The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-24-14 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents Agenda 3 September 10, 2014 Draft Minutes 5 Application ELN14-0010; 13715 Quito Road / 389-25-051; Shuly Dagon / Jessica Aviles. The applicant is proposing a 499 square foot addition to a legal non-conforming structure. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to the non-conforming side of the home and the addition will conform to City Code. Staff Contact: Cindy McCormick (408) 868-1230. Staff Memo 8 Resolution 10 Plans 14 Application PDR14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-041; Deepak Sharma and Ana Stefan / Michelle Miner Design. The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new 2 -story home, approximately 22 feet—six inches in height. The 3,185 square foot home would include 2,400 square feet on the first story and 785 square feet on the second story. The 1,975 square foot basement does not count towards the maximum allowable floor area. Staff Contact: Cindy McCormick (408) 868- 1230. Staff Report 21 Draft Resolution 28 Notice 32 Neighbor Forms 33 Applicant Correspondence 50 Neighbor Correspondence 58 Plans 64 Application PDR14-0019; 15335 Via Colina / 397-10-001; Gregory Howell. The applicant is proposing a new 22 foot tall, 6,078 square foot single-story home on a 44,439 square foot lot. The project meets all required setbacks, height, floor area, and lot coverage restrictions. The existing home, accessory structures and pool will be demolished. Staff Contact: Cindy McCormick (408) 868-1230. Staff Report 74 Resolution 79 Notice 83 Plans 84 Applications PDR13-0026, GRE14-0001, ARB13-0069; 22700 Mount Eden (503-10-006); Goetting - The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,942 square foot two story single-family home with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square foot one story detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also includes a grading exception for 8,468 cubic yards of grading which includes 1,330 cubic yards to construct the basement. The net size area is 3.83 acres or 166,835 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 1 Staff Report 89 Attachment 1 - Resolution 99 Attachment 2 - PC Study Session Staff Report 103 Attachment 3 - Arborist Report 107 Attachment 4 - Geotechnical Clearance 116 Attachment 5 - Public Hearing Notice 117 Attachment 6 - Neighbor Notification Forms 118 Attachment 7 - CalGreen Checklist 126 Attachment 8 - Photo Renderings 134 Attachment 9 - Project Plans 136 Application PDR14-0003 and CUP14-0001; 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way (503-24-020/027); Cutler – The applicant is requesting approval for a Initial Study / Negative Declaration, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for two commercial lots located at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. The project includes the remodel of an existing structure (14521 Big Basin Way) and restaurant (14523 Big Basin Way). 14521 Big Basin will be rehabilitated and remodeled for a wine bar / restaurant use. One residential apartment will be attached and constructed at the rear of the building. 14523 Big Basin will be remodeled to include an office space, restaurant, and two apartment units. An additional story will be constructed on top of 14523 Big Basin in order to accommodate one of the apartment units. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Staff Report 153 Att 1 Reso 163 Att 2 Arborist Report 169 Att 3 HPC Memo 180 Att 4 Village Design Guidelines 190 Att 5 Neighbor Comments 191 Att 6 Applicant Response 192 Att 7 Negative Declaration 195 Att 8 Plan Set 237 Application PDR11-0003 & VAR11-0001; 21794 Heber Way (503-31-067) – The project is a Design Review and Variance to construct a new two-story residence with a three-car garage on a hillside lot. The height will be no taller than 25 feet from average grade. The variance is required because the applicant is proposing a 97 foot front setback (when 131 foot setback is required) and a 20 foot and 30 foot side setback (when a 45 foot side setback is required). Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. 21794 Heber Way - Continuance 253 2 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 24, 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 September 10, 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. NEW BUSINESS 1. Application ELN14-0010; 13715 Quito Road / 389-25-051; Shuly Dagon / Jessica Aviles. The applicant is proposing a 499 square foot addition to a legal non-conforming structure. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to the non-conforming side of the home and the addition will conform to City Code. Staff Contact: Cindy McCormick (408) 868-1230. Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-042 approving the major alteration subject to conditions of approval. 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 PDR14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-041; Deepak Sharma and Ana Stefan / Michelle Miner Design. The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new 2-story home, approximately 22 feet—six inches in height. The 3,185 square foot home would include 2,400 square feet on the first story and 785 square feet on the second story. The 1,975 square foot basement does not count towards the maximum allowable floor area. Staff Contact: Cindy McCormick (408) 868-1230. Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-030 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 3 2. Application PDR14-0019; 15335 Via Colina / 397-10-001; Gregory Howell. The applicant is proposing a new 22 foot tall, 6,078 square foot single-story home on a 44,439 square foot lot. The project meets all required setbacks, height, floor area, and lot coverage restrictions. The existing home, accessory structures and pool will be demolished. Staff Contact: Cindy McCormick (408) 868-1230. Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-043 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 3. Applications PDR13-0026, GRE14-0001, ARB13-0069; 22700 Mount Eden (503-10-006); Goetting - The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,942 square foot two story single-family home with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square foot one story detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also includes a grading exception for 8,468 cubic yards of grading which includes 1,330 cubic yards to construct the basement. The net size area is 3.83 acres or 166,835 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-025 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 4. Application PDR14-0003 and CUP14-0001; 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way (503-24-020/027); Cutler – The applicant is requesting approval for a Initial Study / Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment for two commercial lots located at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. The project includes the remodel of an existing structure (14521 Big Basin Way) and restaurant (14523 Big Basin Way). 14521 Big Basin will be rehabilitated and remodeled for a wine bar / restaurant use. One residential apartment will be attached and constructed at the rear of the building. 14523 Big Basin will be remodeled to include an office space, restaurant, and two apartment units. An additional story will be constructed on top of 14523 Big Basin in order to accommodate one of the apartment units. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Recommended action: Approve Resolution No. 14-045 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 5. Application PDR11-0003 & VAR11-0001; 21794 Heber Way (503-31-067) – The project is a Design Review and Variance to construct a new two-story residence with a three-car garage on a hillside lot. The height will be no taller than 26 feet from average grade. The variance is required because the applicant is proposing a 97 foot front setback (when 131 foot setback is required) and a 20 foot and 30 foot side setback (when a 45 foot side setback is required). Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-045 approving Design Review PDR11-0003 and Variance 11-0001 subject to conditions of approval. PLANNING STAFF/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 September 18, 2014 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 4 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 10, 2014 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ROLL CALL PRESENT Commissioners Leonard Almalech, Wendy Chang, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Pragati Grover, Dede Smullen, Tina Walia, Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald ABSENT None ALSO PRESENT Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Michael Fossati, Planner Cynthia McCormick, Planner Bill Parkin, Assistant City Attorney COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 13, 2014. Action: ALAMALECH/GROVER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 13, 2014 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application APPC14-0001; 21818 Via Regina (503-69-012); Downs and Hsiao – The appellants are appealing ADR12-0032, which is an addition of 2,262 sq. ft. to the 1st and 2nd story of a two-story residence that includes additions to both floors and a wood deck along the eastern side of the residence as well as various landscaping and drainage improvements along the southern portion of the residence located at 21818 Via Regina. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: GROVER/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-040 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2. Application PDR14-0011,ARB14-0002, 12666 Paseo Flores (386-12-037), George Kuen-Yuan Chiou and Andrew Mo - The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct an approximately 3,539 square foot, 22 feet tall, one-story single-family dwelling located at 12666 Paseo Flores. The project would also include the removal of two trees including a 35” walnut tree and a 41” pepper tree. The net site area is 11,840 square feet and is zoned R-1-00,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 Action: ALMALECH/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 14-037 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 5 3. Application PDR14-0018; Brookwood Lane (vacant) / 503-23-028; Anisha Gupta / Seema Mittal - The applicant is proposing a new home on an 18,290 square foot vacant lot. The new two-story home will be 4,779 square feet in area and 25 feet-six inches in height. The application includes a secondary dwelling unit enclosed within the primary dwelling unit. The project qualifies for the city’s 10% floor area bonus and waiver of an enclosed garage space because the second dwelling unit will be deed restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate households. Six protected trees meet the criteria for removal. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Action: GROVER/ALMALECH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 14-038 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MINUTES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, GROVER, SMULLEN. NOES: FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 4. Application ZOA14-0002; Citywide Zoning Amendment (Article 15-47) Water Efficient Landscaping; City of Saratoga; The City has drafted a new Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (Article 15-47) that would replace the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) adopted by the City in 2010. The purpose of the Ordinance is to reduce water waste in landscaping by promoting the use of region-appropriate plants that require minimal supplemental irrigation, and by establishing standards for irrigation efficiency. The Ordinance will allow property owners to choose a simplified plant restriction in lieu of the more cumbersome MWELO water allowance calculations. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Action: SMULLEN/ALMALECH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 14-036 APPROVING THE PROJECT AND RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE REVISED ORDINANCE (ARTICLE 15-47). MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 5. Application ZOA14-0003, City of Saratoga - Annual Code Update. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 Action: WALIA/ALMALECH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 14-041 WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITION AND RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE WHICH INCLUDES VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 15 (ZONING) OF THE SARATOGA CODE: Replace the word “in” with the word “is” in the staff report description table of the proposed changes for ‘flag’ definitions Replace the word “first” with the word “later” in the staff report description table of the proposed changes for ‘arborist reports’ Remove the proposed new definition for ‘site width’ and leave city code section 15-06.620(d) unchanged Remove the proposed revised regulation for the height of fences without street frontage and leave city code section 15-29.010(4) unchanged Revise proposed city code section 15-45.065(6) to include the word “Any’ at the beginning of the sentence MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 6 NEW BUSINESS 1. Application ELN14-0004; 20595 Debbie Lane (503-54-028); Oh – The applicant is requesting the addition of approximately 743 sq. ft. to an existing legal non-conforming structure. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212. Action: WALIA/CHANG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-039 APPROVING THE MAJOR ALTERATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: September 24, 2014 Application: ELN14-0010 Location / APN: 13715 Quito Road / 389-25-051 Owner/Applicant: Shuly Dagon / Jessica Aviles Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick The Planning Commission may approve a major alteration of a nonconforming structure. Major Alteration means any work that is estimated to result in expenditure (cumulatively) of 20% to 50% of the estimated construction cost of the structure. Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Sections 15-65.050(b), before staff can act on the pending Building Permit. The Building Permit does not require approval by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-042 approving the major alteration subject to conditions of approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing an addition to a legal non-conforming structure. The existing house encroaches into the left side setback. The required setback is 7.7 feet and the house has an existing left side setback of 6 feet. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to the left side of the home and the addition will conform to City Code. The 499 square foot addition will be located at the rear of the existing home. The colors and materials of the new roof and stucco siding will match the existing exterior. Per the applicant, the 499 sf addition is valued at $143,213 ($287/sf) and the interior remodel is valued at approximately $43,000. The total estimated construction valuation of the proposed improvements is approximately 29% of $634,265—the estimated construction valuation of the existing structure. PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 13,167 SF Proposed Allowed/Required Total Site Coverage 5,952 sq. ft. (45%) 60% Maximum Total Floor Area 2,924 sq. ft. 3,880 sq. ft. Maximum Height 14’-1” 26 feet Maximum Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 45’ 6’ 8’6” 36’8” 25’ 7.7’ 7.7’ 25’ 8 13715 Quito Road Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The property owner posted a sign in front of the property, notifying neighbors of the application for a building permit. No comments have been received as of the writing of this report. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Pursuant to City Code Section 15-65.050(b), major repair and alteration of a nonconforming structure may be permitted if the Planning Commission is able to make the following determinations: (1) The repair and/or alteration will accommodate a conforming use. This finding may be made in the affirmative because a residential structure and addition thereto is permitted by City Code in the R1-10,000 zoning district. (2) The repair and/or alteration does not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this Chapter. This finding may be made in affirmative because the addition will conform to City Code and the applicant is not proposing any modifications to the non-conforming left side of the home. (3) The repair and/or alteration do not effectively extend or perpetuate the useful life of any particular feature or portion of the structure which is nonconforming. This finding may be made in the affirmative because the applicant is not proposing any improvements to the non- conforming portion of the home. Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") Page 2 of 2 9 RESOLUTION NO: 14-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 13715 QUITO ROAD, SARATOGA CA 95070 WHEREAS, on August 21 2014 Jessica Aviles submitted an application on behalf of Shuly Dagon to construct a 499 square foot addition to and remodel of a legal non-conforming single-family residence. The existing home encroaches into the left side setback. The required setback is 7.7 feet and the house has an existing left side setback of 6 feet. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to the left side of the home and the addition will conform to City Code. The project will result in expenditure of approximately 29% of the estimated construction valuation of the existing home. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commission held a meeting on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies; Conservation Element Goal 2 and Land Use Element Goal 1 which states that the City shall preserve the City’s existing character which includes small town residential, rural/semi-rural areas and open spaces areas; Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development; and Land Use Element Policy 1.1 that the city shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-family detached residences. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the repair and/or alteration will accommodate a conforming use; the repair and/or alteration does not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this Chapter; and the repair and/or alteration does not effectively extend or 10 Resolution No. 14-042 perpetuate the useful life of any particular feature or portion of the structure which is nonconforming. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves ELN14-0010 located at 13715 Quito Road subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 24th day of September 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission 11 Resolution No. 14-042 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ELN14-0010 13715 Quito Road / 389-25-051 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 12 Resolution No. 14-042 5. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A", and as conditioned below. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 6. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT. Statement of Acknowledgment of Legal Nonconforming Status: The property Owner shall record a Statement of Acknowledgment of Legal Nonconforming Status, satisfactory to the Community Development Director, specifying that alteration and repair of the non-conforming structure shall comply with City Code. 7. Non-Conforming Structure Limitations. In no event shall the cumulative expenditures for repairs and/or alterations on any nonconforming structure exceed fifty percent of the estimated construction cost of the structure prior to such repairs and/or alterations, unless such structure is changed to a conforming structure or otherwise satisfies the standards set forth by City Code. 8. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans.” 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: September 24, 2014 Application: Design Review PDR14-0012 Location / APN: 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-041 Owner/Applicant: Deepak Sharma and Ana Stefan / Michelle Miner Design Staff Planner: Cindy McCormick, Planner, AICP 18844 Dundee Avenue Page 1 of 7 21 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new 2- story home, approximately 22 feet—six inches in height. The 3,185 square foot home would include 2,400 square feet on the first story and 785 square feet on the second story. The 1,975 square foot basement does not count towards the maximum allowable floor area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-030 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060. PROJECT DATA: Site Area: 10,000 sq. ft. Average Slope: level site General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-10) Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-10,000) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residential Footprint Porch and Patios Driveway/Walkways Lightwell Total Site Coverage Front Yard Hardscape 2,400 sq. ft. 1,424 sq. ft. 1,230 sq. ft. 240 sq. ft. 5,294 sq. ft. (53%) 820 sq. ft. (41%) 6,000 SF (60%) Maximum 1,000 SF Maximum (50% of (25*80)) Floor Area First Floor + Garage: Second Floor Total Floor Area Basement 2,400 sq. ft. 785 sq. ft. 3,185 sq. ft. 1,975 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. Maximum Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 0.00’ (base reference) 0.50’ 0.25’ 22.75’ (22’6”) 26 feet Maximum Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1st Story 25’-0” 11’-6” 14’-6” 46’-10” 2nd Story 28’-0” 18’-4” 21’ 56’ 1st Story 25’ 8’ 8’ 25 2nd Story 25’ 13’ 13’ 35 Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-041 Page 2 of 7 22 PROJECT HISTORY On August 13, 2014, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on an application for a new two-story home and basement (see table below). After considering the application and public testimony, the Planning Commission stated that the project as proposed did not meet all of the required design review findings. The Commissions comments were related to height and scale, privacy impacts from the proposed balcony, second-story mass, wall plate and eave heights, left side setback, lightwell setback, overall size of the home and basement, garage door design, and front yard hardscape and landscaping. The Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to September 24th with the potential for a study session as needed. The following table shows the changes between the current proposal and the previous proposal. Current Proposal (9/24/14) Previous Proposal (8/13/14) Floor Area First Floor & Garage Second Floor Total Floor Area 2,400 sq. ft. (+282) 785 sq. ft. (- 294) 3,185 sq. ft. 2,118 sq. ft. 1,079 sq. ft. 3,197 sq. ft. Height 22’6” (- 3’) 25’6” Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1st Story 25’-0” 11’-6” (+ 3’2”) 14’-6” (-2’) 46’-10” (-2”) 2nd Story 28’-0” 18’-4” (+ 5’4”) 21’ (+ 1’4”) 56’ (+ 9’4”) 1st Story 25’-0” 8’-4” 16’-6” 46’-8” 2nd Story 28’-0” 13’-0” 19’-8” 46’-8” Additional Changes: Reduced the driveway width by 5 feet and front yard hardscape area by 135 square feet Lowered the plate height of the living room Located the lightwells outside of setback Recessed the balcony approximately 10 feet from original location Changed the 2-door garage design to 1-door design (maintaining a two-car garage internally) The above modifications are in addition to the changes that were previously made between the May 2014 submittal and the August 2014 Public Hearing with the Planning Commission. Those initial changes included lowering the living room plate height from 14 feet to 12 feet to bring it more in line with the neighbor to the left and changing the roof over the dining room from a hip design to a gable design to be more compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant also obscured three second-story windows, increased the sill height of one second-story window, removed one second-story balcony, and added a privacy wall to the remaining balcony to minimize privacy impacts to the adjoining properties. Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-041 Page 3 of 7 23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Neighborhood: The property is located on Dundee Avenue in the vicinity of Kevin Street and McDole Avenue. The majority of homes in the immediate vicinity are older homes, including the subject home. A survey of the neighborhood indicates that a majority of the older homes are approximately 15 to 16 feet in height with some newer homes at approximately 18 feet in height. An update of City archival information on two-story homes in the neighborhood presented to the Planning Commission on August 13th is provided in the table below. Two-story homes in the Neighborhood Address Height Total SF 1st Story + Garage 2nd Story Lot Size Date of Approval 13235 McDole St 20’ 3,102 SF 2,713 sf 389 sf 10,000 sf 2003 13206 McDole St 23’6” Square footage not found 10,530 sf 1980 13192 McDole St 22’3” 3,141 SF 2,044 sf 1,097 sf 10,200 sf 1995 13255 Carrick St 23’6” 2,631 SF 1,857 sf 774 sf 9,614 sf 1989 Site Design: The non-conforming lot is 80 feet wide, allowing the owner to have a reduced side yard setback of eight feet. The proposed home meets the minimum front yard setback for the first story while providing a 28 foot front yard setback for the second story. The side yard setbacks are between three and eight feet in excess of city code requirements, while the rear setback is approximately 21 feet in excess of city code requirements. The site plan includes 820 square feet (41%) of hardscape and at least 50% live or decorative landscaping in the front yard setback area. The applicant would retain a portion of the existing stamped concrete driveway, while providing a new paver walkway with access to the front door. Building Design: The proposed stucco exterior and moderate entry height are similar to homes in the neighborhood, while the setback of the second story helps minimize its appearance from the street. First story eave lines are generally in line with the homes on the adjoining properties. Privacy impacts are reasonably minimized by either obscuring or raising the sill height of second story windows. Additional information is provided in the following table. Landscape Design: The landscape plan includes new grass and drought tolerant plantings. New trees and shrubs would be planted along the sides and front of the property. The new shrubs should grow to a maximum height of 25 feet at a maximum growth rate of 24 inches per season. The new trees should grow to a maximum height of 40 to 60 feet at a maximum growth rate of 12 to 24 inches per season and a maximum canopy width of 40 to 50 feet. The existing trees in the front yard Design Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Medium Brown colored stucco Window Trim Dark brown windows with tan colored trim Front Door Brown stained wood, glass, and wrought-iron Garage Door Brown stained wood Roof Variegated brown colored barrel tiles Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-041 Page 4 of 7 24 and rear yard would be retained. The information regarding tree height and growth rates comes from SelecTree, a data system maintained by the Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute at Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, a reference used by the City Arborist. Tree Protection and Removal: No protected trees are proposed for removal. No other protected trees should be impacted by construction. CalGreen Standards: The project would comply with the required Calgreen standards. Additionally, the applicant is proposing energy efficient appliances. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: Following submission of the design changes, staff mailed a public notice to property owners within 500 feet of the site, notifying property owners of the September 23rd study session and September 24th Public Hearing. The applicant gathered signatures on 17 notification forms (Attachment 3) and provided email correspondence regarding neighbor comments (Attachment 4). Email correspondence was received from the neighbor at 18774 Dundee Ave, five homes east of the subject property (Attachment 5). The correspondence included a photo of the story poles (before they had been reconstructed) and a comment that the proposed height is out of scale with the neighborhood. This neighbor also requested information about landscape screening and whether or not any of the windows would be clear or operable. Staff notified the neighbor which windows were clear or obscured and that that all of the proposed windows were operable. Information regarding the planting of trees and shrubs was provided to the neighbor as described under landscaping in this staff report. Staff also notified the neighbor once the new story poles were installed. No other written comments were received as of the writing of this staff report. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS: The findings required for issuance of a Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15- 45 are set forth below. The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support the required findings: (a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. The project meets this finding because the lot is relatively flat and the placement of the new home requires minimal grading. (b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. The project meets this finding in that no trees would be removed. (c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. The project meets this finding because the site plan and home have been designed to minimize privacy and viewshed impacts. Viewshed impacts have been minimized by designing the home with varied second story setbacks from the street. Privacy Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-041 Page 5 of 7 25 impacts have been minimized by either obscuring or minimizing the size of second story side windows that directly face neighbor’s windows. Privacy impacts from the rear facing balcony have been minimized by recessing the balcony behind a wall on the left side of the home and providing a 34 foot setback from the property to the right. (d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. The project meets this finding because the two-story home has been designed with single story features which reduce its visual mass, height, and scale. The second story is well-proportioned and is setback from the street. The entry has been designed in proportion to the home itself and with the neighborhood. The garage and living room are single-story in height, bringing the home into scale with neighboring residences. The gable roof lines are compatible with adjacent residences and deemphasize some of the taller features of the home. Furthermore, the design incorporates similar building materials and exterior paint colors as those found in the neighborhood. (e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project meets this finding. The site plan proposes 820 square feet of hardscape in the front yard, most of which is currently existing. The existing stamped concrete driveway would be softened in appearance by grass and new drought tolerant plantings. New fast growing trees and shrubs would be planted along the sides and front of the property. (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. The project meets this finding in that impacts to solar access are minimized by designing the site plan with a large south facing rear yard setback. (g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets this finding because the building design and site plan incorporate techniques from the Residential Design Handbook, including increasing second-story setbacks, a single-story garage, moderate entry height, open space for solar access, and colors and materials that are compatible with the neighborhood. (h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable because the lot is not in a hillside residential zoning district and is not classified as a hillside lot. Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-041 Page 6 of 7 26 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Public Notice 3. Neighbor forms for new design 4. Email correspondence with applicant 5. Email correspondence with neighbor 6. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") Application No. PDR 14-0012; 18844 Dundee Avenue / 389-17-041 Page 7 of 7 27 RESOLUTION NO: 14-030 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PDR14-0012 FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 18844 DUNDEE AVENUE (389-17-041) WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014 an application was submitted for Design Review approval of a new two-story home and basement in the R1-10,000 Residential Zoning District. WHEREAS, on August 13, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and after considering evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties—continued the application to September 24th to allow the applicant to make design changes to the original design. WHEREAS, on September 10, 2014 a revised application was submitted for Design Review approval of a new 3,185 square foot home. The new two-story home would be 22’6” in height and include and a 1,975 square foot basement. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this single-family residential project exempt. WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014 the Planning Commission held a noticed site visit and study session on the subject application. WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commission resumed the Public Hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. 28 Resolution No. 14-030 Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; all protected trees have been preserved; the height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; the overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; the landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and the design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0012 located at 18844 Dundee Avenue subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 24th day of September 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission 29 Resolution No. 14-030 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR14-0012 18844 DUNDEE AVENUE / 389-17-049 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 30 Resolution No. 14-030 5. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A", and as conditioned below. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 6. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. 31 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 Notice of Site Visit, Study Session, and Public Hearing ADDRESS/APN: 18844 Dundee Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 APPLICANT/OWNER: Deepak Sharma and Ana Stefan APPLICATION: PDR14-0012 Site Visit: Tues 9/23/14 between approximately 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. at 18844 Dundee Avenue Study Session: Tues 9/23/14 at approximately 5:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Ave Public Hearing: Wed 9/24/14 between approximately 7:00 and 10:00 p.m. in the Civic Auditorium located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue 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. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a new 2-story home, approximately 22 feet—six inches in height. The new home will include a 1,975 square foot first story, 785 square foot second story, and 425 square foot garage for a total floor area of 3,195 square feet, not including the 1,975 square foot basement. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. 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. Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP (408) 868-1230 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Sharma Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:58 AM To: Ana Stefan Cc: Cynthia McCormick; Michelle Subject: Re: for Cindy Hi Cindy, Please add the following note to this email thread as record. These 2 houses with detached garage almost touching the fence here were bought in last 1 year and 10 years respectively. Immediately after purchase, these houses went through went through massive remodel (just short of rebuild). These houses had the opportunity to bring the house to today's setup requirements. We totally understand, why they decided to keep the detached garage to original location of 1' from fence while rebuilding the rest of the house. It simply allowed them to better utilize their lot. We sincerely hope that these 2 neighbors also appreciate and understand that we have are not only keeping today minimum setback requirements, but well exceeding it. However as we build house in 2014-2015 with the today's setup requirements, we have to design our house differently to still keep the open outdoor space and maintain its utility for family needs. Best Regards, Ana Stefan and Deepak Sharma -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Sharma Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:45 AM To: Cynthia McCormick Cc: ana stefan; Michelle Subject: more signed neighborhood notification form - set1 Previous email with .zip format bounced back from Cindy's email address, re-sending individual scanned files. Hi Cindy, Attached the scanned copies signed neighborhood notification form - set1. We didn't yet get a chance to cover all the houses in within 500-1000ft. We will probably go and get the neighborhood feedback this evening and have the second set to you in next couple of days. There is an overwhelming support for the project in the neighborhood except for a couple of houses which are knitpicking. Neighbors are happy that the neighborhood is getting improved by addition of well-done home that further adds to the value of the neighbors homes. Please upload this set1 to our file. Regards, Ana Stefan, Deepak Sharma Page 1 of 8 50 From: Ana Stefan Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 10:36 PM To: Cynthia McCormick; Michelle Cc: Deepak Sharma Subject: Re: for Cindy Hi Cindy, Please also add this email to the package that goes to planning commission. Steve's house also has a detached garage practically sitting on the neighbor fence on the left side and rear side of property. It seems like a general trend, almost all the people that had concerns about our project are themselves non-compliant by today's building codes. Of 5 houses adjacent to us, 2 have raised concerns, 1 of them also has the same detached garage sitting on the fence line and the other has an antenna that towers up to 60' high with wingspan of 40'x30'. It is easy for these neighbors to dictate how new buildings should use the lot in one or the other fashion, while they continue to maintain non-compliant structures on their lot. One of the two people who spoke at the last hearing is Theresa Butler (she is about a quarter of mile away from us, at intersection of Martha and Paseo Presada, one of the hundreds houses in that quarter mile radius. No one else at that radius had any concerns about our project). Our understanding is that even her house remodel, done a decade plus ago, is not conforming to current codes. Since this neighbor at 18774 Dundee Ave expressed his concerns, please make a note for your presentation to planning commission, also Michelle please have this addressed as well. On top of the previous remarks (that the height of the house is now at 22' 6" which is 3' lower than what he saw in the story poles, and that the height of the front living space has been drastically reduced, so the overall the height is much lower than what Steve is reacting to) there are couple other things that contradict his opinion on our project being "so far out of proportion with all the rest of our houses". Of course he forgot to take a closer look at these: 1. 2nd house from Steve 's house (square box on map) is 1 year old single story house (triangle on map), the height of this house itself is touching close to 18' (you can pull out the records). At 22' 6",we are only 4' 6" above the height of the single story house which is just 1 house away from Steve. 2. 4 house away from Steve's house on the right (star on map) is a 2 story house, I don't know the exact height of this house, but is certainly appears higher than our 22' 6" at the max. Steve's argument about our house being imposing doesn't stand ground in the presence of Houses 1 and 2 already on the street and closer to his house. And here we are only comparing Dundee Av which has not been rebuilt as much compared to adjoining McDole or Montrose street. 3. Also the point Steve made about our house being visible all the way from the other side of Dundee, that is due to the way the street takes a turn there. Our house is almost at the turn, so doesn't matter Page 2 of 8 51 what is built there, it is visible from the far end of the street. Our landscape architect has proposed planting another tree in front yard so that our house is not so directly visible from far end of street. It is more of an issue for us than the neighbors and our landscape architect has addressed it with the help of 2 trees for the right side of property to provide some screening. Best Regards, Ana Stefan and Deepak Sharma Page 3 of 8 52 From: Ana Stefan Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:40 PM To: Cynthia McCormick Cc: Deepak Sharma; Michelle Subject: Re: 18844 Dundee Hi Cindy, Yes please add the email to the packet. We also have collected couple signatures from neighbors who support the project and we'll be emailing you the copies or drop them tomorrow morning if email is not an option. And yes, we're pretty familiar with the design review findings by now:). Thanks, Ana and Deepak On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Cynthia McCormick <cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: Ana Stefan and Deepak Sharma Would you like me to attach your email to the packet which goes out tomorrow or would you prefer to present these points next week? In terms of the points made about the "neighborhood", even if your house were under 18' - you would still need to meet all of the "design review" findings. The 18' threshold is the dividing point between staff approval and Planning Commission approval. Please see the attached document which outlines all of the design review findings. (you've probably looked at this already since it was sent on August 7th, but just in case) Cindy Cindy McCormick Planner, AICP City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga CA 95070 408-868-1230 Page 4 of 8 53 -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Sharma Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:56 PM To: Cynthia McCormick Cc: ana stefan; Michelle Subject: Re: 18844 Dundee Hi Cindy, Thanks for providing the only reason our project needs to be reviewed by planning commission following staff’s (your) recommendation. It comes down to the height of the very highest point in middle of the house (on top of bedrooms). Height being 4’-6” above 18’ but well within (by 3’-6”) maximum allowed 26’. We are looking at our notes from last planning commission meeting. Many of the points came up then were not related to the height of the structure, but were related to other aspects which exist in many-2 (some in majority of) houses in neighborhood. As vast majority of the rebuilt (and fully remodeled) houses are around 18’ (excluding those that went above 18’). These houses didn’t come to planning commission for review and hence it had been assumed that neighborhood norm is 12’-15’. In fact today’s norm height in this neighborhood is getting to be 18’. Given the nature of voluntary work of planning commission and the load of projects going above 18’, there is no time for planning commission members to review / research the projects under 18’. If we survey the neighborhood, the homes left in original form (approx. 1125 sq. ft.) built in year 1952 are a very -2 small percentage and those that are left in that stage are rapidly getting rebuilt. We applaud the time and effort the planning commission members put into volunteering for the benefit of community. We sincerely hope that as our kids grow little older and we have more time, At least 1 of the 4 adult Saratoga citizens in our house will step up and do this kind of volunteering work for city / community. As many of the points came up during planning discussion during last meeting are already wide-spread and present in the neighborhood. We will try to collect data about developments in the immediate neighborhood that is not presented to planning commission and there is no need for planning commission to research these details. We might request you to help with collecting some of this data for houses which is not yet publically available on Internet (very recent or very old remodel / rebuilt) Summary points are: *. Our house is 22’6” in height, 2750+ sq. feet, 2 car garage house with a living basement. Out of approx 3200 sq. ft above surface area, approx 785 sq. ft. (less than 25%) is on 2nd story. The highest points in this second story are 22'-6" in height. *. Our house is designed to serve the needs of 3 generations (Us, Our Kids and Ana’s parents). We are a total of 6 full time residents (and potentially further growing family) living together under one roof. Page 5 of 8 54 Neighborhood Survey: *. There are many-2 houses in the neighborhood which are 2700+ sq. feet + 2 car garage. Almost all of them are reaching 18’ in height. Almost every house that is remodeled or rebuilt fits into this category (or higher) in terms of size. *. There are many houses which have living basement. This includes at least 6 houses within 1000 ft. of our house. *. 3 out of 4 houses immediately behind our house on Afton St. are fully rebuilt, all touching 18’ height. 2 of these projects are still underway at the time of this writing. *. 3 houses right in front of our house (on McDole St as we are on T point) are rebuilt. 2 of these have full basement and are 5000+ sq. ft (with full basement) and third has a 2 story. *. There are several houses with 2 stories and above 18’. Some of them touch 26’ (if not more in case they were built before 26’ limit came into effect) *. There are few houses in the neighborhood which have 3 car garages. *. The house to our right (looking from street) is an original 1952 built house and our house gets compared to this house in the streetscape and not to the vast majority of remodeled / rebuilt homes. The foot-print of this house represents a very small % of the community. In our conversations with this neighbor, even this house is set for a major remodel/ rebuilt in very near future. *. This neighborhood has various mixtures of architectures and style elements from last 6+ decades. Many of these elements are not allowed in today’s built houses, but the houses have kept these elements if these allow them to better utilize the plot. For example, Many of the houses in neighborhood have structures that are not legal/ permitted anymore by today’s city code. This includes a detached garage with 1’-2’ setback to side or the rear of the property. There are many houses on our street with this feature including the one of the left (looking from street). Thanks and Regards, Ana Stefan and Deepak Sharma Page 6 of 8 55 On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Cynthia McCormick <cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: > Yes. Any new proposal over 18' goes to the Planning Commission. > > Cindy > > Cindy McCormick > Planner, AICP > City of Saratoga > Community Development Department > 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga CA 95070 > 408-868-1230 > > Page 7 of 8 56 > -----Original Message----- > From: Deepak Sharma > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:36 AM > To: Cynthia McCormick > Cc: ana stefan; Michelle > Subject: 18844 Dundee > > Hi Cindy, > As you know, there are a few more projects going on in the immediate neighborhood, which don't seem to have gone in front of planning commission. Almost all of these projects are touching 18' in height and these houses have their unique designs. > > We have made several drastic modifications to our house plans based on feedback from you and planning commission. Our house height is now 22'-6" vs. > the max allowed 26'. In this context, we wanted to understand why our house plans need this level of scrutiny from every possible angle. > > Is our project height going above 18' (by 4'- 6"), the only reason we are in front of planning commission? > > Thanks and Regards, > Ana Stefan and Deepak Sharma Page 8 of 8 57 -----Original Message----- >From: Steve Dalal >Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 9:28 AM >To: Cynthia McCormick >Subject: Neighborhood issue with PDR14-0012 > >Hello Cynthia, > >I'm the homeowner at 18774 Dundee Ave -- 5 houses down the street from >the proposed project at 18844. I was out of town and unable to attend >the previous public hearing on this project, and I may also be out of >town for the upcoming meeting on Wednesday. However, I wanted to voice >my concern over this proposed structure. > >When the story poles went up, I was surprised that the planning >department would even consider such a structure for this neighborhood >because it is so far out of proportion with all the rest of our houses. >While my family has only lived here 9 years, we have remodeled my >house, built an accessory structure in the rear portion of the lot, and >have spent many hours with the planning department (Michael F.) >refining our plans so as to be compatible with and not impose on our >neighbors. The project at 18844 is not of compatible height and bulk, >and it clearly imposes on the privacy of neighbors. > >The attached photo is taken from the eastern end of Dundee Ave, facing >west. As you can see when you look down the street, 18844 is the ONLY >house that is fully visible, and the proposed height is obviously out >of scale. If you have only ever approached the project site from Heath >St., you would not have seen this perspective. I encourage you to take >the planning commission to the end of Dundee to see this for yourselves. 