HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-14 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 2
June 18, 2014
Draft Minutes 4
Application SUB13-0006, ENV13-0002, GPA14-003; 22700
Mount Eden Road (Subdivision); APN's 503-09-020,030; 503-10
- 003,005,006,007,029,044,067; 503-13-038,138; and 503-80-
002,003,005,007,008 (General Plan Amendment); Sholeh Diba
Goetting/The City of Saratoga - The applicant proposes to
subdivide an 11.89 acre site located at 22700 Mount Eden Road
into three parcels ranging in size from 3.33 to 3.42 net acres.
The project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act. The
project also includes a City initiated General Plan Land Use
Amendment to change the land use designation of 16 recently
annexed parcels from Hillside Open Space (OS-H) to
Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). Staff Contact: Chris
Riordan (408) 868-1235
Staff Report 6
Attachment 1 - Tentative Map Resolution 14
Attachment 2 - General Plan Amendment Resolution 23
Attachment 3 - Mitigated Negative Declaration 27
Attachment 4 - Public Hearing Notice 65
Attachment 5 - Neighbor Notification Forms 66
Attachment 6 - Arborist Report 74
Attachment 7 - City Geologist Report 80
Attachment 8 - Tentative Subdivision Map 83
1
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, June 25, 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 June 18, 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 SUB13-0006, ENV13-0002, GPA14-003; 22700 Mount Eden Road (Subdivision); APN's 503-
09-020,030; 503-10- 003,005,006,007,029,044,067; 503-13-038,138; and 503-80-002,003,005,007,008
(General Plan Amendment); Sholeh Diba Goetting/The City of Saratoga - The applicant proposes to
subdivide an 11.89 acre site located at 22700 Mount Eden Road into three parcels ranging in size from 3.33
to 3.42 net acres. The project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California
Environmental Quality Act. The project also includes a City initiated General Plan Land Use Amendment
to change the land use designation of 16 recently annexed parcels from Hillside Open Space (OS-H) to
Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235
Recommended action:
•Adopt Resolution No. 14-023 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Tentative
Map subject to the conditions of approval.
•Adopt Resolution No. 14-022 recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Land Use
amendment from Hillside Open Space to Residential Hillside Conservation for 16 parcels totaling 46 acres
located on Mount Eden Road.
2
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 19, 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
3
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, June 11, 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, Tina Walia, Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald
EXCUSED
ABSENCE Commissioner Smullen
ALSO PRESENT James Lindsay, Community Development Director
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Michael Fossati, Planner
Cindy McCormick, Planner
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 28, 2014.
Action:
BERNALD/ALMALECH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 28, 2014 MINUTES WITH
CORRECTIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS,
GROVER, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: SMULLEN. ABSTAIN: NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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
Action:
BERNALD/ALMALECH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-020 APPROVING
THE PROJECT WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS:
Final Design. Prior to building final, the applicant shall cap or eliminate the finial along the
wrought iron fence.
4
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER,
WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: SMULLEN. ABSTAIN: NONE.
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
Action:
BERNALD/ALMALECH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-017 APPROVING
THE PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD,
CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: SMULLEN.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
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.
Action:
WALIA/GROVER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-019 APPROVING THE
PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD,
CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: SMULLEN.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
2. General Plan Conformance Finding for New FY 14/15 Capital Improvement Program Projects.
Action:
WALIA/GROVER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-021 FINDING THE CIP IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH,
BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT:
SMULLEN. ABSTAIN: NONE.
DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
5
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 1 of 8
Meeting Date: June 25, 2014
Application No: SUB13-0006, ENV13-0002, GPA14-0003
Type of Application: Tentative Subdivision/Negative Declaration/General Plan
Amendment
Location/APN: Subdivision - 22700 Mount Eden Road/503-10-006
General Plan Amendment - 503-09-020,030; 503-10-
003,005,006,007,029,044,067; 503-13-038,138; and 503-80-
002,003,005,007,008
Owner/Applicant: Sholeh Diba Goetting / City of Saratoga
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, AICP
22700 Mount Eden Road
6
Page 2 of 8
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to subdivide an 11.89 acre site located at 22700 Mount Eden Road into three
parcels ranging in size from 3.33 to 3.42 net acres. The project has been the subject of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act which became available for a
20 day public review beginning June 4, 2014.
The project also includes a City initiated General Plan Land Use Amendment to change the land use
designation of 16 recently annexed parcels from Hillside Open Space (OS-H) to Residential Hillside
Conservation (RHC).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
• Adopt Resolution No. 14-023 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the
Tentative Map subject to the conditions of approval.
• Adopt Resolution No. 14-022 recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan
Land Use amendment from Hillside Open Space to Residential Hillside Conservation for 16
parcels totaling 46 acres located on Mount Eden Road.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Land Use Amendment
Existing Land Use Designation – Hillside Open Space (OS-H)
Proposed Land Use Designation – Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC)
Size of Area – 16 parcels totaling 46 acres
Subdivision
Site Area: 11.89 acres
Average Slope: 25.4%
Zoning: Hillside Residential (HR)
Proposal
Zoning
Net Area Calculations:
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
150,282 SF
166,835 SF
182,516 SF
Minimum
148,975 SF
153,331 SF
145,054 SF
Minimum Net Area
Based on Avg. Slope
Slope Calculations:
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
25.1%
26.8%
24.5%
The average natural grade of the footprint underneath any
dwelling unit, swimming pool or other structure shall not
exceed 30% slope.
7
Page 3 of 8
Allowable Floor Area
Based on Average
Slope
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
6,780 SF
6,870 SF
7,010 SF
The maximum allowable floor area in the Hillside Zoning
District is 8,000 SF
CONCEPTUAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Proposal Zoning
Conceptual
Site Coverage:
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
8,561 SF (5.7%)
14,900 SF (8.9%)
10,430 SF (5.7%)
15,000 SF or 25% of net lot size
(whichever is less)
Building
Envelope:
Precise setbacks are not provided.
Conceptual drawings show potential
locations of future homes on each lot. The
homes would be located in the most
geologically stable areas as identified on
the geology report.
