The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-11-14 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents Agenda 3 May 28, 2014 Draft Minutes 5 Application FER14-0001; 15240 Madrone Hill Road (517-22- 060); David and Colette Kress - The applicant is requesting a Fence Exception to install a portion of a wrought iron fence, two pilasters and an entrance gate over the allowable height limit within the front setback. The eight foot tall ornate wrought iron entrance gate would be attached to two, nine foot tall square stone pilasters. The pilasters would then be attached to six foot, nine inch tall wrought iron fencing. No native or protected trees would need to be removed in order to construct the gate or fence. This is a continuation of the May 28, 2014 public hearing. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati, 408-868-1212 Staff Report - 15240 Madrone Hill 7 Att 1 - Resolution 11 Att 2 - City Attorney Email 15 Att 3 - Gate and Fence 21 Att 4 - Gate and Fence Location 24 Att 5 - Finial Design 25 Application SUB13-0003, ENV13-0001; Paramount Drive; 503- 82-006; Dan & Marty Mathis on behalf of Kennedy 2005 Living Trust - The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative map to subdivide a 6.34 acre parcel located at the terminus of Paramount Drive into seven parcels ranging in size from 0.35 acres to 1.13 acres. The subject parcel is presently used as a vineyard. The project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act which became available for public review beginning May 9, 2014. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 Staff Report 26 Attachment 1 - Resolution 33 Attachment 2 - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 Attachment 3 - City Arborist Report 74 Attachment 4 - Public Hearing Notice 80 Attachment 5 - Neighbor Notification Forms 81 Attachment 6 - Tentative Map 94 Application #ELN14-0006; 13865 Yerba Santa Court / 389-33- 024; Nan Zhao; The applicant is proposing an addition to a legal non-conforming structure. The project will result in expenditure of approximately 30% of the estimated construction valuation of the existing structure. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Staff Memo 97 Resolution 99 Plans 103 General Plan Conformance Finding for New FY 14/15 Capital Improvement Program Projects. 1 Staff Report 114 Att. 1 - Memo from PW Director 115 Att. 2 - Resolution 116 Att. 3 - Project Summaries 117 Att. 4 - CIP Spreadsheet (Exhibit A)131 2 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 11, 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 May 28, 2014 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 FER14-0001; 15240 Madrone Hill Road (517-22-060); David and Colette Kress - The applicant is requesting a Fence Exception to install a portion of a wrought iron fence, two pilasters and an entrance gate over the allowable height limit within the front setback. The eight foot tall ornate wrought iron entrance gate would be attached to two, nine foot tall square stone pilasters. The pilasters would then be attached to six foot, nine inch tall wrought iron fencing. No native or protected trees would need to be removed in order to construct the gate or fence. This is a continuation of the May 28, 2014 public hearing. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati, 408-868-1212 Recommended action: Approve Resolution No. 14-020 subject to conditions of approval. 2. Application SUB13-0003, ENV13-0001; Paramount Drive; 503-82-006; Dan & Marty Mathis on behalf of Kennedy 2005 Living Trust - The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative map to subdivide a 6.34 acre parcel located at the terminus of Paramount Drive into seven parcels ranging in size from 0.35 acres to 1.13 acres. The subject parcel is presently used as a vineyard. The project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act which became available for public review beginning May 9, 2014. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 3 Recommended action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 14-017 thereby adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Vesting Tentative Map subject to the conditions of approval. NEW BUSINESS 1. Application #ELN14-0006; 13865 Yerba Santa Court / 389-33-024; Nan Zhao; The applicant is proposing an addition to a legal non-conforming structure. The project will result in expenditure of approximately 30% of the estimated construction valuation of the existing structure. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. 2. General Plan Conformance Finding for New FY 14/15 Capital Improvement Program Projects. DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on June 5, 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, May 28, 2014 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ROLL CALL PRESENT Commissioners Leonard Almalech, Wendy Chang, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Pragati Grover, Dede Smullen, Tina Walia, Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald ABSENT None ALSO PRESENT Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Michael Fossati, Planner COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 23, 2014. Action: GROVER/ALMALECH MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 23 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: WALIA. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application PDR14-0005; 20013 Cox Avenue (386-44-040); Cortel LLC on behalf of Sprint - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to modify an existing telecommunications facility. The project would replace three (3) existing antennas with three (3) new antennas and add three (3) RRUs on an existing PG&E lattice tower. No modifications will be made to the ground equipment, which is enclosed within an existing fenced area screened with landscaping. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Action: ALMALECH/SMULLEN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 14-016 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2. APPLICATION PDR13-0032; 15431 Bohlman Rd. (517-14-010); Brozicevic / Purvis – The applicant is requesting to construct 1893 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 3,082 sq. ft. single-story residence. The height of the remodeled residence will increase to be approximately 25 feet. No protected trees will be removed or impacted by the proposed project. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. 5 Action: GROVER/CHANG MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 14-014 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: Exterior Stucco Color. Prior to Final Inspection, the applicant shall paint the main residence and detached garage a “warmer, earth-tone” shade, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. Application ELN14-0005; 18594 Ravenwood Drive (397-43-040); Brett & Katherine Dawson/Steve Howard Construction - The applicant request Planning Commission approval to remodel an existing 2,072 square foot, one story, single-family home which encroaches into both the left and right side setback areas. The project would also include a 995 square foot addition which would conform to all setbacks. The proposed work will result in expenditure of approximately 49% of the estimated construction cost of the existing structure which requires approval by the Planning Commission. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235. Action: Application withdrawn. 4. Application FER14-0001; 15240 Madrone Hill Rd. (517-22-060); Colette and David Kress - The applicant is proposing to construct a six foot tall fence that would surround the property at 15240 Madrone Hill Road. A fence exception is required because portions of the six foot tall wrought iron fence and the proposed nine foot tall entrance gate columns would be located within the front setback. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati, (408)868-1212. Action: THE COMMISSION MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO JUNE 11, 2014 MEETING. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. NEW BUSINESS 1. Selection of summer recess for 2014. Action: The Commission canceled the August 27, 2014 meeting for a summer recess. DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT 6 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 11, 2014 Application: Fence Exception FER14-0001 Location / APN: 15240 Madrone Hill Rd. / 517-22-060 Owner / Applicant: Kress Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 15240 Madrone Hill Rd. 7 2 SUMMARY ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Single-Family Residential (R1-40,000) Very Low Density Residential (RVLD) PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE 4.0 acres 22% GRADING REQUIRED N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: At the May 28, 2014 public hearing, the Planning Commission requested clarification on a number of items regarding the fence exception request for the property located at 15240 Madrone Hill Road. Those items include the following: 1. Modify the resolution to include all exceptions being requested. 2. Verify if the Planning Commission has the authority to grant an exception for pilasters to be constructed above eight feet in height. 3. Verify with the applicant to consider moving more of the wrought iron fence outside the front setback. 4. Verify the height of the wrought iron fence. 5. Provide hard copies of the layout of the fencing. 6. Verify with the applicant to consider placing a bar on top of the proposed finials in order to protect wildlife (i.e. deer) from potential harm. 7. Provide exact height of the chain link and cattle fence As directed by the Planning Commission, staff has discussed the aforementioned items with the applicant as follows: 1. Modify the resolution to include all exceptions being requested. The proposed resolution has been edited to include the exceptions requested by the applicant. These exceptions include: • Approximately 210 feet long of six foot, nine inch tall wrought iron fencing within the front setback where three feet tall fencing is allowed without exception. • An approximately eight foot tall ‘wrought iron’ gate where a five feet tall gate is allowed without exception. • Nine foot pilasters where eight foot pilasters would be allowed without exception. The edited text has been included in the project description (see Attachment 1). 2. Verify if the Commission has the authority to grant an exception for pilasters to be constructed above eight feet in height. Staff has forward the question to the Assistant City Attorney and it has been determined that the Commission has the authority to allow a pilaster over eight feet in height via the fence exception process (see Attachment 2). 8 3 3. Verify with the applicant to consider moving more of the wrought iron fence outside the front setback. The applicant informed staff that they wish to keep the fence as it is currently proposed. The proposed fence location was a product of the applicant, the neighboring property owner (that share the property line), and the landscape architect. As stated in the previous staff report, approximately 210 linear feet of wrought iron fencing is within the front setback. 4. Verify the height of the wrought iron fence. The height of the fence, if taken from the grade to the top of the finial, would measure to approximately nine feet, nine inches. The fence itself is six feet, six inches, but the applicant has proposed to install the fence three inches above the ground. 5. Provide hard copies of fencing layout. Hard copies of the fence layout as well as an elevation of the wrought iron fence, pilasters, and wrought iron gate is included as Attachment 3 and 4. A sample picture of cattle fencing has also been included within that attachment. 6. Verify with the applicant to consider placing a bar on top of the proposed finials in order to protect wildlife (i.e. deer) from potential harm. The Commission recommended the applicant place a bar on top of the finial to create a blunt surface where a deer would not be injured jumping over the fence. The applicant has proposed a “Fleur de Lis” style finial, with the tip of the finial to be rounded with a ball on top, rather than pointed. The picture of the proposed finial can be seen as Attachment 5. 7. Provide exact height of the chain link and cattle fence. Per City Code Section 15-29.010 (a)(2), open fencing, such as wrought iron, wire material, split rail, chain link, or other similar fencing shall not exceed eight feet in height without Planning Commission approval. The chain link fence would be completely unseen from the public right-of-way. The cattle fence may be visible along the east side of the property next to Madrone Hill Road for no more than a total of 150 feet. The height of both the chain link and cattle fence would range between seven feet and eight feet, but the visibility of the fence would blend with the topography of the site. The applicant has agreed to keep the chain link and cattle fencing at a height not exceeding eight feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 14-020 subject to conditions of approval. FENCE EXCEPTION FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Fence Exception Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-29.090(a) are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: 1. The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the neighborhood. This finding can be met because the proposed location of the fence is surrounded by residential properties with similarly tall fences, such as 15253 and 15201 Montalvo Road 9 4 and 19870 Mendelsohn Lane. Similar gate and pilaster heights and detail can be found 15195 Piedmont Road, 15301 Peach Hill Road, 15400 Peach Hill Road, 15168 Piedmont Road and 15200 Montalvo Road. 2. The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable. This finding can be met because the proposed fence would include high quality materials such as custom made wrought iron for the fence and gate and cast iron and stone for the pilasters. The fence details would be ornate and attractive. All of these features increase the durability of the subject fence. 3. The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which the fence is located. This finding can be made because the proposed fence would be constructed of high quality materials and are consistent with the architectural style of neighboring residences that are within the neighborhood. 4. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located. This finding can be met because the quality design as well as the proposed location and placement are well setback from the public right-of-way as well as nearby properties. The placement would not detract from the character of the existing neighborhood as wrought iron fencing is prevalent in the area. 5. The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties. This finding can be met in that the gate has been designed with openings to permit visibility from inside the property. Furthermore, the gate and associated fence are significantly setback from the Madrone Hill Road and would not impede on vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle traffic within the public right-of-way. 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. The project includes pilasters, an entrance gate and perimeter fencing that would surround the property. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. E-mail from Assistant City Attorney, dated 6/5/14 3. Site Plan with Fence and Gate Location. 4. Proposed Fence and Gate – Materials Board. 