58 -----Original Message----- From: Cynthia McCormick Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 8:11 AM To: 'Steve Dalal' Subject: RE: Neighborhood issue with PDR14-0012 >Steve - > >I am sorry to hear that you will be out of town for next week's meeting. > >I have forwarded your comments to the Planning Commission and will >include them in the packet for next week's meeting. > >I understand your concerns. I wanted to let you know that the proposal >has been redesigned since the story poles went up. While they have not >eliminated the second story, they have lowered the height by 3 feet and >moved some of the floor area from the second story to the first story >(making the second story smaller). See attached changes. > >Please let me know if you have any questions. > > >Cindy > >Cindy McCormick >Planner, AICP >City of Saratoga >Community Development Department >13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga CA 95070 >408-868-1230 > 59 -----Original Message----- From: Steve Dalal Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 12:10 PM To: Cynthia McCormick Subject: Re: Neighborhood issue with PDR14-0012 Thanks for your reply, Cindy. So you¹re saying the current story poles don¹t reflect the new design? Also, are clear, operable windows being proposed on the left, right, and rear of the new design? Lastly, does the proposal include any large trees to mask the bulk of the house? Best, Steve 60 -----Original Message----- From: Cynthia McCormick Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 12:30 PM To: 'Steve Dalal' Subject: RE: Neighborhood issue with PDR14-0012 Hi Steve- The full set of plans will be available to review in the office starting tomorrow morning. It is my understanding that the new story poles will be installed by tomorrow evening. I will let you know as soon as the new poles are up. I have reviewed a preliminary set of plans over the counter, and will try and answer your questions below. I will let you know if any of the information below (or in the previous email) changes once the full set of plans come in later today. Yes, all windows are operable. All first story windows are clear. The preliminary plans indicated that there are two obscure 2nd story windows facing left. All other windows are clear. The two clear 2nd story windows facing right have a 5 foot sill height (so the bottom of the window is 5 feet from the floor). There is a 21 foot setback from the second story to the right property line. The preliminary plans also indicated that there will be new cypress (or other fast growing) trees along the side property lines for privacy screening. I should have a tree count tomorrow. p.s. The plans and staff report will be available online no later than 5pm Friday. Cindy McCormick Planner, AICP City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga CA 95070 408-868-1230 61 ----Original Message----- From: Cynthia McCormick Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 10:08 AM To: 'Steve Dalal' Subject: trees PDR14-0012 Steve - Here is some information about the fast/tall growing shrubs proposed on the right and left sides of the property. According to the following link, which our City Arborist uses as a reference, the Pacific Wax Myrtle should grow to a maximum height of 25 feet at a growth rate of 24 Inches per season. http://selectree.calpoly.edu/treedetail.lasso?rid=950 There is also a new Marina Madrone tree proposed on the left side of the lot. According to the following link, this tree should grow to a maximum height of 40 - 50 feet at a growth rate of 12 to 24 Inches per season and a maximum canopy width of 40 feet http://selectree.calpoly.edu/treedetail.lasso?rid=174&- session=selectree:32C5A0C91657a254F5LWoRF9BDD0 And a new Madrone tree proposed in the right front corner of the lot. According to the following link, this tree should grow to a maximum height of 50 - 60 feet at a growth rate of 24 Inches per season and a maximum canopy width of 50 feet http://selectree.calpoly.edu/treedetail.lasso?rid=175&- session=selectree:32C5A0C91657a254F5LWoRF9BDD0 Cindy Cindy McCormick Planner, AICP City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga CA 95070 408-868-1230 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: September 24, 2014 Application: Design Review PDR14-0019 Location / APN: 15335 Via Colina / 397-10-001 Owner/Applicant: Gregory Howell Staff Planner: Cindy McCormick, Planner, AICP 15335 Via Colina Page 1 of 5 74 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a new 22 foot tall, 6,078 square foot single- story home on a 44,439 square foot lot. The project meets all required setbacks, height, floor area, and lot coverage restrictions. The existing home, accessory structures and pool will be demolished. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-043 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060. PROJECT DATA: Site Area: 44,439 sq. ft. Average Slope: 5.6% Grading: 300 cy of cut and ~200 cy of fill for a net export of ~100 cubic yards. General Plan Designation: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-40,000) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residential Footprint Porch Driveway Walkways, Patio, Landing Total Site Coverage Front Yard Hardscape 6,078 sq. ft. 581 sq. ft. 4,323 sq. ft. 62 sq. ft. 11,044 sq. ft. (25%) 1,414 sq. ft. (16%) 15,553 SF (35%) Maximum 4,361 SF (50%) Maximum Floor Area Living area: Enclosed Porch: Garage: Total Floor Area 5,163 sq. ft. 88 sq. ft. 827 sq. ft. 6,078 sq. ft. 6,100 sq. ft. Maximum Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 555.28’ 557.23’ 556.26’ 578.36’ (22’) 26 feet Maximum Setbacks Front: Left Interior Side: Right Exterior Side: Rear: 1st Story 71’0” 20’9” 37’8” 48’7” 1st Story 30’ 20’ 25’ 20 Application No. PDR 14-0019; 15335 Via Colina / 397-10-001 Page 2 of 5 75 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Neighborhood: The neighborhood primarily consists of single-story homes, many of which are newer homes with steeply pitched roofs or tall entries. The exterior of the majority of the homes are stucco, stone, or brick in neutral colors. Many of the properties in the R1-40,000 neighborhood have circular driveways. Site Design: The proposed residence would be located towards the center of the triangular shaped corner lot and meets the minimum interior side yard setback while exceeding the front, rear, and exterior side yard setbacks. The project will retain the existing driveway on Monte Vista Avenue and the circular driveway along Via Colina. Building Design: The 22 foot tall single-story home has been designed with light colored stucco and trim, wood clad windows, wood shutters, carriage-style garage doors, and a glass and wrought-iron entry door. The overall height and size of the home is in proportion to the size and shape of the lot and in scale with the neighborhood. The moderate height entry and three-car garage is in scale with the proposed home and other homes in the neighborhood. Landscape Design: The landscape plan includes new shrubs and flowering groundcover that would complement the streetscape. Existing trees along the interior lot lines provide screening between adjoining properties. The total hardscape in the front and exterior side yard setback is 1,414 square feet, leaving 84% of the area dedicated to live and decorative landscaping. At least 80% of the shrubs and ground cover are low water use. Trees: One ordinance protected Monterey pine tree meets the criteria for removal and may be removed as part of the project. The applicant will be required to replace removed protected trees with new trees equal in value. Additionally, the applicant is required to adequately protect any protected trees that could be impacted by the project. CalGreen Standards: The project will comply with the required Calgreen standards. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: A public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. The property owner also distributed notification forms to five neighbors. No forms were returned, however, the neighbor located to the west on Monte Vista Drive spoke with staff about privacy impacts from the west facing window in bedroom #5. The owner agreed to redesign the west facing window, as reflected in the plans. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Light Beige colored stucco Trim Light Limestone colored trim Windows White wood clad windows and casing Shutters Weathered stain wood shutters Front Door Glass and wrought-iron Garage Door Weathered stain wood Roof Slate Grey colored composition shingles Application No. PDR 14-0019; 15335 Via Colina / 397-10-001 Page 3 of 5 76 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS: The findings required for issuance of a Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15- 45 are set forth below. The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support the required findings: (a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. The project meets this finding because the site has an average grade of approximately 5.6%, sloping gently towards the rear of the lot, towards a bioswale intended to reduce the stormwater runoff impacts of the project. The new home will be located in the general vicinity of the existing home, requiring minimal grading, with the exception of the pool to be demolished. (b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. The project meets this finding because only one ordinance protected tree is proposed for, and meets the requirements for removal. The applicant will be required to replace the removed tree with new tree(s) equal in value. Additionally, the applicant is required to adequately protect any protected trees that could be impacted by the project. (c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. The project meets this finding because the 22 foot single-story home is located in the center of a one-acre lot and is similar in height to other new homes in the neighborhood. There are no two-story windows that could have privacy impacts, and the single-story window that is in line with the neighbor’s rear yard has been designed as a clerestory to avoid privacy impacts. The home will be setback from the street, greater than that required by code, minimizing viewshed impacts from the street. (d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. The project meets this finding because the 22 foot height of the home is in proportion to the 44,439 square foot lot and in scale with the neighborhood. The mass of the single-story home has been spread out over the length of the lot, deemphasizing its taller features. The moderate height entry and three-car garage is in scale with the proposed home and other homes in the neighborhood. (e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project meets this finding because the landscape plan proposes new low water use shrubs and groundcover that will complement the streetscape, while maintaining existing trees between adjoining properties. 84% of the front and exterior side yard setback will be dedicated to live and decorative landscaping, minimizing the use of impervious surfaces near the street. Application No. PDR 14-0019; 15335 Via Colina / 397-10-001 Page 4 of 5 77 (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. The project meets this finding because the site plan includes a large amount of open area around the home, minimizing shadows on adjacent properties. (g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets this finding because the home is setback from the street and adjacent residences, the design uses simple and well- proportioned massing, the project maintains a reasonable amount of open area on the property, windows are appropriately sized and located to minimize privacy impacts, and the project incorporates low–water use plants, while minimizing impervious surfaces. (h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable because the lot is not located in the hillside residential district and the 5.9% average slope does not qualify the site as a hillside lot. Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Public Notice 3. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") Application No. PDR 14-0019; 15335 Via Colina / 397-10-001 Page 5 of 5 78 RESOLUTION NO: 14-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PDR14-0019 FOR A NEW SINGLE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 15335 VIA COLINA (397-10-001) WHEREAS, on July 10 , 2014 an application was submitted for Design Review approval of a new 22 foot tall, 6,078 square foot single-story home on a 44,439 square foot lot. The project meets all required setbacks, height, floor area, and lot coverage restrictions. One protected tree meets the criterial for removal and must be replaced with tree(s) equal in value. The existing home, accessory structures and pool will be demolished. The site is located within the R1-40,000 Residential Zoning District. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; one protected tree meeting the criteria for removal will be replaced; the height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; the overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; the landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; development of the site 79 Resolution No. 14-043 does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and the design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0019 located at 15335 Via Colina subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 24th day of September 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission 80 Resolution No. 14-043 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR14-0019 15335 VIA COLINA (397-10-001) GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 81 Resolution No. 14-043 5. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A", and as conditioned below. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 6. Replacement Trees. New trees equal to the total appraised value of trees approved for removal will be required as part of the project. 7. Tree Protection Security Deposit – A tree protection security deposit of $26,159 is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080, and shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. The tree protection security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project and may be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 8. Tree Protection Fencing Installation. Tree protection fencing shall be installed and established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. The tree protection fencing shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart and shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. 9. Tree Protection Fencing Inspection. The applicant/owner must call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed and prior to obtaining building division permits. The tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 10. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. 82 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, September 24, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. The Public Hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. 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. ADDRESS/APN: 15335 Via Colina, Saratoga CA 95070 APPLICANT/OWNER: Gregory Howell APPLICATION: PDR14-0019 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a new 22 foot tall, 6,078 square foot single-story home on a 44,439 square foot lot. The project meets all required setbacks, height, floor area, and lot coverage restrictions. The existing home, accessory structures, and pool will be demolished. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the meeting. 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. Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP (408) 868-1230 83 84 85 86 87 88 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: September 24, 2014 Application: PDR13-0026, GRE14-0001, ARB13-0069 Location / APN: 22700 Mount Eden Road / 503-10-006 Owner/Applicant: Sholeh Diba Goetting Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 22700 Mount Eden Road SITE 89 Page 2 of 10 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,942 square foot two story single-family home with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square foot one story detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also includes a grading exception for 8,468 cubic yards of grading which includes 1,330 cubic yards to construct the basement. The net size area is 3.83 acres or 166,835 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-025 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(3). Grading Exception Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-13.050(f). PROJECT DATA: Gross Site Area: 169,884 SF / 3.90 acres Net Site Area: 166,835 SF / 3.83 acres Average Site Slope: 26% Average Slope at Bldg. Site 9.2% General Plan Designation: RHC (Hillside Conservation) Zoning: HR (Hillside Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Proposed Site Coverage Residential Footprint/Main Residence Front Porch Driveway Front Walkway Pool Pool Deck Terraces Cottage/Terrace Total Proposed Site Coverage 4,294 sq. ft. 271 sq. ft. 4,113 sq. ft. 381 sq. ft. 770 sq. ft. 1,122 sq. ft. 3,249 sq. ft. 720 sq. ft. 14,920 sq. ft. (8.9%) 16,500 sq. ft. [15,000 sq. ft. + 10% (1,500 sq. ft.) increase for a deed restricted secondary dwelling unit] Floor Area Main House First Floor Second Story Garage Covered Porch Secondary Dwelling Unit Total Floor Area 3,542 sq. ft. 2,612 sq. ft. 752 sq. ft. 36 sq. ft. 600 sq. ft. 7,542 sq. ft. 7,557 sq. ft. [6,870 sq. ft. + 10% (687 sq. ft.) increase for a deed restricted secondary dwelling unit] 90 Page 3 of 10 Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 771.3 780.3 775.8 801.8 (26.00 Ft.) 26 Feet Height (Second Dwelling) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 741 743.25 742.1 760.8 (18.7 Ft.) 26 Feet Setbacks (vacant site) Main House Front (20% of lot depth) Left (10% of site width) Right (10% of site width) Rear (25% of lot depth) Second Dwelling Unit Front Left Right Rear 109’ 69’ 189’ 208’-9” 305’ 125’ 176’-8” 109’-6” 87’-8” (20% of lot depth) 35’-6” (10% of site width) 35’-6” (10% of site width) 109’-6” (25% of lot depth) 87’-8” (20% of lot depth) 35’-6” (10% of site width) 35’-6” (10% of site width) 109’-6” (25% of lot depth) Grading (Cubic Yards) Guest House Driveway for Guest House Main Residence Driveway for Main Res. Basement Pool/Patio Common Driveway Ridge Fill Total Cut 0 110 326 2,801 1,330 110 731 0 5,408 Fill 195 214 0 15 0 49 1,886 701 3,060 Total 195 324 326 2,816 1,330 159 2,617 701 8,468 1,000 Cubic Yards (Grading Exception Requested) PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site Description: The 3.9 acre project site is located at 22700 Mount Eden Road near its intersection with Edencrest Drive. The site has an average slope of 26%. The project site was identified as Lot No. 2 on the Tentative Map which was recently approved by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2014 that divided the 11.89 acre site into three lots. Access to the site is provided by a common driveway that connects to Mount Eden Road. Surrounding land uses include Garrod Farms to the north and on the opposite side of Mount Eden Road, a vacant site and vineyard uses to the east, single-family homes with equestrian uses to the south, and the Orchard Meadow Subdivision to the west. The property line separating the 91 Page 4 of 10 project site from the adjacent subdivision coincides with the city’s boundary line with Unincorporated Santa Clara County. Numerous protected trees are located on the property but only 19 protected oak trees potentially impacted by the project were inventoried. These trees range in size between 7 – 23 inches in diameter. All trees are in fair or good condition as reported by the City Arborist. Prior Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission initially reviewed this project at their meeting of July 23, 2014. The Commission discussed the project, provided project specific comments to the applicant, and continued the project to the meeting of September 24, 2014. The Commission directed staff to schedule the project for a September 9, 2014 Study Session. A discussion of the additional information that was requested by the Commission is contained in the Study Session staff report which is included as Attachment #2. Project Description and Architectural Style: The project would include the construction of a new two story single-family main residence and a secondary dwelling unit. The 6,190 square feet main residence would be 26 feet tall with a 752 square foot attached garage. The 2,202 square feet basement would be located below grade and is not included in the allowable floor area. The project also includes a 600 square feet detached secondary dwelling unit located approximately 80 feet south of the main residence Both structures, as defined by the applicant, would have a French Eclectic architectural style. Main Residence Consistent with the French Eclectic style, the residence would have a wide asymmetrical building footprint with two symmetrical side wings on opposite sides of the front entry. The relatively steep pitched roof would have dark green colored real slate tiles. The exterior of the residence would be covered in cement plaster with a smooth finish with portions of the exterior plaster of the first story etched or ‘carved’ to resemble individual stones. Pre-cast concrete quoins would accent the front elevation as well as potions of the side elevations. Exterior windows and doors would be a combination of both square and arched windows. The architectural element that projects from the front façade would form an entrance element with a second story terrace supported by 16” diameter pre-cast concrete tapered columns. A covered patio extends to the right of the front elevation. The residence would include two fireplaces, a gas fireplace located in the Family Room and a wood burning fireplace located in the outdoor pavilion located at the back of the residence. Photo renderings of the project are included as Attachment #7. Secondary Dwelling Unit The 600 square foot, one story, 18.7 feet tall secondary dwelling unit would be located downslope and approximately 80 feet south of the main residence. This one bedroom building with a living room and a full kitchen would have the same architectural style and exterior materials that were used for main residence. The secondary dwelling unit would be deed restricted. This would increase the sites 6,800 square feet of allowable floor area by an additional 10 percent (687 square feet) for a maximum allowable floor area of 7,557 square feet. The total proposed floor area for the entire site is 7,542 square feet. 92 Page 5 of 10 Saratoga City Code Section 15-56.030(d) allows a one-time ten percent increase in site coverage and allowable floor area if an applicant agrees to a deed restriction that would restrict the rental of a second unit to below market rate (BMR) households. A condition has been added to the project requiring this deed restriction be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The provision of the BMR second unit would allow the applicant to construct an additional 687 square feet of floor area on the site above the maximum allowable floor area of 6,800 square feet for a total allowable floor area of 7,557 square feet. In addition, the 15,000 square foot maximum site coverage would also be increased by ten percent for total allowed site coverage of 16,500 square feet. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes an annual list of income limits for Santa Clara County households that would qualify as lower (80%), very-low (50%), or extremely-low (30%) income households that would be eligible to rent a BMR housing unit. All percentages are based on the 2013 Santa Clara County median income level of $105,500. As an example, a couple with a combined yearly income of $84,400 (80% of the median) would be eligible to rent the proposed secondary dwelling unit. Landscaping: The proposed landscape plan (page L-1 of the Project Plans) illustrates that the project will feature drought tolerant landscaping, groundcover, and grasses which will be clustered close to the buildings and developed areas thereby leaving the majority of the site in its natural state. This landscaping would include 62 new trees that include Coast Live oaks, Birch, and Crape Mrytles. Shrubs and vines would include Toyon and Rosemary. Groundcover and grasses would include Gazania, Star Jasimine, French Lavender, and Mexican Sage. Materials and Colors: Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Tan colored stucco and trim Railings Black colored “wrought iron” Pre-Cast Concrete Ballustrade Limestone Trim Tan colored w/ sandstone finish Windows Brown colored vinyl “wood clad” windows Garage Door Sectional wood door – Match trim color Roof Dark green colored slate tiles 93 Page 6 of 10 Grading over one thousand cubic yards: The project initially reviewed by the Commission included 9,339 cubic yards of grading which included 7,427 cubic yards of cut and 1,912 cubic yards of fill. The Commission expressed concern about the amount of grading during the July 23 meeting and requested that the applicant provide a detailed breakdown of the overall project grading. For the September 9, 2014 Study Session, the applicant provided the requested grading breakdown and reduced the amount of overall grading by 676 cubic yards for a total grading amount of 8,663 cubic yards. The quantity of cut was reduced by 1,824 cubic yards and the amount of fill was increased by 1,148 cubic yards. The total amount of export was reduced by 2,969. The overall grading quantity for the current design has been reduced by an additional 195 cubic yards. This was achieved by increasing the height of the garage building pad by 1.25 feet which also raised the grade of the driveway near the garage entrance. The total proposed grading is 8,468 cubic yards which includes 5,408 cubic yards of cut and 3,060 cubic yards of fill. Date of Plans Cut (cy) Fill (cy) Export (cy) Total (cy) July 23, 2014 7,427 1,912 5,515 9,339 Sept. 9, 2014 5,603 3,060 2,543 8,663 Sept. 24, 2014 5,408 3,060 2,348 8,468 Change -2,019 +1,148 -3,167 -871 City Code section 15-13.050 limits the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool and basement, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission. The project includes a request for a grading exception for a combined cut and fill of 8,468 cubic yards (5,408 cut and 3,060 fill) with an export of 2,348 cubic yards. The proposed grading would be to: 1. Limit construction of the project to those portions of the site with the least amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the project geologist. 2. Avoid adverse impacts on protected trees and limiting the amount of development area to maintain the maximum extent of native landscaping. 3. Provide a relatively level turnaround area for the Santa Clara County Fire Department with a minimum outside radius of 36 feet providing an emergency vehicle the opportunity to reverse direction. Fire Department access must be provided to and around all structures. 4. The total grading of 8,468 cubic yards includes all cut and fill soil quantities. 2,348 cubic yards of the total grading quantity will be exported and deposited off site. This material will not be used as fill which could have the effect of modifying to an event greater extent the existing contours of the site. 5. Maintaining a consistent floor plan elevation throughout the residence and to maintain the asymmetrical building footprint consistent with the proposed French Eclectic architectural style of the project. 6. Lowering the grades of the project to reduce its visual prominences as viewed from Mount Eden Road and the adjacent Orchard Meadows Subdivision. The grading would also improve the 94 Page 7 of 10 building integration into the natural topography of the site as recommended in the City’s Residential Design Handbook thereby potentially offsetting negative views of the project. Trees: The Project Arborist inventoried 19 trees on the project site that could potentially be impacted by construction. Nine of the trees would be adversely impacted by construction and the City Arborist has agreed that they can be removed. All the trees are either Valley or Coast Live oaks and are located in the area of the proposed Fire Department turnaround or near the area of the proposed secondary dwelling unit and its driveway. The City Arborist has determined that all the trees proposed for removal meet the criteria allowing removal and replacement as listed in the arborist report All remaining protected trees in the vicinity of the project will be protected during the duration of the project. Details of the arborist findings and descriptions of the tree to be removed are included in the Arborist report which is included as Attachment #2. Residential Calgreen Measures: The project will meet the minimum CalGreen standards for a new home. The Residential Calgreen Measures Checklist is included as Attachment #6. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted eight (8) Neighbor Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners. None of the forms included negative comments related to the project. Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as Attachment #5. A Public Notice was also sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. No additional concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this staff report. FINDINGS Design Review Findings - The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings. These findings are in addition to and not a substitute for compliance with all other Zoning Regulations (which constitute the minimum requirements, as provided in City Code Section 15-05.050). 1. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the site development is limited to those portions of the site with the least amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the project geologist thereby preserving the natural contours of the site. 2. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has been designed to reduce impacts to a minimum number of protected trees. The nineteen (19) protected trees that were inventoried as being potentially impacted include Valley and Coast Live oaks. The City Arborist has determined that all the trees proposed for removal meet the criteria allowing removal and replacement as 95 Page 8 of 10 listed in the arborist report. The remaining protected trees in the vicinity of the project will be preserved and protected during the duration of the project. 3. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the 3.9 acre size of the parcel, the large building setbacks from property lines, and existing and proposed vegetation and trees would screen views of both the proposed main residence and secondary unit from surrounding properties and Mount Eden Road. Because the project would be screened from Mount Eden Road, the setbacks far exceed the minimums, and existing vegetation and proposed landscaping would screen the project form the residences on the adjacent sites, there would be no unreasonable impact to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. 4. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the overall design, height, materials, and location of building features for both the main residence and the secondary unit will avoid the perception of excessive bulk and the French Eclectic architectural theme of the project and the use of architecturally true elements for the proposed architectural style helps unify the building façades. The facades of the buildings are well articulated with jogs in the building lines with varying height of roof elements, architectural projections, and rooflines. The elevations are softened by the use of varying materials to include earth toned smooth finished stucco, slate, and concrete. The views from homes on adjacent sites are screened by existing and proposed landscaping. 5. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that a portion of the emergency vehicle turnaround and driveway is the only hardscape located within the 87’-8”’ front setback area and there is no additional hardscape proposed. The neighborhood streetscape along this section of Mount Eden Road is characteristic of a rural mountain road and the project will have no effect on this existing streetscape. 6. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the location of the nearest existing residence is located at a distance of more than 200 feet and that all proposed landscaping would be located in close proximity to the development so there would be no shadowing that could impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. 7. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. 8. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance 96 Page 9 of 10 with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is not located on a ridgeline, there are no significant hillside features on the site to be impacted, and the project is screened from offsite views by existing and proposed vegetation. The overall size of the parcel and the proposed building setbacks would cause the project to not unreasonably impact community viewsheds and the project is in compliance with City Code Section 15-13.100 (Height of Structures). Grading Over One Thousand Cubic Yards - City Code section 15-13.050 limits the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission based upon making all of the below listed findings. The project includes a request for a grading exception for a combined cut and fill of 8,468 cubic yards (5,408 cut and 3,060 fill) with an export of 2,348 cubic yards. 1. The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that construction of the project is limited to those portions of the site with the least amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the project geologist. The Santa Clara County Fire Department requires a relatively level turnaround area with a minimum outside radius of 36 feet providing an emergency vehicle the opportunity to reverse direction. Fire Department access must be provided to and around all structures. The required grading to provide both vehicular and Fire Department access would require 3,140 cubic yards of grading which is 37% of all the proposed grading for the site. The proposed grading lowers the grades of the project to reduce its visual prominences as viewed from Mount Eden Road and the adjacent Orchard Meadows Subdivision. The grading would also improve the building integration into the natural topography of the site as recommended in the City’s Residential Design Handbook thereby potentially offsetting negative views of the project and would allow reasonable development of the property and achieve a reasonable access to the project site. 2. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that construction of the project is limited to those portions of the site with the least amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the project geologist. The total grading of 8,468 cubic yards includes all cut and fill soil quantities. 2,348 cubic yards of the total grading quantity will be exported and deposited off site. This material will not be used as fill which could have the effect of modifying the existing contours of the site. Limiting the project development to the geologically stable area as identified by the project arborist and exporting all excess grading material will preserve and protect the natural land forms of the site. 3. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the grading would improve the integration of the structures into the natural topography of the site by constructing the buildings to follow the sites existing contours. Maintaining a consistent floor plan elevation throughout the residence and to maintain the asymmetrical building footprint consistent with the proposed French Eclectic architectural style of the project. The increased grading by terracing the project into the site and maintaining a consistent true architectural theme would promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. 97 Page 10 of 10 4. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is screened from offsite views due to the size of the lot and existing and proposed vegetation and is screened would be screened from distant community views. 5. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the grading will not be used to create flat building pads beyond the building footprints as the majority of project grading would be used to excavate the basement and construct the emergency vehicle turnaround and driveways to provide access to both the main residence and the secondary dwelling unit. Landscape grading will be used to transition from graded areas to non-graded areas. The grades to the north of the residence and secondary dwelling unit will continue to increase as the slope currently rises in front of the buildings and the area at the rear of the buildings will gradually decrease until daylighting with existing grades. Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-025 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 2. Planning Commission Study Session Report – September 9, 2014 3. Arborist Report dated 2-26-14 4. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions 5. Public Hearing Notice 6. Neighbor Notification Forms 7. CalGreen Checklist 8. Photo Renderings 9. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 98 RESOLUTION NO: 14-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, A ONE STORY DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, A GRADING EXCEPTION TO EXCEED 1,000 CUBIC YARDS, AND THE REMOVAL OF NINE PROTECTED TREES LOCATED AT 22700 MOUNT EDEN ROAD WHEREAS, on January 7, 2014, an application was submitted by Michael Davis of D&Z Design Associates, Inc. on behalf of Sholeh Diba Goetting requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home and a one story detached secondary dwelling unit located at 22700 Mount Eden Road. The project also includes a request for grading exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading. The project has a total floor area of 7,542 square feet. The height of the proposed residence would be 26 feet and the height of the secondary dwelling unit would be 18’-7”. The site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District (APN 503-10-006). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on July 23, 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 and continued the project to the meeting of September 24, 2014 with a Study Session on September 9, 2014. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. 99 Resolution No. 14-025 Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; preserves protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook; and in the case of hillside lots, avoids unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13-100. Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the request for a grading exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading is consistent with the Grading Exception findings in that the additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected; the increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; the increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views; and that no building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. Section 6: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the removal of nine protected tree meets the criteria established in Section 15-50.080(a). Section 7: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR13-0026 GRE14-0001, and ARB13-0069 located at 22700 Mount Eden Road subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 24th day of September 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission 100 Resolution No. 14-025 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR13-0026, GRE14-0001, and ARB13-0069 22700 Mount Eden Road (APN 503-10-006) 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 101 Resolution No. 14-025 5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the 2007 Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. Additionally, the site development plan must not restrict, obstruct or alter the existing natural drainage swale along the rear property in any way that would cause or increase erosion. 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 7. City Council Action: Approval of this project is subject to the City Council adopting a resolution to modify the existing general plan designation of the project site from Hillside Open Space (OS-H) to Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). 8. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. 102 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Christopher Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: September 9, 2014 SUBJECT: PDR13-0026, GRE14-0001, ARB13-0069: 22700 Mount Eden Road -Design Review approval to construct a new 6,942 square foot two story single-family home with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square foot one story detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also includes a grading exception for 8,663 cubic yards of grading which includes 1,330 cubic yards to construct the basement. STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: The Study Session is a fact-finding meeting where the Planning Commission may discuss the item and hear statements from members of the public. A Study Session does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. No comments made by the Planning Commission during the Study Session are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Gross Site Area: 169,884 SF / 3.90 acres Net Site Area: 166,835 SF / 3.83 acres Average Site Slope: 26% Average Slope at Bldg. Site 9.2% General Plan Designation: RHC (Hillside Conservation) Zoning: HR (Hillside Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Proposed Site Coverage Residential Footprint/Main Residence Front Porch Driveway Front Walkway Pool Pool Deck Terraces Cottage/Terrace Total Proposed Site Coverage 4,294 sq. ft. 271 sq. ft. 3,283 sq. ft. 381 sq. ft. 770 sq. ft. 1,122 sq. ft. 3,249 sq. ft. 720 sq. ft. 14,090 sq. ft. (8.5%) 16,500 sq. ft. [15,000 sq. ft. + 10% (1,500 sq. ft.) increase for a deed restricted secondary dwelling unit] 103 Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum September 9, 2014 22700 Mount Eden Road 2 Floor Area Main House First Floor Second Story Garage Covered Porch Secondary Dwelling Unit Total Floor Area 3,542 sq. ft. 2,612 sq. ft. 752 sq. ft. 36 sq. ft. 600 sq. ft. 7,542 sq. ft. 7,557 sq. ft. [6,870 sq. ft. + 10% (687 sq. ft.) increase for a deed restricted secondary dwelling unit] Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 771.3 780.3 775.8 801.8 (26.00 Ft.) 26 Feet Height (Second Dwelling) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 741 743.25 742.1 731.8 (19.7 Ft.) 26 Feet Setbacks (vacant site) Main House Front (20% of lot depth) Left (10% of site width) Right (10% of site width) Rear (25% of lot depth) Second Dwelling Unit Front Left Right Rear 109’ 69’ 189’ 208’-9” 305’ 125’ 176’-8” 109’-6” 87’-8” (20% of lot depth) 35’-6” (10% of site width) 35’-6” (10% of site width) 109’-6” (25% of lot depth) 87’-8” (20% of lot depth) 35’-6” (10% of site width) 35’-6” (10% of site width) 109’-6” (25% of lot depth) Grading (Cubic Yards) Residence Basement Pool and Patios Driveway and Turnaround Common Driveway Ridge Fill Guest House Driveway for Guest House Total Cut 353 1,330 110 2,969 731 0 0 110 5,603 Fill 0 0 49 15 1,886 701 195 214 3,060 Total 353 1,330 159 2,984 2,617 701 195 324 8,663 1,000 Cubic Yards (Grading Exception Requested) 104 Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum September 9, 2014 22700 Mount Eden Road 3 Proposed Project The 3.9 acre project site is located at 22700 Mount Eden Road near its intersection with Edencrest Drive. The site has an average slope of 26%. The project would include the construction of a new two story single-family main residence and a secondary dwelling unit. The 6,190 square feet main residence would be 26 feet tall with a 752 square foot attached garage. The 2,202 square feet basement would be located below grade and is not included in the allowable floor area. The project also includes a 600 square feet detached secondary dwelling unit located approximately 80 feet south of the main residence Both structures, as defined by the applicant, would have a French Eclectic architectural style. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the project at their meeting of July 23, 2014. During the meeting the Commission discussed the project, provided project specific comments, requested that the applicant provide additional information as listed below, and continued the project to the meeting of September 24, 2014. The Commission also requested a Study Session be scheduled for September 9, 2014 to review project related details with the applicant. The Planning Commission requested the following information be provided: • Detailed breakdown of project grading – Page 2 of the Development Plans (Civil Title Sheet) includes a table of the projects earthwork quantities. This includes a separation of the grading quantities related to the onsite driveway and turnarounds and the quantities for the common driveway that would be used to provide access for all three lots. The table indicates that the overall site grading (both cut and fill), as compared to the previous design, has been reduced by 676 cubic yards. The quantity of cut has been reduced by 1,824 and the amount of fill has been increased by 1,148 cubic yards. The total quantity of export has been reduced by 2,969 cubic yards. The process to reduce the amount of grading was to: 1. Raise the pad elevation and finished floor elevation of the main house by one foot without increasing the buildings overall height. 2. The fire truck turnaround for the main dwelling was modified to a hammerhead design which was reviewed by the fire department. 3. A retaining wall was added along the north side of the common driveway. • More information from the Santa Clara County Fire Department related to the necessary size of the turnaround for the main structure – The applicant has reviewed the size of the turnaround with the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The applicant has modified the turnaround to a hammerhead design which has been reviewed by the fire department. • Full sized (24”x36”) copies of the grading plans – Full sized copies of the grading plans are included with this report. 