Required
Setbacks
Lot One
Front: 109.4 FT
Rear : 136.8 FT
Side: 27.0 FT
Lot Two
Front: 87.6 FT
Rear: 109.5 FT
Side: 35.5 FT
Lot Three
Front: 90.2 FT
Rear: 112.8 FT
Side: 39.2 FT
Conceptual
Height:
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
25’-6”
26’-0”
26’-0”
26ft. Maximum
8
Page 4 of 8
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Land Use Amendment
The City recently annexed 16 parcels (APN’s 503-09-020,030; 503-10- 003, 005, 006, 007, 029,
044, 067; 503-13-038,138; and 503-80-002,003,005,007,008) totaling approximately 46 acres that
are located to the south of Mount Eden Road and Edencrest Lane in the vicinity of Villa Oaks
Lane. These parcels are within the City’s Urban Service Area (USA) and were pre-zoned
Hillside Residential (HR) prior to annexation. This pre-zoning automatically converted to
permanent zoning once the properties were annexed. These previously unincorporated properties
have the Hillside Open Space (OS-H) general plan land use designation. The general plan states
that the OS-H land use designation covers all areas outside the City’s boundaries and within the
Sphere of Influence. The general plan land use designation remained OS-H after annexation.
Because the OS-H land use designation is reserved for those area located outside Saratoga’s
boundaries it is no longer applicable to the recently annexed area and should be changed.
All incorporated properties within the City’s western hillsides have a Hillside Conservation
(RHC) general plan land use designation which is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan. The
land use designation of the 16 properties, all located in the western hills, should be changed from
OS-H to RHC. Exhibits illustrating the existing and proposed land use designation are included
in Attachment #2.
Subdivision Description and Site Characteristics
Tentative Map approval is required pursuant to City Code Section 14-20.070. The Final Map
approval requires an action by the City Council prior to recordation of the map.
Site Description: The 11.89 acre site is located at 22700 Mount Eden Road near its intersection
with Edencrest Lane. The single-family home previously located on the property has been
removed. The site is bounded by Mount Eden Road and Garrod Farms to the north, vineyard land
to the east, single family homes to the south on lots exceeding two acres, and the Orchard
Meadow subdivision to the west which is separated from the project site by the City’s boundary.
Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide the vacant lot into three parcel parcels
ranging in size from 3.33 to 3.42 net acres. The site has an overall slope of approximately 25.4%.
An existing driveway from Mount Eden Road would provide access to the site. A driveway
easement over Lot One would provide access to all three lots. Approximately 1.6 acres of the site
area would be dedicated to the driveway.
Site Development Plan: The City does require an applicant to provide a site development plan
on any subdivision containing a hillside lot. A Hillside Lot is defined as any lot having an
average slope of 10% or greater. The Preliminary Site Development Plan submitted for the
subdivision illustrates the proposed driveway and conceptual footprints of homes within the
building envelope for each lot. The proposed location of each residence was determined by
required setbacks and the most geologically stable area as defined by the project geologist. The
Plan also includes a table listing approximate site coverage for each proposed lot. Conceptual
architectural elevations and floor plans showing building height, materials, and general design
have also been provided and are included with the tentative map (Attachment #8).
9
Page 5 of 8
Future Improvements: The approved final site development plan will become a part of the
improvement plans for the subdivision. Modification of the site development plan may be
approved by the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing. The Resolution also includes a
condition of approval requiring design review approval of individual homes. Design review
approval will not be granted unless future development is compatible (e.g., bulk and height) with
neighboring residential structures and minimizes impacts on views and privacy. Design review
approval will also be contingent on preserving the natural landscape.
Drainage: The property has an average slope of approximately 25.4%. A private driveway will
be constructed to provide access to the lots, with individual driveways located off this private
driveway, as well as a fire department turnaround at the terminus on Lot Three. To treat the
stormwater from the new impervious surfaces the applicant will utilize bioswales to reduce the
amount of storm runoff entering the surrounding water shed. The future lots will have average
slopes varying from approximately 25% to 26%. It is anticipated that these lots will be
developed individually so each lot will be required to calculate the existing runoff, and the
proposed runoff, from each of the individual lots. Each lot will need to include on-site
improvements to reduce the proposed runoff to be at or less than the existing runoff quantity. It
would be anticipated that this will be done through the use of both stormwater retention facilities
as well as bioswales. The use of retention facilities and bioswales will reduce to preexisting
levels, prior to the construction of site improvements, the flow of storm water exiting the
properties.
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. Each single-family
home is expected to generate less than five peak hour trips. The property was previously
improved with one single-family home. The net increase in peak hour trips would be less than
10, 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 Mount Eden Road.
Lot Access: The city code requires every lot to either front on an accepted public street, a street
offered for dedication, or a minimum access street. A minimum access street is defined as the
means of access for not more than four lots. The proposed driveway will serve three sites so it
would be defined as a minimum access street.
Arborist Review: Subdivision of the property does not include construction, and therefore no trees
will be impacted until the shared driveway is installed and individual lots are developed. However,
future development would require removal of some trees. The City Arborist has inventoried the site
for potential future conflict and/or removal of trees (Attachment #6). Design of the homes,
driveway footprints, and road access to the lots will need to be considerate of trees. As designed,
one protected coast live oak is requested for removal which is located within the proposed driveway
entrance off Mount Eden Road. Fifteen additional trees would require removal to construct the
project as conceptually designed. Nine additional protected trees in conflict with the proposed
design are located on Lots One and Two – no protected trees are in conflict on Lot Three. The
arborist report includes recommendations to reduce the impacts to these trees.
10
Page 6 of 8
Individual lots will be reviewed for relevant impacts to trees and protective measures or special
mitigating design before each lot is developed. The applicant / future owners will be required to
obtain approval to remove protected trees and replace those trees in accordance with their value.
Geotechnical Clearance: Pacific Geotechnical Engineering prepared a Geotechnical Report
dated March 3, 2014 for the subdivision project which was reviewed and approved by the City’s
Geotechnical Consultant. The reports states that development of the subdivision site is
constrained by areas of steep slopes subject to creep and shallow slope failure, potentially
expansive soil materials, and strong seismic ground shaking. The Project Geologist has
indicated those areas on the Tentative Map that have the least slope and are the most geological
stable areas to construct single-family homes. The City Geologist has granted Geotechnical
Clearance for the subdivision project with conditions (Attachment #7). Individual home
construction will be reviewed for relevant impacts. In-depth site specific geotechnical investigations
must be prepared for each lot (including design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls,
basements, swimming pools, etc.). Geotechnical Clearance must be granted for each individual lot
prior to the issuance of building permits for individual residences.
Neighbor Correspondence: The applicant submitted eight signed neighbor notification forms
which did not include any project related comments (Attachment #4). Staff also sent a “Notice of
Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet. The public hearing notice and description of
the project was published in the Saratoga News on June 19th, 2014.
