring two inches or more in diameter. Pipes can be placed under the exposed roots. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool once exposed. Oak tree #269 is another coast live oak in good condition that should be retained and preserved. The Grading and Drainage plan shows a joint trench on one side of the tree about 8 feet from the tree’s trunk, and a storm drain line on another side of the tree about 12 feet from the trunk. Both of these must be hand dug where they are within 15 feet of the tree’s trunk under the supervision of the Project Arborist. All roots measuring 2 inches or more in diameter are to be preserved and worked around. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. Eucalyptus trees #260 and 261 are also potentially impacted by installation of the storm drain. They can also be adequately protected if excavation for the drain line is dug by hand for the first two feet where it is within 20 feet of their trunks. Roots measuring two inches or more in diameter should be retained and drain pipes placed underneath them. Alternatively, the drain can be rerouted to remain at least 20 feet from the trunks of these two trees. A young coast live oak grows right by the roof of a shed housing the pool equipment. The tree was not included in the submitted inventory, and is numbered #214A on the attached map. It is in good health and has good structure. It should be retained and preserved during construction. Any work on the shed for the pool equipment will require monitoring by the Project Arborist. Installation of a dissipater pit will potentially impact a number of young oaks growing around its proposed location (trees #206, 230B, 231, 243, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259). None of these trees has been requested for removal, and installation of the dissipater pit will require supervision by the Project Arborist. Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees: Pursuant to City Code section 15-50.080(d), a tree protection security deposit is required for this project. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Department, the required security deposit prior to receiving building permits. The security deposit may be in the 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. The required tree protection security deposit for this project is $42,600 for trees #189, 206, 213, 214, 214A, 220, 225, 226, 230, 230A, 230B, 231, 236, 242, 243, 250, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 269, 272, 277, 281, and 282. Appraised Values: 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. Page 3 of 7 201 14870 Baranga Lane FINDINGS Tree Removal Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Four trees (#268, 270 and 283) are requested for removal to construct the project. They meet the criteria allowing removal and replacement as part of the project, and can be removed and replaced once building division permits have been issued. Replacement Trees: New trees will be required to replace trees approved for removal to construct the project. Trees removed for construction purposes must be replaced with new trees equal to the total appraised value of the trees removed. The total appraised value for these trees is $790. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property and be of any species. 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. A “Tree Preservation” plan sheet shall be created and include: a. The arborist report prepared by the City Arborist dated November 15, 2013. b. The arborist report by Robert Booty dated July 15, 2013. c. Appraised values provided by Walter Levison dated October 30, 2013. 2. Tree Protection Security Deposit – $42,600 a. Shall be for trees #189, 206, 213, 214, 214A, 220, 225, 226, 230, 230A, 230B, 231, 236, 242, 243, 250, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 269, 272, 277, 281, and 282. b. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. c. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. d. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City. 3. 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. Replacement Tree Values: 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Page 4 of 7 202 14870 Baranga Lane d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. 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. 4. The designated Project Arborist shall be Robert Booty, of Arborist on Site. 5. The Project Arborist shall visit the site at least every two weeks during grading activities, and at least once per month throughout construction. 6. The Project Arborist shall monitor the activities listed below, and provide a letter to the City prior to a final inspection of the project. The letter shall document the work and include photos. a. All rough grading work. b. Excavation for the basement. c. Excavation for the new driveway. d. Installation of the retaining walls. e. Excavation for the dissipater pit. f. All utilities within 15 feet of trees. 7. Trenching to install new utilities is not permitted inside tree protection fencing. 8. Changes in grade shall remain 20 feet or more from trees #236, 260, 261 and 269. 9. Installation of utilities within 15 feet of a protected tree’s trunk shall be installed as follows: a. Trenches shall be hand dug for the first 2 feet under the supervision of the project arborist. b. All roots measuring two inches or more in diameter shall be retained and worked around. Pipes can be laid under intact roots. c. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 10. 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. 11. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. 12. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. Page 5 of 7 203 14870 Baranga Lane 13. 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. 14. The plans shall clearly indicate trees that are requested for removal. 15. Trees #268, 270 and 283 are approved for removal to build the project, and may be removed once Building Division permits have been obtained. 16. New trees equal to $790 shall be planted as part of the project before a final inspection and occupancy of the new home. 17. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 18. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees, and may be of any species. 19. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the canopy of oak trees on site. 20. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak 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 Map showing locations of protective fencing around trees Page 6 of 7 204 14870 Baranga 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 7 205 14870 Baranga Lane November 15, 2013 Legend Tree Canopy Tree Protective Fence Tree Not Protected by Code NP 236 270 271 230 No tag No tag 250 260 261 214A 214 272 268 267 266 269 230A 230B NP NP NP 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 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 8th day of January, 2014, 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: PDR13-0019 / 14870 Baranga Ln. APPLICANT/OWNER: Xindi Wu APN: 397-18-035 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 4,240 sq. ft. one story single-family residence with a 2,224 sq. ft. basement. The height of the new residence will not exceed 22 feet. Three protected trees have been reviewed by the City Arborist and are proposed to be removed. The net site area is 1.03 acres and zoned R-1-40,000. 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 Thursday, January 2, 2014. 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 213 Subject APN: 397-18-035 Address: 14870 Baranga Lane 500’ Radius Saratoga, CA 95070 Advanced Listing Services Inc. Ownership Listings & Radius Maps P.O. Box 2593 •Dana Point, CA •92624 Office: (949) 361-3921 •Fax: (949) 361-3923 www.Advancedlisting.com 214 Parcel Number Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip #5754 500' OWNERSHIP LISTING Prepared for: 14870 Baranga Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 397-18-016 SCOTT A & LORI L EMERY 14780 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-027 BANK OF AMERICA NA SUCC MERGER 1800 TAPO CANYON RD SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 397-18-028 ROYAL MEADOW INV LLC 14825 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-029 GIPPETTI TRUST 14847 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-034 THOMAS W & SUSAN J COLLINS 14890 BARANGA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-035 XINDI WU 968 HURLSTONE LN SAN JOSE CA 95120 397-18-036 JAIMIN A SHAH 14850 BARANGA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-037 ROBERT W & SHIRLEY J GUEST PO BOX 2668 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-038 RICHARD & CARLA W SCUDELLARI 14855 BARANGA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-039 GHRTBARANGA LLC 22 S SANTA CRUZ AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 397-18-040 FAROKH & KARKHANECHI HAIDEH MEHRAN 14915 BARANGA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-041 WILLIAM A & HOLLY K BOLLER 19701 THREE OAKS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-058 CONG KHANH NGUYEN 14995 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-071 SARVAJIT & NEELAM THAKUR 14900 BARANGA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-072 THANG N & LIU CHUNHONG DO 14901 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-083 ROMULUS & JULIE P PEREIRA 14765 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-084 WEN JUNG & WEN LI LIN 14788 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-085 BRIAN J & JULIE A KELLY 14772 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-088 SEUNG-CHAI & SHIN-HYANG NAM 19525 THREE OAKS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-089 WILLIAM K & JUDY C YAMAGUCHI 14755 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-090 PEGGY A PLATO 14775 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-091 VAN-DAT & TO-NGA G NGUYEN 19557 THREE OAKS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-092 RICHARD M & BETH L FERRARI P O BOX 2188 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-096 PENG & YANG XIAOYU CHENG 14737 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-099 CHRISTOPHER B & DONNA J PAISLEY 14870 THREE OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-100 MCCASKEY CHAR TR 14836 THREE OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 397-18-101 NICK & ELLEN G HARRIS 14815 THREE OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 397-19-007 BRIAN & PAMELA ROPER KAISER 19610 THREE OAKS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 397-19-024 LUSHAN & ROBERT T GORDON 19554 THREE OAKS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 397-19-025 KENNETH A & DOLORES E ZADWICK 15013 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-32-010 DAVID C & CYNTHIA A MCCROSKEY 14865 ANDREW CT SARATOGA CA 95070 397-32-011 SHUNG CHIANG TAI 19493 CRISP AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-32-012 GARY J & MARK JOHNSON 125 WATER ST #B SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 397-32-013 RONALD C FOX 14961 HAUN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 397-32-014 MITCHELL P & BIYABANI SARA LICHTENBERG 14993 HAUN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 35 215 Exhibit “A” 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226