5. Proposed Finial. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 14-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION NO. FER14-0001 APPROVING A SIX AND A HALF FOOT TALL FENCE, SEVEN FOOT GATE, AND NINE FOOT COLUMNS WITHIN A FRONT SETBACK LOCATED AT 15240 MADRONE HILL RD. WHEREAS, a Fence Exception application was submitted for the construction of approximately 210 linear feet of six foot, nine inch tall wrought iron fencing, nine foot tall pilasters, and an eight foot tall entrance gate within the front setback located at 15240 Madrone Hill Road. 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 May 28 , 2014 and June 11, 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 subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the neighborhood, the entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable, the modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which the fence is located, the granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located; and the granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for 11 Resolution No. 14-015 Page 2 vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves FER14-0001, located at 15240 Madrone Hill, 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 11th day of June 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission 12 Resolution No. 14-015 Page 3 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FER14-0001 15240 MADRONE HILL RD. (APN: 517-22-060) 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. 13 Resolution No. 14-015 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 February 5, 2014 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition 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. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; c. Arborist Report, dated April 16, 2014, and all future reports onto a separate construction plan page; 7. 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. 8. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaped areas outside of the proposed fence shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized, sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community Development Director. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Finial for Wrought Iron Fence FER14‐0001 15240 Madrone Hill Rd. 25 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 of 7 Meeting Date: June 11, 2014 Application No: SUB13-0003, ENV13-0001 Type of Application: Tentative Subdivision Map/Mitigated Negative Declaration Location / APN: Paramount Drive / 503-82-006 Owner/Applicant: Kennedy 2005 Living Trust / Dan & Marty Mathis Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan Paramount Drive 26 Application No. SUB 13-0003; Paramount Drive Page 2 of 7 SUMMARY The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative map to subdivide a 6.34 acre parcel located at the terminus of Paramount Drive into seven parcels ranging in size from 0.35 acres to 1.13 acres. The subject parcel is presently used as a vineyard. The project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act which became available for public review beginning May 9, 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 14-017 thereby adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Vesting Tentative Map subject to the conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA: Site Area: 6.34 acres Average Slope: 8.9 percent General Plan Designation: Residential Very Low Density & Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-1-40,000 & R-1-12.500 Proposal Standard Zoning Net Area Calculations: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 41,236 SF 22,539 SF 23,219 SF 15,321 SF 49,115 SF 41,428 SF 47,399 SF Minimum 40,000 SF 20,000 SF (Flag Lot) 12,500 SF 12,500 SF 40,000 SF 40,000 SF 40,000 SF R-1-40,000 R-1-12,500 R-1-12,500 R-1-12,500 R-1-40,000 R-1-40,000 R-1-40,000 Slope Calculations: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 10.0% 9.8% 8.1% 6.0% 5.8% 11.4% 9.5% The average natural grade of the footprint underneath any dwelling unit, swimming pool or other structure shall not exceed 30% slope. Maximum Allowable Floor Area Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 6,040 SF 4,674 SF 4,752 SF 4,128 SF 6,200 SF 6,040 SF 6,160 SF 27 Application No. SUB 13-0003; Paramount Drive Page 3 of 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Tentative Map approval is required pursuant to City Code Section 14-20.070. The Final Map approval requires action by the City Council prior to recordation of the map. Site Description: The 6.34 acre parcel is located at the terminus of both Paramount Drive and Paramount Court and is presently used as a vineyard. Single family homes surround the site with R-1-40,000 zoning to the south, west, and north and R-1-12,500 zoning to the east. The site is divided by two different General Plan land use designations and two zoning designations. The western 4.9 acres of the site has a General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) and a zoning designation of R-1-40,000. The eastern 1.44 acres of the site has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential: M-12.5 and a zoning designation of R-1-12,500. Background: The subject parcel was previously included in a larger 9.42 acre subdivision which received tentative map approval in October 1996. That subdivision included a total of 12 parcels. Five of the parcels were located on Rodeo Creek Hollow which is accessed from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The remaining seven parcels had the same orientation, similar square footages, and roadway access as the currently proposed tentative map. After the previous tentative map was approved the applicant separated the project into two phases and only filed a final map for the five Rodeo Creek Hollow lots (Phase 1) totaling 3.08 acres. These lots have since been developed with single-family homes. A final map was not filed for the 6.34 acres (Phase 2), which included the seven parcels, and therefore these lots were never formally created. Project Description/Street Access: The proposed project would subdivide the 6.34 acre parcel into seven parcels ranging in size from 0.35 to 1.13 acres. The proposed tentative map has the same configuration and similar lot square footages as the previously approved tentative map. Parcels 1 and 5-6 would conform to development standards of the R-1-40,000 zoning district and parcels 2-4 would conform to the development standards of the R-1-12,500 zoning district. A cul-de-sac would extend Paramount Court into the site and would provide access to all the lots with the exception of Lot 6. Paramount Drive currently ends at the southern edge of the site and a cul-de-sac would be constructed at this terminus to provide access to Lot 6. A concern of the neighboring property owners when the map was originally approved in 1996 were the possible traffic impacts if Paramount Drive and Paramount Court were connected. The currently proposed tentative map has the same public street access as the previous map with both sections of Paramount Drive terminating in cul-de-sacs. A 20 foot wide pedestrian/bike pathway would connect both sections of Paramount Drive. A drainage swale and dense trees are located along the eastern side of the site which buffer the site from the single family homes located on Rodeo Creek Hollow. When the subdivision map was approved in 1996 it included a 60 foot wide open space/riparian habitat easement on both sides of the drainage swale as measured from its centerline. This easement is shown on the map and it affects Lots 2-4. No improvements with the exception of open wire fencing with spacing between the wires of at least four inches are allowed to be constructed within this easement 28 Application No. SUB 13-0003; Paramount Drive Page 4 of 7 Drainage: The property has an average slope of approximately 8.9% and currently drains in an easterly direction towards the drainage swale along the eastern side of the site. Two cul-de-sacs would be constructed to provide public street access to the new lots. Assuming that the R-1- 40,000 zoned lots would be developed at site coverage of 35 percent and the R-1-12,500 lots would be developed at site coverage of 55 percent, and adding in the public streets, the project would add 2.78 acres of new impervious coverage to the site. The Conceptual Drainage Plan (sheet two of the tentative map) illustrates how stormwater runoff from these new impervious areas would be treated prior to being directed towards the drainage swale. Stormwater would be collected and directed to one of three 3.5’ deep vegetated bioretention areas that would retain and treat the runoff prior to being directed towards the drainage swale. It is anticipated that these seven lots would be developed individually. The City will require that each new development include a grading and drainage plan that will maintain site drainage on site to the maximum extent possible. It is anticipated that this will be done through the use of both retention facilities as well as bioswales. The use of the bioretention system that would be constructed as part of the subdivision, as well as the drainage control measures that would be incorporated into each individual single-family home design, would will retard the flow of storm water being directed towards the drainage swale to the maximum extent possible. Traffic: A policy of the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan requires a transportation analysis for all development projects resulting in 25 or more peak-hour trips. The tentative map was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer and it was estimated that the seven homes would generate fourteen A.M. peak hour trips and ten P.M. peak hour trips. The net increase in peak hour trips would be less than 25, which is below the threshold for traffic review. The subdivision, as a whole, is expected to have a less than significant impact on the traffic volume of adjacent streets. City Arborist Review: An existing 25.5” Oak tree is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site in the area where Paramount Drive would enter the site as a cul-de-sac. The City Arborist has reviewed this tree and has determined that this tree can be removed and replaced with new trees totaling $13,500. A copy of the City Arborist report is included as Attachment #3. Neighbor Correspondence: The applicant contacted or attempted to contact all adjacent property owners. Twelve of the neighbor notification forms were signed and returned to the applicant. Ten of the neighbors are in support of the project and/or included no comments on the forms. Two neighbors did include comments which are addressed below: 13169 Stewart Court – This property owner is located adjacent to the southeastern corner of the project site and is concerned about the possible discrepancy between the existing rear yard fence and the property line which separates their property from the subject parcel. Staff did contact this neighbor and explained that the fence location would not impact the accuracy of the adjoining property line. Staff also forwarded to this neighbor a copy of the recorded map which created her parcel and explained the relationship between this map and the property lines. 29 Application No. SUB 13-0003; Paramount Drive Page 5 of 7 13156 Paramount Court – This property owner lives adjacent to the southwestern corner of the project site and is concerned primarily about existing site drainage and privacy impacts related to a future residence that would be constructed on Lot #6. Staff contacted this neighbor and explained that any new residence to be constructed on Lot #6 would require Design Review approval and that she would receive public notice and would have the opportunity to provide comments. 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 on May 30, 2014. No other comments have been received at the time of the preparation of this Staff Report. FINDINGS Tentative Subdivision Map Findings: The findings required for issuance of a Tentative Map Approval pursuant to City Code Section 14- 20.070 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: Finding #1: The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density, which allows up to 1.09 dwelling units per acre (Lots 1, 5-7) and Medium Density Residential: M-12.5, which allows 3.48 dwelling units per acre (Lots 2-4). The maximum number of units allowed on the existing lot is seven (7) which is consistent with the proposal. The proposed parcels meet and exceed the minimum lot size required of the lots that are zoned 40,000 sq. ft. and those that are zoned R-1-12,500 pursuant to the municipal code. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code. Finding #2: The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. No development or improvements are proposed at this time. Future improvements, including but not limited to new homes and grading and paving of driveways and public streets, will require Design Review and/or building permits. Future development of residential homes will be reviewed for impacts on views and privacy. Likewise, design review approval will not be granted unless future development is compatible with neighboring residential structures. Finding #3: The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The project was reviewed for geological and geotechnical hazards and constraints present on the site. A Preliminary Soils Report was reviewed by the Public Works Department. An in-depth site specific soils investigation will be prepared for each lot prior to the issuance of building permits for individual residences. Finding #4: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site meets or exceeds the minimum required area for development of seven (7) primary dwelling units. The development meets or exceeds the zoning district standards for the development of single 30 Application No. SUB 13-0003; Paramount Drive Page 6 of 7 family homes as proposed by this subdivision. The project is compatible with the surrounding density of residential development. Finding #5: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15070 and following of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The MND is based on an Initial Study which indicates there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Saratoga, that the project as mitigated may have a significant effect on the environment. The Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was and available for a 20 day public review period beginning May 9, 2014. Finding #6: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The project meets this finding. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by the Planning Department and circulated to the following agencies: Cupertino Sanitary District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, San Jose Water, Santa Clara County Health Department, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, Pacific Gas & Electric, and local School Districts. The applicant will be required to comply with all conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site requested by all Agencies or Utilities having jurisdiction over the project. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Building Department and Public Works Department. Finding #7: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access or use. The site includes an existing sanitary sewer easement for the Cupertino Sanitary District and an existing Open Space/Riparian as provided in the Preliminary Title Report for the property. The subdivision, as proposed, will not conflict with these easements. Future improvements will be reviewed to ensure that they do not conflict with easements for access or use. Finding #8: The proposed subdivision of land is not subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Finding #9: The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements. The applicant will be required to conform to all standards, requirements, and conditions of the Cupertino Sanitary District. The applicant will be required to submit a sewer improvement plan and an on-site sewer system designed in accordance with Sanitary Sewer District standards. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15070 and following of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). This MND is based on an Initial Study which indicates there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Saratoga, that the project as mitigated may have a significant effect on the environment. The Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was available for review beginning May 9, 2014. 31 Application No. SUB 13-0003; Paramount Drive Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Negative Declaration and Vesting Tentative Map 2. Initial Study and Negative Declaration, dated May 8, 2014 3. City Arborist Report, dated June 3, 2014 4. Public Hearing Notice, Notification Mailing Addresses 5. Neighbor Notification forms 6. Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plan (Exhibit "A") 32 RESOLUTION NO. 14-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION A THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV13-0001) AND APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (SUB13-0003) LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF PARAMOUNT DRIVE (APN 503-82-006) WHEREAS, on April 17, 2013, an application and tentative subdivision map was submitted by Dan Mathis and Marty Mathis, requesting approval to subdivide a 6.34 acre site into seven parcels, located at the terminus of Paramount Drive. The 6.34 acre parcel is located at the terminus of both Paramount Drive and Paramount Court and is presently used as a vineyard. Single family homes surround the site with R-1-40,000 zoning to the south, west, and north and R-1-12,500 zoning to the east. The site is divided by two different General Plan land use designation and two zoning designations. The western 4.9 acres of the site has a General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) and a zoning designation of R-1-40,000. The eastern 1.44 acres of the site has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential: M-12.5; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an initial study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements; and WHEREAS, the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period beginning May 9, 2014. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the ND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on June 11, 2014; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 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. All comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration raised during the public and agency comment period and at the Public Hearing(s) on the Project were considered by the Planning Commission. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is consistent with Saratoga General Plan Land Use Policy LU 1.1 which affirms that the city shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached residences; Open Space Element Policy 11.a which provides that the City shall ensure that projects are designed in a manner that minimizes disruption to important wildlife, riparian and plant habitats; and Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits. 33 Resolution No.13-003 Page 2 Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in: (1) That the proposed map or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; (3) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (4) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (5) That the design of the subdivision or building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (6) That the design of the subdivision or building site or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems; (7) That the design of the subdivision or building site or type or improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. In this connection, the advisory agency may grant tentative approval if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the advisory agency to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site; (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act") will not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4; and (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision or building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. Section 4: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on an Initial Study which indicates there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Saratoga, that the project as mitigated may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves application #SUB13-0003, for the project located at the terminus of Paramount Drive, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 11th day of June 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission 34 Resolution No.13-003 Page 3 EXHIBIT 1 General 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 6. Tentative Subdivision Map. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map denominated Exhibit "A". A final map shall be prepared substantially in accord with the tentative map as approved. Any substantial change to the tentative may require additional 35 Resolution No.13-003 Page 4 review by the Planning Commission. All proposed changes to the Tentative Subdivision Map must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. 7. Stormwater. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by future construction and grading, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. The project will be reviewed in accordance with the most recent and up to date NPDES Standards which are jointly administered by CDD and DPW. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be retained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete retention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to retain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. 8. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Report. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated June 3, 2014 and as specified by the City Arborist, are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. 9. Compliance with Fire Department. All requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. Future development shall be reviewed for compliance with Fire Department requirements. Public Works 10. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 11. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Two copies of map checking calculations. 36 Resolution No.13-003 Page 5 b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. Two copies of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. Two copies of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. Two copies of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 13. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 14. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 15. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. Additional easements for storm water drainage and treatment facilities shall be dedicated on the Final Map as needed. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. Improvement requirements shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a. Improve Paramount Drive and Paramount Court to City standards. b. Install pedestrian/bicycle pathway connecting both streets. c. Improve drainage for proposed streets and all proposed parcels to prevent negative impact on adjacent properties. d. Design and install storm water treatment facilities required by the City’s NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2009-0074. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 18. The owner (applicant) shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 19. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 20. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map 37 Resolution No.13-003 Page 6 approval. 21. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 22. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 23. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park Development fee prior to Final Map approval. 24. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Agreement for Stormwater Treatment Measures Construction, Inspection and Maintenance. 25. The owner/applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, waiving the owner/applicant’s right, and the right of owner/applicant’s successor(s) in interest, to protest the annexation of the property or any portion thereof into the Saratoga Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 for the purpose of providing for the maintenance of any landscaped stormwater treatment systems and/or hydromodification controls developed on the property. 26. Prior to beginning of construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if required, to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City prior to beginning of construction and maintained on site at all times during construction. 27. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 28. 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. 29. Conditions Requested by Other Agencies or Utilities. Applicant shall comply with all conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site requested by other Agencies or Utilities having jurisdiction over the project. Such agencies include but are not limited to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to issuance of city permits, the applicant must present evidence of permit approval by any such agencies, as required for any activities within jurisdictional areas of said agencies. 38 Resolution No.13-003 Page 7 CEQA 30. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures at the project sites: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 31. Mitigation Measure HYD-1: The project sponsor shall implement the following measures: • The project shall include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction of the proposed project. It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), but it must be maintained on-site and made available to Water Board or City staff upon request. The SWPPP shall include specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At a minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and adhesives) with storm water. Ingress and egress from construction sites shall be carefully controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and shall include both dry and wet weather inspections. 39 Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration For: Subdivision Owner: Dan Mathis & Marty Mathis Public Review Period: May 9, 2014 – May 28, 2014 40 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 2 1. Project title: Seven Lot Subdivision - ENV13-0003, SUB13-0001 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 4. Project location/APN: Paramount Drive/503-82-006 5. Additional Parcels Included in Project None 6. Project sponsor name and address: Dan Mathis & Marty Mathis, 13180 Pierce Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 7. General plan designation: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) & Medium Density Residential (M-12.5) 8. Zoning: R-1-12,500 & R-1-40,000 9. Description of project: Request for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide one parcel of land totaling 6.34 acres into seven parcels. Cul-de-sacs would be located at both ends of Paramount Drive and Paramount Court. A pedestrian/bike pathway will provide access across the subdivision and will connect both cul-de-sacs. 10. Surrounding land uses and setting: The area is surrounded by similar sized parcels with both residential and more rural type land uses with very low density residential development. 11. Other public agencies whose review is required a. Santa Clara County Fire District b. West Valley Sanitation District c. San Jose Water Company 41 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 3 Figure 1: Project Location SITE 42 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 8 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required May 8, 2014 Christopher A. Riordan Christopher Riordan City of Saratoga 43 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or 44 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 6 individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 45 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 7 I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No scenic views or view sheds are in the vicinity of the project area. There are no scenic views or view sheds explicitly identified in the City of Saratoga’s General Plan or other planning documents. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The project area does not include any portions of a State Scenic Highway identified by the California Department of Transportation. There are no identified scenic resources or historic buildings within the project area. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The existing visual character of the Paramount Drive area is characterized by both one and two story homes and related site improvements on lots ranging in size from .25 acres and larger. All new development in the area would be subject to zoning regulations that include limits on building height, setbacks, grading and tree removal and the City’s Design Review process, which includes substantial conformance with the Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook, to ensure visual compatibility within the project area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Any new development in the project area would be subject to the City’s Design Review process, which includes substantial conformance with the Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook. The Handbook contains design techniques pertaining to reducing sources of substantial light or glare which includes avoiding light, bright, or reflective colors and materials, screening light sources, locating light sources at ground level, and avoiding light sources that may be visible at a distance. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impact on Aesthetics. 46 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 8 (Source: staff review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element, and Saratoga City Code §15-45). II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION: a-e) The 6.34 acre parcel currently is used as a vineyard and is identified on the Santa Clara County Important Farmland map of the State of California Mapping and Monitoring program as Unique Farmland. This designation is defined as lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops and is usually land that is irrigated. The area is not under a Williamson Act Contract, is zoned for residential use and the area is surrounded by Single Family Homes. In 2010 the number of acres identified within the County of Santa Clara as Unique Farmland was 2,523 acres. The loss of 6.34 acres of Unique Farmland will not be a significant impact. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Agricultural and Forest Resources. (Sources: staff review of the project, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code, §15-12, California Public Resource Code, and the 2010 Maps of the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for Santa Clara Valley) 47 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 9 III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) defines the types and sizes of projects that could cause potentially significant levels of emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines specifies the size or activity levels for various types of land uses which could result in mobile source emissions exceeding the Districts threshold of significance of Mono-Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) of 80lbs per day. Based on a trip generation rate of 9.57 per dwelling unit, the size of a project likely to generate 80lbs of NOx per day would be 320 new residential units. The proposed subdivision would include the eventual construction of seven new single-family dwelling units which are far below the number of required units to create a significant impact. The project would eventually lead to the development of seven new single-family structures and associated site improvements including driveways and utilities. The development of each new residence will require approval by the City of Saratoga Community Development Department and would include project related conditions to minimize constructed related impacts. Construction Period Impacts. In addition to the recommended thresholds of significance set forth in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, new development could be considered to result in potentially significant construction-related air quality impacts if Best Management Practices are not implemented. Although the impacts from construction related to pollutant emissions would be temporary in duration, such emissions can still represent an air quality impact. Construction impacts may represent the largest air quality impact associated with a proposed project. Construction activities such as grading, excavation and travel on unpaved surfaces can generate dust which is potentially significant if unmitigated. 48 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 10 Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure compliance with BAAQMD- recommended measures for dust control and Best Management Practices and would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures at the project sites: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Operation Period Impacts. Long-term operation (including operational traffic and area source operations) of the proposed projects would generate emissions, yet, none of these project-specific operation emissions would exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed projects are not anticipated to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and this impact is considered less than significant. 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)? As discussed in Section III.b, construction of new development in the project area could result in the emission of significant levels of pollutants, including those for which the Bay Area is under nonattainment status (such as ozone and particulate matter). These project-specific emissions could cumulatively contribute to pollutant concentrations in the Bay Area. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1. 49 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 11 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Residents and visitors in the vicinity of the subdivision during construction activities would be temporarily exposed to diesel engine exhaust during the construction period due to the operation of construction equipment. It is anticipated that one or more construction vehicles, including graders and bulldozers, would be located within the project sites at any given time (some or all of which would be active). The use of construction equipment on the project site, such as front-end loaders, backhoes, cranes, fork-lifts and trucks would result in diesel emission exhaust, including diesel particulate emissions, but not to substantial levels. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant. Long term operation of the proposed projects would not be a source of air pollutants, as the proposed use would be single-family residential and the 70.7 additional weekday vehicle trips associated with the construction of seven new single-family homes would not create a significant impact. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the removal or disturbance of large quantities of saturated or hydric soils with high proportions of organic matter that would cause objectionable odors when the soil dries. Odors resulting from the combustion of diesel during construction could create objectionable odors. However, these odors are not long term in nature and would subside once project construction is concluded. The project site is not located in close proximity to a wastewater treatment plant, landfill, or other high odor-generating facility. Therefore, employees and visitors would not be exposed to significant odor sources and this impact would be considered less than significant. Based on the above discussion, Limited mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air Quality. (Sources: BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines; Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 7th Edition) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 50 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 12 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: Any construction project has the potential to disrupt biological resources. Due to the proposed location of work, the existing residential community, and the proposed building footprints and access points, the project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources. 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? The project site has been utilized as a working vineyard so it is unlikely that there exists habitat of any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The eastern portion of the project is near Rodeo Creek. There exists a 60 foot Riparian Habitat Preservation/Open Space Easement from the edge of Rodeo Creek that was created by the recordation of Tract 8979. This 60 foot easement setback is depicted on the proposed tentative map and would limit the construction potential of lots 2-4 so as to minimize adverse effects on Rodeo Creek b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Rodeo Creek is located adjacent to the project site. When the Rodeo Creek Hollow subdivision was developed it included a sixty foot Riparian Habitat Preservation/Open Space Easement on both sides of Rodeo Creek. The western portion of the proposed subdivision would be located within this easement and would affect the development potential and building setbacks of Lots 2-4 by limiting construction within the easement. This sixty foot easement from Rodeo Creek will reduce any adverse effects on the existing riparian habitat. 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? Section 404 of the Clean Water Act defines a wetland as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." The project will not adversely affect any federally protected wetlands because there are no such wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act within the project area. 51 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 13 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? The project will not substantially affect the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residence or wildlife corridors because development near Rodeo Creek will be restricted by an existing 60 foot Riparian Habitat Preservation/Open Space Easement to protect the existing riparian habitat. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? A 25.5 inch Coast Live Oak with an appraised value of $13,500 is located along the southern edge of the site at the location where Paramount Drive would terminate on the property into a cul-de-sac. The City Arborist has determined that this tree is in good condition. However, the location of this tree is in the location of a proposed street and the tree would be highly impacted by construction. The City Arborist has made the finding that this can be removed and replaced with a new tree(s) of equal or greater value. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan does not include land in the City of Saratoga. Based on the above discussion, limited mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on biological resources. (Sources: staff review of the project, review of Tract Map No. 8979, and the Rodeo Creek Hollow project documents) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 52 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 14 DISCUSSION: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? The City of Saratoga’s Heritage Resource Inventory does not include any listed historical resources in the project area. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Based on field reconnaissance and review of the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory, there doesn’t seem to be possibility of the presence of historic period archaeological resources within the project site. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? As stated above, based on field reconnaissance and the fact that the site has been used for agricultural purposes, there doesn’t seem to be possibility of the presence of historic period archaeological resources within the project site. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? There are no cemeteries in the vicinity of the project. The project site, and neighboring vicinity, has evidence of being occupied for the past 40 years. There doesn’t seem to be evidence that human remains would be disturbed due to the proposed project, because there is no evidence human remains are located on the property. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural Resources. (Sources: staff review and filed reconnaissance of the project site) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 53 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 15 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) 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? The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist indicates that there are no earthquake faults in the immediate vicinity of the project site so an earthquake fault rupture in the form of a seismic-related ground failure such as liquifaction is an unlikely occurrence. However, the Berrocal Fault is located approximately 2.5 miles south and west of the project site and the San Andreas Fault is located approximately six miles to the south and west. Both of the above mentioned faults are likely to cause moderate to strong ground shaking during a seismic event. The project site is located in a relatively level area without steep slopes so a landslide would be an unlikely. All structures to be built on the site will require the issuance of a building permit from the Saratoga Building Department based on the regulations and standards contained within the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which include earthquake construction standards. Adherence to the UBC both during design and construction of proposed structures will reduce the adverse seismic effects to a less than significant impact. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction of the subdivision will require an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a grading permit. These plans will ensure that soil erosion related to construction of the project are reduced to a minimum. 54 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 16 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? The City’s Ground Movement Potential Maps indicate that the project area is located on relatively stable ground and is not near areas that could become unstable during a seismic event. 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? The City’s Ground Movement Potential Maps indicates that the project area is not located in an area characterized by expansive soils. 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? The project is located within the urban service area, which offers regional waste water facilities to properties within such area, therefore the project will not be required to use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems for the disposal of waste water. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on geology and soils. (Sources: City of Saratoga 2013 Safety Element and the City’s Ground Movement Potential Map) VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) defines the types and sizes of projects that could cause potentially significant levels of emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines specifies the size or activity levels for various types of land uses which could result in mobile source emissions exceeding the Districts threshold of significance of Mono-Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) of 80lbs per day. Based on a trip generation rate of 9.57 per dwelling unit, the size of a project likely to generate 80lbs of NOx per day would be 320 new residential units. The proposed subdivision would include the eventual construction of seven new single-family dwelling units which are far below the number of required units to create a significant impact. 55 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 17 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The project will be required to follow the City’s policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as adherence to the Residential Design Guidelines, water-efficient landscape techniques, and limitations of wood-burning fireplaces. These policies are adopted within the City Code as Article 17, Existing Laws. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of greenhouse gases. (Sources: Staffs review of the project) VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? 56 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 18 DISCUSSION: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The project would not create a significant hazard through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials because the project will not require hazardous materials in either the construction or the operation of the future residential dwellings that would be constructed on the site. 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? The project would not create a significant hazard involving the release of hazardous materials because the project will not require hazardous materials in either the construction or the operation of the future residential dwellings that would be constructed on the site. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The project site is not located within ¼ -mile of an existing or proposed school. In addition, the project would not include hazardous materials or wastes. 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? The project site, which is surrounded by single family development residential areas, does not contain known hazards, and is not identified on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control. 