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 proposed General Plan designation of Residential
Hillside Conservation, which allows up to 0.5 dwelling units per acre. The maximum number of
units allowed on the existing lot is three (3) which is consistent with the proposal. The proposed
parcels meet and exceed the minimum two acre lot size requirement of the Hillside Residential
zoning district. 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 private driveways, will require Design Review and/or building permits. Future
development of residential homes will be reviewed for impacts on views and privacy. Likewise,
design review approval will not be granted unless future development is compatible with
neighboring residential structures. Design review approval will also be contingent on preserving
the natural landscape.
11
Page 7 of 8
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
Geotechnical Report satisfactorily addresses the recommendations of the City’s Geotechnical
Consultant. An in-depth site specific geotechnical investigation will be prepared for each lot
(including design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls, basements, swimming pools,
etc.) prior to the issuance of building permits for individual residences.
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 three (3) primary dwelling units.
The development meets or exceeds the zoning district standards for the development of single
family homes as proposed by this subdivision. The project is compatible with the surrounding
density of 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 properly circulated for a 20 day
public review beginning June 4, 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 the Public Works Department and circulated to the following agencies: Cupertino Sanitary
District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Mount Eden Road
Municipal Water Company, Pacific Gas & Electric, and local School Districts. The applicant will be
required to comply with all conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site
requested by all Agencies or Utilities having jurisdiction over the project. All structural
improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Building Department and Public Works
Department.
Finding #7: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access or use. The
site includes a roadway easement Mount Eden Road along the northern side of the property 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 Sanitary Sewer District. The
12
Page 8 of 8
applicant will be required to submit a sewer improvement plan and an on-site privately maintained
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,
included as Attachment #3, is based on an Initial Study which indicates there is no substantial
evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Saratoga, that the project as mitigated
may have a significant effect on the environment. The Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20 day public review beginning June 4, 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval for Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Map
2. Resolution of Approval for General Plan Land Use Amendment
3. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated June 4, 2014
4. Public Hearing Notice
5. Neighbor Notification forms
6. Arborist Report
7. City Geologist Report
8. Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plan (Exhibit "A")
13
RESOLUTION NO. 14-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV14-0003) AND
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (SUB13-0006) LOCATED AT
22700 MOUNT EDEN ROAD (APN 503-10-006)
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2013, an application for a tentative subdivision map was submitted
by Sholeh Diba Goetting, requesting approval to subdivide an 11.89 acre site into three parcels.
The site is located at 22700 Mount Eden Road near its intersection with Edencrest Lane. The
single-family home previously located on the property has been removed. The site is bounded by
Mount Eden Road and Garrod Farms to the north, vineyard land to the east, single family homes
to the south on lots exceeding two acres, and the Orchard Meadow subdivision to the west which
is separated from the project site by the City’s boundary. The site has a General Plan Land Use
Designation of Residential Hillside Conservation and is zoned Hillside Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an initial study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA
Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly
noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period beginning June 4, 2014. All Interested
Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral
comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on
Project before the Planning Commission on June 25, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 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.
14
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 #SUB13-0006, for the project located at 22700
Mount Eden Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 25th day of
June 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
15
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
16
Page 4
tentative map as approved. Any substantial change to the tentative may require additional
review by the Planning Commission. All proposed changes to the Tentative Subdivision Map
must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of
plans highlighting the changes.
7. 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 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:
17
Page 5
a. Two copies of map checking calculations.
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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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. Widen shoulder on south side of Mt. Eden Road along the subdivision frontage to create
a minimum of 2 foot shoulder.
b. Replace storm drain inlet at north-east corner of the subdivision with City standard storm
drain inlet. Location of this inlet is near existing 22700 Mt. Eden Road mailbox.
c. Investigate condition of the storm drain culvert located under Mt. Eden Road extending
under existing private driveway. Repair culvert entrance on north side of Mt. Eden Road.
Replace the culvert if necessary.
d. Improve drainage for proposed parcels to prevent negative impact on subdivision and
adjacent properties.
e. Design and install storm water treatment facilities required by the City’s NPDES
18
Page 6
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2009-0074.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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
approval.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park Development fee prior to Final Map
approval.
23. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Agreement for Stormwater Treatment Measures
Construction, Inspection and Maintenance.
24. 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.
25. 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.
19
Page 7
26. 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.
27. The Project Civil Engineer shall prepare final detailed plans for subdivision-level improvements
including the design of retaining walls, pavement, roadway grading, utilities, drainage
improvements, and other subdivision improvements.
28. Final subdivision-level improvement plans shall be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant for conformance with their design recommendations. Proposed project grading
includes significant export of earth material. The Consultant should consider the performance
benefits of utilizing select, less expansive earth materials for the construction of engineered fill
beneath new roadways. The results of the plan review should be submitted to the City, for
review by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of permits for construction of subdivision-level
improvements.
29. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
30. 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.
31. 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.
CEQA
32. 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
20
Page 8
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.
33. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following
measures at the project sites:
• Adhere to the conditions set forth per the City Arborist Report, dated March 26, 2014.
34. Mitigation Measure SEI-1: The Project Civil Engineer should prepare final detailed plans for
subdivision-level improvements including the design of retaining walls, pavement, roadway
grading, utilities, drainage improvement, and other subdivision improvements.
35. Mitigation Measure SEI-2: Final subdivision-level improvement plans should be evaluated
by the Project Geotechnical Consultant for conformance with their design recommendations.
Proposed project grading includes significant export of earth material. The Consultant
should consider the performance benefits of utilizing select, less expansive earth materials
for the construction of engineered fill beneath roadways. The results of the plan review
should be submitted to the City, for review by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of permits
for construction of subdivision-level improvements.
36. Mitigation Measure SEI-3: Final plans for construction of residential improvements of Lot 2
should be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant for conformance with
geotechnical design recommendation. Consideration should be given to utilizing site non-
expansive earth materials for the construction of fill beneath residential improvements. The
results of the plan review should be submitted to the City, for review by the City Engineer,
prior to issuance of permits for building and grading on Lot Two.
37. Mitigation Measure SEI-4: The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include,
but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the
placement of steel and concrete. Completed drainage improvements should be inspected for
conformance with geotechnical recommendations. The results of these inspections and the
as-built conditions of the project shall be described by geotechnical consultant in a letter and
submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project
approval.
38. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1:
• Dead limbs shall be removed from all existing and planted trees within the project
setback line.
• Tree limbs shall be pruned to within 10 feet of chimneys and shall not touch any portion
of the structure.
21
Page 9
• A vertical separation of at least three times the height of the lower fuel layer (shrub) shall
be maintained within the project setback line.
• An irrigation system shall be installed around all vegetation planted within the project
setback line.