105 Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum September 9, 2014 22700 Mount Eden Road 4 • Discussion of the allowable ten percent floor area and lot coverage increase for deed restricted secondary dwelling units – The applicant has agreed to a deed restriction for the secondary dwelling unit that would restrict its rental to below market rate households. This deed restriction has to be filed with the County Recorder prior to issuance of a building permit. City Code Section 15-56.030(d) [Zoning regulations for second dwelling units] includes the provision that a one-time 10% increase in site coverage and floor area may be granted for deed restricted secondary dwelling units. The increases in floor area and site coverage are applied to the entire site and not just to individual structures. The projects maximum floor area is 6,870 square feet which is based on average slope and lot site. The 10% floor area increase would add an additional 687 square feet of floor area allowed on the site for a total of 7,557 square feet. The total proposed floor area of the project which includes the main dwelling and secondary unit is 7,542 square feet. • Discussion of the the driveway access for the secondary dwelling unit – City Code Section 15-56.030(f) [Access requirements for second dwelling units] states that a second dwelling unit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. A common driveway from Mount Eden Road provides vehicular access to the three lots of the subdivision. The project conforms to the ‘same driveway access to the street’ requirement because the common driveway for the three lots provides access to the both the main dwelling and the secondary unit. The project would not conform to this requirement, as an example, if access to the secondary dwelling unit was directly connected to Mount Eden Road. In this example, the second dwelling unit would not have common driveway access. • Provide accurate floor area numbers – The previously reviewed plans contained inconsistent numbers in the Floor Area Diagram included as sheet A10 of the Development Plan. These numbers have been corrected. PURPOSE OF STUDY SESSION: Review the design of the project and provided feedback to staff and the applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 2. Grading and Drainage Plan (24” x 36”) 106 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application #: ARB13-0069 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 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 by City: Architectural Plans received December 16, 2013 Civil Plans received December 16, 2013 and February 4, 2014 Arborist report received January 13, 2014 Report completed February 26, 2014 #2 – This report replaces report #1 Revised civil plans received March 11, 2014 Arborist report received March 11, 2014 Report completed March 26, 2014 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to build a new two story house with a basement and an attached three-car garage, a pool, and a guest cottage on a vacant lot. The applicant is requesting that this application be considered concurrently with a submitted subdivision application. Nine trees are requested for removal to construct this project. They meet the criteria allowing removal and replacement as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. See the Conditions of Approval for details. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with conditions. This project has clearance to proceed from the arborist, with the conditions listed under the Conditions of Approval. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree protection security deposit – Required – $59,800 for trees #19 – 23 and 25 – 30 Tree fencing – Required – See attached map for locations Tree removals – Permitted w/ building permit See Conditions of Approval Replacement trees – Required -- $31,190 for trees #13 – 18, 24 and 31 Page 1 of 4 107 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot 2 PLANS REVIEWED: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: DZ Design Associates, Inc. Date of Plans: December 16, 2013 Table 1: Architectural plans Sheet T1 Title Sheet Sheet A1 Site Plan Sheet A2 Entry Level Floor Plan Sheet A3 Upper Level Floor Plan Sheet A4 Basement Level Floor Plan Sheets A5 and A6 Elevations Sheet A7 Sections Sheet A9 Guest House Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Westfall Engineers, Inc. Date of Plans: February 14, 2014 Table 2: Civil plans Sheet C1 February 2014 (Proposed) Title Sheet Sheet C2 February 27, 2014 Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet C3 February 26, 2014 Sections and Details Sheet C1 February 14, 2014 Tentative Map Sheet C2 February 14, 2014 Slope Classification Map Sheet C3 February 27, 2014 Preliminary Development Plan TREE INFORMATION: Arborist Report reviewed: Preparer: Deborah Ellis, Consulting Arborist and Horticulturist Dates of Reports: January 10, 2014, March 11, 2014 The submitted arborist report provided information on the condition of trees on the site, recommendations for tree protection, suitability for preservation and appraised values. The designated project arborist for the construction work on Lot #2 will be Deborah Ellis. Trees #13 – 17 appear to be in conflict with proposed grading but are not requested for removal. Either they should be requested for removal and replacement, or the design modified to adequately protect them. Trees that are requested for removal should be clearly indicated on the plans. Page 2 of 4 108 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot 2 Trees #18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26 and 31 are to be retained, protected and preserved during construction. They require design modifications and special construction methods to adequately protect them during construction. See the Conditions of Approval for details. Table 3: Tree data from submitted arborist report for Lot #2 Tree No. Species DBH Crown spread (feet) Suitability for Preservation Zone of protection (ft.) Appraised Value 13 Valley oak 6, 6, 5, 5 20 Fair/Poor 0 $2,710 14 Coast live oak 6, 5 15 Fair/Poor 0 $1,060 15 Coast live oak 6, 5, 3 15 Fair 0 $1,590 16 Coast live oak 7 18 Fair 0 $1,170 17 Coast live oak 11 20 Fair/Good 0 $1,910 18 Coast live oak 23 25 Fair/Good 0 $13,600 19 Coast live oak 16 30 Fair/Good 12 $4,540 20 Coast live oak 21 25 Good 15 $8,700 21 Coast live oak 4, 7 20 Fair/Good 10 $8,000 22 Coast live oak 16 22 Fair 8 $3,670 23 Valley oak 15 30 Fair 11 $3,490 24 Valley oak 10 20 Good 0 $1,850 25 Valley oak 15 25 Fair/Good 15 $4,200 26 Coast live oak 28 50 Good 21 $15,300 27 Coast live oak 9, 8, 5 25 Good 8 $4,400 28 Coast live oak 11 22 Fair 6 $2,190 29 Coast live oak 14 22 Fair/Good 7 $3,610 30 Coast live oak 8.5 15 Fair/Good 6 $1,700 31 Coast live oak 14, 14 35 Fair/Good 0 $7,300 Page 3 of 4 109 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot 2 Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. FINDINGS: Tree Removals Nine trees are requested for removal to construct the new house, pool and guest house. They include trees #13 – 18, 24, and 31. Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Trees all nine trees are in conflict with proposed grading for the project, and meet the City’s criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 5: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree # Criteria met Criteria not met 13 – 18, 24, 31 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 8 Replacement Trees: The total appraised value of trees #13 – 18, 24 and 31 is $31,190. New trees equal to this appraised value will be required as a condition of the project. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Conditions of approval 2 – Tree removal criteria 3 – Map of Site showing tree locations and protective fencing IMPORTANT This entire report, including attachments, shall be copied onto a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans. Replacement Tree Values: 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Page 4 of 4 110 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 Attachment 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This arborist report shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 2. The arborist report by Deborah Ellis shall also be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final job copy set of plans. It shall include at a minimum: a. The cover sheet. b. The maps for lot 2 with tree locations. c. Table 3, Complete Tree Table, with the information for trees #13 – 31 and 45 – 48. d. Recommendations. 3. Trees #13 – 18, 24 and 31 shall be indicated for removal on the architectural site plan. 4. Tree Protection Security Deposit – $59,800 a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080(d). b. Shall be for tree(s) 19 – 23 and 25 – 30. c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d. May be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 5. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be as shown on the attached map (Attachment 3). b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting. 6. The designated Project Arborist shall be Deborah Ellis, Consulting Arborist and Horticulturist. 7. All recommendations of the Project Arborist shall become conditions of approval for the project, unless a stricter condition is imposed by the City. Page 1 of 3 111 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 Attachment 1 8. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every week during grading activities and monthly thereafter. 9. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 20 feet of trees 19 – 22 and 25 – 26. 10. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the project, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. The letter shall document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and provide information on the condition of the trees. 11. Trenching to install new utilities shall not be permitted inside tree protection fencing. 12. The existing grade shall be preserved for the distances listed below: a. 10 feet from the trunk of tree 25 b. 15 feet from the trunk of trees 19 – 22 and 26 13. The proposed driveway to the guest house shall be built entirely on top of grade and out of pervious materials where it is within 25 feet of tree 25. It is acceptable to construct a concrete curb on top of grade to contain pavers or other materials. 14. The dissipater pit by tree 25 shall be located so that it is no closer than 20 feet from the tree’s trunk. 15. The dissipater pit by trees 46 – 48 shall be located so that it is no closer than 15 feet from their trunks. 16. Excavation for all utilities shall be hand dug for the first three feet wherever they are within 25 feet of a protected tree. 17. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 18. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. 19. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 20. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards. 21. Trees 13 – 18, 24 and 31 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building Division permits have been obtained. Page 2 of 3 112 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 Attachment 1 22. New trees equal to $31,190 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. 23. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 24. At least four replacement trees shall reach a height at maturity of 35 feet or more. 25. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 26. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. 27. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies. Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies. 28. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. Page 3 of 3 113 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes; (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area; (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices; (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree; (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article; (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Page 1 of 1 114 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 Legend Tree Canopy Tree Protection Fence Attachment 3 26 13 18 24 25 31 17—14 20 19 46 47 48 115 Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Riordan, Project Planner, Community Development Department CC: Goetting, S / Davis, M D&Z Design Associates (Owner / Applicant) FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO14-0004 (Lot 2) at 22700 Mt Eden Rd DATE: March 21, 2014 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 4. 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. 116 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 23rd of July, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION: PDR13-0026, GRE14-0001, ARB13-0069 ADDRESS: 22700 Mount Eden Road APPLICANT/OWNER: Sholeh Diba Goetting APN: 503-10-006 DESCRIPTION: The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,942 square foot two story single-family home with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square foot one story detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also includes a grading exception for 9,339 cubic yards of grading which includes 1,226 cubic yards to construct the basement. The net size area is 3.83 acres or 166,835 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, July 21, 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 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: September 24, 014 Application: PDR14-0003 / CUP14-0001 Location / APN: 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way / 503-24-020,027 Owner / Applicant: Cutler / Scott Design Associates Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 14521/14523 Big Basin Way 153 2 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for two commercial lots located at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. The project includes the remodel of an existing structure (14521 Big Basin Way – Grover House) and restaurant (14523 Big Basin Way – Blue Rock Shoot). The Grover House would be rehabilitated and remodeled for a wine bar / restaurant use and one residential apartment would be attached and constructed at the rear of the building. The Blue Rock Shoot would be remodeled to include an office space, restaurant, and two apartment units. An additional story would be constructed on top of 14523 Big Basin to accommodate one of the apartment units Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any expansion over five hundred square feet to an existing main structure in an R-M, P-A, or C district – City Code Section 15-46.020(a)(2) Conditional Use Permit Approval by the Planning Commission is required for a Mixed-Use development – City Code Section 15-19.050(b)(4) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 14-045 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 1,691 sq. ft. 14521 Big Basin Way Grover House Proposed Allowable / Required Structure Coverage Building Footprint 1,333 sq. ft. (79%) 1,352 sq. ft. (80%) Setbacks Front (South) 8’ 0’ Rear (North) 0’ 0’ Left Side (West) 0’ 0’ Right Side (East) 0’ 0’ Heights Lowest Elevation Point 475.75’ Highest Elevation Point 498.75’ Average Elevation Point 487.25’ Proposed Topmost Point 511.44’(24’2”) 522.25’ (35’) 154 3 Site Area: 2,757 sq. ft. 14523 Big Basin Way Blue Rock Shoot Proposed Allowable / Required Structure Coverage Building Footprint 2,105 sq. ft. (79%) 1,352 sq. ft. (80%) Setbacks Front (South) 0’ 0’ Rear (North) 0’ 0’ Left Side (West) 1.5’ 0’ Right Side (East) 4’ 0’ Heights Lowest Elevation Point 476.30’ Highest Elevation Point 499.50’ Average Elevation Point 487.90’ Proposed Topmost Point 522.90’ 522.90’ (35’) Per the table above, the proposed project conforms to the building coverage, setback, and height requirements for the CH-1 zoning district, as required per the Mixed-Use Development standards. SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Existing Site Description The Grover House is located at 14521 Big Basin Way and is listed on the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory. The Grover House is a small two-story Pioneer Cottage with a gabled-roof. The upper floor is located at street level of Big Basin Way. The lower floor is located at the rear, following the steep slope of the property and facing the rear public parking lot. The Blue Rock Shoot is located at 14523 Big Basin Way. The building is a two-story hipped roof structure identified by its blue green colored exterior and open rural porch. Similar to the Grover House, the upper floor is located at the street level of Big Basin Way and the lower floor is located at the rear, following the existing down slope to the public parking lot. Exterior Materials The colors for the Grover House and Blue Rock Shoot include off-white “White Dove” horizontal siding and light grey “Silver Lake” trim. The standing seam metal roof would be a dark earth tone color. Instead of replacing the existing siding for the Grover House, the material will be removed, resurfaced, and restored. Damaged siding will be replaced. Since the location is within the Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI) area, the applicant has proposed to add cement to the existing wood siding in order to meet Fire Rating Requirements per the Building Code. Replacement siding will be non-combustible. 155 4 To differentiate the structures from one another, the Grover House includes architectural features such as a zinc metal roof overhang, entry door to match the Pioneer Cottage period and top vent while Blue Rock Shoot includes shutter details, thick front patio columns, and double-hung windows. The rear of the buildings (facing the City owned parking lot) will be a combination of horizontal siding and masonry veneer stone. A color and material board will be available at the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Materials Building Ext. Off-white ‘White Dove’ horizontal siding Windows Gray “Silver Lake’ Trim Veneer Gray/Brown Masonry Stone Roofing Dark Gray Metal, Standing Seam Roof Building Uses The following is a summary of the project starting with the level closest to the parking lot in the rear. The levels are as follows: • Parking Level • Lower Level • Street Level • Second Floor Level Parking Level The first story of a two-story apartment would be constructed from the parking level for 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House). The front door of the apartment would be accessed via the outdoor stairway located in between Grover House and 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot). A 569 sq. ft. commercial office would be located at the parking level for Blue Rock Shoot. The front door of the office space would face the parking lot. Both spaces are considered basement level per City Code and therefore are not considered stories. This would allow the applicant to construct up to three floors above the proposed apartment and office space, as long as they remain under the 35 foot height limit. The applicant has proposed to build a three story at the Blue Rock location to not disrupt the architectural integrity of the Grover House. Lower Level The second story of the two-story apartment and a storage area for the proposed wine bar / restaurant would be constructed at the lower level for Grover House. Only the storage area would be accessible from the outside. The first story of an additional two-story apartment and office/storage space for the existing restaurant would be constructed at the lower level of Blue Rock Shoot. Both residential spaces would have open space in the form of a deck area, facing the parking lot and Wildwood Park. 156 5 Street Level An 871 sq. ft. wine bar / restaurant and 465 sq. ft. open patio would be constructed at the street level for Grover House. The outdoor patio would act as a roof for the residential apartment below it. The second story of the second two-story apartment and a 921 sq. ft. restaurant space would be located at street level for Blue Rock. The second story would have additional open space in the form of an additional deck facing the parking lot and Wildwood Park. Second Story Level No additional uses or spaces are proposed above Grover House. A 1,694 sq. ft., single-story apartment has been proposed for the second story level above Blue Rock Shoot. Trees One tree (Tree of Heaven) is within the building footprint of the Grover House and has been approved for removal by the City Arborist. The project was modified to not affect the 48" Redwood located on the eastern property. The arborist report can be found per Attachment 2. Parking The project does not include the creation of any off-street parking. Per City Code Section 15-35.020(k), no off-street parking is required of any new, altered, or enlarged site or structure in any C-H district until such time as a total of forty-one thousand eight hundred fifty square feet of gross floor area is constructed. This provision has been utilized for previous projects in the Village thereby reducing the amount of remaining gross floor to 18,452 sq. ft. The project proposes an additional 990 sq. ft. for Grover House and 3,482 sq. ft. for Blue Rock Shoot, making it a total of 4,472 sq. ft. of new gross floor area for the CH-1 district. That amount will be deducted from the allotted amount established by City Code. Therefore, the project meets the off-street parking requirements of the City. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Heritage Preservation Commission The alterations to the Grover House were reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) at their August 12, 2014 meeting. The HPC recommended Planning Commission approve the project. The HPC memo is included as Attachment 3. Village Design Guidelines The project is consistent with the Village Design Guidelines in regards to colors, materials and textures. The applicant has proposed to create a trash enclosure for the mixed-use project and adjacent businesses within the City owned parking lot, which is consistent with Village Design Guideline policy. The area of the enclosure would not impact any existing parking. Typically, the City would be responsible for installing trash enclosures in the Village parking district, but the applicant has agreed to install the enclosure. A page of the 157 6 Village Design Guidelines has been includes as Attachment 4 to illustrate the policy regarding such enclosures. Energy Efficiency Per City Code Section 16-47, all new mixed-use buildings are required to incorporate energy efficient or “green” measures into their design. The energy efficient features included in this project include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan, bicycle parking, and documentation demonstrating the building design will be fifteen percent more energy efficient than required by Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations using a State of California adopted performance method, as approved by the State Energy Commission. Neighbor Correspondence Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Attachment 5). The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. Staff has received one written comment which is included as Attachment 5. The applicant’s response letter is included as Attachment 6. Staff recommends adding the following condition to the resolution: “All construction employees of the approved use must utilize the southwest corner of Parking District #1 or another public parking structure in order to meet their parking needs. Parking in parking spaces adjacent to the project is not allowed by construction employees.” Mixed-Use Development Standards The project is considered mixed-use. All mixed-used developments must meet the following standards contained in Article 15-58 of the City Code. a) The proposed density does not exceed 20 dwelling units per net acre. b) Only commercial uses would be located on the ground floor abutting a street. Dwelling units would be located in all other portions of the structure or site. c) The additional findings can be made for projects where the residential floor area exceeds 50% of the total floor area of the project. These additional findings can be found within the Design Review Findings below. d) The project meets the parking requirement established by City Code. e) If fencing is proposed, it will comply with the maximum height standards. f) Each residential dwelling unit has a private, usable outdoor space (balcony and patio). g) The maximum height of a mixed-use structure shall be as it is stated in the underlying zoning district (35’) h) The overall site coverage is within the coverage limits of the applicable zoning district (80% building coverage). i) The project does not abut a single-family residential district, therefore a sound wall is not required. j) The residential component of the mixed-use project will be rental. k) The project is multi-story and has been reviewed to ensure adequate privacy is protected of nearby properties. 158 7 l) The project applicant may be required to pay a park-in-lieu fee, established pursuant to Section 14-25.080 of the City Code, if applicable. The project applicant has met all of the above requirements for approval of a mixed-use development. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-46.040 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project includes two structures with identical colors and materials, such as horizontal siding, matching exterior colors and trim, and masonry features located on the back side. These architectural features allow the project to be harmonious with one another and the buildings within the Commercial Historic district. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The proposal does not include any signage. Future signage will be required to meet the City sign code requirements and the Village Design Guidelines. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. This finding can be made because the proposal does not propose any landscaping. The project was reconfigured to retain an existing Redwood on an adjacent property, which meets the finding to accommodate existing trees and vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. The wall colors and roofing materials would blend with the natural landscape because the proposed color tones are off-white and gray, which are within a similar color spectrum as nearby commercial and residential properties along Big Basin Way. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. This finding can be made because the proposed roof will be standing seam metal for Grover House and Blue Rock Shoot. The proposed roof is non-reflective and is gray 159 8 in color. No mechanical equipment is proposed to be located on Grover House while the mechanical equipment on the roof for Blue Rock Shoot will be hidden by the metal roof screen and horizontal siding and corbel details of the false front roof structure. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project would be compatible with other developments within the Village, such as the Sam Cloud Barn. The nearby area is comprised of multiple story commercial and residential structures with similar heights. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Furthermore, the Planning Commission must make the following findings because the residential floor area exceeds 50 percent of the total floor area of all buildings onsite. The findings are as follows: (1) That the proposed location of the mixed-use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed location is within a commercial district that allows mixed-use development as a conditionally permitted use. Furthermore, mixed-use residential development in commercial zoning districts is consistent with implementation of the General Plan and Housing Element. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (2) That the proposed location of the mixed-use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project includes professional office, restaurant and residential dwelling units within a commercial zoned district. The project is similar to mixed-use projects within the immediate area. The operation and maintenance of either use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the properties in the vicinity in that both uses are already established in existing commercial districts. (3) That the proposed mixed-use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. This finding can be made because appropriate conditions have been placed on the proposed conditional use to ensure compliance to City Code requirements. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (4) That the proposed mixed-use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. This finding can be made because the City currently has multiple commercial/residential developments within the immediate neighborhood and the Village. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.070 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: 160 9 (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. This finding can be met because the proposed uses of restaurant and mixed- use residential are both already existing within the Commercial-Historic (CH-1) zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can be met because the project has been reviewed and conditioned by the required agencies. The proposed development would not be detrimental to public safety, as it will comply with all applicable local and state regulations. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. This finding can be made because appropriate conditions have been placed on the proposed conditional use permit to ensure compliance to City Code requirements. Any intensification of the proposed conditional use would require an amended Conditional Use Permit application. (d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. This finding can be made because the project has been analyzed for adverse effects and it has been determined that the project can provide sufficient off-street parking and will not result in unreasonable parking impacts, or any additional adverse effects on an existing or anticipated use. ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS When multi-family dwellings are proposed to be located upon a site within any commercial zoning district, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of the City Code. The density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site. This finding can be made because the project has met all zoning requirements associated with the site, such as setbacks, building height, site coverage, and required off-street parking. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties. This finding can be made because the project is consistent with structures and the development of adjacent properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 161 10 (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site. This finding can be made because the project, as proposed, would dedicate an open air deck or patio to each dwelling unit. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative as the project, as designed, includes outdoor rear balconies for all residential units proposed. These open areas would allow the residents of the site sufficient access to light and air. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from September 3, 2014 – September 23, 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 September 24, 2014. Please see Attachment 7. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval – 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way 2. Arborist Report, dated April 24, 2014 3. HPC memo, dated August 12, 2014 4. Village Design Guidelines, pg. 19 5. Neighbor Comments 6. Rebuttal to Neighbor comments 7. Negative Declaration 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.” 162 RESOLUTION NO. 14-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW (PDR14- 0003) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP14-0001) FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 14521 AND 14523 BIG BASIN WAY (APN 503-247-020,027) WHEREAS, on February 26, 2014 an application was submitted by Scott Design Associates and Mitchell and Tracey Cutler requesting approval for an Initial Study / Negative Declaration, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for two commercial lots located at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. The project includes the remodel of an existing structure (14521 Big Basin Way) and restaurant (14523 Big Basin Way). 14521 Big Basin WAy will be rehabilitated and remodeled for a wine bar / restaurant use. One residential apartment will be attached and constructed at the rear of the building. 14523 Big Basin Way will be remodeled to include an office space, restaurant, and two apartment units. An additional story will be constructed on top of 14523 Big Basin Way in order to accommodate one of the apartment units. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from September 3, 2014 – September 23, 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 September 24, 2014. Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Goals LU 2 in that the City shall encourage the economic viability of Saratoga’s existing commercial and office areas and their accessibility by residents, taking into account the impact on surrounding residential areas. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code regarding Design Review findings in that the project will incorporate architectural features and landscaping that are harmonious to the existing commercial neighborhood, in that the landscaping shall integrate water- conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible, in that the project will incorporate colors of wall and roofing materials to blend with the natural landscape and 163 Resolution No. 14-045 be non-reflective, and that the proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code regarding Conditional Use Permit findings in that the project location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code, and that the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and approves applications PDR14-0003 and CUP14-0001, for the project located at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 24th day of September 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald Chair, Planning Commission 164 Resolution No. 14-045 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR14-0003 AND CUP14-0001 14521 AND 14523 BIG BASIN WAY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required 165 Resolution No. 14-045 Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated September 15, 2014 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition No. 4, above. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. City Arborist Reports dated April 24, 2014, and all other future updated reports onto a separate construction plan page; d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; e. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16- 75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10. Hours of Operation. Any proposed restaurant located at 14521 Big Basin Way shall be allowed to operate no earlier than 6:00 A.M. and no later than 12:00 A.M. 11. Noise Levels. All noise levels will comply with Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 7- 30.040 regarding noise standards and SMC Section 7-30.060 regarding exceptions to special activities. 12. Restaurant Uses. The restaurant uses located at 14521 Big Basin Way shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 166 Resolution No. 14-045 13. Business Licenses. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a Business License from the City of Saratoga prior to issuance of building permit(s) for tenant improvement(s). 14. Construction Parking. All construction employees of the approved use must utilize the southwest corner of Parking District #1 or another public parking structure in order to meet their parking needs. Parking in parking spaces adjacent to the project is not allowed by construction employees. PUBLIC WORKS 15. Applicant (owner) shall replace concrete sidewalk along Big Basin Way frontage of both properties. An encroachment permit for any and all improvements in the City right-of-way or City easement shall be obtained prior to commencement of the work in the right-of-way. The extent of the sidewalk replacement can be adjusted by the City Engineer during the Encroachment Permit issuance. 16. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for any and all improvements in the Big Basin Way prior to commencement of the work in the roadway. 17. The owner/applicant shall provide the Director of Public Works with a plan describing how owner/applicant will implement all BMPs and other measures required to reduce the stormwater runoff impacts of the project, as described in and required by the City's NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2009-0074. The measures included in this plan shall include, but are not limited to, construction site control measures, plans for storm drain stenciling, and landscaping measures. This plan must be approved by the Director of Public Works. Prior to final map approval, the owner/applicant shall implement the plan, including paying City any fees for reviewing the plan, inspection and reporting. D. CITY GEOLOGIST 19. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 20. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily by limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The 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. 167 Resolution No. 14-045 21. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 22. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 168 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No.: ARB14-0008 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Mitchell Cutler Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 503-24-020 & 503-24-027 Email: Mitchell.Cutler@comcast.net Report History: Report #1 Date: Plans received February 26, 2014 Report completed March 27, 2014 Report #2 – This report replaces report #1 Revised plans received April 16, 2014 and April 21, 2014 Report completed April 24, 2014 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to add on to the Blue Rock Shoot and Grover House and remodel both buildings. One tree of heaven is in the building envelope and requires removal to construct the project. STATUS: Approved to proceed by City Arborist, with conditions PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $31,540 For trees numbered 1, 3 and 4 on adjacent properties. Tree fencing – Required – See attached map. Tree removals – Permitted w/ building permit – Tree 2 meets criteria for removal and replacement. Page 1 of 3 169 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Replacement trees – Required – Required replacement value of $2,250, before final inspection. Written permission from neighbor – Required – • Approval to prune trees 1 and 3 is needed prior to issuance of building permits. • If tree protection fencing for trees 1 and 3 will be installed on adjacent property rather than at property line. FINDINGS: Tree Removals Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. One tree of heaven is in conflict with the project, and meets the City’s criteria allowing it to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree Number Criteria met Criteria not met 2 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8 This paragraph provides more detailed findings permitting the removal of tree 2. It is a tree of heaven in fair condition in the proposed building envelope (criterion 1). Removal of this tree will not significantly affect privacy, shade, aesthetics, or erosion control (criterion 4). There is no alternative to removing this tree that allows constructing the addition (criterion 6). Removal of this tree and replacing it with new trees following construction is consistent with the Tree Regulations (City Code 15-50.080, criterion 7). Removal of this tree will provide the property owner with economic and other enjoyment of the property (criterion 9). Replacement Trees The total appraised value of tree 2 is $2,250. New trees equal to this appraised value will be required as a condition of the project. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property. There is very little room for new trees, and it is acceptable to pay an in lieu fee rather than plant new trees. It is also acceptable to plant new trees on another property owned by the applicant as part of this project. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. Replacement Tree Values: 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Page 2 of 3 170 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15- 50.120 of the City Code. Redwood – tree 1 The project proposes to remove a trash enclosure and concrete slab that are at the property line, six feet from the trunk of a very large redwood (tree 1) on the adjacent property, and build a new two story apartment in the same location. A pier and above-grade beam foundation will be employed to protect the roots of the redwood. Holes for piers will be dug by hand under the supervision of a Project Arborist to determine their location. Some branches of the redwood will require removal to clear the proposed building envelope. Written approval from the tree’s owner will be needed. Tree of heaven – tree 3 Tree number 3 grows on the adjacent property as well, and a large portion of its canopy extends over the property for the Grover House. Some of the canopy extends into the proposed building envelope. The applicant has expressed a desire to retain this tree and prune it to clear the proposed work area. Redwood – tree 4 This tree grows adjacent to the proposed trash enclosure on adjacent property. It butts up against a retaining wall and will be about ten feet from the new structure. This is acceptable, and work to install the trash enclosure should be monitored by the project arborist. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Data 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Maps Showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing IMPORTANT This entire report, including attachments, shall be copied onto a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans. Page 3 of 3 171 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: Scott Design Associates Date of Plans: March 11, 2014 Sheet 1 of 2 Proposed Site Plan and Topographic Survey Sheet A0.1 Main Floor Plan and Lower Floor Plan Sheet A0.2 Existing Floor Plans Grover House Sheet A2.1 Floor Plan Parking District Level Sheet A2.2 Floor Plan Lower Level Sheet A2.3 Floor Plan Street Level Sheet A2.4 Floor Plan Second Floor Level Sheet A3.1 Elevations Sheet A3.2 Elevations South Grover House Sheet A3.3 Elevations Blue Rock Shoot South Sheet A3.4 Elevations Grover House North Sheet A3.5 Elevations Blue Rock Shoot North Sheet A5.1 Cross Sections Grover House Sheet A5.2 Cross Sections Blue Rock Shoot Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Westfall Engineers, Inc. Date of Plans: August 22, 2013 Sheet 2 of 2 Boundary and Topographic Survey TREE DATA: Table 1: Condition of trees and potential construction impacts Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (inches) Condition Intensity of Construction Impacts Suitability for Preservation Location Coast redwood Adjacent 1 Sequoia sempervirens 46 Good High High property Tree of heaven In building 2 Ailanthus altissima 13.5 Fair High Low footprint Tree of heaven Adjacent 3 Ailanthus altissima 16 Fair Moderate Low property Coast redwood Adjacent 4 Sequoia sempervirens 30 Good Moderate High property 172 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 1 Table 2: Appraised values Species Trunk Diameter Canopy Spread Health Structure Site Contri- bution Place -ment Appraised value 1: Coast redwood, Sequoia sempervirens* 46 35 70 70 80 50 30 $24,200 2: Tree of heaven, Ailanthus altissima 13.5 25 80 60 80 50 60 $2,250 3: Tree of heaven, Ailanthus altissima* 16 25 70 50 80 50 30 $240 4: Coast redwood, Sequoia sempervirens* 30 25 70 70 80 50 0 $7,100 Species ratings: Coast redwood = 90%; Tree of heaven = 10% *Trees 1, 3 and 4 are located on properties not owned by the applicant. Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. 173 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes; (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area; (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices; (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree; (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article; (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Page 1 of 1 174 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. This entire arborist report shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 2. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $31,540 a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be for tree(s) 2, 3 and 4. c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d. May be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 3. Tree Protection: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached maps. b. Shall be installed at the property line for trees 1 and 3, unless applicant has obtained written permission from their owner to install it on adjacent property. c. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. d. For trees 1 and 3 protection shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. e. For tree 4, protection shall be comprised of straw wattle wrapped around the trunk from its base for four feet up the trunk. f. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. g. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. h. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. i. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting. 4. The Site Plan shall be modified so that is accurately reflects that the addition will extend all the way to the lower parking. 5. The owner shall obtain written permission from the owner of trees 1 and 3 to prune them for this project prior to issuance of building division permits. Page 1 of 3 175 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 3 6. The designated Project Arborist for this project shall be Gil Mitchell of Davey Tree Expert Company. 7. The Project Arborist shall be on site to supervise and monitor the following work: a. All work within 15 feet of trees 1 and 4. b. Pruning of trees 1 and 3. c. Hand digging of holes for piers within 12 feet of tree 1. 8. The foundation for the project shall consist of a pier and above grade beam where it is within 15 feet of redwood 1. 9. The beam for the foundation shall remain entirely above grade, and shall not be buried. 10. The number of piers within 12 feet of the trunk of tree 1 shall be limited to two. The diameters of these piers shall be no more than 18 inches. 11. Holes for foundation piers shall be dug by hand for the first two feet under the supervision of the Project Arborist. If roots measuring two inches or more in diameter are encountered, the hole shall be relocated to avoid the roots. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut with a sharp pruning tool under the supervision of the Project Arborist. 12. No excavation other than that specified in these Conditions of Approval shall occur within 12 feet of the trunk of redwood number 1, as measured from the outside of the trunk, unless otherwise permitted by the City Arborist prior to performing work. 13. Trenching to install new utilities or connect existing utilities to new shall not be permitted inside tree protection fencing. 14. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 15. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. 16. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. Page 2 of 3 176 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachment 3 17. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards. 18. Tree number 2 meets the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building Division permits have been obtained. 19. New trees equal to $2,250 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy. New trees may be of any species. It is acceptable to pay an in lieu fee for some or all of the required new trees, or plant new trees on another property owned by the applicant within Saratoga, instead of planting new trees at the project site. 20. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 21. Should any tree become damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required equal to the value of the damage. 22. Stockpiling of construction materials or equipment, and the disposal of construction debris or harmful products, is prohibited under tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies. 23. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the project, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. That letter shall document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and provide information on the condition of the trees. 24. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. Page 3 of 3 177 14521 14523 Attachment 4 3 2 1 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Legend Tree Canopy Tree Protection Fence 178 14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Legend Tree Canopy Tree Protection Straw Wattle 4 14521 14523 Attachment 4 179 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 12, 2014 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) FROM: Michael Fossati SUBJECT: Roof Replacement for Mixed-Use Project – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) Property Location: 14521 Big Basin Way Property APN: 517-08-005 Project Applicant/Owner: Mitch Cutler Background: The applicant, Mitch Cutler purchased the Grover House in 2013. The Grover House is currently on the Heritage Resource Inventory, considered a resource, but not a landmark. The Grover House and the 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) are both owned by Mr. Cutler. A study session was held on May 13, 2014 regarding the proposed project. A public hearing was held on July 8, 2014. HPC denied a motion to recommend the proposed project, due to the proposed metal roof structure. The applicant is requesting the HPC review the project one more time, as the 7/8 meeting had only six commissioners present. Project Description: The project is currently being reviewed by the City as mixed-use development that includes a complete interior remodel and rear addition of the Grover House. The applicant has proposed the structure (as a whole) stay intact, with the exception of a bump out on the northern facing wall. The bump out will assist in accommodating ADA required restrooms for both sexes, since the interior remodel would potentially be used as a wine bar or restaurant. The rear of the Grover House would be built into an open deck for patrons of the potential wine bar to utilize. Underneath the deck would be one residential apartment. The applicant has proposed the color “White Dove” white for the horizontal siding and “Silver Lake” gray for the trim for both structures. Instead of replacing the existing siding for the Grover House, the material will be removed, resurfaced, and restored. Since the location is within the Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI) area, the applicant has proposed to add cement to the wood fire in order to meet Fire Rating Requirements per the Building Code. The siding for the Blue Rock Shoot will be replaced with Hardie Board horizontal planks. Additional improvements for the Grover House include replacement of the doors and window to match existing and a metal roof to replace the existing shake. Summary of July 8, 2014 HPC meeting: The previously discussed proposal did not receive HPC recommendation, due to the proposed metal roof. Since there was not a majority to make a 180 Page 2 of 2 final decision, the applicant has requested the project be reviewed again. The applicant has provided an explanation on why he is proposing a metal roof. Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards (Standards) for rehabilitation reference the Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Guidelines) as a reference. In those guidelines, the use of metal roofs is consistent with 18th and 19th century structures, such as the time when the Grover House was constructed (1895). Furthermore, the architectural form of a gable roof, which is typical for Pioneer Cottage design, will remain as the main roof form for the rehabilitation. Staff is requesting the HPC review the project as proposed and determine the following: 1. Determine that the proposed project is in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and that it will not have an impact on the historic character of the structure. 2. Determine that the proposed project is not in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards and either request changes to proposed project, or recommend denial of the project to the Planning Commission. Attachments 1. DPR for Grover House 2. Secretary of Interior Standards – Rehabilitation 3. Guidelines for Treatment of Historic Properties – Roofs 4. Letter from applicant 5. Front Elevation for 181 Mount Diablo State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD NRHP Status Code 4of Grover House*Resource Name or # HP-88-01 P1. Other identifier: *P2. Location: Santa Clara County*a. County Cupertino*b. USGS 7.5' Quad 1980 Photorevised .8 S.T .2 W.R Big Basin Way c. Address:SaratogaCity 95070Zip 10S d. UTM:(give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone mE/mN northwest side of Big Basin Way between Third and Fourth Streets. e.Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) (Assigned by recorder): and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a location map as necessary.) ;; ; This National-style ("Pioneer") cottage typifies the small one-story gabled residences of the late-nineteenth century in rural Saratoga. This vernacular building type dates from as early as the pre-railroad American era, from the 1850s to the 1870s, although National-style houses continued to be built as late as 1880s, such as this one. It has original narrow roof span, relatively steep gabled roof, double-hung windows, channel-rustic horizontal wood siding, shallow boxed eaves, flat-board frieze and corner boards. The front door and front window have been replaced, but there are no other apparent major alterations to the building. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements, include design, material, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)*P4. Resources Present: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): *Attachments: Archives & Architecture: City of Saratoga Statement of Historic Context, 2009. *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none".) View facing north, July 2009. P5b.Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) Historic Prehistoric Both *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Ruth M Long Trust et al PO Box 2095 Saratoga CA 95070 *P7. Owner and Address: Archives & Architecture, LLC PO Box 1332 San Jose, CA 95109 *P8. Recorded By: (Name, affiliation, and address) 10/26/09*P9. Date Recorded: Reconnaissance *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) c1895, 114 years old. * Required InformationDPR 523A (1/95) Not for Publication Unrestricted 1 503-24-020APN# B.M. F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz Date Primary # HRI # Trinomial Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 14521 182 State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD 5S3*NRHP/CRHR Status Code Grover HouseResource Name (Assigned by recorder) 4of David and Nancy Grover House B1. Historic Name: 14521 Big Basin Way B2. Common Name: Single family residential B3. Original Use:VacantB4. Present Use: National*B5. Architectural Style: Constructed circa 1895. *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) No Yes Unknown*B7. Moved?n/aDate:n/aOriginal Location: None *B8. Related Features: Unknown B9a. Architect:Unknownb. Builder: Architecture*B10. Significance: Theme Saratoga VillageArea: c1895Period of Significance:CommercialProperty Type:NoneApplicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The Grover House is listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory, included as a part of HP-88-01. It qualified under Criteria a and c: a) the property exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, aesthetic, and architectural history of Saratoga; and e) the property contributes to the unique physical characteristics of The Village. The Grover House does not appear eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, as it lacks quality of architectural design for it to distinctively represent the era in which it was built. (Continued on page 4, DPR523L) DPR 523B (1/95)*Required Information B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) Garrod, Saratoga Story, . San Jose Evening News, 12/12/1906. Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission, Historic Resources Inventory form, 1988. U.S. Census, 1880-1930. *B12. References: Listed Heritage ResourceB13. Remarks: Franklin Maggi*B14. Evaluator: October 26, 2009*Date of Evaluation: (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) (This space reserved for official comments.) 2 None Primary # HRI # Page 183 State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION LOCATION MAP 4of DPR 523J (1/95)*Required Information * Map Name:Multiple n.t.s.* Scale:Varies* Date of Map: Grover House*Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder)3 Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 184 State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET 4of DPR 523L (1/95)*Required Information (Continued from page 2, DPR523b, B10) Historical Background This small vernacular cottage was apparently built about 1895 and was owned by David and Nancy Grover. It is one of the smallest single-family cottages in the Saratoga Village commercial core. David Grover worked as a farmer and they lived here with their son, Harry, who was a laborer on a farm. After David’s death in 1906 at age 90, Nancy continued to live here with her son. Nancy was active in community and church activities in Saratoga. The house is now used as a commercial building on Big Basin Way. Integrity Although altered with a replacement front window sash and new door, the cottage retains adequate character-defining architectural design, workmanship and materials, as well as a historic location and setting within Saratoga Village, and the property continues to represent the historical associations and feelings of this residence. * Recorded By F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz Grover House*Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder) Continuation Update10/26/2009* Date Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 4 185 Home > The Standards > Four Approaches to the Treatment of Historic Properties > Rehabilitation Rehabilitation as a Treatment Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Standards for Rehabilitation A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 1. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 2. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 3. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.4. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 5. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 6. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 7. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 8. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 9. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the10. Rehabilitation as a Treatment and Standards for Rehabilitation—Technic...http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm 1 of 2 8/6/2014 4:25 PM 186 essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Rehabilitation as a treatment When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment. The Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties illustrate the practical application of these treatment standards to historic properties. These Guidelines are also available in PDF format . The Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes apply these treatment standards to historic cultural landscapes. Rehabilitation as a Treatment and Standards for Rehabilitation—Technic...http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm 2 of 2 8/6/2014 4:25 PM 187 1 Michael Fossati From:mitchell.cutler <mitchell.cutler@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, July 08, 2014 10:05 AM To:Michael Fossati; Scott M. Cunningham Cc:Tracey Cutler Subject:14521 & 14523 Big Basin Way Attachments:20140708_095409.jpg Michael thank you for walking us through this morning historic preservation committee meeting.....I understand that the Historic Preservation Committee unanimously supports the remodel at the Blue Rock shoot and Grover House. However they were split as to whether the roof material on the Grover house should be metal or wood shake. for our part we would like to stay with the metal roof. When designing the remodel we took our cues from the Sam Cloud Barn House located behind the Blue Rock Shoot property, next to the hotel. As you can see from the photo enclosed they used a corrugated metal roof with copper gutters to great effect. It is our understanding that the Sam Cloud Barn is a historical remodel done in the way that we want to proceed with our project and we took our prescident from this structure. Further it was reported during the meeting today that metal roofs were consistent with architectural structures in the 19 century. Also, it is our belief that a continuous metal roof on both buildings will look much more professional and less ticky tacky- hodge podge then alternate roofing materials. As Scott Cunningham will be there to represent us during the September Planning Commission meeting please note that the professionalism of this project represents our commitment as long time residents and business owners in Saratoga. SIncerely, Mitchell and Tracy Cutler. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone 188 189 TRASH CANS The trash can design uses the same materials and style as the benches. The cans are round with a flat top, and durably made of wood slats with a black metal frame. The existing City‐owned cement trash cans in the Village are tentatively proposed to be replaced by the City with a new wooden enclosures. There is also the possibility that a local community group may donate these. In addition, property owners who install a new can or replace an existing one will be required to use this wood design. Like the benches, each can may accommodate a custom‐ lettered medallion to acknowledge the purchaser or donor. TRASH ENCLOSURES All garbage dumpsters are required to be enclosed and screened from public view. This diagram shows the selected design of the trash enclosure, which can be seen at various locations in Village Parking District #3. The structure is made of split‐face concrete block with a wood‐slat gate. Appropriate landscaping should be installed along the perimeter of the enclosure to soften its appearance. The City will be responsible for installing trash enclosures in the other Village parking districts through assessments to the districts. Individual property owners are responsible for installing them on their own property. 190 1 Michael Fossati From:Glenn Wildman <gvwildman@aol.com> Sent:Monday, September 15, 2014 10:25 AM To:Michael Fossati Subject:Public Hearing Sept 29, 2014 Michael Fossati. thank you for meeting with me about the proposed Building Project at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. Glenn & Aillse Victoria Wildman Michael Galletta Owners / Partnership Prime Cuts Salon 14529 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 408 741-0508 We have been in Business in Saratoga for 35 years since July 1979. We have major concerns about parking for Public use in the City of Saratoga Parking District Lot at the rear of the Proposed Construction Project at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way, Saratoga. 1. The plan has no parking spaces allotted to accommodate the Residents of the 3 Proposed Apartments. A minim of 6 Spaces. 2. The City of Saratoga Parking District Lot accommodates Public Use of Wildwood Park, Businesses and Restaurants on Big Basin Way as well as Guests at The Inn of Saratoga. The Parking district Lot is full to capacity the majority of day time hours 3. Our main concern is the availability of parking to our Customers not only during the construction but also parking for additional employees of the expanded Restaurants and Apartments. 4. We would also like to know where the Contractors, Subcontractors and Trades People will park theirs vehicles. Parking on Big Basin Way is limited to 2 hours. Generally speaking they would start between 7:00-8:00 AM and their vehicles would be parked for 8 hours on week days leaving very little available parking for the Public. 5. Will building materials be allowed to be "Staged" in the Parking District Lot? This will reduce the available parking to the Public. 6. The sewer system is strained to it's maximum capacity. Are there plans in place to up grade the system to accommodate this additional use and protect Wildwood Creek? 191 1 Michael Fossati From:mitchell.cutler <mitchell.cutler@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, September 15, 2014 8:27 AM To:Michael Fossati Cc:Scott M. Cunningham Subject:RE: FW: Public Hearing Sept 29, 2014 Michael, in response to the "hair salon's" letter. Our names are Mitchell and Tracy Cutler we are the owners of La Fondue Restaurant, owners of the Blue Rock Shoot and Grover House and Residents of Saratoga for the past 22 years. 1) We had considered a loting private spaces to the proposed project. However in order to provide for a potential three spots on the premises, we would need to remove 8 spots for access from the public lot itself to acess the private spaces. a net loss of 5 total parking spaces which does not seem prudent. Further, it is our understanding that this district had enough future parking credits to provide for the added floor space. 2) The statement the "parking district lot is full to capacity the majority of the day time hours" is factually incorrect. As the owners of La Fondue and long time resident for the past 22 years we have personally witnessed an empty parking lot on hundreds of days. Parking has never really been a problem in Saratoga at any time in the past because there has not been existing business to support current users in the parking districts.The facts are that Saratoga is a comparably "sleepy" and or slow business town. Most businesspersons privately joke that "you could roll a bowling ball through this town and not hit a single person".... 3) Regarding availability during construction to the hair salons customers. We anticipate approximately 4-6 cars per day using the parking lot for construction purposes. We can request that those participants participating in construction, park at the southwest corner of the lot. As the contractors employees are usually the first to show up at approximately 7 a.m. The lot is empty, and these employees can have their choice of those spots in the southwest corner. If a pre-planned coned off area is desired it can be arranged for there. 4) Please see the answer to # 3. 5) Building materials would be staged on an as available as needed basis, the same condition that exists for each and every construction job that has going on in the past, present or future on any building site in Saratoga.The facts are that construction interrupts normal business activities. All citizens around the world live with it. WHY should the hair salon be exempt? 6) I'm not sure what the issue with the Saratoga Creek is but we do not anticipate any sewer expansion therefore the proposed concern is not applicable. In closing we anticipate a beautiful new project that benefits all of Saratoga. Our motto is " be the change you want to see". We believe this project is an appropriate addition to the Village landscape. If the Planning Commission would like to see a vibrant and reenergized Saratoga Village District, clearly some investment encouragement is in order. Sincerely, Mitchell & Tracey Cutler Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone 192 2 -------- Original message -------- From: Michael Fossati Date:09/15/2014 10:38 AM (GMT-08:00) To: "Mitchell Cutler (mitchell.cutler@comcast.net)" , scott@scottdesign.com Subject: FW: Public Hearing Sept 29, 2014 Hi Mitch and Scott – Can you please provide any input to the questions below. Thank you, Michael From: Glenn Wildman Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 10:25 AM To: Michael Fossati Subject: Public Hearing Sept 29, 2014 Michael Fossati. thank you for meeting with me about the proposed Building Project at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. Glenn & Aillse Victoria Wildman Michael Galletta Owners / Partnership Prime Cuts Salon 14529 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 408 741-0508 We have been in Business in Saratoga for 35 years since July 1979. We have major concerns about parking for Public use in the City of Saratoga Parking District Lot at the rear of the Proposed Construction Project at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way, Saratoga. 193 3 1. The plan has no parking spaces allotted to accommodate the Residents of the 3 Proposed Apartments. A minim of 6 Spaces. 2. The City of Saratoga Parking District Lot accommodates Public Use of Wildwood Park, Businesses and Restaurants on Big Basin Way as well as Guests at The Inn of Saratoga. The Parking district Lot is full to capacity the majority of day time hours 3. Our main concern is the availability of parking to our Customers not only during the construction but also parking for additional employees of the expanded Restaurants and Apartments. 4. We would also like to know where the Contractors, Subcontractors and Trades People will park theirs vehicles. Parking on Big Basin Way is limited to 2 hours. Generally speaking they would start between 7:00-8:00 AM and their vehicles would be parked for 8 hours on week days leaving very little available parking for the Public. 5. Will building materials be allowed to be "Staged" in the Parking District Lot? This will reduce the available parking to the Public. 6. The sewer system is strained to it's maximum capacity. Are there plans in place to up grade the system to accommodate this additional use and protect Wildwood Creek? 194 195 196 Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration For: Design Review, Conditional Use Permit & Lot Line Adjustment for 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Owner: Mitchell & Tracy Cutler 14435-C Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Public Review Period: September 3, 2014 to September 23, 2014 197 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 2 1. Project title: PDR14-0003; CUP14-0001; LLA14-0001 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Michael Fossati, Planner (408) 868-1212 4. Project location/APN: 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way / 503-24-020 and 021 5. Project sponsor name / address: Mitchell and Tracy Cutler / 14435-C Big Basin Way, Saratoga CA 6. General plan designation: Commercial-Historic 7. Zoning: Commercial-Historic 2 (CH-2) 8. Description of project: The project includes a Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment for two commercial lots located at 14521 and 14523 Big Basin Way. The project includes the remodel of an existing structure (14521 Big Basin Way) and restaurant (14523 Big Basin Way). 14521 Big Basin will be rehabilitated and remodeled for a wine bar / restaurant use. One residential apartment will be attached and constructed at the rear of the building. 14523 Big Basin will be remodeled to include an office space, restaurant, and two apartment units. An additional story will be constructed on top of 14523 Big Basin in order to accommodate one of the apartment units. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project location is bounded by a parking lot and Wildwood Creek to the north, commercial structures to the east and west, and Big Basin Way to the south. 10. Other public agencies whose review is required a. Santa Clara County Fire District b. West Valley Sanitation District 198 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 3 Contents Figure 1: Project Location .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 – Boundary / Topographic Survey ............................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4 – Existing 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) ...................................................................................... 8 Figure 5 – Existing 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) .......................................................................................... 9 Figure 6 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Parking Level ........................................................................................ 10 Figure 7 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Lower Level .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 8 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Street Level .......................................................................................... 12 Figure 9 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Upper Level .......................................................................................... 13 Figure 10 – Elevations – Front and Rear .................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 11 – Elevations – Left Side – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House .............................................................. 15 Figure 12 – Elevations – Left Side – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) ......................................................... 16 Figure 13 – Elevations – Right Side – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) ........................................................... 17 Figure 14 – Elevations – Right Side – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) ....................................................... 18 Figure 15 – Cross Sections – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) ........................................................................ 19 Figure 16 – Cross Sections – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) .................................................................... 20 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ........................................................................................................ 22 I. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 25 III. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................................... 25 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 26 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 27 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................................................... 28 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 29 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................................................... 29 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 30 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................................................................. 31 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 32 XII. NOISE ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................................................ 34 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: ......................................................................................................................................... 35 199 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 4 XV. RECREATION: ................................................................................................................................................. 36 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ......................................................................................................................... 37 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................ 38 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................ 38 200 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 5 Figure 1: Project Location 201 Figure 2 Site Plan 202 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 7 Figure 3 – Boundary / Topographic Survey 203 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 8 Figure 4 – Existing 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) 204 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 9 Figure 5 – Existing 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) 205 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 10 Figure 6 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Parking Level 206 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 11 Figure 7 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Lower Level 207 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 12 Figure 8 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Street Level 208 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 13 Figure 9 – 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way – Upper Level 209 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 14 Figure 10 – Elevations – Front and Rear 210 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 15 Figure 11 – Elevations – Left Side – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House ) 211 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 16 Figure 12 – Elevations – Left Side – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) 212 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 17 Figure 13 – Elevations – Right Side – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) 213 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 18 Figure 14 – Elevations – Right Side – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) 214 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 19 Figure 15 – Cross Sections – 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) 215 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 20 Figure 16 – Cross Sections – 14523 Big Basin Way (Blue Rock Shoot) 216 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 21 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 ____________________________________ ______________________ Michael Fossati, Planner Date: September 2, 2014 City of Saratoga 217 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 22 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 218 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 23 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. 219 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 24 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 view or viewsheds are in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, there are no scenic views or viewsheds explicitly identified in the City of Saratoga’s General Plan or other planning documents. The design review of the existing structure and restaurant would not affect any existing scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway 14521 Big Basin Way is located on the City of Saratoga's Heritage Resource Inventory, making it a historic building. Furthermore, Big Basin Way is considered a state scenic highway. It has been determined that the design review would not damage scenic resources as the project has been reviewed by the City of Saratoga's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) for compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards on July 8, 2014 at a regularly scheduled HPC hearing. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The project would not damage existing visual character or quality of the site as the project location is currently built out and consistent with the surrounding commercial and residential structures located within the commercial-historic district. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project, as proposed would not create substantial light or glare. The majority of exterior material would be siding, stucco or wood based walls, none of which create a light source. 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, HPC Staff memo for Mixed-use Project - 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) dated August 220 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 25 12, 2014, City of Saratoga, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/, accessed on 8/28, 2014). II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project location is within a commercial area and is not proposing any conversion of agricultural or forest land. 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) 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: Potentiall y Significa nt Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significa nt 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? 221 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 26 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The project would not have any substantial impact on air quality. All associated construction of the proposed project would be required to follow Best Known Methods (BKM) from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air Quality. (Sources: BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) 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, 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: 222 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 27 (a-d) The project would have no substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, sensitive natural community or species, wetlands, or corridors for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species as the project is located in a commercial district and substantially setback from any riparian areas. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The proposed project includes the removal of one protected trees (per Saratoga City Code), as the tree is located within the proximity of the proposed building footprint. The trees has been reviewed by the city Arborist. It has been determined by the City Arborist that the findings consistent with City Code Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations) have been met to remove the tree. Furthermore, the applicant will be required to plant new trees with an appraised value to the tree that is being removed. 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, as proposed, would not conflict with any conservation plan, as the location is not within such a plan area. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on biological resources. (Sources: staff review of the project. Arborist report by Kate Bear, City of Saratoga Arborist, dated April 24, 2014) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a-d) 14521 Big Basin Way is located on the City of Saratoga's Heritage Resource Inventory, making it a historic building. Furthermore, Big Basin Way is considered a state scenic highway. It has been determined that the project would not damage scenic resources as the project has been reviewed by the City of Saratoga's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) for compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards on July 8, 2014 at a regularly scheduled HPC hearing. 223 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 28 Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural Resources. (Sources: staff review and HPC Staff memo for Mixed-use Project - 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) dated August 12, 2014,) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentiall y Significa nt Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project is located in an area that is potentially constrained by weak and compressible fill and alluvium and strong seismic ground shaking. the supplemental evaluations prepared by the Project Geotechnical Consultant have addressed the City Geologist's concerns regarding the project. Conditions placed on the project have been established to determine a "less than significant" impact regarding the project. Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on geology and soils. (Sources: Staff’s review of the project, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review Memorandum, completed by Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc. dated July 8, 2014) 224 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 29 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-b) The project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions, or conflict with any policies for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases because the proposed project is the reconstruction of two existing commercial structures and the construction of one additional commercial structure and three residential apartments. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of greenhouse gases. (Sources: Staffs review of the project) VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 225 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 30 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION: a-h) The project includes design review for a mixed-use commercial / residential structures located in an existing commercial district and is not located on or near a hazardous waste and substance site. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public regarding hazardous materials because the project use has no exposure to hazardous materials. There are no airports or protected wildlands within the area of the project and the project, as proposed, would not impair the implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of hazards or hazardous materials. (Sources: California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed May 19, 2014), staff’s review of the project.) IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 226 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 31 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow DISCUSSION: a-j) The project includes design review for a mixed-use commercial / residential structure located in an existing commercial district. If approved, the applicant would be required to design a proper drainage plan to alleviate water runoff. The project would not violate water standards, deplete groundwater supplies or significantly alter drainage patterns. The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or an area potentially affected by a levee, dam, or tsunami. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality Resources. (Sources: FEMA Map Service Center FEMA Website: https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001 &langId=-1/ (accessed May 19, 2014); Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014. Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Tsunami Planning Areas. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/(accessed May 19, 2014.) X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-c) The project includes design review for a mixed-use commercial / residential structure located in an existing commercial district, where mixed-use projects are conditionally permitted. The existing site is currently used for commercial uses and would not physically divide an established community. The project, as proposed would not be in conflict of any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction, including any applicable habitat conservation plan. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Land Use and Planning. 227 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 32 (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga Municipal Code, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element) XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: a-b) The property is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral deposits or value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral resource recovery site. 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? 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: 228 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 33 a-f) 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? The following table lists noise standards for residential uses in the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance (Article 7-30 of the City Code). The indoor standards apply to noise produced by exterior noise sources. Because the site is not located in close proximity to high-traffic roadways, ambient noise levels on the site are low, and are expected to be in the range of 50 – 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) or lower. Noise sources around the project site include light traffic volumes and functions held by commercial businesses within the area Implementation of the proposed project could increase noise levels in the vicinity of the site during the project construction period. Construction of the proposed project would involve limited earthwork and grading, since the addition is within the existing building area. Construction of the proposed project is scheduled to extend over a period of 18 – 24 months. 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. Mitigation would not be required, because the project sponsor is mandated to follow construction practices as stated per the City Code. 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. These increases are expected to occur infrequently, and for only short durations during the project construction period, which is expected to extend over 12 – 18 months. As such, the exposure of such noise levels is considered less than a significant impact. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Long-term use of the project site will not substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels because the existing and proposed use are currently in effect within the area. There is no impact that would substantially increase ambient noise levels permanently within the project vicinity. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Table 1: Residential Ambient Noise Standards Land Use Daytime Evening Nighttime Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA 30 dBA Source: City of Saratoga, June 2014. City Code, Article 7‐30. 229 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 34 Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity but would cease once construction is completed. This increase in noise levels is considered less than significant because the proposed construction is similar to residential construction which happens throughout the City of Saratoga. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to high levels of airport-related noise. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose site visitors to high levels of airstrip-related noise. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to noise impacts. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga City Code) 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)? Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially induce population growth, as the project includes a the construction of three new residential apartments. 230 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 35 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would not displace existing housing, but rather have the potential to create new housing stock. There would be no impact. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Implementation of the proposed project would not displace people or dwelling units. 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 Significa nt 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. Fire protection. The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) would provide fire fighting services to the project site. Since the project will be reviewed and conditioned by the SCCFD, the environmental impacts relating to fire protection will be less than significant. Police protection. The proposed project would receive crime enforcement services from the West Valley Division of the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff. The proposed project may result in the 231 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 36 construction of three apartment residences, if approved. Although these new residences could be the target of crime, an increase in demand for Sheriff services would not be required. Schools. Any students generated by the proposed project would be permitted to attend Saratoga School District (elementary and middle) and Los Gatos - Saratoga High School District (high school). Since the proposed project has the potential to increase residential units, there would be a potential net increase of students to increase demand for school facilities. Due to the potential number of residential units, the increase of student demand would be less than significant. Parks. Implementation of the proposed project would potentially increase park demand because the project is includes a General Plan amendment that would potentially allow the development of two new residential lots, but the amount of density created would be considered less than significant. Other public facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities, because the project only has the potential of creating more density in the form of two new residential lots. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Public Services. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan. Saratoga Municipal Code. Developmental Review Comments for 14521/14523 Big Basin Way, dated March 6, 2014) XV. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significa nt 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? The project has the potential to increase the use of parks, but not in such a manner that it would substantially deteriorate such facilities. 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? 232 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 37 The project does not include formal recreational facilities; therefore, there would be no impact that would adversely physically effect the environment. 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 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 results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION: a – f) The project will not conflict with programs associated with performance of the City’s circulation system, congestion management programs or air traffic patterns. The mixed-use project has no design feature that would substantially increase hazards or result in emergency access. Lastly, the project would not conflict with policies, plans or programs that regarding public transit. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic. (Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Circulation Element) 233 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 38 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: a - g) Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for wastewater treatment because the project would not significantly increase the existing number of dwelling units currently established in the vicinity. 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, phone conversation with Patrick Salandro, West Valley Sanitation District, dated 8/28/14) 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)? 234 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 39 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 religious uses and surrounded by residential uses. The site does not contain riparian woodland where fish, wildlife, or endangered plants or animals are located. One of the existing structures on the site (Grover House) is currently on the Heritage Resource Inventory. The structure will not be demolished, but rehabilitated. The project was reviewed by the City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The proposed project would result in the continuation of mixed-use development within an existing commercial neighborhood, in a way that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning regulations. All environmental impacts that could occur as result of the proposed project are considered either less than significant or no impact within 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 a religious uses and single-family residential area. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would result with contaminated soil or groundwater. The site is not located in a high wildfire risk area. 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 4. City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory 5. City of Saratoga Seismic Hazard Zones Map, dated July 2007 235 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14521 / 14523 Big Basin Way Page 40 PROJECT RELATED SOURCES/REFERENCES: 6. Project Plans. 7. California Public Resource Code, 2014. Website: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/calawquery?codesection=prc (accessed August 28, 2014) 8. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2014. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA %20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en (accessed August 28, 2014) 9. Arborist report by Kate Bear, City of Saratoga Arborist, dated April 24, 2014) 10. California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed August 28, 2014). 11. FEMA Map Service Center, Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/(accessed August 28, 2014) 12. Developmental Review Comments for 14521/14523 Big Basin Way, SCCFD, dated March 3, 2014. 13. HPC Staff memo for Mixed-use Project - 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) dated August 12, 2014,) 14. Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review Memorandum, completed by Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc. dated July 8, 2014 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 Page 1 of 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: September 24, 2014 Application: PDR11-0003 / VAR11-0001 Location / APN: 21794 Heber Way / 503-31-067 Owner/Applicant: Eric Keng / Steve Sheng Staff Planner: Michael Fossati PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to build a new two-story residence on a vacant lot and a variance for the front and side yard setbacks. The proposed residence would have a total floor area of 5,039 sq. ft. That total includes a 665 sq. ft. garage. The height of the structure would not exceed 25 feet. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The applicant has requested that the project be continued to the meeting of October 22, 2014. 253