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? The project site is not located within two miles of an existing or potential airport. Therefore, the project would not 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? The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 57 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 19 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project has been reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). Conditions of SCCFD will be added to the conditions of approval for the proposed project. Therefore, the project will not impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response or action 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? The project is located within the Wildland-Urban Interface Area of the City of Saratoga. As such, the proposed project will need to incorporate appropriate construction methods such as fire sprinklers and non-combustible exterior materials. The Saratoga Building Department will review all building permit applications for the seven single-family residences and related buildings that can be constructed on the site to ensure that the buildings incorporate appropriate wildfire protection measures in their construction. Based on the above discussion, limited mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of hazards or hazardous materials. (Sources: California Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm, Santa Clara County Fire Department project review comments dated May 9, 2013, and the City of Saratoga 2013 Safety Element) IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 58 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 20 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow DISCUSSION: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The proposed project would include the development of a seven lot single-family subdivision and the future construction of seven single-family homes. Impacts to the quality of surface water could occur during the construction phase of the subdivision during the disturbance of soils on the site. Water quality impacts associated with the construction of the seven homes could occur after the construction of the subdivision is complete and these impacts will be reviewed at the time of home construction. Adverse effects on water quality standards are anticipated to be less than significant with proper mitigation. Implementation includes the following: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: The project sponsor shall implement the following measures: • The project shall include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction of the proposed project. It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), but it must be maintained on-site and made available to Water Board or City staff upon request. The SWPPP shall include specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At a minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and adhesives) with storm water. Ingress and egress from construction sites shall be carefully controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and shall include both dry and wet weather inspections. 59 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 21 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)? The proposed subdivision would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies because the proposed impervious coverage would only cover approximately 6.6% of the 276,170 sq. ft. site, which would not significantly limit the amount of percolation into the groundwater table. The project would not involve the use of local groundwater supplies (e.g. though installation and pumping of water supply wells), and therefore would not cause the lowering of the groundwater table as a result of groundwater extraction. The development of future homes on the site would be required through the development review process to contain site runoff from impervious surfaces to the maximum extent possible Therefore, the project would not adversely affect groundwater supplies. 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? The project site is located to the west of Rodeo Creek and subject to the 60 foot Riparian Habitat Preservation/Open Space Easement that was created by the recordation of Tract 8979 and no development is proposed in this vicinity. 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? The site is currently developed with a vineyard and drains from a westerly to eastern direction towards Rodeo Creek. The proposed subdivision would maintain the same drainage pattern however the proposed new streets would increase the amount of surface runoff. The project includes a drainage plan that indicates that surface runoff from the streets would be directed to a series of three bioretenion areas for the purpose of treating the stormwater and allowing it to percolate into the ground prior to entering Rodeo Creek. Therefore, the project would not increase flood hazards. 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? As conditioned, the project would be required incorporate current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. These standards include a drainage plan that demonstrates how all storm water will be detained on-site and in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainage ways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards 60 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 22 and applicable City Codes. Therefore, the project would create or contribute to substantial polluted runoff. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? All surface runoff will be properly mitigated during construction via the SWPPP required for the project. The proposed future construction of seven single family homes will be required to incorporate grading techniques to maintain surface runoff on each individual site to the maximum extent possible. 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? The project site is not located within a 100 year floodplain, therefore it will not be impacted by a flood hazard. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? The project site is not located within a 100 year floodplain, therefore it does not have the potential to 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? The project site is not located within any mapped dam or levee failure inundation hazard areas. Therefore the project would not expose people or structures to these risks. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow The project site is not located near a coastal area or within the vicinity of an enclosed body of water. Therefore, the project site is not susceptible to inundation by tsunami or seiche. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality Resources. (Sources: West Valley Clean Water Program, 2012. WVWCP Website: http://www.cleancreeks.org/; Association of Bay Area Governments, 2012. Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure Inundation. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/DamInundation/,City of Saratoga 2013 General Plan Safety Element. 61 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 23 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a) Physically divide an established community? Single-family development surrounds the project site on all four sides. Paramount Drive terminates on both the southern and northern sides of the site and there are no future plans by the City of Saratoga to extend Paramount Drive across the site to connect both portions of these streets. Two cul-de-sacs will be constructed for the project which will be connected by a pedestrian/bikeway pathway. No connection across the vineyard currently exists so this pathway will increase connectivity on both segments of Paramount Drive. 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? The project will not conflict with any land use or zoning regulation because it has been determined that the seven lot subdivision is in conformance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and it has been reviewed conforming review by the Fire Department and the Cupertino Sanitary District and no exceptions are needed are have been requested. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project will not conflict with habitat or natural community conservation plan because the City has no habitat or community conservation plan in force within the project area. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Land Use and Planning. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga Municipal Code, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element) 62 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 24 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: a) 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? The project site is not located within an area that is known to have mineral resources that would be value to the region or 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? The property is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral deposits of value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Based on the above discussion, the project does not present the potential for a significant adverse effect on the environment related to mineral resources. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Mineral Resources. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Open Space Element) XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 63 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 25 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) 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? Development of these new parcels could subject the future inhabitants to several sources of urban noise associated with vehicular traffic and landscaping. The City’s Noise Ordinance includes noise standards for residential development. The regulations state that no person shall cause, produce, or allow to be produced any noise that exceeds these noise standards at any point outside the property line boundary on which the noise is generated. Adherence to the noise regulation would cause new sources of noise to be a less than significant impact. Construction of the proposed seven lot subdivision and related site improvements could increase noise levels in the vicinity of the site during the project construction period. Construction of the proposed project would involve earthwork and grading, including the use of tractors, dump trucks, and graders. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity but would end once construction is completed. The site preparation phase, which would include excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. The project would result in the generation of temporary construction noise. Temporary increases in noise levels during project construction would result from construction activities and the use of heavy machinery. Earthwork activities are expected to generate the most noise. Noise levels in construction areas would temporarily increase and could be heard by people in adjacent structures. All construction activities would be subject to noise ordinance limitations on construction activities. Adherence to the following regulations would limit noise impacts to less than significant. All construction activities shall not exceed 100 dBA measured at any point 25 feet or more from the noise source. Construction activities are limited to the following hours and days: Monday – Friday (7:30 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.), Saturdays (9:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M), and prohibited on Sundays and Weekday Holidays. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Residents adjacent to the project site could be exposed to temporary increased levels of ground borne vibration and ground borne noise during the projects construction period. These increases are expected to occur infrequently, and for only short durations during the project construction period. Adherence to 64 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 26 the city’s noise ordinance which includes allowable construction hours would reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project would not result in substantial permanent increases 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? Construction of the project would result in the generation of temporary construction noise. Temporary increases in noise levels during project construction would result from construction activities and the use of heavy machinery. Earthwork activities are expected to generate the most noise. Noise levels in construction areas would temporarily increase and could be heard by people in adjacent structures. The project developer will be required to adhere to the City’s noise regulation applicable to construction noise which would reduce temporary impacts associated with elevated noise levels to less than significant levels. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to high levels of airport-related noise. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose site visitors to high levels of airstrip-related noise. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to noise impacts. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga City Code Noise Standards) 65 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 27 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significa nt Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The project would allow the future construction of seven single-family homes. These new residences are estimated to increase the population of the City of Saratoga by 19.81 persons (2.83 average household size x 7 net new residences) and do not have the potential to induce substantial population growth, displace substantial number of existing housing, or displace substantial numbers of people. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The existing site is used as a vineyard and does not include existing housing that would be removed. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Implementation of the proposed project would not displace any person necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Housing Element) 66 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 28 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: The following discussion addresses the potential impacts of the project on fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. a) Fire protection service is provided by the Santa Clara County Fire District. No building development is currently proposed. Future development of the project will comply with the most current Building and Fire Code requirements. Police protection is provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office West Valley Division. The project site is already served by the Sheriff’s Office and future development of the site would not affect their existing ability to provide services. The project is located in the Saratoga Union School District (Elementary) and the Los Gatos Union School District (High School). Development within the project site would result in a negligible increase in the number of school age children attending local schools. Park in-lieu fees would be collected for any net increase in residences to help fund improvements to City parks. The City is served by the Santa Clara County Library System, which has a branch library in Saratoga at the intersection of Allendale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue. Property taxes and assessments fund the library operations. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Public Services. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan. Saratoga Municipal Code, Santa Clara County Project Review Comments) 67 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 29 XV. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a) 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? (a-b) The General Plan Designation of Residential Hillside Conservation and its associated minimum lot size of two acres based on average slope would have the potential of increasing the number of parcels in the area from nine to 12. The project would not include recreational facilities and it is unlikely that three additional residences would significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood, regional or other recreational parks. Park impact fees for the continued upkeep/improvement of existing city parks would be accessed for the development of all new lots within the project area prior to final map approval. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Recreation. (Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element) XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result 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)? 68 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 30 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) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (a-b) Paramount Drive is connected on the south end to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and on the north end to Pierce Road. The City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element defines Paramount Drive as a ‘local street’, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road as a ‘major arterial’, and Pierce Road as a ‘collector'. Average daily traffic volumes on Pierce Road were determined in 2010 to be 3,000 vehicles with a Level of Service (LOS) of “B”. The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element includes future traffic projections to the year 2030. The 2030 traffic volumes for Pierce Road are projected to be an average of 3,800 trips per day and would continue to operate at a LOS of “B”. The average daily traffic volumes on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road between Cox Avenue and Saratoga Avenue were determined in 2010 to be 17,500 vehicles with a LOS of “C”. The 2030 traffic volume for this same section of road is projected to be 22,300 by 2030 and will operate with a LOS of D. The maximum number of average vehicle trips would occur on a Saturday with 10.10 trips per day for a total of 70.7 trips per day for the seven lot subdivision. Land use growth assumptions are based on forecasts from the Association of Bay Area Governments with an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent applied to existing traffic volumes. Therefore, the project traffic potential has been incorporated into the creation of the policies contained in the City’s Circulation and Scenic Highway Element. 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? The project site is not located near an airport and, if implemented, would have no affect on air traffic patterns. 69 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 31 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The two streets in the proposed development would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that the streets are designed to accepted public street design standards. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Implementation of the proposed project would not cause inadequate emergency access. The Santa Clara County Fire Department have reviewed and approved the proposed tentative map without any additional conditions. 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? f) Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted plans, policies, or programs supporting alternative transportation because the City of Saratoga does not have such policies as part of tentative map review or single-family residential development. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic. (Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element) XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 70 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 32 DISCUSSION: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The project has been reviewed by the Cupertino Sanitary District and it has been determined that there is sufficient capacity to service the project. 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? The project has been reviewed by the Cupertino Sanitary District and it has been determined that there is sufficient capacity to service the project. 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? The project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. Storm water runoff generated by new development would be directed to permeable areas and Rodeo Creek. Detailed grading plans would be submitted and reviewed for all new development to ensure compliance with all storm water regulations. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The project has been reviewed by the San Jose Water Company and it has been determined that there is sufficient capacity to service the project. 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? The project has been reviewed by the Cupertino Sanitary District and it has been determined that there is sufficient capacity to service the project. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? The potential for the construction of seven new residences would result in the generation of relatively small quantities of solid waste associated with residential uses. Existing landfills would have sufficient capacity to accommodate this minor increase in solid waste. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Recycling receptacles would be provided within the project site. Furthermore, a construction recycling and demolition debris plan will be required for the proposed project to further comply with regulations related to solid wastes. 71 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 33 Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Utilities and Service Systems. (Source: Review of the project and project review comments from Cupertino Sanitary District and the San Jose Water Company) XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Implementation of the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the exiting environment because the project site is already utilized for agricultural uses. The site does not contain riparian woodland where fish, wildlife, or endangered plants or animals are located. Furthermore, there are no examples of structures that reflect major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The proposed project would result in the continuation of residential lots and the development of seven single-family residences in an existing residential neighborhood in a way that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning regulations. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measure recommended in this Initial Study. 72 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Paramount Drive Page 34 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project site has been used for agricultural purposes (vineyard) and is surrounded by single-family residential development. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would result in contaminated soil or groundwater. The site is located in a high wildfire risk area. However, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the risks associated with wildfires to a less-than- significant level. New residential development would be susceptible to strong seismic ground shaking but the projects adherence to the Uniform Building Code which includes construction standards to reduce negative seismic effects would reduce these hazards to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES: 1. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation and Scenic Highway Element , Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and Safety Element) 2. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map 3. City of Saratoga Housing Element 4. City of Saratoga Single Family Residential Design Guidelines PROJECT RELATED SOURCES/REFERENCES: 5. Project Plans. 6. Developmental Review Comments, SCCFD, dated 05/09/13 7. Developmental Review Comments, Cupertino Sanitary District, dated 05/22/13 73 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No: ARB14-0025 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: Paramount Court Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Kennedy 2005 Living Trust Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 503-82-006 Email: mtm@kathrynkennedywinery.com Report History: Report #1 Date: Plans received May 29, 2014 Report completed June 3, 2014 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to subdivide a vineyard into seven parcels for future homes. No trees are requested or required for removal to subdivide the property. However, proposed site improvements require the removal of one coast live oak that is in conflict with the proposed cul-de- sac at the end of Paramount Drive. It meets the criteria allowing its removal and replacement when the site improvements are constructed. STATUS: Approved by the City Arborist to proceed, with conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – None required for subdivision – will be required for site improvement work. Tree fencing – None required for subdivision approval – will be required for site improvement work. Tree removals – None required for subdivision – will be required for site improvement work. Replacement trees – None required for subdivision – will be required for site improvement work. FINDINGS: Tree Removals One coast live oak is in conflict with the proposed cul-de-sac for Paramount Drive and will need to be removed and replaced when the site improvements are constructed. Whenever a tree is requested 1 74 Paramount Court subdivision APN 503-82-006 for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. It meets the City’s criteria allowing it to be removed and replaced as part of the site improvements project once building division permits are obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Criteria met Criteria not met 1 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8 Replacement Trees: The total appraised value of oak tree number 1 is $13,500. New trees equal to this appraised value will be required as a condition of the project to do the site work. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. New Construction No construction work is approved for this project. 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. Prior to implementing site improvements for the property, an arborist report that includes an inventory of trees, along with their appraised values and recommendations for their protection will be required. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Data 2 - Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map of Site Showing Tree Locations 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 2 75 Paramount Court subdivision APN 503-82-006 Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Westfall Engineers, Inc. Date of Plans: February 2014 Sheet 1 of 3 Vesting Tentative Map Lands of Kennedy 2005 Living Trust Sheet 2 of 3 Conceptual Drainage Plan Sheet 3 of 3 Conceptual Drainage Plan Details TREE DATA: Information is provided below on the condition and appraised value of one coast live oak in conflict with the proposed cul-de-sac for Paramount Drive. Table 1: Condition of tree and potential construction impacts Number Species Trunk Diameter (inches) Condition Intensity of Construction Impacts Suitability for Preservation Coast live oak 1 Quercus agrifolia 25.5 Good High Moderate Table 2: Appraised value Species Trunk Diameter Canopy Spread Health Structure Site Contri- bution Place -ment Appraised value #1: Coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia 24 40 ft. 80 80 80 80 80 $13,500 Species rating = 90% The appraised value was 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. 3 76 Paramount Court subdivision APN 503-82-006 Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes; (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area; (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices; (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree; (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article; (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. 4 77 Paramount Court subdivision APN 503-82-006 Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A set of plans for site improvements shall be submitted to the City Arborist for review and approval prior to obtaining Planning approval for site improvements. 2. Tree Protection Security Deposit – To be determined - required for site improvements 3. Tree Protection Fencing: To be determined – required for site improvements 4. A Project Arborist shall be designated by the applicant and approved by the City Arborist prior to receiving Planning approval for site improvements. 5. An arborist report shall be required for site improvements. It shall be submitted to the City Arborist for review and approval prior to receipt of planning approval. It shall include an inventory of trees, recommendations for the protection of trees, and appraised values for all trees potentially impacted by the site improvements. 6. No trees are authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project. 7. No construction activities are approved pursuant to this project. 5 78 Paramount Court subdivision Legend Tree Canopy 1 Attachment 4 6 79 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 11th day of June 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: SUB13-0003/ENV13-0001 / Paramount Drive OWNER: Don Mathis & Marty Mathis APN: 503-82-006 DESCRIPTION: The applicant has applied for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision map to subdivide and existing 6.33 acre parcel that is presently used as a vineyard into seven single- family home lots. The lots will range in size from .35 acres – 1.13 acres in size. Cul-de-sacs would be located at the ends of Paramount Court and Paramount Drive. A pedestrian/bike pathway will provide access across the subdivision and will connect both cul-de-sacs. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, June 9, 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 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: June 11, 2014 Application: ELN14-0006 Location / APN: 13865 Yerba Santa Court / 389-33-024 Owner/Applicant: Nan Zhao Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick The Planning Commission may approve a major alteration of a nonconforming structure. Major Alteration means any work that is estimated to result in expenditure (cumulatively) of 20% to 50% of the estimated construction cost of the structure. The project will result in expenditure of approximately 30% of the estimated construction valuation of the existing structure. Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Sections 15-65.050(b), before staff can act on the pending Building Permit. The Building Permit does not require approval by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-019 approving the major alteration subject to conditions of approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing an addition to a legal non-conforming structure. The existing garage encroaches into the right side setback. The required setback is 15 feet and the garage has an existing setback of 13 feet. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to the garage and the addition will conform to City Code. The 996 square foot addition will be located at the rear of the existing home. The colors and materials of the new roof and stucco siding will match the existing exterior. The Building Department has valued the 996 sf addition (at $250/sf) as $249,000 and the 200 sf remodel (at $100/sf) as $20,000, for a total estimated construction valuation of $269,000 which is 30.37% of $885,750, the estimated construction valuation of the existing structure. PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 21,780 SF Proposed Allowed/Required Total Site Coverage 8,962 sq. ft. (41.15%) 45% Maximum Total Floor Area 4,539 sq. ft. 4,596 sq. ft. Maximum Height 14’-5” 26 feet Maximum Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: ~33’ ~35’ ~13’ (garage) ~42’8” 30’ 15’ 15’ 35’ 97 13865 Yerba Santa Court Page 2 of 2 Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The property owner posted a sign in front of the property, notifying neighbors of the application for a building permit. No comments have been received as of the writing of this report. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Pursuant to City Code Section 15-65.050(b), major repair and alteration of a nonconforming structure may be permitted if the Planning Commission is able to make the following determinations: (1) The repair and/or alteration will accommodate a conforming use. This finding may be made in the affirmative because a residential structure and addition thereto is permitted by City Code in the R1-20,000 zoning district. (2) The repair and/or alteration does not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this Chapter. This finding may be made in affirmative in that the project will not modify the non-conforming garage which is located at the front of the residence. The proposed addition will be located at the rear of the residence and will conform to City Code. (3) The repair and/or alteration do not effectively extend or perpetuate the useful life of any particular feature or portion of the structure which is nonconforming. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project does not include any modifications to the non- conforming garage. 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. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 98 RESOLUTION NO: 14-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 13865 YERBA SANTA COURT, SARATOGA CA 95070 WHEREAS, on May 21 2014 Nan Zhao submitted an application to construct a 996 square foot addition to and remodel 200 square of a legal non-conforming single-family residence. The existing garage encroaches into the right side setback. The required setback is 15 feet and the garage has an existing setback of 13 feet. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to the garage and the addition will conform to City Code. The project will result in expenditure of approximately 30% of the estimated construction valuation of the existing 3,543 square foot structure. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on June 11, 2014, the Planning Commission held a meeting 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; Conservation Element Goal 2 and Land Use Element Goal 1 which states that the City shall preserve the City’s existing character which includes small town residential, rural/semi-rural areas and open spaces areas; 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; and Land Use Element Policy 1.1 that the city shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-family detached residences. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the repair and/or alteration will accommodate a conforming use; the repair and/or alteration does not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this Chapter; and the repair and/or alteration does not effectively extend or 99 Resolution No. 14-019 perpetuate the useful life of any particular feature or portion of the structure which is nonconforming. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves ELN14-0006 located at 13865 Yerba Santa Court 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 11th day of June 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission 100 Resolution No. 14-019 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ELN14-006 13865 YERBA SANTA COURT / 389-33-024 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. 101 Resolution No. 14-019 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 denominated Exhibit "A", and as conditioned below. 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. 6. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT. Statement of Acknowledgment of Legal Nonconforming Status: The property Owner shall record a Statement of Acknowledgment of Legal Nonconforming Status, satisfactory to the Community Development Director, specifying that alteration and repair of the non-conforming structure shall comply with City Code. 7. Non-Conforming Structure Limitations. In no event shall the cumulative expenditures for repairs and/or alterations on any nonconforming structure exceed fifty percent of the estimated construction cost of the structure prior to such repairs and/or alterations, unless such structure is changed to a conforming structure or otherwise satisfies the standards set forth by City Code. 8. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. 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.” 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 11, 2014 Application: Finding of General Plan Consistency - CIP Location / APN: Citywide Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: James Lindsay SUMMARY: Seventeen new capital projects are proposed for the Fiscal Year 14-15 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). California Government Code Section 65401 states that the local planning agency should report on the conformity of the CIP with the agency’s general plan. Attachment 4 contains a listing of the proposed projects and the specific general plan policy(s) the project is conforms to. Not all projects have a relationship to specific policies. Staff has reviewed the projects and found that they are not in conflict with general plan policies and a conformity finding can be supported. The environmental determination will be addressed project by project as they are funded for construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission adopt the attached Resolution finding the proposed CIP projects conform to the general plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from Public Works Director, John Cherbone 2. Resolution 3. Project Summaries 4. Capital Improvement Project List Spreadsheet (Exhibit A) 114 Memo To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: John Cherbone, Public Works Director Date: June 11, 2014 Re: Proposed Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2014/2015 _________________________________________________________________________ I am pleased to transmit to you for your review 17 proposed projects in connection to the Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) update. The role of the Planning Commission is to determine whether the proposed CIP projects are consistent with the General Plan. The 17 new projects for consideration have been reviewed by the City Council. Attached to this memo is a summary of each project and a spreadsheet (Exhibit A) that lists the applicable City General Plan Goal, Policy, and Implementation Measure. For FY 2014-2015 the proposed projects are generally dedicated to upgrading infrastructure, improving safety of the City’s facilities, and park and trail projects. If prior to your meeting you have any questions about this information, please feel free to contact me at 868-1241. Public Works Department  Page 1 115 RESOLUTION NO. 14-021 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT THE NEW FY 14-15 CIP PROJECTS CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, California Government Section 65401 requires the local planning agency to report on the conformity of proposed public works with the adopted general plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the materials submitted by the Public Works Director which include a listing of each capitol project and the corresponding General Plan Goal and Policy, attached as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby find that the new Capital Improvement Program projects conform to the Goals and Policies of the City of Saratoga General Plan in that the various improvement projects implement the programs and objectives outlined in the various General Plan Elements. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on June 11, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________________ Mary Lynne Bernard Chair, Planning Commission 116 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STREET PROGRAM 291 STREET REPAIR & RESURFACING PROJECTS Project Name Residential Street Reconstruction Project Number 9113-001 Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone Description This project will reconstruct streets which have deteriorated beyond the point of where resurfacing would provide sufficient maintenance. Location Streets to be reconstructed include: Harper Avenue, Palmtag Drive, Brookview Drive, McFarland Avenue, Devon Avenue, and possibly other streets depending on construction costs and available funding. Project Background Over the years, street curbs and gutters are damaged by large tree roots, and the asphalt roadways deteriorate from water, weather, and use. This project will repair streets that are severely damaged and cannot be maintained by resurfacing methods. Costs to repair streets vary depending on the type of repair and the dimensions of the specific street. Streets reconstruction requires removing and replacing curb and gutter, constructing a new roadway crown to allow for proper drainage, and repaving. The City plans to repair one major street each year. Operating Budget Impacts A $300,000 transfer from the general fund will provide funding for this project. Staff time for project management and oversight are incorporated into the operating budget. Reconstructed streets will decrease budget impacts as short term repairs will be eliminated. 117 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STREET PROGRAM 309 ROADWAY SAFETY PROJECTS Project Name Big Basin Way Turnaround Project Number 9122-008 Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone Description This project will retain a consultant to design the conceptual phase of a turnaround and to investigate the feasibility of cost and layout of the improvements. Location The project is located near the corner of 6th Street and Big Basin Way. Project Background The City would like to improve the traffic flow in this section of Big Basin, which is the last segment of Big Basin Way before leaving downtown. The City would like a consultant to investigate the feasibility of turnaround improvements at this location and to include the cost and layout of this project. The City must work with Caltrans and the Traffic Safety Commission to develop this conceptual plan. Operating Budget Impacts This project funded by a $50,000 transfer from the general fund. Staff time associated with oversight of this project is incorporated into the operating budget. 118 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STREET PROGRAM 339 SIDEWALKS, CURBS & STORM DRAINS Project Name El Camino Grande Storm Drain Pump Project Number 9142-015 Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone Description This project will improve the existing storm drain system at El Camino Grande. Location This project is located at the corner of El Camino Grande and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Project Background This is the second part of Monte Vista Drive/El Camino Grande area storm drain improvements. This area receives a large amount of storm water from Saratoga Hills Road. The existing storm drain system is not adequate during intense storm events. Without a proper storm drain system, flooding could cause erosion and possible street failure Operating Budget Impacts Engineering and administrative staff time for project management is incorporate d into the operating budget. 119 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STREET PROGRAM 341 SIDEWALKS, CURBS & STORM DRAINS Project Name Saratoga Hills Storm Drain Improvements Project Number 9142-016 Department Public Works Project Manager Iveta Harvancik Description This project will improve the existing storm drain system at the corner of Saratoga Hills Road and Pontiac Avenue. Location This project is located on Saratoga Hills Road near Pontiac Avenue. Project Background This area receives a large amount of storm water from Saratoga Hills Road and the existing drain inlet is not adequate to accommo date high amount of storm water. This storm drain must be modified. Without a proper storm drain system, flooding will cause erosion and possible street failure. Operating Budget Impacts The maintenance for this project will be included in the West Valley Sanitation District contract. 120 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STREET PROGRAM 343 SIDEWALKS, CURBS & STORM DRAINS Project Name Long-Term Trash Plan Storm Drain Capture Devices Project Number 9142-017 Department Public Works Project Manager Mainini Cabute Description This project will install 15 storm drain full capture devices in areas that have highest density of trash to implement the City’s Long Term Trash Plan (LTTP). The City developed the LTTP using a regionally consistent outline and guidance developed by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) and reviewed by San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board staff. Location Identified locations include Prospect Road, sections of Saratoga-Sunnyvale near Saratoga High School and in between Sea Gull and Prospect Road, areas near Congress Springs Park and the Saratoga Village. Project Background The Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Phase I communities in the San Francisco Bay (Order R2 -2009-0074), also known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), became effective on December 1, 2009. The MRP applies to 76 large, medium, and small municipalities (cities, towns, and counties) and flood control agencies in the San Francisco Bay Region, collectively referred to as Permittees. Provision C.10.c of the MRP requires Permittees to submit a Long-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan (Long-Term Plan) by February 1, 2014. Long-Term Plans must describe control measures that are currently being implemented, including the level of implementation, and additional control measures that will be implemented and/or increased level of implementation designed to attain a 70% trash load reduction by July 1, 2017, and 100% (i.e., “No Visual Impact”) by July 1, 2022. The City of Saratoga submitted a Long-Term Trash Plan in compliance with MRP provision C.10.c. Consistent with provision C.10 requirements. The goal of the Long-Term Trash Plan is to solve trash problems in receiving waters by reducing the impacts associated with trash in discharges from the City of Saratoga’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) that are regulated by NPDES Permit requirements. The City believes that purchasing and installing 15 storm drain full capture devices will effectively reduce the instances of trash entering the storm drains and flowing into the Bay. Operating Budget Impacts Street crew will need to inspect full capture devices after each storm and empty out trash from the capture devices. 