• The roofs/roof assemblies, gutters, vents, desks, exterior walls, and exterior windows of
the residence shall be resistant to ignition.
• All chimney outlets shall be covered with a non-flammable mesh screen of ½-inch or
smaller mesh.
• If balconies or above-ground decks are included in the project design, the undersides of
these features shall be enclosed with fire-resistant materials.
• Sprinkler systems shall be installed in the residence.
39. Mitigation Measure HYD-1: 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.
22
RESOLUTION NO: 14-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 16 PARCELS
OF LAND TOTALING APPROXIMATLEY 46 ACRES FROM HILLSIDE OPEN SPACE TO
RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE CONSERVATION
The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows:
I. Project Summary
The City Council recently authorized the annexation of 46 acres of real property hereafter referred to as
‘the territory’, which included APN’s 503-09-020,030; 503-10- 003, 005, 006, 007, 029, 044, 067; 503-
13-038,138; and 503-80-002,003,005,007,008 from the County of Santa Clara.
The territory was pre-zoned Hillside Residential (HR) and this pre-zoning was converted to
permanent zoning once the properties were annexed.
The territory has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Hillside Open Space (OS-H).
This designation is reserved for those areas located outside Saratoga’s boundaries but within the
City’s Sphere of Influence.
All incorporated properties within the City’s western hillsides have a Residential Hillside
Conservation (RHC) general plan land use designation which is consistent with the Hillside Specific
Plan.
The City proposes to amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Map per the attached exhibits to
redesignate the territory from Hillside Open Space to Residential Hillside Conservation to be
consistent with the City’s Zoning Map and the Hillside Specific Plan.
II. Planning Commission Review
State law requires recommendation from the Planning Commission on amendments to the General
Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance. On June 25, 2014 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
Public Hearing on the amendments described in the Project Summary above at which time all
interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument.
The Planning Commission considered the amendments, the Staff Report, CEQA documentation,
correspondence, presentations from the applicant and the public, and all testimony and other
evidence presented at the Public Hearing.
III. Environmental Review
The amendment was 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
23
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 from June 4 - June 23, 2014.
IV: Recommendation of Approval
After careful consideration of the proposed amendment, CEQA documentation, and other materials,
exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the Planning Commission
of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend to the City Council to amend the General Plan Land
Use Map of the City of Saratoga as follows:
The General Plan Land Use Map should be amended to change the Hillside Open Space General
Plan Land Use Designation of approximately 46 acres of real property which include (APN’s
503-09-020,030; 503-10- 003, 005, 006, 007, 029, 044, 067; 503-13-038,138; and 503-80-
002,003,005,007,008) to Residential Hillside Conservation as described in Exhibit 2.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 25th day of
June 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
Exhibit 1 - Existing General Plan Land Use Designation (OS-H)
Exhibit 2 – Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation (RHC)
24
APNs
503‐09‐020,030;
503‐10‐003,005,
006,007,029,044,067;
503‐10‐038,138;
503‐80‐
002,003,005,007,008
Exhibit 1
25
APNs
503‐09‐020,030;
503‐10‐003,005,
006,007,029,044,067;
503‐10‐038,138;
503‐80‐
002,003,005,007,008
Exhibit 226
Initial Study
&
Mitigated Negative Declaration
For:
Subdivision & General Plan Land Use Amendment
Public Review Period:
June 4, 2014, 2012 through June 23, 2014
27
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 2
1. Project title: ENV13-0002, GPA14-0003, SUB13-0006,
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. Subdivision Location/APN: 22700 Mount Eden Road/503-10-006
5. Parcels included in General Plan
Land Use Amendment 503-09-020,030; 503-10- 003, 005, 006, 007, 029, 044,
067; 503-13-038,138; and 503-80-002,003,005,007,008
6. Project sponsor name and address: Sholeh Diba Goetting, 11659 Olive Spring Court,
Cupertino, CA 95014
City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
95070
7. Current General Plan Land
Use designation: Hillside Open Space (OS-H)
8. Current Zoning: Hillside Residential (HR)
9. Proposed General Plan Land Hillside Conservation (RHC)
Use Designation
10. Description of Project:
Subdivision
The project includes a three lot subdivision of an existing 11.89 acre parcel located at 22700 Mount
Eden Road with a 25.4 percent average slope. Each lot would have the following acreage and
average slope:
Lot One – 3.45 acres / 25.7%
Lot Two – 3.83 acres / 25.9%
Lot Three – 4.19 acres / 25.4%
General Plan Amendment
The project would also include a General Plan Land Use Amendment for 16 parcels as enumerated
in the preceding paragraphs, including the parcel to be subdivided, with a total land area of
approximately 46 acres. The parcels were recently annexed into the City of Saratoga from
unincorporated Santa Clara County, have a general plan land use designation of Hillside Open Space
(OS-H). The OS-H land use designation is for all areas located outside the City’s borders and within
28
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 3
the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) which are not designated as parks or Open Space Managed
Reserve (OS-MR). The allowable densities in the OS-H are between 1 dwelling unit/20 acres – 1
dwelling unit/160 acres (depending on slope).
Since the OS-H is for the SOI area as previously described, this designation should no longer be
applied to the annexed parcels. The General Plan designation for all of the of the 16 recently
annexed parcels should be changed to Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) which is the
residential land use category with the lowest allowable density (.5 DU/net acre) and is consistent
with the R-OS and HR zoning districts.
11. 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. To the west
is the Orchard Meadow residential subdivision which is located in unincorporated Santa Clara
County. Located to the north and on the opposite side of Mount Eden Road is Garrod Farms which
includes both agricultural and residential land uses. To the north and west of Garrod Farms are open
space lands owned by the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District. To the east and south are both
residential and an agricultural land uses. With the exception of the Orchard Meadows subdivision,
many of the surrounding parcels are also used for equestrian purposes such as boarding and riding.
12. Other public agencies whose review is required
a. Santa Clara County Fire District
b. West Valley Sanitation District
c. Mount Eden Road Mutual Water Company
29
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 4
30
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 5
31
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 6
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
Christopher Riordan June 4, 2014
____________________________________ ______________________
Christopher Riordan Date
City of Saratoga
32
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 7
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
33
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 8
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.
34
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 9
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.
Changing the general plan land use designation from Open Space Hillside to Residential Hillside
Conservation reduces the minimum allowable parcel size from 20 acres to a minimum of two acres.
Only two of the annexed parcels have the potential to be subdivided based on the existing zoning and
existing parcel size. These include the now vacant parcel located at 22700 Mount Eden Road (previously
developed with a single-family home which has since been removed) and the pending Tentative Map
would subdivide this 11.89 acre parcel into three lots and the parcel located at 22200 Mount Eden Road
contains a single family home and it could potentially be subdivided into two lots thereby creating a
total of three new lots in the project area. These new lots could be developed with single-family homes
and other related land uses allowed in HR zoning district. Development of the three parcels would be
subject to the City Code and the Design Review process thereby ensuring the compatibility of aesthetic
appearance of new development with existing development in the area. As such, no scenic vistas will be
affected.
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 as listed in
the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory dated November 2009 located 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 Mount Eden Road area is characterized by both one and two story
homes and related site improvements on lots ranging in size from one to ten acres. The low density of
development in the area, large setbacks, equestrian uses, vineyards, and the abundance of trees creates
an existing visual character that could best described as rural and bucolic. Only two of the parcels in the
project area can be subdivided thereby creating the potential for three new parcels that could be
developed. 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
35
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 10
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 specifically applicable to hillside development which pertain 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.
(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?
36
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 11
DISCUSSION:
a-e) The parcels within the project area are identified on the ‘Santa Clara County Important Farmland
Map’ of the State of California Mapping and Monitoring program as other than ‘prime, unique, or
farmland of state wide importance’. The farmland map identifies these parcels as ‘other land’ which is
characterized by low density rural developments, brush, timber, wetlands, and areas not suitable for
livestock grazing. It is also characterized as vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by
urban development. The nine Garrod Farms parcels are used for equestrian and vineyard uses and are
subject to a Williamson Act contract, however, the existing zoning of these parcels would prevent
further subdivision so there would be no effect on the existing Williamson Act contracts.
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)
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.
37
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 12
Based on a trip generation rate of 9.4 per dwelling unit, the size of a project likely to generate 80lbs of
NOx per day would be 320 new residential units. The proposed project could cause three new single-
family dwelling units to be constructed which are far below the number of required units to create a
significant impact.
The project would allow the development of three 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 are pollutant emissions that are 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.
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
38
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 13
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.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Visitors and employees of Garrod Farms, which is located across on the opposite side of Mount Eden
Road from the lot with the pending subdivision, and residents in the vicinity of the subdivision projects,
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 sites, 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 30 additions vehicle trips associated with the
construction of three new single-family homes would not create a significant impact.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Implementation of the proposed projects 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 sites are not located in close
proximity to a wastewater treatment plant, landfill, or other high odor-generating facility. Therefore,
employees and visitors of the future project sites 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)
39
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 14
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
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?
Of the 16 parcels that are included in the change to the existing General Plan Land designation, only two
of the parcels could potentially be subdivided which would have the potential to have any effect on
existing wildlife. Both of these parcels are either currently occupied with a single-family home or
agricultural land uses or have been previously used as a single-family home site. These parcels are also
surrounded by residential development and active agricultural land uses including both vineyard and
equestrian land uses. Existing and previous development and surrounding residential and active
agricultural uses minimizes possible wildlife impacts. The majority of the existing habitat will remain
relatively unchanged which will alleviate any disturbance of rural habitat currently located in the area.
The project is not located near any body of water that are regulated by either the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
40
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 15
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project not would adversely affect any riparian habitat as there are no protected streams in the area
as depicted in the creek maps prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
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?
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.
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 the project is not
located near a water source and is surrounded by residential and agricultural development. Although
the project area is rural in nature, the proposed subdivision would not impact movement of wildlife
species, as both activities do not conflict with any established corridors that would impede such species
travel.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
The Saratoga City Code defines protected trees as native trees (Oak or Redwood) having a DBH
(Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or greater or any other trees having a DBH of ten inches or
greater. Changing the General Plan Land Use Designation from Open Space Hillside to Hillside
Residential would not directly affect any protected trees. However, modifying the land use designation
of the 11.89 acre parcel located at 22700 Mount Eden Road would allow the site to be subdivided into
three residential lots where it could not have been subdivided with the Open Space Hillside General Plan
designation with its 20 acre minimum lot site. The pending tentative map for 22700 Mount Eden Road
would include the removal of one protected Oak tree. A total of 52 trees were inventoried by the project
arborist has potentially being impacted by project construction and these included 38 coast live oaks and
14 valley oaks. Fifteen other trees that were included in the inventory are not protected and would be
removed to construct the subdivision improvements. The City Arborist can make the findings for
removal of the one Oak tree and has agreed that it meets the criteria for removal, based on the Saratoga
City Code, and have been cleared for removal by the City. Conditions of approval, which include
protective tree fencing and a tree security deposit, have been added to the project as mitigation. By
implementing conditions established per the City Arborist Report (dated March 26, 2014), the impacts to
protected trees would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
41
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 16
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following
measures at the project sites:
• Adhere to the conditions set forth per the City Arborist Report, dated March 26, 2014.
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, Arborist Report, dated November 16, 2012)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION:
a) 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 dated November 2009 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, there doesn’t seem to be possibility of the presence of historic period
archaeological resources within the project site.
42
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 17
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As stated above, based on field reconnaissance, 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 formal cemeteries in or near the project area There doesn’t seem to be evidence that
human remains would be disturbed due to the proposed project because based on field reconnaissance,
and because of current and previous agricultural land uses, there is no evidence that 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?
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?
43
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 18
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 and the Fault Location
Map contained in the City’s General Plan Safety Element indicates that the Berrocal Fault and the San
Andreas Fault are located to the south of the project area. Both of these faults are likely to cause
moderate to strong ground shaking during a seismic event. The project area is located in an area with
moderate to steep slopes. All structures to be built on the subdivision parcels 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.
Pacific Geotechnical Engineering prepared a Geotechnical Report dated March 3, 2014 for the
subdivision project which was reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. The
reports states that development of the subdivision site is constrained by areas of steep slopes subject to
creep and shallow slope failure, potentially expansive soil materials, and strong seismic ground shaking.
The City Geologist has granted Geotechnical Clearance for the subdivision project with conditions. The
conditions have been added to the project as mitigation. By implementing conditions established per the
Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review (dated March 12, 2014), the seismic impacts would be reduced
to a less-than-significant level.
The project applicant shall implement the following measures prior to issuance of a building permit:
Seismic Mitigation Measure SEI-1: The Project Civil Engineer should prepare final detailed plans for
subdivision-level improvements including the design of retaining walls, pavement, roadway grading,
utilities, drainage improvement, and other subdivision improvements.
Seismic Mitigation Measure SEI-2: Final subdivision-level improvement plans should be evaluated
by the Project Geotechnical Consultant for conformance with their design recommendations. Proposed
project grading includes significant export of earth material. The Consultant should consider the
performance benefits of utilizing select, less expansive earth materials for the construction of engineered
fill beneath roadways. The results of the plan review should be submitted to the City, for review by the
City Engi neer, prior to issuance of permits for construction of subdivision-level improvements.
Seismic Mitigation Measure SEI-3: Final plans for construction of residential improvements of Lot 2
should be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant for conformance with geotechnical design
recommendation. Consideration should be given to utilizing site non-expansive earth materials for the
construction of fill beneath residential improvements. The results of the plan review should be
44
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 19
submitted to the City, for review by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of permits for building and
grading on Lot Two.
Seismic Mitigation Measure SEI-4: The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and
concrete. Completed drainage improvements should be inspected for conformance with geotechnical
recommendations. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be
described by geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to
final (granting of occupancy) project approval.
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 is reduced to a minimum.
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. Adherence to Seismic Mitigation Measures SEI-1 – SEI-4 and all requirements of the
Universal Building Code would reduce on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse to a less than significant impact.
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, limited mitigation is necessary in relation to impacts on geology
and soils.
(Sources: City of Saratoga 2013 Safety Element, City’s Ground Movement Potential Map, and project
review comments by the City Geologist dated March 12, 2014.)
45
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 20
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 pending Tentative Map at 22700 Mount Eden
Road would subdivide this 11.89 acre parcel into three lots. The parcel located at 22200 Mount Eden
Road contains a single family home and it could potentially be subdivided into two lots thereby creating
a total of three new lots in the project area. The addition of three new homes to the area would not be a
significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
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 on
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)
46
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 21
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?
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 sites.
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.
47
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 22
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 area 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 residential development and equestrian and vineyard
agricultural uses, 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.
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 mitigations such as appropriate construction methods,
emergency driveways, emergency turn-around, and fire sprinklers. Implementation of the following
mitigation measure would reduce the impacts associated with local wildfire hazards to less-than-
significant levels:
48
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 23
The project plans shall incorporate the following wildfire protection measures:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1:
• Dead limbs shall be removed from all existing and planted trees within the project
setback line.
• Tree limbs shall be pruned to within 10 feet of chimneys and shall not touch any portion
of the structure.
• A vertical separation of at least three times the height of the lower fuel layer (shrub) shall
be maintained within the project setback line.
• An irrigation system shall be installed around all vegetation planted within the project
setback line.
• The roofs/roof assemblies, gutters, vents, desks, exterior walls, and exterior windows of
the residence shall be resistant to ignition.
• All chimney outlets shall be covered with a non-flammable mesh screen of ½-inch or
smaller mesh.
• If balconies or above-ground decks are included in the project design, the undersides of
these features shall be enclosed with fire-resistant materials.
• Sprinkler systems shall be installed in the residence.
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 (accessed March 5,
2014)
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?
49
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 24
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
DISCUSSION:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
The proposed project could have impacts to the quality of surface water during the construction phase of
the subdivision and during the disturbance of soils on the site. Water quality impacts associated with the
construction of the future 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:
The project applicant shall implement the following measures prior to issuance of a building permit:
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: 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.
50
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 25
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 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?
There are no creeks in the project area. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect 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?
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 bioretenion areas for the purpose of
treating the stormwater and allowing it to percolate into the ground. 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
and applicable City Codes. Therefore, the project would create or contribute to substantial polluted
runoff.
51
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 26
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.
52
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 27
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 and agricultural land use surrounds the project area on all four sides. The
General Plan would change the Land Use Designation of 16 parcels of land however thereby potentially
increasing the possibility of subdivisions; only two of these parcels have the potential to be subdivided
based on the acreage of the parcels. Both parcels are surrounded by single-family home parcels. New
residential development on the parcels with the potential for subdivision would be characterized as ‘in-
fill’ development without the potential to 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?
The project will not conflict with any land use or zoning regulation because it has been determined that
the three lot subdivision will be in conformance with the General Plan, when the land use designation is
changes from OS-H to RHC, the 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)
53
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 28
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?
54
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 29
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?
Modifying the general plan land use designation from Hillside Open Space to Residential Hillside
Conservation would not affect existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project. However, changing the
designation would allow the creation of new parcels with a minimum square footage of two acres. Two
of the existing parcels are large enough to be subdivided so there is the potential for a total of three new
lots to be created. Development of these new parcels could subject the 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 three lot subdivision at 22700 Mount Eden Road 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.
55
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 30
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Residents adjacent to the project site could be exposed to temporary increased levels of ground borne
vibration and ground borne noise during the construction period of the proposed three lot subdivision.
These increases are expected to occur infrequently, and for only short durations during the project
construction period. Adherence to 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 three lot subdivision at 22700 Mount Eden Road 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, limited mitigation is necessary or required in relation to noise
impacts.
56
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 31
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga City Code)
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significa
nt Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
DISCUSSION:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
The Residential Hillside Conservation general plan land use designation would allow the subdivision of
two of the nine existing lots in the project area. 22700 Mount Eden Road is an existing 11.89 acre parcel
and the general plan change would allow this site to be subdivided into three parcels. A single-family
home previously existed on the site. 22200 Mount Eden Road is 5.09 acres and this site has the
potential to be subdivided into two lots. Future development of these parcels is estimated to increase the
population of the City by 8.5 persons (2.83 average household size x 3 net new residences) and does 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 proposed project would not displace existing housing. The site at 22700 Mount Eden Road was
previously developed with a single-family home which has been demolished. The three lot subdivision
proposed for this site would replace the house that was removed as well as constructing two new single-
family residences. The site at 22200 does contain a single-family home and no development of this site
is currently proposed.
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.
57
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 32
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Housing Element)
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
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 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, limited mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Public Services.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan. Saratoga Municipal Code. Developmental
Review Comments for 15240 Madrone Hill, dated 08/30/2012 – SCCFD )
58
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 33
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
by three additional lots. 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?
59
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 34
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
DISCUSSION:
a) 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) Mount Eden Road is defined in the City’s General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element
(dated November 2010) as a “collector” street. Mount Eden Road connects to Pierce Road which is also
defined as a “collector” and is the most likely route to the nearest arterials. 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 are projected to be an average of 3,800 trips per day and would continue to
operate at a LOS of “B”. 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 estimated future traffic volumes
which do not forecast a change to the existing LOS of Pierce Road.
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.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Proposed development would only occur on privately owned land and would be expected to modify the
existing design of Mount Eden Road; therefore the project would not substantially increase hazards due
to design features.
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 for 22700 Mount Eden
60
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 35
Road without any additional conditions. The SCCFD would also review, as they do for all new
development, any proposed future development of 22200 Mount Eden Road to ensure the adequacy of
emergency access requirements.
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?
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 would
be sufficient capacity to service the three parcels at 22700 Mount Eden Road as well as the potential for
an additional parcel at 22200 Mount Eden Road.
61
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 36
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 would
be sufficient capacity to service the three parcels at 22700 Mount Eden Road as well as the potential for
an additional parcel at 22200 Mount Eden Road.
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. Detailed grading plans
would be submitted and reviewed for all not 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?
Water service within the project area is provided by the Mount Eden Mutual Water Company (MEWC).
The MEWC has reviewed the proposed tentative map for 22700 Mount Eden Road as well as the
potential for a new parcel at 22200 Mount Eden Road and it was determined that there is sufficient
capacity to serve the potential new development with both domestic water service and required fire flow.
The MEWC obtains their water supply from the San Jose Water Company (SJWC). The SJWC receives
approximately 90% of their water from Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The SCVWD
tracts water usage and demand in order to secure long term water supply for its customers. The
SCVWD also maintains periodically-updated contingency plans to reduce water use during prolonged
periods of drought. Therefore, the MEWC, SCVWD and SJWC would have an adequate water supply
to meet the demand for water generated by the proposed 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 would
be sufficient capacity to service the three parcels at 22700 Mount Eden Road as well as the potential for
an additional parcel at 22200 Mount Eden Road.
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 four 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.
62
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 37
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.
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)
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 residential 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)?
63
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Mount Eden Road
Page 38
The proposed project would result in the continuation of residential lots and the development of a single-
family residence 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.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
The project site has been historically developed as single-family residential. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely the proposed project would result with 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not have
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.
GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES:
1. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation , Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and
Safety Element)
2. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map
3. City of Saratoga Housing Element
PROJECT RELATED SOURCES/REFERENCES:
4. Project Plans.
5. Arborist Report prepared by Kate Bear, dated March 26, 2014.
6. Geotechnical Review and Clearance, dated March 14, 2014.
7. West Valley Clean Water Program, 2012. WVWCP Website: http://www.cleancreeks.org/ (accessed
November 21, 2012).
8. Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook, City of Saratoga, adopted February 19, 2014.
9. Association of Bay Area Governments, 2012. Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure
Inundation. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/DamInundation/(accessed May 5, 2014).
10. California Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site
List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed May 5, 2014).
64
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 25th 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: SUB13-0006/ENV13-0002 / GPA14-0003 22700 Mount
Eden Road
OWNER: Sholeh Diba Goetting
APN: 503-10-006
DESCRIPTION: The applicant has applied for a Tentative Subdivision map to subdivide an
existing 11.89 acre parcel located at 22700 Mount Eden Road into three single-family home lots.
The lots will range in size from 3.33 acres – 4.42 net acres in size.
The project also includes a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use designation from
Hillside Open Space (OS-H) to Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) for APN’s 503-09-
020,030;503-10-003,005,006,007,029,044,067;503-13-038,138;503-80-02,003,005,007,008.
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 23, 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
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the
information in this report and implement the required conditions.
Application #: ARB13-0069
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 22700 Mt. Eden Road
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Sholeh Diba-Goetting
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 503-10-006
Email: getting @comcast.net
Report History:
#1
Date:
Plans received October 30, 2013
Arborist report received January 12, 2014
Report completed February 7, 2014
#2 – This report replaces report #1
Revised plans received March 11, 2014
Report completed March 26, 2014
PROJECT SCOPE
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to subdivide a parcel into three lots for new homes.
One coast live oak protected by City Code is requested for removal as part of this approval. It is a
small tree growing within the proposed driveway entrance off Mt. Eden Rd. Fifteen trees would
require removal to construct new homes and driveways on the subdivided lots.
CLEARANCE – with conditions
This project has clearance to proceed from the arborist, with the conditions specified in the
Conditions of Approval.
PLAN REVIEW
Plans Reviewed:
A revised Tentative Map was prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. and dated February 14, 2014
(Sheet 1 of 3). Also provided for review was a slope classification map (Sheet 2 of 3) and a
preliminary development plan (Sheet 3 of 3).
The preliminary development plan showed potential house foot prints on each subdivided lot.
TREE INFORMATION
An arborist report by Deborah Ellis, MS, Consulting Arborist and Horticulturist, and dated March
11, 2014, addressed comments in the February 7, 2014 report for this project. It noted changes in the
plans to meet conditions of approval, and provided a rationale if a condition could not be met. An
earlier arborist report dated August 12, 2012 included an inventory of trees, appraised values for
protected trees, expected construction impacts, and recommendations for the preservation of retained
trees.
Page 1 of 3
74
22700 Mt. Eden Road
Tree Inventory
A total of 52 trees comprised of 38 coast live oaks and 14 valley oaks were inventoried.
Tree Removals:
One coast live oak (#3) is requested for removal as part of the subdivision application. It meets the
criteria allowing removal and replacement. Because no building permit is issued for a subdivision
project, a tree removal permit application would be necessary prior to removing this oak.
To construct driveways and houses on each lot, nine trees appear to be in conflict with the proposed
improvements. A summary of trees potentially in conflict with the project is included in the table
below.
Table #1: Trees potentially in conflict with the project
Lot # Trees potentially in conflict
1 3
2 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 31
3 none
Lot #2:
1. Modify the design of the circular driveway to remain at least 15 feet from the trunk of oak
tree #18.
2. Modify the design of the house so that no changes in grade are needed within 20 feet of the
trunk of tree #26. This would include any necessary over-excavation for the basement and
lightwells, installation of forms for concrete, or for drainage around the house.
3. Move the pool and retaining walls farther from trees #19 – 22 so that no changes in grade are
required within 15 feet of the trees.
Lot #3:
1. Correct the plan sheet so that the tree in the center of the circular drive is #32 rather than #33.
2. Modify the design so that the existing grade is preserved within 15 feet of the trunk of oak
#32.
3. Preserve the existing grade for 10 feet from the trunks of trees #33, 35, 38, 40 and 41. The
plan shows the limits of grading for the new driveway closer than this.
4. Include trees on the plans by the storm drain and bio swale below the house or move the
drain line and swale to be at least 10 feet outside of tree canopies.
Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees:
No security deposit is required to subdivide the property.
FINDINGS
Tree Removal
One coast live oak (#3) is requested for removal to subdivide the property and build a new driveway
entrance. It meets the criteria allowing removal and replacement for the driveway. Because no
building permit is needed for subdivision approval, a tree removal permit will be required to remove
this tree if it is removed prior to development of the parcels.
Page 2 of 3
75
22700 Mt. Eden Road
Some trees are in conflict with the proposed footprint of the new homes, driveways or utilities. Most
of them should be retained and preserved, and the designs modified to adequately protect them.
New Construction
Subdivision of the property does not require construction, so trees are not impacted by the
subdivision of the property until the individual lots are developed. The projects for each lot require
design modifications to adequately protect trees during construction of the new houses.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This arborist report shall be incorporated into the resolution approving subdivision.
2. The inventory of trees from the D. Ellis arborist report shall be included in the plans along
with appraised values.
3. All recommendations in the submitted arborist report prepared by Deborah Ellis, Consulting
Arborist, and dated January 10, 2014, shall be followed in designing and constructing new
homes on each lot.
4. All trees listed in the arborist January 10, 2014 arborist report shall be surveyed, shown on
the plans and numbered. Trees requiring removal shall be clearly indicated.
5. The designated Project Arborist for development of these lots is Deborah Ellis, Consulting
Arborist. Any desired change in the Project Arborist shall be approved by the City Arborist
prior to start of construction.
6. Tree #3 is requested for removal. Prior to removing this tree, a tree removal permit shall be
obtained from the City.
7. No protected trees are authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project.
8. No construction activities are approved at this time.
9. The conditions below shall apply to future development projects on these properties.
Lot #1:
a. The driveway shall remain in its present location with respect to tree 2.
b. Grading and excavation shall remain outside the canopies of oaks 45 – 52.
Lot #2:
c. Conditions of approval can be found in the report for development of the property.
Lot #3:
d. Preserve the existing grade within 15 feet of the trunk of oak 32.
e. Preserve the existing grade for 10 feet from the trunks of trees 33, 35, 38, 40 and 41.
f. Locate the bio swale below the house 10 feet outside of tree canopies.
Page 3 of 3
76
22700 Mt. Eden Road
Lot #1
77
22700 Mt. Eden Road
Lot #2
78
22700 Mt. Eden Road
Lot #3
79
CITY of SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 868-1274
MEMORANDUM
TO: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer DATE: March 12, 2014
FROM: Cotton Shires and Associates Inc., City Geotechnical Consultant
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review (S5043B)
RE: Goetting 3-Parcel Subdivision, GEO13-0012
Goetting Lot 2 Residence GE014-0004
22700 Mount Eden Road
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the subject Tentative Map
and proposed Lot 2 residence using:
• Response to Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review and Geotechnical Plan Review – Goetting
Subdivision (letter) prepared by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering, dated March 3, 2014;
• Geotechnical Investigation - Goetting Subdivision (report) prepared by Pacific Geotechnical
Engineering, dated January 13, 2014;
• Lot 2 Title Sheet, Grading and Drainage Plan, Lot 2 Sections and Details (3 sheets) prepared by
Westfall Engineers, dated February 26, 2014;
• Tentative Map and Preliminary Development Plan (2 sheets) prepared by Westfall Engineers, dated
February 14, 2014;
• Goetting Residence Architectural Plans (6 sheets) prepared by DZ Design Associates, dated
December 16, 2013;
• Geologic Feasibility Investigation (report) prepared by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering, dated
October 25, 2013; and
• Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation – Goetting Property (report) prepared by Pacific
Geotechnical Engineering, dated October 28, 2004.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files, been in communication
with the Project Geotechnical Consultant, and completed a recent site reconnaissance.
80
Iveta Harvancik March 12, 2014
Page 2 S5043B
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property (approximately 11.9 acres) into 3 parcels for
single-family residential development. The Project is to be serviced by connection to existing sanitary sewers.
The Preliminary Development Plan illustrates approximate locations for three new residences and grading for
construction of a central common access road leading to three separate driveways.
In our previous geotechnical peer review (dated February 11, 2014), we noted that several aspects of the
Tentative Map and Preliminary Development Plan did not appear to be in conformance with the latest
recommendations by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. We recommended that plans be revised and
evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant for conformance with design recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development at the subject property is constrained by areas of steep slopes subject to creep and shallow
slope failures, potentially expansive soil materials, and strong seismic ground shaking. The Project
Geotechnical Consultant has completed a site geologic and geotechnical investigation and recommended
geotechnical design parameters that are in general conformance with prevailing professional standards. We
understand that foundation recommendations presented in the latest geotechnical investigation of January 13,
2014, can be applied to proposed residential improvements on Lot 2.
The Project Civil Engineer has revised the referenced plans to address the comments of our previous
geotechnical peer review. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has evaluated the Preliminary Development
Plan for the proposed subdivision and the Grading and Drainage Plan for residential development of Lot 2.
The consultant has concluded that project plans are in general conformance with provided recommendations.
We recommend geotechnical approval of the proposed Tentative Map with the following Conditions 1, 2,
and 4. We recommend granting Geotechnical Clearance for the proposed residential layout for Lot 2 (including
guest house) with the following Conditions 3 and 4:
1. Final Subdivision Improvement Plans – The Project Civil Engineer should prepare final detailed
plans for subdivision-level improvements including the design of retaining walls, pavement,
roadway grading, utilities, drainage improvements, and other subdivision improvements.
2. Geotechnical Review of Improvement Plans – Final subdivision-level improvement plans should
be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant for conformance with their design
recommendations. Proposed project grading includes significant export of earth material. The
Consultant should consider the performance benefits of utilizing select, less expansive earth
materials for the construction of engineered fill beneath new roadways.
The results of the plan review should be submitted to the City, for review by the City Engineer, prior to
issuance of permits for construction of subdivision-level improvements.
81
Iveta Harvancik March 12, 2014
Page 3 S5043B
3. Geotechnical Review of Lot 2 Construction Plans – Final plans for construction of residential
improvements on Lot 2 should be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant for
conformance with geotechnical design recommendation. Consideration should be given to utilizing
site non-expansive earth materials for the construction of fill beneath residential improvements.
The results of the plan review should be submitted to the City, for review by the City Engineer,
prior to issuance of permits for building and grading on Lot 2.
4. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as
needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the
placement of steel and concrete. Completed drainage improvements should be inspected for
conformance with geotechnical recommendations.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final
(granting of occupancy) project approval.
LIMITATIONS
This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the
City of Saratoga in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the
documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made
in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is
in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
TS:DTS:kd
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Lot 290
Lot 291
Lot 292
Lot 293
Lot 294
Lot 295
96
97
98
99
100