121 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STREET PROGRAM 345 SIDEWALKS, CURBS & STORM DRAINS . Project Name Wildcat Creek Bank Stabilization Project Number 9142-018 Department Public Works Project Manager Iveta Harvancik Description Replacement of 36-inch rusted corrugated metal storm drain outfall pipe at Gardiner Park. Location Gardiner Park. Project Background A recent site assessment by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) staff revealed the outfall pipe was corroded and recommended replacement to prevent erosion of creek banks. SCVWD recommends using the Stream Maintenance Program (SMP) permit procedure to fix the outfall, and committed to providing the planning, design, and construction services similar to the Padero Court project. SCVWD will provide accommodations this summer to prepare for the next rainy season. The new outlet pipe will extend the life of the storm drain structure for many years. Although the City of Saratoga owns the outfall pipe and storm drain structure, the SCVWD offered to pay for half of the cost of repair, as it will prevent a failure which would cause stream bank erosion and costlier repairs. The Water District also agreed to manage the repair project. Operating Budget Impacts This project will be funded with Gas Tax revenues. As the planning, design, and construction services will be managed by SCVWD, the City’s engineering staff time is not required and therefore will not impact the City’s operating budget. The repair will prevent emergency repairs upon failure, thus reducing operating budget costs in the long run. 122 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PARKS & TRAILS PROGRAM 366 CITYWIDE PROJECTS Project Name Turf Reduction Renovation Program Project Number 9211-006 Department Public Works Project Manager Kevin Meek Description This project will reduce water and maintenance costs at Beauchamps Park, S Location This project is located at Beauchamps Lane in Saratoga. Project Background The City continues to pursue water conservation methods and will convert 32,000 feet of turf at Beauchamps into native and drought tolerant landscape. Staff anticipates water savings will be approximately $5,500 each year and closer to $8,000 per year in total cost savings. Staff anticipates that in five to six years, the cost in savings will equal the cost of this project. While the cost savings is important, City staff has made reducing water usage a priority during this drought period. Operating Budget Impacts Staff time associated with project management and maintenance of this project are incorporated in the operating budget 123 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PARKS & TRAILS PROGRAM 386 PARK PROJECTS Project Name Quarry Park Master Plan Implementation – Phase 1 Project Number 9226-001 Department Public Works Project Manager Iveta Harvanick Description Project funding will allow for minimum improvements to the Quarry, to include developing the gravel parking lots, especially in the upper section, clearing trail paths to connect with mid -level picnic areas, and restricting access to the loading structure. Location The Saratoga Quarry is located west of Hakone Gardens off of Highway 9. Project Background In 2011, the City of Saratoga purchased the 64 acre Quarry Property located on Highway 9 near the Historic Saratoga Village and Hakone Gardens. The City of Saratoga has been working with the community and other interested parties via the Parks and Recreation Commission Community Workshops to develop the Quarry Park Master Plan, which will guide the development of the new Saratoga Quarry Park. The City's goal has been to work closely with community members to develop a park that will promote public access and recreation, encourage resource protection, and develop important local and regional trail connections. Operating Budget Impacts Staff time for project management and oversight is incorporated into the operating budget. 124 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PARKS & TRAILS PROGRAM 388 PARK PROJECTS Project Name Quarry Park Right-of-Way Acquisitions Project Number 9226-002 Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone Description Acquire additional properties for trail easements to complete the Saratoga to the Sea Plan. Location The Saratoga Quarry is located west of Hakone Gardens off of Highway 9. Project Background The City would like to expand the Quarry Park and create additional trails, especially the Saratoga -to- the Sea Trail. In order to do so, it must purchase some additional parcels and easements adjacent to the Quarry Park. Operating Budget Impacts Staff time for project management and oversight is incorporated into the operating budget. 125 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PARKS & TRAILS PROGRAM 400 TRAIL PROJECTS Project Name Village Creek Trail – Construction Project Number 9277-003 Department Public Works Project Manager Iveta Harvancik Description Construction of a pedestrian trail along Saratoga Creek behind Village businesses. The trail would start at SS Rd and continue to Wildwood Park. A potential grant would fund construction. Design of the trail is currently in process and funded by a SCVWD grant and City match. Location The trail would be constructed along the portion of Saratoga Creek running the length of the Village, Saratoga’s downtown area. Project Background The Village Creek Trail will be approximately .45 miles long, passing through the Village parallel to Big Basin Way. The trail is part of the City’s General Plan and has received widespread support from the community. Trail supporters believe it will enhance and enliven the Village as the proposed trail would help to bring foot traffic to the Village, create recreational oppo rtunities for residents and visitors alike, and restore the riparian habitat and protect native fauna and flora in the Saratoga Creek area. In addition to being part of the City’s General Plan, the Village Creek Trail will serve as a critical starting point for the Saratoga-to-Sea Trail that is part of the Santa Clara County Trail Master Plan. The Saratoga-to-Sea Trail is to begin in Saratoga Village, travel up to Hakone Gardens through the Sanborn-Skyline trail system, and over to the Pacific Ocean. Village Creek Trail is funded by the Santa Clara Valley Water District Watershed Stewardship grant program. The required matching contribution will include staff time. While this project is still in its initial phases and no formal conceptual plan has been developed, the creek trail is expected to be .45 miles long with two pedestrian bridges, include replacement of non- native invasive plant species with native plants, and the removal of creek blockages that interfere with fish migration in the creek. The City is to receive grant money from the Water District for the construction of the trail. The City’s contribution to the project will include staff time and noticing expenses. Designing the trail may also require that the City negotiate a joint use agreement for use of Water District property where the proposed trail would be located. 126 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FACILITY PROGRAM CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENTS Project Name Master Switch Gear – Electrical Panel Project Number 9321-014 Department Recreation & Facilities Project Manager Thomas Scott Description This project will replace the main electrical switchgear in the back of the Civic Center Location This project is located at the Civic Theater at Saratoga City Hall campus. Project Background The original 500-amp switchgear (master electrical panel) was installed when the Civic Theater was built in 1964. In 1969, the City constructed more office space and the main breaker was changed from 500 amps to 1,000 amps in an attempt to accommodate more power usage. Although the breaker was upgraded, the switchgear remained at a 500-amp capacity. The issue was discovered in 2013 while other work was being completed as part of the City’s Emergency Power Back Up Generator project. The City was informed that the switchgear was non-certifiable and unusable due to its age. This development put a halt to the Emergency Power Backup project as the generator project requires the Theater and Civic Center Administration Buildings (including the City Manager’s Office, Public Works, and Community Development Department) be connected to one master electrical panel, thereby allowing a generator to supply power to all connections on the main switchgear. With funding from this project, a new 1,000-amp switchgear and breaker will be installed, simultaneously upgrading the electrical system and allowing the City to move forward with its Emergency Power Back Up Generator project. Operating Budget Impacts Staff time required for oversight of this project is incorporated into the operating budget. 127 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FACILITY PROGRAM CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENTS Project Name Master Plan Improvements Project Number 9322-010 Department Recreation & Facilities Project Manager Michael Taylor Description This project will improve, update, and increase efficiencies in the Civic Theater. The project would include renovations to the existing restrooms to increase the number of facilities and comply with current codes. The existing KSAR control booth would be moved to an ADA-accessible location. An extension to the rear of the building would incorporate ADA restrooms and dressing rooms, allowing the removal of the modular building. The enhancements will improve access to, and within, the facility. Location This project is located in the Civic Theater at the Saratoga City Hall campus Project Background The Civic Theater was built in 1964 at a cost of $168,000. The 7,436-square-foot building seats 299 people and is used on alternating Wednesdays for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The primary users of the facility are the South Bay Musical Theater Company and West Valley Light Opera, two theater performance groups that rent the facility approximately 160 days per year for rehearsals and weekend performances. The Theater has received numerous upgrades and improvements over the years, including a new assisted- listening loop system, new doors, new counter-weight systems on the stage, new sound system, new lighting system, electrical upgrades, renovated seating, and stage flooring. The City contracted with Anderson Brule Architects to complete a Master Plan for the Civic Theater. They prepared three different options for upgrades. Council directed staff to come back with a modified five-year improvement plan. At the December 18, 2013 City Council meeting, the Council chose a few smaller projects to complete using the Annual Facilities Fund. The projects include the new high- definition projector and screen, an orchestra area expansion, and the construction of an awning between the portable dressing room and the main building. Operating Budget Impacts Staff time required for oversight of this project is incorporated into the operating budget. 128 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FACILITY PROGRAM COMMUNITY CENTER Project Name Community Center Cool Roof Replacement Project Number 9331-002 Department Recreation & Facilities Project Manager Thomas Scott Description Installation of a new $90,000 cool roof at Joan Pisani Community Center Location This project is located at the Joan Pisani Community Center Building. Project Background This project will replace the 25 plus year old roof at the Joan Pisani Community Center building (which includes the Saratoga Senior Center) with a spray-on cool roof system. The cool roof reflects and emits the sun’s energy back to the sky instead of allowing it to enter the building below as heat. This is expected to cool the roof by an average of 20 to 30 degrees. The new roof will come with a 10-year warranty that will cover issues such as leaking. Preventative maintenance will continue to be included as part of regular staff duties. Operating Budget Impacts This project will reduce the need for costly air conditioning, which will result in approximately 5 - 7% energy savings during the summer months. Annual cleaning to maintain the roof’s effectiveness will likely increase the operating budget by $2,000 in roofing contract services per year. 129 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FACILITY PROGRAM COMMUNITY CENTER Project Name Preschool Play Structure Project Number 9334-003 Department Public Works Project Manager Kevin Meek Description Remove Preschool’s aging, wooden play structure and replace it with a powder coated steel structure. Location This project is located on the Preschool grounds at the Saratoga City Hall campus. Project Background This would be the last of the wooden play structures—originally constructed in the City’s parks—to be replaced with powder coated steel structures. It will provide a safer environment for users and be compliant with modern playground safety standards. A new powder coated steel structure should last 15 to 20 years with relatively little deterioration, compared with the weathering and splintering of wooden materials. Operating Budget Impacts Staff time required for oversight of this project is incorporated into the operating budget. 130 Exhibit "A" Capital Improvement Plan F.Y. 14/15 Update - New Project List NEW CIP PROJECTS LAND USE ELEMENT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CIRCULATION ELEMENT SAFETY ELEMENT NOTESSTREET PROJECTS GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOALS, POLICIES, IMP 1Residential Street ReconstructionNo General Plan Element Identified12Big Basin Turn Around Design2.823El Camino Grande Storm Drain RepairNo General Plan Element Identified34Saratoga Hills Storm Drain ImprovementNo General Plan Element Identified45Long Term Trash Plan Storm Drain Capture DevicesNo General Plan Element Identified56Wildcat Creek Outfall RepairNo General Plan Element Identified6PARK & TRAIL PROJECTS 7Turf Reduction Renovation ProgramNo General Plan Element Identified78Quarry Park Master Plan Implementation-Phase I1, 3, 5 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 1a, 1b, 5a, 5b 1.1, 1.3, 5.5, 5.10 2.1, 5.12, 5.1389Quarry Park ROW/ Property Acquisition1, 3, 5 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 1a, 1b, 5a, 5b 1.1, 1.3, 5.5, 5.10 2.1, 5.12, 5.13910Village Creek Trail- Construction (Grant Match)1, 3, 5 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 1a, 1b, 2c, 5a, 5b 1.1, 1.3, 5.5, 5.10 2.1, 5.12, 5.1310FACILITY PROJECTS11Master Switch Gear- Electrical BoardNo General Plan Element Identified1112Theater Master Plan ImprovementsNo General Plan Element Identified1213Community Center Cool RoofsNo General Plan Element Identified1314Pre-School Play StructureNo General Plan Element Identified14ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS 15Development TechnologyNo General Plan Element Identified15 16Citywide LLAD Initiation Match ProgramNo General Plan Element Identified16 17General Plan Update CIPAll Elements of the General Plan17 Residential Street ReconstructionBig Basin Turn Around DesignEl Camino Grande Storm Drain RepairSaratoga Hills Storm Drain ImprovementLong Term Trash Plan Storm Drain Capture DevicesWildcat Creek Outfall RepairTurf Reduction Renovation ProgramQuarry Park Master Plan Implementation-Phase IQuarry Park ROW/ Property AcquisitionVillage Creek Trail- Construction (Grant Match)Master Switch Gear- Electrical BoardTheater Master Plan ImprovementsCommunity Center Cool RoofsPre-School Play StructureDevelopment TechnologyCitywide LLAD Initiation Match ProgramGeneral Plan Update CIPGENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY131