Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-15 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents Agenda 3 May 27, 2015 Draft Minutes 5 Application PDR14-0028/; 20455 Herriman Avenue / 386-26- 070; Verizon Wireless - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to install a new cellular telecommunications facility on an existing building at Saratoga Presbyterian Church located at 20455 Herriman Avenue. The panel antennas will be located within a new ten foot tall cupola to be constructed on the roof of the 31.6 feet tall classroom building. The ground mounted electrical equipment will be located at the northwest corner of the church building in a fenced courtyard and will not be visible from offsite. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408)868- 1235 Staff Report 8 Attachment 1 - Resolution 39 Attachment 2 - Applicant's Project Description 44 Attachment 3 - Coverage Maps 48 Attachment 4 - Alternative Site Analysis 50 Attachment 5 - RF Energy Compliance Report 52 Attachment 6 - Neighbor Notification Forms 58 Attachment 7 - Photo Simulations 61 Attachment 8 - Base Station Exhibit 63 Attachment 9 - Project Plans 64 Application PDR14-0027/ARB14-0056; 14800 Montalvo Road (517-20-005); David Britt on behalf of Stuart Wells - The applicant is requesting approval for a new 25 foot tall, 4,970 square foot two-story home with a basement. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new two-story residence. Seven protected trees are being proposed for removal. Staff Contact: Justin Shiu, (408)868-1230. Staff Report 71 Att. 1 - Resolution 76 Att. 2 - Neighbor Approval 81 Att. 3 - May 13, 2015 staff report 82 Application MOD15-0003 – 20440 Arbeleche Lane (397-27-029) Asgari / Lokzadeh – A four unit multi-family apartment/townhome development was approved on June 26, 2013 at 20440 Arbeleche Lane. The applicant has requested a one year (12 month) extension on the previously approved project. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Staff Report - 20440 Arbeleche Lane 111 Att 1 Resolution 114 Att 2 Previous Staff Report 122 Att 3 Letter from Applicant 202 Att 4 Reduced Plan Set Exhibit A 203 1 Application PDR13-0013,ZOA13-0013,ENV13-0005; 19550 Prospect Road / 386-35-069; Church of the Ascension Parish - The applicant has applied for a Negative Declaration and a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to a 7.5 acre parcel and an application for design review to construct a 4,344 square feet single-story priest residence (rectory) at the Church of the Ascension Parish campus located at 19550 Prospect Road. The rectory would have the architectural style of a one story single-family residence and would be located in an existing lawn area at the corner of Miller Avenue and Ascension Way. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan(408)868-1235 Staff Report 207 Attachment 1 - Resolution 215 Attachment 2 - Ordinance 219 Attachment 3 - Public Benefits List 224 Attachment 4 - Negative Declaration 225 Attachment 5 - Neighbor Notification Forms 248 Attachment 6 - Original Master Plan 256 Attachment 7 - Development Plans 257 2 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 10, 2015 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 27, 2015 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. Application PDR14-0028/; 20455 Herriman Avenue / 386-26-070; Verizon Wireless - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to install a new cellular telecommunications facility on an existing building at Saratoga Presbyterian Church located at 20455 Herriman Avenue. The panel antennas will be located within a new ten foot tall cupola to be constructed on the roof of the 31.6 feet tall classroom building. The ground mounted electrical equipment will be located at the northwest corner of the church building in a fenced courtyard and will not be visible from offsite. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408)868- 1235 Recommended action: Approve Resolution No. 15-017 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 2. Application PDR14-0027/ARB14-0056; 14800 Montalvo Road (517-20-005); David Britt on behalf of Stuart Wells - The applicant is requesting approval for a new 25 foot tall, 4,970 square foot two-story home with a basement. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new two-story residence. Seven protected trees are being proposed for removal. Staff Contact: Justin Shiu, (408)868-1230. 3 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-027 approving Design Review PDR14-0027 and ARB14-0056 subject to conditions of approval. 3. Application MOD15-0003 – 20440 Arbeleche Lane (397-27-029) Asgari / Lokzadeh – A four unit multi- family apartment/townhome development was approved on June 26, 2013 at 20440 Arbeleche Lane. The applicant has requested a one year (12 month) extension on the previously approved project. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Recommended action: Approve Resolution No. 15-026 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 4. Application PDR13-0013, ZOA13-0013, ENV13-0005; 19550 Prospect Road / 386-35-069; Church of the Ascension Parish - The applicant has applied for a Negative Declaration and a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to a 7.5 acre parcel and an application for design review to construct a 4,344 square feet single-story priest residence (rectory) at the Church of the Ascension Parish campus located at 19550 Prospect Road. The rectory would have the architectural style of a one story single-family residence and would be located in an existing lawn area at the corner of Miller Avenue and Ascension Way. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan(408)868-1235 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-021 adopting the Negative Declaration and recommend approval of the project to the City Council, subject to conditions of approval. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on June 4, 2015 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 4 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 27, 2015 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ROLL CALL PRESENT Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Wendy Chang, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Joyce Hlava, Dede Smullen, Tina Walia, Chair Leonard Almalech ABSENT None ALSO PRESENT Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Michael Fossati, Planner Justin Shiu, Contract Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 2015. Action: WALIA/AHUJA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 13, 2015 MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 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 ELN15-0004; 18349 Vanderbilt Drive (403-28-010) Ho/Yeh – The applicant is requesting approval for a remodel and addition to a nonconforming structure. The Planning Commission may approve a major alteration of a nonconforming structure, which results in expenditure (cumulatively) of 20% to 50% of the estimated construction cost of the structure. The project will result in expenditure of approximately 45.4% of the estimated construction valuation of the existing structure. Contact: Justin Shui (408)868-1230. Action: FITZSIMMONS/AHUJA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-019 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 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 PDR14-0028/ARB14-0065; 20455 Herriman Avenue (Saratoga Presbyterian Church); Verizon Wireless on behalf of The Presbytery of San Jose – The applicant is requesting Design Review and 5 Conditional Use Permit Approval to install a new cellular telecommunication facility on the site. The facility will be located in an enclosure that will be located atop the classroom building and would increase the height of the 31.6’ tall building by 9’-8”. The installation would include nine antennas, ground mounted electrical equipment, and associated cabling. The enclosure would be constructed to match the materials of the existing building. The project would include the removal of one 19 inch Liquid Amber tree. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235. Action: HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JUNE 10, 2015. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2. APPLICATION PDR11-0003 & VAR11-0001; 21794 Heber Way (503-31-067); Eric Keng / Steve Sheng – 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 99 foot front setback (when 131 foot setback is required) and a 20 foot and 35 foot side setback (when a 45 foot side setback is required). No protected trees are being proposed for removal. This meeting is continued from the October 22, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: WALIA/AHUJA MOVED TO DENY RESOLUTION NO. 14-044. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: HLAVA ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. Application PDR15-0009/ARB15-0023; 19990 Bella Vista Ave (397-20-059); Terry Martin on behalf of Paghu Pai and Sahana Pai - The applicant is requesting approval for a new 26 foot tall, 6,530 square foot two-story house with a basement. Three protected trees are in poor condition. Staff Contact: Justin Shiu, (408)868-1230 Action: HLAVA/AHUJA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-020 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 4. APPLICATION PDR15-0010; South Side of Saratoga Ave. and 140’ East of Douglass Lane (Right-of- Way): Verizon Wireless – The applicant is requesting approval for the replacement of an existing 29 foot, 9 inch utility pole with a new 35 foot utility pole, 2 foot pole extension, 4 foot tall wireless antenna and associated equipment located on the south side of Saratoga Avenue and 140 feet east of Douglass Lane. The installation also includes three Radio Remote Units (RRU’s), one ground mounted cabinet, an electrical meter, and associated cabling. The height of the utility pole with the antenna would increase from approximately 29 feet 9 inches to 41 feet. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-018 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 5. APPLICATION ZOA15-0005 (CITYWIDE) – Application by the City of Saratoga to amend portions of Chapter 15 of the City Code. Staff Contact: Erwin Ordoñez (408)868-1231 Action: WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-023 APPROVING THE ORDINANCE AND RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: AHUJA, HLAVA, SMULLEN. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 6 OTHER ITEMS 1. Fifteen new capital projects are proposed for the Fiscal Year 15-16 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). California Government Code Section 65401 states that the local planning agency should report on the conformity of the CIP with the agency’s general plan. Attachment 4 contains a listing of the proposed projects and the specific general plan policy(s) the project is conforms to. Not all projects have a relationship to specific policies. Staff has reviewed the projects and found that they are not in conflict with general plan policies and a conformity finding can be supported. The environmental determination will be addressed project by project as they are funded for construction. Staff Contact: Erwin Ordonez (408) 868- 1231. Action: HLAVA/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-021 APPROVING THE CIP PROJECTS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS 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 May 21, 2015 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 7 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: May 27, 2015 Application: PDR14-0028 Location / APN: 20455 Herriman Avenue / 386-26-070 Owner / Applicant: The Presbytery of San Jose / Verizon Wireless Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 20455 Herriman Avenue Saratoga Presbyterian Church SITE 8 SUMMARY ZONING Single-Family Residential (R1-12,500) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Community Facilities (CFS) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to install a new cellular telecommunications facility on an existing building at Saratoga Presbyterian Church located at 20455 Herriman Avenue. The site also contains an existing MetroPCS telecommunication facility with antennas concealed within the cross located on the roof of the church. The new panel antennas will be located within a ten foot tall cupola to be constructed on the roof of the 31.6 feet tall classroom building. The ground mounted electrical equipment will be located at the northwest corner of the church building in a fenced courtyard and will not be visible from offsite. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 15-017 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA The Saratoga City Code states that no building permit shall be issued for the construction of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility within any zoning district until such structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission. SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Site Description: The project site is the Saratoga Presbyterian Church located at the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Herriman Avenue. The site contains a church, classroom building, and parking lot. Surrounding land use includes single-family homes to the north and east, Saratoga High School and the McAfee Performing Arts and Lecture Center on the southern side of Herriman Avenue, and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and single-family homes to the west. The site also contains an existing telecommunication facility operated by MetroPCS. This facility, which received Planning Commission approval in June 2007, includes antennas concealed within the cross located on the roof of the church. The associated ground mounted equipment is located on the western side of the church in an enclosed courtyard and is not visible from off site. Project Description: The project will include the installation of nine panel antennas to the roof of the classroom building. This 31.6 feet tall classroom building is located behind the church and adjacent to Herriman Avenue. To screen the appearance of the antennas the applicant will locate them within a proposed new cupola structure to be constructed on the western portion of the roof. The cupola will be 10’-0” tall and 8’-6” in width and will have consistent roofing materials and paint colors to match both the church and classroom building. Cables that connect the antennas to the ground mounted 2 9 equipment will be located in a ‘cable tray’ on the western side of the classroom building and will be painted to match the building. Ground mounted electrical equipment including a backup generator will be located in an existing fenced courtyard on the western side of the church which also contains the electrical equipment for MetroPCS. Verizon has supplied a letter discussing the project in detail (Attachment 2) along with existing and proposed coverage maps (Attachment 3). Per the attached maps, the project would increase the quality of data coverage in the area. The applicant has stated that the purpose of the proposed facility is to help offload capacity from three existing facilities; Highway 85 Saratoga, Pierce Road, and Saratoga as depicted on the coverage maps. In addition, the facility will improve coverage along this portion of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the surrounding area. The applicant has also provided an Alternative Site Analysis (Attachment 4) describing what other possible locations for the new antennas were considered and why these sites were not selected Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over Radio Frequency (RF) emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. The City can evaluate and regulate only the aesthetic aspects of wireless installations. Any concerns regarding health and safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within the purview of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. In an effort to demonstrate compliance with FCC regulations, the applicant has provided a Radio Frequency (RF) Compliance report (Attachment 5). The report concludes the proposed telecommunication facility would comply with the FCC’s current standards for limiting human exposure to RF energy, and no significant impact on the general public is expected. As proposed, the new antenna would operate at no more than 5.6% of the maximum permitted exposure (MPE) limit for the general public. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground, for the simultaneous operation of both carriers is 5.7% of the public exposure limit. Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 The “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012”, approved by the Federal Government, contain certain provisions added to allow wireless tower facilities to modify an existing wireless facilities without discretionary review. The existing facilities are called “eligible facilities”. An “eligible facility” is an existing tower or base station that currently has wireless antennas located on it. Modifications include collocate, remove, or replace antennas and equipment associated with wireless service. 3 10 The church does have an existing wireless facility and is an eligible facility. The existing classroom building is currently not an eligible facility, as it does not have wireless equipment located on it. If approved, this building would become an eligible facility or base station. A base station is defined as any structure (whether built for wireless purposes or not) that supports existing wireless transmission equipment. The new regulations do not mandate approval for all eligible facilities requests – only those that do no “substantially changes the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or base station”. Future wireless telecommunications facilities that could be located on the classroom building would be limited to an increase in height of not more than 10% or 10 feet (whichever is greater) of the height of the classroom building and, could not project more than 6 feet from the edge of the building. An exhibit which illustrates the parameters of possible future wireless telecommunications facilities that could be located on the roof of the classroom building is included as Attachment 8. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant sent Neighbor Notification Forms to adjacent property owners. Three property owners returned completed forms (Attachment 6) with comments related to the project as summarized below: 20454 Chalet Lane (located 313 feet away from project) – Perceived negative health impacts and the quality of the existing phone service does not warrant the construction of new antennas. 20476 Chalet Lane (located 340 feet away from project) – Perceived negative health impacts. 13737 Lexington Court (located 375 feet from project) – Existing phone coverage is adequate, perceived potential depreciation of property values, and possible adverse health impacts. Chalet Lane is the adjacent street to the north of the project and Lexington Court is the adjacent street to the east. Staff mailed a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and hand delivered the Public Hearing Notice and copies of the project photo simulations to the administration office of Saratoga High School. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-44.025 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility is or can be co-located with another Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a structure or an existing utility 4 11 pole/tower in the public right-of-way unless the applicant has demonstrated that such location is not technically or operationally feasible. The project meets this finding. The project site contains a church building and a classroom building. An existing wireless telecommunications facility for MetroPCS is installed on site and the antennas are inside the cross located on the roof of the church building. The project antennas for Verizon will be located within a cupola which will be constructed on the roof of the classroom building located adjacent to the church. The applicant has explored the possibility of co-locating the new antennas on the church building by constructing a new dormer in which to locate the new antennas but 1) cannot do so as the roof of the church would limit the direction (east/west or north/south) in which the project can provide wireless coverage and 2) the height of the dormer would not provide sufficient height of the antennas to meet Verizon’s RF coverage requirements. In addition, the Presbyterian Church prefers that the roof cross be maintained as the top focal point of the church and no other structures are too be located on the roof to visually detract from the cross. (b) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility and related structures incorporate architectural treatments and screening to substantially include: (1) Appropriate and innovative stealth design solutions; (2) Techniques to blend with the surrounding environment and predominant background; (3) Colors and materials that are non-reflective; (4) Exterior textures to match the existing support structure or building; and (5) Reasonably compatible height with the existing surrounding environment. The project meets this finding. The antennas will be located within a new cupola to be constructed on the roof of the classroom building and will be compatible in design and color as the existing building. Other than the cables that will run down the roof and the side of the building, no portion of the antennas will be visible from offsite. The cupola will be reasonably compatible in height as the adjacent church building which is six feet taller in overall height. (c) That landscaping and fencing provide visual screening of the Wireless Communication Facility's ground-mounted equipment, related structures, and that fencing material is compatible with the image and aesthetics of the surrounding area. The project meets this finding. The projects ground mounted electrical equipment including an emergency generator will be located within a fenced courtyard at the western side of the church and adjacent to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Within the courtyard the equipment will be protected by a chain link fence. No equipment will be visible from offsite. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes installation and replacement of new cellular equipment, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the Guidelines for 5 12 Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Applicants project description. 3. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps – Verizon. 4. Alternative Sites Analysis. 5. RF Energy Compliance Report prepared by Hammett & Edison. 6. Neighbor Notification Forms. 7. Photo Simulations. 8. Base Station Illustration. 9. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.” 6 13 RESOLUTION NO: 15-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0028 REGARDING WIRELESS ANTENNAS LOCATED AT 20455 HERRIMAN AVENUE (SARATOGA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH) WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Verizon Wireless requesting approval for the installation of a new wireless telecommunications facility on an existing building of Saratoga Presbyterian Church located at 20455 Herriman Avenue. The panel antennas will be located within a new ten foot tall cupola to be constructed on the roof of the 31.6 feet tall classroom building. The ground mounted electrical equipment will be located at the northwest corner of the church building in a fenced courtyard and will not be visible from offsite. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on May 27, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption applies to new construction and installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. 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; Land Use Element Policy 5.2 which states that Development proposals shall be evaluated against City standards and guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be fully mitigated; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project is located on the same site as another wireless telecommunications facility, blends in with the surrounding 14 Resolution No. 15-017 environment and predominant background, and is appropriately visually screened by locating the antennas within a cupola structure which will disguise the appearance of the antennas. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0028 located at 20455 Herriman 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 27th day of May 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 15 Resolution No. 15-017 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR14-0028 20455 Herriman Avenue (APN 393-41-032) 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, 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. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 6. 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. 7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Resolution. 16 Resolution No. 15-017 8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9. Compliance with Plans and Description of Use. The project shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans and Description of Use, denominated Exhibit "A", and the Photo Simulations, denominated Exhibit “B”. 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 A.3, above. 10. Harmonizing with Existing Structures. The exterior color of the cupola and its roofing materials shall match the classroom building. All cables that are attached to the building are to be painted to match the building. 11. Building Division Submittal. Three (3) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department Director or designee 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. B.9 above; b. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 12. City Arborist. Review and approval by the City Arborist prior to building permit issuance is required for any trees to be removed as part of the project. 17 Resolution No. 15-017 C. REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES OR UTILITIES 13. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Verification. The applicant for this Project shall contact the FCC and verify whether there are any required permits from said Commission. If required by the FCC, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for any proposed equipment installations (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved use), the Owner and/or Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department documentation from the FCC showing proof of compliance of the proposed use and/or development with the FCC's requirements. 14. Decommission. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all cellular antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. 15. Governmental entities. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission, must be met. 16. Emergency Access. The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours from the time the interference was reported. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 proposed shelter installation ExistingExisting Proposed Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507 view from S Saratoga Sunnyvale Road looking southeast at site 255600 Sartoga Verde Vista 20455 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, CA 255600 Sartoga Verde Vista 20455 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, CA Existing Verizon Antennas Proposed Verizon Installation 36 proposed shelter installation ExistingExisting Proposed Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507 view from Herriman Avenue looking north at site 255600 Sartoga Verde Vista 20455 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, CA 255600 Sartoga Verde Vista 20455 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, CA Existing Verizon Antennas Proposed Verizon Installation 37 Rooftops (Horizontal Base Stations) Existing Proposed Increase height 10% or 10’, whichever is greater. Baseline is existing structure height (e.g., rooftop or an existing penthouse). Protrusion from edge of structure no more than 6’ •No more than 4 new equipment cabinets •If no preexisting ground cabinets, then no new ground cabinets •If preexisting ground cabinets, then cannot add more than 10% larger in height or volume than any other cabinets associated with the structure •Does not defeat concealment element •Does not require excavation outside of existing “site” •Complies with all COAs 38 RESOLUTION NO: 15-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0028 REGARDING WIRELESS ANTENNAS LOCATED AT 20455 HERRIMAN AVENUE (SARATOGA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH) WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Verizon Wireless requesting approval for the installation of a new wireless telecommunications facility on an existing building of Saratoga Presbyterian Church located at 20455 Herriman Avenue. The panel antennas will be located within a new ten foot tall cupola to be constructed on the roof of the 31.6 feet tall classroom building. The ground mounted electrical equipment will be located at the northwest corner of the church building in a fenced courtyard and will not be visible from offsite. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on May 27, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption applies to new construction and installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. 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; Land Use Element Policy 5.2 which states that Development proposals shall be evaluated against City standards and guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be fully mitigated; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project is located on the same site as another wireless telecommunications facility, blends in with the surrounding 39 Resolution No. 15-017 environment and predominant background, and is appropriately visually screened by locating the antennas within a cupola structure which will disguise the appearance of the antennas. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0028 located at 20455 Herriman 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 27th day of May 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 40 Resolution No. 15-017 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR14-0028 20455 Herriman Avenue (APN 393-41-032) 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, 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. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 6. 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. 7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Resolution. 41 Resolution No. 15-017 8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9. Compliance with Plans and Description of Use. The project shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans and Description of Use, denominated Exhibit "A", and the Photo Simulations, denominated Exhibit “B”. 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 A.3, above. 10. Harmonizing with Existing Structures. The exterior color of the cupola and its roofing materials shall match the classroom building. All cables that are attached to the building are to be painted to match the building. 11. Building Division Submittal. Three (3) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department Director or designee 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. B.9 above; b. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 12. City Arborist. Review and approval by the City Arborist prior to building permit issuance is required for any trees to be removed as part of the project. 42 Resolution No. 15-017 C. REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES OR UTILITIES 13. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Verification. The applicant for this Project shall contact the FCC and verify whether there are any required permits from said Commission. If required by the FCC, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for any proposed equipment installations (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved use), the Owner and/or Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department documentation from the FCC showing proof of compliance of the proposed use and/or development with the FCC's requirements. 14. Decommission. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all cellular antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. 15. Governmental entities. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission, must be met. 16. Emergency Access. The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours from the time the interference was reported. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 proposed shelter installation ExistingExisting Proposed Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507 view from S Saratoga Sunnyvale Road looking southeast at site 255600 Sartoga Verde Vista 20455 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, CA 255600 Sartoga Verde Vista 20455 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, CA Existing Verizon Antennas Proposed Verizon Installation 61 proposed shelter installation ExistingExisting Proposed Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507 view from Herriman Avenue looking north at site 255600 Sartoga Verde Vista 20455 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, CA 255600 Sartoga Verde Vista 20455 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, CA Existing Verizon Antennas Proposed Verizon Installation 62 Rooftops (Horizontal Base Stations) Existing Proposed Increase height 10% or 10’, whichever is greater. Baseline is existing structure height (e.g., rooftop or an existing penthouse). Protrusion from edge of structure no more than 6’ •No more than 4 new equipment cabinets •If no preexisting ground cabinets, then no new ground cabinets •If preexisting ground cabinets, then cannot add more than 10% larger in height or volume than any other cabinets associated with the structure •Does not defeat concealment element •Does not require excavation outside of existing “site” •Complies with all COAs 63 1.HEAD SOUTH ON LOCUST ST TOWARD BOTELHO DR 2.TURN LEFT ONTO BOTELHO DR 3.TAKE THE 1ST RIGHT ONTO S MAIN ST 4.TAKE THE RAMP ONTO I-680 S 5.TAKE THE MISSION BLVD/STATE ROUTE 262 EXIT TOWARD I-880 6.KEEP RIGHT AT THE FORK, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR MISSION BLVD W AND MERGEONTO STATE ROUTE 262 S/MISSION BLVD 7.KEEP LEFT AT THE FORK, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR INTERSTATE 880 S/SAN JOSE ANDMERGE ONTO I-880 S 8.CONTINUE ONTO CA-17 S 9.TAKE THE EXIT TOWARD MOUNTAIN VIEW 10.MERGE ONTO CA-85 N 11.TAKE THE SARATOGA AVENUE EXIT 12.TURN LEFT ONTO SARATOGA AVE 13.TURN RIGHT ONTO HERRIMAN AVE14.DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHTPROPOSED1.INSTALL 9 ANTENNAS, 3 PER SECTOR, HOUSED WITHIN PROPOSED STEALTHTOWER TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDING2.INSTALL OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT IN 21'-0" X 14'-0" LEASE AREA3.INSTALL 30KW GENERATOR4.INSTALL 7' HT. CHAIN LINK FENCE AT LEASE AREASARATOGA VERDE VISTA20455 Herriman AvenueSaratoga, CA 95070Santa Clara CountyPS #: 2012719929PS LOCATION #: 255600THREE WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIGUNDERGROUNDCALL TOLL FREESERVICE ALERT1-800-227-2600CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS & (E) DIMENSIONS & CONDITIONS ON THEJOB SITE & SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANYDISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FORSAME IF USING 11"X17" PLOT, DRAWINGS WILL BE HALF SCALEPROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING INDEXADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTSSHEET TITLESHEETNO:393-41-032DIRECTIONS FROM VERIZON WIRELESS RF MARKET OFFICE:PS PROJECT I.D.#:OWNER:APPLICANT:SITE ADDRESS: ZONING: APN:AGENT:SITE INFORMATIONVICINITY MAPDRIVING DIRECTIONSA-1T-1TITLE SHEETENLARGED LEASE AREAA-3A-2OVERALL SITE PLAN2012719929CORE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES2749 SATURN STBREA, CA 92821VERIZON WIRELESS2785 MITCHELL DRIVE, SUITE 9WALNUT CREEK, CA 94598PROJECT TEAMT-1FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.HANDICAPPED ACCESS NOT REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITHCALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE STATE CODE PART 2, TITLE 24,CHAPTER 11B, SECTION 1103B.HANDICAP REQUIREMENTSLS-1BOUNDARY DETAILA-5A-4ELEVATIONSTHE PRESBYTERY OF SAN JOSE20455 HERRIMAN AVE.SARATOGA CA 95070REP: SUSAN GRIGGS408-867-0144 EXT. 32CONSTRUCTION WORKS AND MATERIALS MUST COMPLY WITH ALLAPPLICABLE NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL CODES AS ADOPTED BY LOCALJURISDICTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:1.1. CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (INCL. TITLE 24 & 25)2.2. 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE3.3. 2010 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE4.4. 2010 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE5.5. 2010 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE6.2010 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE7.2010 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE8.2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE9.NFPA 72, 2010 EDITION, NATIONAL FIRE ALARM CODE, AS AMENDED10.ANSI/EIA-222-G LIFE SAFETY CODE NFPA-10111.LOCAL BUILDING CODE12.CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCESCODE COMPLIANCER-1-12,500 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTSFACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.HANDICAPPED ACCESS NOT REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITHTHE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE PART 2, TITLE 24, PART 2,VOLUME 1, CHAPTER 11B, SECTION 1123B.2, EXCEPTION 1450.6' AMSLGROUND ELEVATION:‹V-One Design Group, Inc. 2013Sheet No.:Sheet Title:Project Architect:Professional Seal:It is a violation of law for any person,unless they are acting under thedirection of a licensed ProfessionalArchitect/Engineer, to alter thisdocument.Site:Client:Rev.DateDescription01Checked By:Job No.:CAD File:JSRS11/06/1390% Zoning Dwgs Verizon Wireless2785 Mitchell DriveSuite 9Walnut Creek, CA 94598Project No.:Date:Scale:Designed By:AS SHOWNDrawing Phase:100% ZONING2749 SATURN STBREA, CA 92821V-one Design Group, Inc.5100 Clayton Rd. B-1Ste. 354Concord, Ca 9452104/16/15SARATOGAVERDE VISTA20455 Herriman AvenueSaratoga, CA 95070Santa Clara CountyPS #: 20127199290201/20/14100% Zoning Dwgs 0311/18/14100% Zoning Dwgs 0404/16/15100% Zoning Dwgs ZONING JURISDICTION: CITY OF SARATOGA20455 HERRIMAN AVENUESARATOGA, CA 95070SANTA CLARA COUNTYSITEELEVATIONSVERIZON WIRELESS2785 MITCHELL DRIVE, SUITE 9WALNUT CREEK, CA 94598PROJECT MANAGER: JOEL ROSENPHONE: (925) 279-6353EMAIL: joel.rosen@verizonwireless.comARCHITECT/ENGINEER:PROJECT MANAGER: RENE SANCHEZV-ONE DESIGN GROUP, INC.5100 CLAYTON RD. B-1STE. 354CONCORD, CA 94521MOBILE: (925) 577-9800EMAIL: rsanchez@v-onedesign.comCORE DEVELOPMENT SERVICESPROJECT MANAGER: GINBAR KETEMACORE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLCMOBILE: (510) 999-1737EMAIL: gketema@core.us.comCONSTRUCTION MANAGER: VICTOR SALASCORE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLCMOBILE: (510) 684-4297EMAIL: vsalas@core.us.comZONING MANAGER: ASHLEY WOODSCORE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLCMOBILE: (714) 293-5075EMAIL: awoods@core.us.comLEASING MANAGER: MANDY LEUNGCORE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLCMOBILE: (714) 308-1551EMAIL: mleung@core.us.comO:\Projects\1003-14 V-OneDesign Core New Site Builds\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA CHURCH\CAD CD\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA ZD.dwg, 4/16/2015 11:05:23 AM64 65 A-1‹V-One Design Group, Inc. 2013Sheet No.:Sheet Title:Project Architect:Professional Seal:It is a violation of law for any person,unless they are acting under thedirection of a licensed ProfessionalArchitect/Engineer, to alter thisdocument.Site:Client:Rev.Date Description01Checked By:Job No.:CAD File:JSRS11/06/13 90% Zoning Dwgs Verizon Wireless2785 Mitchell DriveSuite 9Walnut Creek, CA 94598Project No.:Date:Scale:Designed By:AS SHOWNDrawing Phase:100% ZONING2749 SATURN STBREA, CA 92821V-one Design Group, Inc.5100 Clayton Rd. B-1Ste. 354Concord, Ca 9452104/16/15SARATOGAVERDE VISTA20455 Herriman AvenueSaratoga, CA 95070Santa Clara CountyPS #: 201271992902 01/20/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 03 11/18/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 04 04/16/15 100% Zoning Dwgs NORTH1SCALE08'4'4'8'1/8" = 1'-0"OVERALL LEASE AREA ENLARGEMENT LEASE AREAENLARGEMENTA-23(N) UG COAX TRENCHLANDSCAPEDAREALANDSCAPEDAREAPARKING LOT(E) BUILDINGPEAKPEAK(E) BUILDING PEAK PEAK ANTENNA AREAENLARGEMENTA-31(E) STORAGE AREA(E) PAVED WALKWAY SLOPED ROOFSLOPED ROOF(E) PAVEDWALKWAY(E) TREE, TYP.(E) CURB(N) ROOF-MOUNTED CABLETRAY. PAINT TO MATCH ROOF(E) CROSSWALK(E) GATE(E) PAVEDWALKWAY BELOWCANOPY ( “ +7&08WALL(N) UG POWER/TELCO ROUTE IN5' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENTA-32(N) UG POWER/TELCOROUTE FROM POINTS OFCONNECTION. SEE DETAIL2/A-312'-0"ACCESS EASEMENTACCESS EASEMENT.SEE SURVEYA-42A-42(E) ACCESS GATEEXISTING TREETO BE REMOVEDPROPOSED 21'-0"x14'-0"VERIZON WIRELESSLEASE AREAPROPOSED 8'-6"x8'-6"VERIZON WIRELESSANTENNA LEASE AREAO:\Projects\1003-14 V-OneDesign Core New Site Builds\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA CHURCH\CAD CD\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA ZD.dwg, 4/16/2015 11:05:26 AM66 A-2‹V-One Design Group, Inc. 2013Sheet No.:Sheet Title:Project Architect:Professional Seal:It is a violation of law for any person,unless they are acting under thedirection of a licensed ProfessionalArchitect/Engineer, to alter thisdocument.Site:Client:Rev.Date Description01Checked By:Job No.:CAD File:JSRS11/06/13 90% Zoning Dwgs Verizon Wireless2785 Mitchell DriveSuite 9Walnut Creek, CA 94598Project No.:Date:Scale:Designed By:AS SHOWNDrawing Phase:100% ZONING2749 SATURN STBREA, CA 92821V-one Design Group, Inc.5100 Clayton Rd. B-1Ste. 354Concord, Ca 9452104/16/15SARATOGAVERDE VISTA20455 Herriman AvenueSaratoga, CA 95070Santa Clara CountyPS #: 201271992902 01/20/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 03 11/18/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 04 04/16/15 100% Zoning Dwgs 3LEASE AREA ENLARGEMENTSCALE3/8" = 1'-0"01'2'4'6'2EQUIPMENT CABINETS LAYOUTEQUIPMENT KEY13'2' PROPOSED LEASE AREA 14'4'-6"1'3'-6"5'1'1'1'1'PROPOSED LEASE AREA 21'GENERATOR-48 V PLANTCIMISCRAYCAPRAYCAP TELCOINTERSECTMETEREXISTING BUILDING OUTLINEEXISTING ROOF6'-6"8'(N) SOLAR SHADESTRUCTURE OVER (N)CABINETS(N) SLAB ON GRADE ( “ +7&08WALLPROPOSED 7' HIGH CHAIN LINKFENCE, TYP. W/ 3' WIDE ACCESSGATEEXISTING STORAGE AREAO:\Projects\1003-14 V-OneDesign Core New Site Builds\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA CHURCH\CAD CD\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA ZD.dwg, 4/16/2015 11:05:28 AM67 WALKWAY COVERWOOD FENCE(E) BUILDINGBUILDINGA-3‹V-One Design Group, Inc. 2013Sheet No.:Sheet Title:Project Architect:Professional Seal:It is a violation of law for any person,unless they are acting under thedirection of a licensed ProfessionalArchitect/Engineer, to alter thisdocument.Site:Client:Rev.Date Description01Checked By:Job No.:CAD File:JSRS11/06/13 90% Zoning Dwgs Verizon Wireless2785 Mitchell DriveSuite 9Walnut Creek, CA 94598Project No.:Date:Scale:Designed By:AS SHOWNDrawing Phase:100% ZONING2749 SATURN STBREA, CA 92821V-one Design Group, Inc.5100 Clayton Rd. B-1Ste. 354Concord, Ca 9452104/16/15SARATOGAVERDE VISTA20455 Herriman AvenueSaratoga, CA 95070Santa Clara CountyPS #: 201271992902 01/20/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 03 11/18/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 04 04/16/15 100% Zoning Dwgs 4FAUX CUPOLA CUT-AWAY VIEW2ANTENNA LAYOUTPOWER/TELCO POINTS OF CONNECTION1SCALE3/4" = 1'-0"06"1'2'3'8'-6" PROPOSED ANTENNA LEASE AREA8'-6" PROPOSED ANTENNA LEASE AREA (N) PANEL ANTENNA, 2 PER SECTOR, 6TOTAL(N) PANEL ANTENNA,1 PER SECTOR, 3TOTAL2'2'(N) FRP CUPOLA. COLOR ANDTEXTURE TO MATCH EXISTINGBUILDING(N) INTERNAL ANTENNA SUPPORTSTRUCTURESLOPED ROOFSLOPED ROOF(N) CABLE TRAY ONROOF. PAINT TO MATCHBLDG.NORTHSECTOR B$=,087+ƒSECTOR A$=,087+ƒSECTOR B$=,087+ƒ(N) CABLE TRAY THRUCUPOLA WALLPEAK SCALE030'15'1" = 30'15'30'(E) ELECTRIC VAULTPOINT OF CONNECTIONGRASS(E) ACCESS DRIVEWAYPROPOSEDLEASE AREA(E) UTILITY POLE, TELCOPOINT OF CONNECTION(N) UG POWER/TELCOROUTE IN 5' WIDEACCESS EASEMENTGRASSNORTH(N) RRU'S STACKED, 2 PER SECTOR38'-6"9'-8"(N) PANEL ANTENNA, 3 PERSECTOR, 9 TOTAL(N) FRP CUPOLA. COLOR ANDTEXTURE TO MATCH EXISTINGBUILDING(N) INTERNAL ANTENNA SUPPORTSTRUCTUREPEAK (N) RRU'S ON POLE MOUNT BEHINDANTENNA, 2 PER SECTORSCALE02'2' 1'1/2" = 1'-0"1'(N) CABLE TRAY ON ROOF TO PASSTHROUGH CUPOLA WALL. PAINT TOMATCH BLDG.6'-4"3'-4"5'-11"NOTE:OVERALL DIMENSIONS MAY VARYFOLLOWING STRUCTURAL DESIGNRRU'S SPECIFICATION(E) STORAGE AREA4'22'-8"(E) TREE TO BEREMOVED ANDREPLACED(N) TREE TO REPLACEREMOVED (E) TREEO:\Projects\1003-14 V-OneDesign Core New Site Builds\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA CHURCH\CAD CD\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA ZD.dwg, 4/16/2015 11:05:31 AM68 A-42‹V-One Design Group, Inc. 2013Sheet No.:Sheet Title:Project Architect:Professional Seal:It is a violation of law for any person,unless they are acting under thedirection of a licensed ProfessionalArchitect/Engineer, to alter thisdocument.Site:Client:Rev.Date Description01Checked By:Job No.:CAD File:JSRS11/06/13 90% Zoning Dwgs Verizon Wireless2785 Mitchell DriveSuite 9Walnut Creek, CA 94598Project No.:Date:Scale:Designed By:AS SHOWNDrawing Phase:100% ZONING2749 SATURN STBREA, CA 92821V-one Design Group, Inc.5100 Clayton Rd. B-1Ste. 354Concord, Ca 9452104/16/15SARATOGAVERDE VISTA20455 Herriman AvenueSaratoga, CA 95070Santa Clara CountyPS #: 201271992902 01/20/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 03 11/18/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 04 04/16/15 100% Zoning Dwgs NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING1NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSEDSCALE08'4'4'8'1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE08'4'4'8'1/8" = 1'-0"(/(9“ $*/PEEK OF (E) ROOFTOP OF (E) ROOF(/(9“ $*/GROUNDELEV. 0.0' AGLGROUND BEHIND WALL(/(9“ $*/(E) BUILDING(E) BUILDINGBEHIND(E) TREE TYP.(E) SLOPED WALK ( “ &08:$//(E) PATH FROM PARKINGLOT AND GATE ENTRY(E) SLOPEDLANDSCAPING AREA(/(9“ $*/PEEK OF (E) ROOFTOP OF (E) ROOF(/(9“ $*/GROUNDELEV. 0.0' AGL(E) BUILDING(E) BUILDINGBEHIND(E) TREE TYP.(E) SLOPED WALK ( “ &08:$//(E) PATH FROM PARKINGLOT AND GATE ENTRY(E) SLOPEDLANDSCAPING AREA(/(9“ $*/PEEK OF (N) CUPOLA(/(9“ $*/RAD CENTER OF (N) ANTENNASTOP OF (E) ROOF(/(9“ $*/(/(9“ $*/PEEK OF (E) ROOFTOP OF (E) ROOF(/(9“ $*/(/(9“ $*/PEEK OF (E) ROOF(N) CABLE TRAY ON ROOF.PAINT TO MATCH BLDG.(N) VERIZON WIRELESSCABINETS IN LEASE AREABEHIND CMU WALL. PAINT TOMATCH(N) SOLAR SHADESTRUCTURE OVER (N)CABINETS(N) 21' LONG VERIZON WIRELESSLEASE AREA BEHIND CMU WALL(E) WOOD CANOPYSTRUCTURE(E) WOOD CANOPYSTRUCTURE8'-6"(N) VERIZON WIRELESSCUPOLA HOUSING ANTENNASAND RRU'S. COLOR ANDTEXTURE TO MATCH BUILDING“ GROUND BEHIND WALL(/(9“ $*/O:\Projects\1003-14 V-OneDesign Core New Site Builds\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA CHURCH\CAD CD\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA ZD.dwg, 4/16/2015 11:05:35 AM69 A-52‹V-One Design Group, Inc. 2013Sheet No.:Sheet Title:Project Architect:Professional Seal:It is a violation of law for any person,unless they are acting under thedirection of a licensed ProfessionalArchitect/Engineer, to alter thisdocument.Site:Client:Rev.Date Description01Checked By:Job No.:CAD File:JSRS11/06/13 90% Zoning Dwgs Verizon Wireless2785 Mitchell DriveSuite 9Walnut Creek, CA 94598Project No.:Date:Scale:Designed By:AS SHOWNDrawing Phase:100% ZONING2749 SATURN STBREA, CA 92821V-one Design Group, Inc.5100 Clayton Rd. B-1Ste. 354Concord, Ca 9452104/16/15SARATOGAVERDE VISTA20455 Herriman AvenueSaratoga, CA 95070Santa Clara CountyPS #: 201271992902 01/20/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 03 11/18/14 100% Zoning Dwgs 04 04/16/15 100% Zoning Dwgs 1WEST ELEVATION - EXISTINGWEST ELEVATION - PROPOSEDSCALE08'4'4'8'1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE08'4'4'8'1/8" = 1'-0"(/(9“ $*/PEEK OF (E) ROOF(E) BUILDINGBEHINDTOP OF (E) ROOF(/(9“ $*/(/(9“ $*/PEEK OF (E) ROOF(N) CABLE TRAY ONROOF. PAINT TOMATCH BLDG.(N) 14' WIDE VERIZON WIRELESSLEASE AREA BEHIND CMU WALL(E) WOOD CANOPYSTRUCTURE ( “ +7&08:$//(E) TREE TYP.(E) BUILDINGELEV. 0.0' AGLGROUND(E) SLOPED WALKWAYTO LEASE AREATOP OF (E) ROOF(/(9“ $*/(/(9“ $*/PEEK OF (E) ROOF(E) TREE TYP.(E) BUILDING BEHINDELEV. 0.0' AGLGROUND(E) SLOPED WALKWAYTO LEASE AREAPEEK OF (N) CUPOLA(/(9“ $*/RAD CENTER OF (N) ANTENNAS(/(9“ $*/PEEK OF (E) ROOF(/(9“ $*/(N) VERIZON WIRELESS CUPOLA HOUSINGANTENNAS AND RRU'S. COLOR ANDTEXTURE TO MATCH BUILDING(E) BUILDING8'-6"“ +7:$//(E) T-MOBILE ANTENNALOCATION INSIDE FRPCROSS 1 “ +7&08:$//(N) VERIZON WIRELESSCABINETS IN LEASE AREABEHIND CMU WALL. PAINT TOMATCH(N) SOLAR SHADESTRUCTURE OVER (N)CABINETSO:\Projects\1003-14 V-OneDesign Core New Site Builds\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA CHURCH\CAD CD\SARATOGA VERDE VISTA ZD.dwg, 4/16/2015 11:05:38 AM70 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 10, 2015 (Continued from May 13, 2015) Application: PDR14-0027/ ARB14-0056 Location / APN: 14800 Montalvo Rd / 517-20-005 Owner / Applicant: Stuart Wells / David Britt Staff Planner: Justin Shiu, Contract Planner 14800 Montalvo Rd 71 2 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new 25-foot tall two- story 4,970 square foot home with a three-car garage and a 1,767 square foot basement at 14800 Montalvo Rd. Seven of the 21 trees on the site have been approved by the City Arborist to be removed, as they are either in conflict with the design or are in poor health and structure. Another tree originally proposed for removal fell during a storm after the initial submittal and was removed. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on May 13, 2015 and continued the application to address the following design considerations:  Address compatibility of the home’s scale and proportion as viewed from street (i.e. reduce the prominence of the structure and the appearance as possibly “the largest house” given the proposed structure’s relationship to the existing lot size).  Reduce number of fire place chimneys to be more in keeping with the proposed “architectural style”  Provide additional screening along south property line to soften appearance of 2nd story.  Address the concern that the proposed hedge wall would create the “look of a compound.” The applicant has responded to the Commission’s comments and has provided revised development plans. The floor area and height of the proposed structure remain the same; however, the house has been pushed back on the lot by approximately 10 feet to reduce the prominence of the structure when viewed from the street and to be more consistent with the location of the existing home. The design now also features fewer chimneys per the Planning Commission’s direction. The applicant has included additional privacy screening trees along the shared property line with the adjacent neighbors and received their support for the planting proposal. The proposed hedge wall feature has also been removed from the development plans. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any new multi-story main structure or multi-story accessory structure - City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-027 approving Design Review PDR14-0027 and ARB14-0056 subject to conditions of approval. SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Project Description A detailed analysis of the project is provided in the May 13, 2015 staff report (Attachment 2). The project was continued to June 10, 2015 in order for the applicant to address the concerns outlined by the Planning Commission. The applicant has revised the project in 72 3 order to address those concerns. The list below summarizes the design changes made by the applicant to the project:  Set back the residence 52 feet from the front property line, an increase of 10 feet from the original proposal and more compatible with the location of the existing house.  Removed chimney stacks from outdoor fireplaces located at the south and east patios. The total number of chimneys on the property has been reduced to three.  Proposed the planting of three new 24” Fraser Photinia trees along the south property line for privacy screening.  Deleted a proposed privacy hedge wall to avoid increasing the appearance of a walled compound. Initially, a fence was proposed as a replacement for the hedge (See Sheet L1 of Attachment 4). The fence has since been proposed for removal from the plans altogether, as of June 4, 2015. Building Orientation The applicant has proposed to reduce the perceived prominence of the building by setting the structure back an additional distance from the previous design. The building has been set back an additional 10 feet, which is more consistent with the location of the existing home and is as far as permitted without encroaching into the rear setback area. Architectural Detail The applicant has removed two chimneys: one in the east patio area and one in the south patio area. These patio areas would have gas-powered fireboxes, which vent from the face of the box and do not require chimneys. Privacy Screening The applicant has proposed the planting of privacy screening trees along the shared south property line to address the adjacent neighbor’s concerns about the visibility of the second floor of the home. Three trees will be planted along the property line to afford the residents of 14840 Montalvo Rd additional screening of the proposed structure. The Fraser Photinia trees, “Photinia Fraseri,” can grow to heights of about 20 feet. The neighbor on 14840 Montalvo Rd has reviewed the revised plans and is comfortable with the option of planting the three proposed Photinia trees (Attachment 2). Neighbor Notification Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property for the Planning Commission meeting on May 13, 2015. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News at least 10 days prior to the hearing. At the May 13th Planning Commission meeting, the review of the hearing item was continued to a date certain (June 10, 2015). DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: 73 4 (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 residence proposed is located on a relatively flat portion of the lot and the proposed relocation of the structure further back on the lot is in the approximate location of the existing home and minimizes the amount of required 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 the applicant located the proposed structure to minimize the number of healthy trees that would need to be removed and still allow reasonable development and use of the property for the owner’s enjoyment. The project proposes the removal of 7 trees out of the 21 present on the site. The City Arborist has determined that the criteria for tree removal under Article 15-50 has been met and has approved the removal of the trees, with conditions. (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 structure is pushed back 10 feet further back to be more compatible with the location of the existing home, up to the required rear setback line, in order to reduce the prominence of the structure as viewed from the street. The home has been designed with smaller windows on the side walls, while keeping larger windows and French doors on the first floor facing the street and backyard. The side setback has been increased beyond the minimum required on the side adjacent to an existing neighboring single-story residence. The applicant has proposed additional trees along the south property line, after discussion with the neighbor, to increase privacy screening. The project does not impact any identified community viewsheds. (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 project minimizes the prominence of the structure when viewed from the street by setting it back on the property as far as the rear setback line would permit. The design features first story elements through the porches and varied wall plates, as well as lower eaves. The style employs a hipped roof and a second story that is set back from the first story to create a two-story residence that mitigates the perceive mass and bulk of the structure. The project would not be the only two-story structure in the neighborhood, as there are other two-story structures across the street and immediately south of the property. (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 impermeable hardscape surfaces constitute less than 50% of the 74 5 front setback area. Permeable walkways are also located in the front setback area. A previously proposed hedge wall has now been deleted from the revised development plans. (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 proposed location and hip roof design would not impact solar access for adjacent properties. The distance between adjacent structures is sufficient to allow solar access. (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 several techniques from the Residential Design Handbook, including increasing sideyard setbacks adjacent to smaller homes; designing first story eave heights and entry eave heights that are in scale with adjacent residences; facing garage doors perpendicular to the street and deemphasizing the garage presence; minimizing the size of second story windows; and selecting materials, colors, and details that enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. (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 can be made in the affirmative in that the project is not located on a ridgeline, significant hillside feature, nor community viewshed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Neighbor Approval on Screening 3. 14800 Montalvo Rd PC Staff Report with Attachments, dated May 13, 2015. 4. Reduced Plan Set of Revisions, Exhibit ‘A’ 75 RESOLUTION NO: 15-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0027 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB14-0056 LOCATED AT 14800 MONTALVO ROAD WHEREAS, on October 28, 2014, an application was submitted by David Britt on behalf of Stuart Wells requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home, a basement, and related site improvements located at 14800 Montalvo Road The project has a total floor area of 4,970 square feet (not including the 1,767 square foot basement). The height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. The site is located within the R-1-20,000 Zoning District (APN 517-20-005). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on May 13, 2015, 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. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission elected to continue the item to June 10, 2015 after receiving evidence, commencing deliberation, and directing the applicant to make revisions based on the comments provided by Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted revised plans specifically addressing the comments provided by the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, on June 10, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of one single-family residence in a residential area. 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 76 that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project 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; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0027 and ARB14-0056 located at 14800 Montalvo 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 10th day of June 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 77 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater management plan. 78 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 current 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. 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" dated stamped May 25, 2015. 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. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated March 23, 2015 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. The project shall also implement the arborist recommendation addendum dated April 21, 2015, prepared by the applicant’s Consulting Arborist Deborah Ellis to address the proposed house at the adjusted angle. 8. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the property owner shall enter into maintenance agreement with the adjacent neighbor which requires the property owner to care for and maintain the additional screening plants (i.e. Photinia plants) along the shared south property line for a specified period of time that is mutually acceptable to both property owners (e.g. 5-10 years) and allows for the growth of the plants to a mature height, such that they can provide an effective screen for the neighboring property owner to the south. 9. As condition of Public Works approval, the owner/applicant shall complete missing sections of rolled curb and gutter per City Standard Specifications along the property frontage. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right- of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work. 10. The owner/applicant shall provide revised grading and civil drawings that account for the proposed residence at the final minor adjusted angle prior to submittal for a building permit. All relevant plan sheets for the submittal must be consistent in showing the proposed residence at the final minor adjusted angle. 11. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall videotape the surface of the shared driveway that provides access from the site to Montalvo Road as well as the driveway entrance of 14800 Montalvo Road. A copy of the recording shall be retained by the Community Development Department. Any damage to the either driveway caused by project related construction shall be repaired by the applicant prior to building permit final. The applicant shall also install a sign near the driveway of 14800 Montalvo Road advising contractors to not use the private driveway as a turnaround area. 11. 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 79 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. 80 81 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date: May 13, 2015 Application: PDR14-0027 Location / APN: 14800 Montalvo Rd / 517-20-005 Owner/Applicant: Stuart Wells / David Britt Staff Planner: Justin Shiu, Contract Planner 14800 Montalvo Road 82 Application PDR14-0027; 14800 Montalvo Rd/517-20-005 Page 2 of 6 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Design Review approval to construct a new 25-foot tall two-story 4,970 square foot home with a three-car garage and a 1,767 square foot basement at 14800 Montalvo Rd. Seven of the 21 trees on the site have been approved by the City Arborist to be removed, as they are either in conflict with the design or are in poor health and structure. Another tree originally proposed for removal fell during a storm after the initial submittal and was removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-0016 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design Review approval is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060. PROJECT DATA: Site Area: 26,498 sf gross/net Average Slope: 5% Grading: 668 cy of cut and 544 cy of fill General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (RLD) Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-20,000) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Main House & Garage Walkways/ Decks/ Patios Driveway Other Pervious Paver Driveway Pervious Walks and Patios Other Pervious Total Site Coverage Front Yard Impervious 3,367 sf 3,786 sf 665 sf 224 1,266 sf (50% of 2,531 sf) 250 sf (50% of 499 sf) 425 sf (50% of 850 sf) 9,982 sf (37%) 1,680 sf (43%) 11,924 sf (45%) 1967 sf (50% of 3,935 sf ) Floor Area First Floor Second Floor Garage Total Floor Area 2,616 sf 1,754 sf 600 sf 4,970 sf 4,986 sf Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 203.0’ 207.0’ 205.0’ 230.0’ (25’0”) 26 feet Maximum 83 Application PDR14-0027; 14800 Montalvo Rd/517-20-005 Page 3 of 6 Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1st Story 34’ 45’ 29’ 43’ 2nd Story 34’ 68’ 29’ 60’ 1st Story 30’ 15’ 15’ 35’ 2nd Story 30’ 20’ 20’ 45’ PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW Site and Neighborhood Description: The 26,398 square foot property is located at 14800 Montalvo Rd. The residential neighborhood includes both single-story and two-story homes with various architectural styles. An existing 4,027 single-story square foot home, which encroaches into the rear setback, is proposed to be demolished in order to construct the new 4,970 square foot home with a 1,767 square foot basement. The new home conforms to current setback requirements. A total of 21 protected trees were identified for this project and seven are proposed for removal. Architectural Design: The new two-story home is inspired by “Italian Renaissance” style. The proposed residence is 25 feet in height. The proposed exterior materials include stucco exterior, wood trim, smooth finish cast concrete columns, wood panel sectional garage door, wood windows and doors, and a concrete tile roof. The design includes accents such as decorative iron chimney caps and decorative wood eave brackets. Two Story Home: The applicant’s proposed two-story home is compatible with the heights of nearby homes. The project site is adjacent to a two-story home on the south side and located south of two-story homes across the street. Trees: Seven trees meeting City Code thresholds for protection are requested for removal (Attachment 2). Eight protected trees were originally proposed for removal; however a 15” Colorado Blue Spruce fell down in a storm. The City Arborist has approved the removal of the requested trees (a Eucalyptus, a Coast Live Oaks, an Incense Cedar, a Southern Magnolia, a Glossy Pivet, a Birch and another undefined species). The City Arborist is able to make the findings for removal based on her review. The applicant is required to place a tree deposit of $17,760 and install tree protection fencing prior to the issuance of building permits. Replacement Detail Colors and Materials Exterior & Trim Tan (Stucco) Windows/ Doors Brown Trim Dark Brown (Wood) 84 Application PDR14-0027; 14800 Montalvo Rd/517-20-005 Page 4 of 6 trees required to mitigate the proposed tree removals are valued at $13,800 and must be planted prior to building occupancy. Landscaping: The landscape design includes several new replacement trees, including a Sycamore, Olive Trees, Japanese Maples, a Scarlett Maple, a Star Magnolia, Chinese Pistache, Bronze Loquats, and a Redwood. Several trees are being transplanted in alternate locations, including, three Crape Myrtles and a Japanese Maple. Permeable interlocking pavers are proposed for the driveway. New privacy hedges are also being planted in the front yard. CalGreen Standards/Sustainable Features: The project complies with the required CalGreen standards. Additionally, the home includes elective sustainable features, including but not limited to the following:  Permeable paving  Capability for electric vehicle charging  Radiant roof barrier  Provision of exterior shading  Gas-fired space heating  Whole-house fan with insulated louvers/cover  Building lighting with ENERGY STAR features  Use of ENERGY STAR appliances if applicable  Providing future electrical service equipment for photovoltaic systems Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted neighbor notification forms (Attachment 3) and responded to comments. One form received raises concerns about construction parking on a narrow street and safe entry and exit out of driveways during construction. The applicant prepared a construction management plan (Development Plans, Sheet C4.0) for the demolition and construction stages, which responded to construction parking concerns by showing that parking and equipment storage can be accommodated on site. The applicant expects only five or six workers during normal weekday business hours and four to six light duty pick-up trucks. The project site will have no more than 12 persons on site at once and this occurrence will only take place for short periods during specific phases. This can include the architect, manager, building staff, etc. No construction vehicles will be parked on Montalvo Road or in the alley behind the property, as noted in the construction management plan. Public notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. Staff received comments from the neighbor at 14840 Montalvo Rd, immediately south of the subject property, on May 4, 2015 (Attachment 4 & Attachment 5). The neighbor expressed concerns about privacy impacts, light access and views. The applicant provided notes addressing the concerns in an email to Staff on May 5, 2015 (Attachment 6), which were then copied and emailed to the neighbor. Staff also held a discussion with the neighbor through a phone call on May 5, 2015. As of the writing of this Staff report, the communications between the neighbor, Applicant, and Staff were ongoing: the neighbor was open to discussing the project further with the Applicant at the neighbor’s property to offer a perspective on impacts. 85 Application PDR14-0027; 14800 Montalvo Rd/517-20-005 Page 5 of 6 FINDINGS Design Review Findings: The Planning Commission may grant Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15-45, if the Planning Commission makes all of the following 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 residence proposed is located in the center on a relatively flat portion of the lot. The residence proposed is located in roughly the same area developed with the existing house. (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 the applicant designed the project to locate the new structure to minimize the number of healthy trees that would need to be removed and still allow reasonable development and use of the property for the owner’s enjoyment. The project proposes the removal of 7 trees out of the 21 present on the site. The City Arborist has determined that the criteria for tree removal under Article 15-50 has been met and has approved the removal of the trees, with conditions. (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 structure is located in the middle of the lot, surrounded by trees and vegetation along the side and rear property lines. New replacement trees and a privacy hedge have been proposed in the front yard to provide additional screening. The home has been designed with smaller windows on the side walls, while keeping larger windows and French doors on the first floor facing the street and backyard. The side setback has been increased beyond the minimum required on the side adjacent to an existing neighboring single-story residence. The project does not impact any identified community viewsheds. (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 proposed home features a second story that is stepped back to help reduce the visual perception of mass and incorporates architectural features. The project also includes other elements that reduce perceived bulk of the structure, such as varied wall plates, a hipped roof element, and lower eaves. The project’s hipped roof is also in keeping with the style of hipped roof found elsewhere in the neighborhood. There are also other two-story structures across the street and immediately south of the property. 86 Application PDR14-0027; 14800 Montalvo Rd/517-20-005 Page 6 of 6 (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 impermeable hardscape surfaces constitute less than 50% of the front setback area. Permeable walkways are also located in the front setback area. (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 proposed location and hip roof design would not impact solar access for adjacent properties. The distance between adjacent structures is sufficient to allow solar access. (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 several techniques from the Residential Design Handbook, including increasing sideyard setbacks adjacent to smaller homes; designing first story eave heights and entry eave heights that are in scale with adjacent residences; facing garage doors perpendicular to the street and deemphasizing the garage presence; minimizing the size of second story windows; and selecting materials, colors, and details that enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. (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. The finding is not applicable as the site is not 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. Arborist Report 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Neighbor Concerns from 14840 Montalvo Rd 5. Neighbor Concerns from 14840 Montalvo Rd - Photos 6. Applicant Response to Concerns 7. Story Pole Certification Letter – 14800 Montalvo Rd 8. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 87 RESOLUTION NO: 15-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0027 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB14-0056 LOCATED AT 14800 MONTALVO ROAD WHEREAS, on October 28, 2014, an application was submitted by David Britt on behalf of Stuart Wells requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home, a basement, and related site improvements located at 14800 Montalvo Road The project has a total floor area of 4,970 square feet (not including the 1,767 square foot basement). The height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. The site is located within the R-1-20,000 Zoning District (APN 517-20-005). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on May 13, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of one single-family residence in a residential area. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project 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 88 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; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0027 and ARB14-0056 located at 14800 Montalvo 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 13th day of May 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 89 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by 90 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 current 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. 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" dated stamped April 16, 2015. 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. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated March 23, 2015 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. The project shall also implement the arborist recommendation addendum dated April 21, 2015, prepared by the applicant’s Consulting Arborist Deborah Ellis to address the proposed house at the adjusted angle. 8. As condition of Public Works approval, the owner/applicant shall complete missing sections of rolled curb and gutter per City Standard Specifications along the property frontage. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right- of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work. 9. The owner/applicant shall provide revised grading and civil drawings that account for the proposed residence at the final minor adjusted angle prior to submittal for a building permit. All relevant plan sheets for the submittal must be consistent in showing the proposed residence at the final minor adjusted angle. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall videotape the surface of the shared driveway that provides access from the site to Montalvo Road as well as the driveway entrance of 14800 Montalvo Road. A copy of the recording shall be retained by the Community Development Department. Any damage to the either driveway caused by project related construction shall be repaired by the applicant prior to building permit final. The applicant shall also install a sign near the driveway of 14800 Montalvo Road advising contractors to not use the private driveway as a turnaround area. 11. 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 91 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. 92 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB14-0056 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 14800 Montalvo Road Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Stuart Wells Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 517-20-005 Email:StewartWells@fico.com REPORT HISTORY: Report 1 Date: Plans received November 3, 2014 Report completed November 20, 2014 Report 2 – This report replaces report 1 Revised Plans received January 20,2015 Report completed February 5, 2015 Report 3 – This report replaces report 2 Revised plans received March 5,2015 Report completed March 23, 2015 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and build a new two story house with a basement and attached three-car garage. Seven trees protected by Saratoga City Code (2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 20 and 21) are requested for removal to construct the project. They meet the criteria allowing their removal and replacement as part of the project. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist to proceed, with conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $17,760 For trees 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 23. Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – Trees 2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 20 and 21 are permitted for removal and replacement once building permits have been issued. Replacement trees – Required = $13,800 1 93 14800 Montalvo Road 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. Trees listed in the table below meet the City’s criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Tree removal criteria are listed on page 29 of the arborist report and are in Attachment 2 for reference. Tree 18, a Colorado blue spruce which was to be removed for the project, fell down in a storm before the project was approved. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Species Criteria met Criteria not met 2, 3 Eucalyptus, coast live oak 4, 5, 7, 9 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 4 Incense cedar 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 2, 3, 6, 8 8 Southern magnolia 1, 4, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 15 Glossy privet 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 8 20, 21 Birch, unknown tree 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8 Replacement Trees The total appraised value of trees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 15, 20 and 21 is $13,800. New trees equal to this value will be required as a condition of the project. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property and be of any species. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. New Construction Based on the information provided, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan The submitted arborist reports prepared by Deborah Ellis once included in the final set of plans will satisfy the requirement for a Tree Preservation Plan under Section 15-50.140 of the City Code. The reports are dated September 25, 2014 and February 16, 2015. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map Showing Tree Protection Fencing Locations Replacement Tree Values: 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 2 94 14800 Montalvo Road Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: David Britt of Britt Rowe Date of Plans: October 1, 2014, revised February 19, 2015 Sheet A0 Title Sheet/Project Information Sheet A1 Architectural Site Plan Sheet A2 Basement Floor Plan Sheet A3 First Floor Plan Sheet A4 Second Floor Plan Sheets A6 and A7 Exterior Elevations Sheet A8 Sections Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Bowman and Williams Date of Plans: October 17, 2014, revised February 19, 2015 Sheet C1.0 Grading Plan Sheet C1.1 Sections and Profile Sheet C2.0 Utility Plan Sheet C3.0 Storm Water Management Plan Sheet TP – 2 Boundary and Topographic Survey Landscape plan reviewed: Preparer: California Horticulture Date of Plans: October 10, 2014, revised February 19, 2015 Sheet L.0 Landscape Plan TREE DATA: Preparer: Deborah Ellis, Consulting Arborist and Horticulturist Date of Arborist Report: September 25, 2014; Addendum October 17, 2014 Report on Neighboring Trees, February 16, 2015 An arborist report was submitted for this project. It inventoried 21 trees on the property protected by Saratoga City Code and 11 trees on the adjacent properties that might be impacted by the proposed work. Seven trees (2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 20 and 21) are requested for removal to construct the project. Tree 18, originally requested for removal, failed in a winter storm. Information on the condition of trees, impacts from construction, tree protection recommendations and monetary values of trees were provided. A map of tree locations and a table summarizing tree conditions and suitability for preservation from the report have been included below. I made one visit to the property on November 18, 2014. Trees were inspected visually and information in the arborist report and plans was reviewed. 3 95 14800 Montalvo Road Attachment 1 Table 2. Summary Tree Table from 10-17-14 report by Deborah Ellis. Trees shown in red are requested for removal. Trees in green are to be retained and preserved. Trees in blue have not been requested for removal at this time and are assumed to be retained and preserved. 4 96 14800 Montalvo Road Attachment 1 Table 3: Information on trees growing on adjacent properties from February 16, 2015 report. 5 97 14800 Montalvo Road Attachment 1 6 98 14800 Montalvo Road Attachment 1 Figure 1: Map of trees from arborist report dated February 16, 2015 by Deborah Ellis. 7 99 14800 Montalvo Road 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, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (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 (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. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. 8 100 14800 Montalvo Road Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2. The submitted arborist reports from Deborah Ellis dated September 25, 2014 and February 16, 2015 shall be copied onto a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 3. This arborist report shall be included in the final job copy set of plans. 4. All recommendations from the submitted arborist report shall be conditions of approval for this project. 5. The designated Project Arborist shall be Deborah Ellis unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 6. Tree Protection Security Deposit a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be $17,760 for tree(s) 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 23. 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 cash, check, credit card payment 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. 7. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, 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. 8. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities and monthly thereafter. 9 101 14800 Montalvo Road Attachment 3 9. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within: a. 15 feet of redwood tree 6. b. 12 feet of oak tree 16 c. 10 feet of oaks 14 and 17 d. 10 feet of London plane tree 1 10. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 11. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. 12. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 13. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards. 14. Trees 2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 20 and 21 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building Division permits have been obtained. 15. Trees permitted for removal shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices, and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. The value of the removed trees shall be calculated in accordance with the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal. 16. New trees equal to $13,800 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species. 17. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 18. At least two new trees shall be planted in the front yard. They shall reach a height at maturity of 20 feet or more. 19. The rest of the replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. 20. Landscaping under oaks: a. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. b. Only mulch is permitted under the inner half of the area under the canopy. c. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. 10 102 14800 Montalvo Road Attachment 3 d. Irrigation controllers, valves and lateral lines shall be installed so that they are not under tree canopies. e. Irrigation shall be installed so that it does not spray the trunks of trees. 21. 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. 22. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. 11 103 Attachment 4 Legend Tree Protection Fencing 14800 Montalvo Road 12 104 105 1 Justin Shiu From:Mark Fernandes <mark@sierraventures.com> Sent:Monday, May 04, 2015 5:41 PM To:Erwin Ordoñez Cc:Justin Shiu; Michael Fossati Subject:Re: Story poles 14800 Montalvo Road Attachments:20150504_171158.jpg; 20150504_171117.jpg Thx Erwin. Justin - thanks for your call. As I mentioned, we don't want to be the bothersome neighbor. The story poles have us a little worried about how it changes the view, the light, and our privacy. I have tried to capture this with a couple of photos but hard to get the full magnitude without visiting. The second picture (need to zoom in) is from our family room / kitchen. Look forward to our call tomorrow @ 1p. My work number is 650-233-6184. Thanks, Mark On May 4, 2015 4:36 PM, "Erwin Ordoñez" <eordonez@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: Mr. Fernandes, I've copied the project planners assigned to the Design Review application. I'm out of the office this afternoon, let's try to talk tomorrow with Justin or Michael. -Erwin Ordonez Community Development Director Sent from my IPad 106 Attachment 5: View of the Project from 14840 Montalvo Rd (Supplements Attachment 4) 107 108 1 Justin Shiu From:David Britt <dmbritt02@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:42 AM To:Justin Shiu; Steve Chikes Subject:RE: 14800 Montalvo. Follow Up Info Request. Hi Justin‐    Thought I would chime in on the neighbor to the south's concern. The proposed residence was designed to be  very sensitive to the adjacent properties. Views, privacy, and light have been mitigated several ways.    ‐ privacy has been mitigated ‐ second floor walls facing side property lines ‐ including side to the south ‐  feature only small windows with high sills so that there are no direct site lines into side neighboring properties  from second floor.    ‐ light concerns has been mitigated ‐ the second floor wall are considerably set back from the minimum side  setback lines so that new shadow lines will not fall beyond property. It should also be noted that solar  orientation was considered, and neighbor to the south will not be impacted by any sun loss by new building  because of Saratoga's location on the northern hemisphere ;‐)    ‐ views from southern property will not be negatively impacted by the new residence. The existing mature  trees bordering the properties will not be removed, and the view of existing redwood tree tops, which are  considerably taller than the proposed residence will be maintained as those will not be removed either. There  are no mountain or ridgeline view to the north at that location on Montalvo Rd.    Anyways, I hope this helps. Happy to answer any questions the neighbor might have.    David  > From: jshiu@saratoga.ca.us  > To: stevechikes@sbcglobal.net  > CC: dmbritt02@hotmail.com  > Subject: RE: 14800 Montalvo. Follow Up Info Request.  > Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 16:35:07 +0000  >   > Thanks Steve,  >   > The neighbor was happy to hear that parking was thoroughly considered.   >   > We're speaking with a neighborhood to the south of the property this afternoon. He has some concerns on  how the building would change the views, light and privacy from his property. You can refer to the attached  photos. Just wanted to give a heads up.  >   > By the way, have you had a chance to fix the story poles at the entry yet? Also, I'm passing along another  reminder from the Director to show 5‐foot height increments, finished grade and finished floor. Because of  recent story pole issues in the city, we want to try to catch any issues before the site visit.   109 110 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 10, 2015 Application: Modification of Design Review MOD15-0003 Location / APN: 20440 Arbeleche Lane / 397-27-029 Owner / Applicant: Ezzat Lokzadeh / Fatemah Asgari Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 20440 Arbeleche Lane 111 SUMMARY ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Multi-Family Residential (R-M 4,000) Multi-Family Residential PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE 34,776 (net lot size) 19% (including creek) GRADING REQUIRED 124 cubic yards for the outdoor parking (62 c.y. of cut and 62 c.y. of fill) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A four unit multi-family apartment/townhome development was approved on June 26, 2013 at 20440 Arbeleche Lane. The applicant has requested a one year extension on the previously approved project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 15-026 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 112 3 PROJECT DATA SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Previous Approval The negative declaration and design review were adopted and approved by Planning Commission on June 26, 2013. The project staff report has been included as Attachment 2. Per City Code Section 15-46.050, design review approvals may be extended for a period of twelve months. The applicant sites confusion regarding the time limits of design review approvals between single-family residential and multi-family residential. Per City Code, construction must commence within three years (or 36 months) for a single-family residence, but only two years (or 24 months) for a multi-family residence. The applicant has provided a letter regarding their request (Attachment 3). Staff recommends approving the extension with a requirement that the conditions of the existing approval remain intact. Those conditions have been added to the proposed resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Extension – 20440 Arbeleche Lane 2. 20440 Arbeleche Lane Staff Report, dated June 26, 2013. 3. Letter from Applicant, dated June 4, 2015. 4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.” 113 RESOLUTION NO. 15-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION EXTENDING THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV12-0001) AND APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW (PDR12-0004), LOCATED AT 20440 ARBELECHE LANE (397-27-029) WHEREAS, an application was submitted for Design Review approval to demolish an existing one-story residence and cottage in order to construct four, two-story apartment units and associated parking. The size of the proposed units will range between 1,186 sq. ft. to 1,430 sq. ft. Design Review approval is required because any new structure within a multi-family residential zoning district requires design review approval from the Planning Commission. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20- day public review period from June 1, 2013 – June 24, 2013. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on the Project before the Planning Commission hearing held on June 26, 2013; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties and approved the project, as demonstrated; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2015 a new application was submitted by the applicant requesting an extension of the time period for the approved project; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2015, the Planning Commission held another duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties and approved the project, as demonstrated; and NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 1.1 in that the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached residences and LU 1.2 to continue to review all residential development proposals to ensure consistency with Land Use Element goals and Policies. 114 Resolution No. 15-026 Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project will be constructed with the architectural features and landscaping being harmonious with such features that include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances, any proposed signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance, proposed landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced, colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective, roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition, and the proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the removal of two protected trees meets the criteria established in Section 15-50.080(a). Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves a one-year extension of the design review application PDR12-0004 and previous adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV12-0001 for the project located at 20440 Arbeleche Lane, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 10th day of June 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 115 Resolution No. 15-026 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MOD15-0003 / ENV12-0001 / PDR12-0004 20440 ARBELECHE LANE (397-27-029) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 12 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 6. 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 116 Resolution No. 15-026 b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7. Previous Resolution. All conditions of approval as previously demonstrated on Resolution 13- 026 are null and void. All conditions of approval associated with Resolution 15-026 are now in effect. 8. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated April 23, 2013 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition No. 4, above. 9. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. City Arborist Reports dated May 3, 2013, and all other future updated reports onto separate construction plan pages; d. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions dated November 28, 2012 onto separate plan pages; e. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; f. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 10. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 11. 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. 117 Resolution No. 15-026 12. Landscaping. Sufficient landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department. 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 13. Stormwater - The owner/applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The applicant shall use and maintain Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the site design and storm water treatment. 14. Setback Verification Letter – Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. 118 Resolution No. 15-026 ARBORIST 15. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Report. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated May 3, 2013, and all other future updated reports, are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. GEOLOGIST 16. Compliance with Geotechnical Clearance Conditions Memorandum. All requirements in the Geotechnical Clearance memorandum dated November 28, 2012, and all other conditions, as specified by the City Geologist are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. PUBLIC WORKS 17. Fees. The owner (applicant) shall pay all applicable fees prior to Zone Clearance. 18. Encroachment Permit. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 19. Trail Easement Dedication. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT. The property owner shall record a deed restriction, satisfactory to the Community Development Director, dedicating a 12 foot wide pedestrian trail easement along Saratoga Creek within the 25-foot creek setback to the City of Saratoga as provided in the Trail Easement Agreement and depicted on the Trails Master Plan included in the Open Space Conservation Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan. The property owner shall prepare a legal description and the plat plan for the trail easement dedication and submit to the City Public Works Department for review and approval. The exact location of the trail easement is subject to approval by the Public Works Department. This Trail Easement shall be recorded on the deed prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Building Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL 20. Habitat Mitigation. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following: • Should project construction be scheduled to commence between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting birds within the onsite trees as well as all trees within 250 feet of the site. This survey will occur within 30 days of the on-set of construction. • If pre-construction surveys undertaken during the nesting season locate active nests within or near construction zones, these nests, and an appropriate buffer around them (as determined by a qualified biologist) shall remain off-limits to construction until the nesting season is over. Suitable setbacks from occupied nests will be established by a qualified biologist and maintained until the conclusion of the nesting season. 119 Resolution No. 15-026 21. Creek Mitigation. The project sponsor shall:  Setback the proposed structures no closer than 25 feet from the top bank of Saratoga Creek.  Erect construction fencing that will be placed along the creek to ensure that construction activities do not inadvertently impact those areas  Require the project to follow best management practices  To minimize the impacts of light and glare entering the creek corridor, lighting should be avoided at the edge of the creek corridor. All lighting on the property should be directed away from the creek corridor whenever possible. 22. Stormwater Mitigation. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following measures: • The project sponsor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction of the proposed project. It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), but it must be maintained on-site and made available to Water Board or City staff upon request. The SWPPP shall include specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At a minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and adhesives) with storm water. Ingress and egress from construction sites shall be carefully controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and shall include both dry and wet weather inspections. 23. Geology Mitigation. The project sponsor shall be required to provide the following: • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e. including building, setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The geotechnical consultant shall ensure that the grading plan identifies and appropriately mitigates all previously placed site fill materials. The result of the plan review shall be summaries in a letter by the geotechnical consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building and grading permits. • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Consultant shall observe the drilling of foundation piers to verify adequate embedment into competent native materials. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a 120 Resolution No. 15-026 letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. 121 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 26, 2013 Application: Design Review PDR12-0004 / Environmental Review ENV12-0001 Location / APN: 20440 Arbeleche Lane / 397-27-029 Owner / Applicant: Ezzat Lokzadeh / Fatemah Asgari Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 122 2 20440 Arbeleche Lane SUMMARY ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Multi-Family Residential (R-M 4,000) Multi-Family Residential PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE 34,776 (net lot size) 19% (including creek) GRADING REQUIRED 124 cubic yards for the outdoor parking (62 c.y. of cut and 62 c.y. of fill) . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested to demolish the existing single-family residence and cottage, totaling 1,500 square feet to construct four, two-story apartment units and associated parking. An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared because the project is near riparian habitat. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 4, 2013 – June 24, 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 13-026 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 123 3 PROJECT DATA Net Lot Size: 34,776 sq. ft. Proposed Allowed Type A – 2 Bedroom Unit 1st floor: 2nd floor: Garage Total Type B,C, & D – 4 Bedroom Unit 1st floor: 2nd floor: Garage: Total 441 sq. ft. 530 sq. ft. 215 sq. ft. 1,186 sq. ft. 535 sq. ft. 680 sq. ft. 215 sq. ft. 1,430 sq. ft. Floor Area not limited in multi-family districts. Proposed Building Coverage 3,793 sq. ft. (10.9%) 40% Maximum of structures Setbacks* Front: Side (North): Side (East): 25’ 22’ 25’ from top bank of creek 25’ 22’ 22’ from top bank of creek Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 437’ 440’ 438.5’ 465.2’ (26.7’) Maximum Building Height is 468.5’ (30 Feet) * Per City Code Section 15-06.430(b), a lot bounded by only three lot lines will not have a rear lot line. 124 4 Pursuant to City Code Section 15-46.020(a)(1), any new structure within a multi-family residential zoning district requires design review approval from the Planning Commission. The application proposes four residential structures. SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Site Description The project site is a heavily wooded parcel located east of the intersection of Highway 9, Big Basin Way, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and Saratoga Avenue. Surrounding land uses include townhomes and condominiums located to the north, east and south of the property and a commercial property known as “Neal’s Hollow” located to the west. The property currently has a main residence, cottage, and small storage shed located on the northeastern portion of the site. Saratoga Creek runs along the eastern border of the property. Initial Submittal The application was received by the City in March 2012. The initial proposal included seven apartment homes with a request to remove eight trees (six being protected). After numerous meetings and discussions with staff, the applicant has revised the design that includes four apartment homes with a request to remove three trees (two being protected). Building Design The proposed apartment homes follow a craftsman theme that includes a low-pitched gabled roof, lap siding for the lower level with shingle siding for the upper, double-hung sash windows and extended eaves and decorative beams. Portions of the exterior (near the powder rooms, next to the garages) would be cladded with stone veneer. The proposed roof is a composition shingle. The exterior colors include a mixture of “Downing Stone” gray Hardie shingle panel walls with “Sage Green Light” windows, overhanging beams, and trim. The roof color would be a “shadow gray” CertainTeed presidential composition tile. Accents include Roycroft “Bronze Green” for the upper levels and “classic light buff” for the front doors. A color and material board will be available at the public hearing. Detail Colors and Materials Building Ext. Gray ‘Downing Stone’ and Grayish-Green ‘Bronze Green’ Hardie panels, in both plank lap siding and shingle straight edge paneling. Windows Light Grayish-Green ‘Bronze Green’ Millgard windows. Roofing Medium Dark Brown ‘Shadow Gray’ Certainteed Presidential composition tile. Accents / Columns Reddish-Brown “Aspen” stone veneer Building Height & Setbacks 125 5 The allowable height for Multi-Family Residential (R-M) zoning district is 30 feet. The heights of the proposed structures are approximately 27 feet as measured from the average grade to the topmost roof ridge. The proposed site is an irregularly shaped and most similar to a flag lot. Per City Code, the front lot line (on a flag lot) is the interior lot line most parallel to and nearest the street from which the means of access is obtained. Therefore, the lot line shared with Neal’s Hollow would be considered the front lot line. The required setback for that line is 25 feet. The side setbacks are based on the width of the site and the height of the proposed structure in R-M zoning districts. In general, the minimum required setback is 10 percent of the site width, with a maximum required setback of 25 feet. If a proposed structure is over 14 feet, than one foot of setback shall be added for every two feet of height over 14 feet. The average width of the site is 151 feet, which requires a 15 foot side setback for a 14 foot structure. The proposed structures are approximately 27 feet tall, which increased the 15 foot setback by an additional six feet. The new required setbacks are 21 feet. The project, as proposed exceeds the required side setbacks by placing structures 22 feet from the northern property line and 25 feet from the top bank of Saratoga Creek†, near the eastern property line. As stated above, all height and setback requirements are compliant with the City Code. Landscaping The site has a heavily wooded look to it and includes about 33 protected trees on the property. The applicant has not proposed a new landscape plan, because they wish to keep the majority of existing rural landscape intact. The flatwork proposed would be in the form of pavers, since they will be less harmful to the existing trees as traditional concrete. Two Monterey Pines, one in poor health and one dead, are being proposed for removal as part of the project. All of the other existing trees currently on the site (which includes a 40” Douglas Fir, 35” Sycamore, 33” Redwood, 40” Oak, and a row of 19 Redwoods and Sycamores along the western property line) would be preserved and protected during the time of construction. A security bond in the amount of $158,210 and appropriate tree fencing are required conditions by the City Arborist. Parking † Per City Code Section 15-46.035(a), where a protected creek passes through or along a building site or is otherwise located on the site, and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat, building setbacks for any new construction shall be measured from the top of the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the property lines of the site. 126 6 City Code Section 15-35.030. a multi-family dwelling requires one parking space within a garage and one and one-half parking spaces for each dwelling unit. The project proposed four multi-family dwellings, which would require 10 parking spaces (four within a garage and six additional spaces). The applicant has proposed 12 parking spaces (four within a garage and eight additional parking spaces). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Energy Efficiency Per City Code Section 16-47.040, all new multi-family buildings shall comply with all mandatory measures in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code. The project has proposed to incorporate energy efficient measures such as developing multiple bedroom units, diverting and recycling job site construction waste, reducing light pollution by shielding light fixtures and directing light downward, utilizing environmentally preferable exterior side furnishings and engineered lumber. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant sent out seven certified letters to neighboring property owners. She received three letters in return. One of the letters (the Homeowners Association for Summerhill) informed the applicant that they would post the notice for other homeowners to review. Staff also sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Attachment 5). The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. Staff has not received any comments on the project. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-46.040 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The project meets this finding because the multiple structures being proposed are not only harmonious with one another regarding size, height, craftsman-style architecture and natural, earth tone colors and exteriors, but they match a similar architectural theme developed by the Summerhill townhome development located adjacent to the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The proposal does not include any signage. Any future signage will be required to meet the City sign code requirements. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation 127 7 systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. This finding can be met because the applicant has designed the project to accommodate existing trees and vegetation on the site. Approximately 91% of the existing trees will be preserved, which includes numerous redwoods, oaks and sycamores. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. The colors and materials would blend with the natural landscape because the proposed non-reflective color tones include different shades of grays, greens, and similar earth tones, within the color spectrum similar to other multi- family residences in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The proposed project would utilize flat, composition tile as the roofing material. The proposed roof color is non-reflective and in a color tone blend of medium dark to medium brown. The applicant has not proposed mechanical equipment on the rooftop, because all of the equipment will be located on the ground and outside of the required setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project would be compatible with other developments within the multi-family zoning district because the nearby area is comprised of two-story commercial and multi-family residential structures with similar heights. This finding can be made in the affirmative. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 4, 2013 – June 24, 2013. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on June 26, 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 13-026 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval – 20440 Arbeleche Lane 128 8 2. IS/MND for PDR – 20440 Arbeleche Lane 3. Arborist Report – 20440 Arbeleche Lane 4. Photos of Site 5. Neighbor Notifications 6. Public hearing notice, mailing addresses, and map for project notification 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.” 129 RESOLUTION NO. 13-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV12-0001) AND APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW (PDR12-0004), LOCATED AT 20440 ARBELECHE LANE (397-27-029) WHEREAS, an application was submitted for Design Review approval approval to demolish an existing one-story residence and cottage in order to construct four, two-story apartment units and associated parking. The size of the units will range between 1,186 sq. ft. to 1,430 sq. ft. Design Review approval is required because any new structure within a multi-family residential zoning district requires design review approval from the Planning Commission. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 1, 2013 – June 24, 2013. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on June 26, 2013. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 1.1 in that the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached residences and LU 1.2 to continue to review all residential development proposals to ensure consistency with Land Use Element goals and Policies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project will be constructed with the architectural features and landscaping being harmonious with such features that include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances, any proposed signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance, proposed landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural 130 Resolution No. 13-026 appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced, colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective, roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition, and the proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the removal of two protected trees meets the criteria established in Section 15-50.080(a). Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV12-0001 and approves application PDR12-0004 for the project located at 20440 Arbeleche Lane, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 26th day of June 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Joyce Hlava Chair, Planning Commission 131 Resolution No. 13-026 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ENV12-0001 AND PDR12-0004 20440 ARBELECHE LANE (397-27-029) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 132 Resolution No. 13-026 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated April 23, 2013 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition No. 4, above. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. City Arborist Reports dated May 3, 2013, and all other future updated reports onto separate construction plan pages; d. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions dated November 28, 2012 onto separate plan pages; e. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; f. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16- 75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10. Landscaping. Sufficient landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department. 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 11. Private Road Condition. The applicant will be required to provide the City a videotape record of existing conditions of the access road prior to zone clearance. The applicant will be required to repair the access road, taking into account damage or erosion due to natural causes, to the existing condition prior to planning final and building occupancy. 12. Stormwater - The owner/applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The applicant shall use and maintain Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the site design and storm water treatment. 133 Resolution No. 13-026 ARBORIST 13. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Report. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated May 3, 2013, and all other future updated reports, are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. GEOLOGIST 14. Compliance with Geotechnical Clearance Conditions Memorandum. All requirements in the Geotechnical Clearance memorandum dated November 28, 2012, and all other conditions, as specified by the City Geologist are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. PUBLIC WORKS 15. Fees. The owner (applicant) shall pay all applicable fees prior to Zone Clearance. 16. Encroachment Permit. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 17. Trail Easement Dedication. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT. The property owner shall record a deed restriction, satisfactory to the Community Development Director, dedicating a 12 foot wide pedestrian trail easement along Saratoga Creek within the 25-foot creek setback to the City of Saratoga as provided in the Trail Easement Agreement and depicted on the Trails Master Plan included in the Open Space Conservation Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan. The property owner shall prepare a legal description and the plat plan for the trail easement dedication and submit to the City Public Works Department for review and approval. The exact location of the trail easement is subject to approval by the Public Works Department. This Trail Easement shall be recorded on the deed prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Building Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL 18. Habitat Mitigation. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following: • Should project construction be scheduled to commence between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting birds within the onsite trees as well as all trees within 250 feet of the site. This survey will occur within 30 days of the on-set of construction. • If pre-construction surveys undertaken during the nesting season locate active nests within or near construction zones, these nests, and an appropriate buffer around them (as determined by a qualified biologist) will remain off-limits to construction until the nesting season is over. Suitable setbacks from occupied nests will be established by a qualified biologist and maintained until the conclusion of the nesting season. 134 Resolution No. 13-026 19. Creek Mitigation. The project sponsor shall: ƒ Setback the proposed structures no closer than 25 feet from the top bank of Saratoga Creek. ƒ Erect construction fencing that will be placed along the creek to ensure that construction activities do not inadvertently impact those areas ƒ Require the project to follow best management practices ƒ To minimize the impacts of light and glare entering the creek corridor, lighting should be avoided at the edge of the creek corridor. All lighting on the property should be directed away from the creek corridor whenever possible. 20. Stormwater Mitigation. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following measures: • The project sponsor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction of the proposed project. It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), but it must be maintained on-site and made available to Water Board or City staff upon request. The SWPPP shall include specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At a minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and adhesives) with storm water. Ingress and egress from construction sites shall be carefully controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and shall include both dry and wet weather inspections. 21. Geology Mitigation. The project sponsor shall be required to provide the following: • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e. including building, setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The geotechnical consultant shall ensure that the grading plan identifies and appropriately mitigates all previously placed site fill materials. The result of the plan review shall be summaries in a letter by the geotechnical consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building and grading permits. • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Consultant shall observe the drilling of foundation piers to verify adequate embedment into competent native materials. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a 135 Resolution No. 13-026 letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. 136 Environmental Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration 20440 Arbeleche Lane – Arbeleche Apartments Owners: Fatemeh Asgari / Ezzat Lokzadeh Public Review Period: June 4, 2013 to June 24, 2013 137 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 2 1. Project title: Arbeleche Apartments 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 4. Project location/APN: 20440 Arbeleche Lane; Saratoga, CA 95070 397-27-029 5. Project sponsor name and address: Fatemeh Asgari & Ezzat Lokzadeh 20440 Arbeleche Lane Saratoga CA 95070 6. General plan designation: Multi-Family Residential (RMF) 7. Zoning: R-M-4,000 8. Description of project: The applicant has requested to demolish the existing single-family residence and cottage, totaling 1,500 sq. ft. in order to construct four, two-story townhome style apartment units and associated parking. The size of the units will range between 1186 sq. ft. to 1,430 sq. ft. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project is located east of the intersection of Highway 9, Big Basin Way, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and Saratoga Avenue. Surrounding land uses include multi-family townhomes and condominiums located to the north, east and south of the property and a commercial property known as “Neale’s Hallow” located west. 10. Other public agencies whose review is required San Jose Water Company West Valley Sanitation District Pacific Gas & Electric Santa Clara County Fire Department 138 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 3 Figure 1: Project Location 139 140 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 5 141 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 6 142 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 7 143 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 8 Figure 6: Topographic Boundary Survey – Arbeleche Apartments 144 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 7 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required Signature: Date: June 4, 2013 Printed Name: Michael Fossati 145 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 10 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 146 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 11 I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: a) The proposed apartment project will not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas because the project location lies behind and existing commercial structure and tucked away from any public right-of- ways. b) The proposed location of the project will not substantially impact scenic resources, including trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c) The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site as it consists of replacing an existing main residence and cottage with four well designed, modern apartment residences and associated parking. This impact will be less than significant. d) The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare because the proposed colors and materials of the project are earth tone, muted and natural. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Aesthetics (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12 and §15-45) II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 147 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 12 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION: a-e) The proposed location is not zoned for farm or agricultural land uses and it is not under a Williamson Act contract. No forest land, as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) exists on the property. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Agricultural and Forest Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project is limited to the construction of multi-family apartments within a multi-family zoning district. The residential use will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality plan, violate any air quality standards, result in the considerable net increase of air 148 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 13 pollutants, expose sensate receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air Quality (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a) Of the 20 special status animal species potentially occurring in the area, a total of three may reside within the project area. Site development may result in mortality of those species which are protected by State and Federal law. In order to mitigate this issue, the City has implemented the following mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The project sponsor shall incorporate the following:  Should project construction be scheduled to commence between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting birds within the onsite trees as well as all trees within 250 feet of the site. This survey will occur within 30 days of the on-set of construction.  If pre-construction surveys undertaken during the nesting season locate active nests within or near construction zones, these nests, and an appropriate buffer around them (as determined by a qualified biologist) will remain off-limits to construction until the 149 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 14 nesting season is over. Suitable setbacks from occupied nests will be established by a qualified biologist and maintained until the conclusion of the nesting season. b) The project location is adjacent to a riparian habitat, yet, because the existing community is already categorized as relatively low quality habitat due to the urban setting, the proposed project will not significantly alter the site. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The project sponsor shall:  Setback the proposed structures no closer than 25 feet from the top bank of Saratoga Creek.  Erect construction fencing that will be placed along the creek to ensure that construction activities do not inadvertently impact those areas  Require the project to follow best management practices  To minimize the impacts of light and glare entering the creek corridor, lighting should be avoided at the edge of the creek corridor. All lighting on the property should be directed away from the creek corridor whenever possible. c) The project will not substantially affect federally protected wetlands because no construction is proposed within Saratoga Creek. Furthermore, BIO-2 will require that any proposed structure will be no closer than 25 feet from the top bank of the creek, which is demonstrated on the plan set. d) The developed area of the site where the proposed project will occur does not constitute a movement corridor for native wildlife. There will minimal encroachment into the riparian habitat of Saratoga Creek, while the creek itself will be avoided. Site development will have little effect on home range and dispersal movements of native wildlife moving through the site. Therefore, this project will result in a less than significant effect on regional wildlife movements. e) The project has been reviewed and cleared by the City Arborist. Implementation of the arborist requirements will reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The project sponsor shall follow:  The entire City of Saratoga arborist report, dated May 3, 2013, which includes the report on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, within the building final set of plans. Mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Biological Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, Biotic Evaluation of Asgari Property Report (Live Oak Associates) dated 1/27/2012 and Supplemental Letter to Biotic Evaluation (Live Oak Associates, dated 2/12/2013) 150 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 15 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a-d) A cultural resource evaluation was carried out for the project at 20440 Arbeleche Drive in February 2001, where it was revealed that no recorded archaeological sites are within the proposed project area. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, Cultural Resource Evaluation for 20440 Arbeleche Lane in the City of Saratoga, California (Archaeological Resource Management) dated 02/25/2001. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 151 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 16 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? DISCUSSION: a) According to the Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, authored by City Geologist, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., “Construction will involve demolition of two existing single-story buildings. New improvements also include an emergency fire truck turnaround, access roadway and parking areas. Current plans do not indicate project grading volumes, but it appears that required grading for site development is relatively minor.” The major concern by the City Geologist was the possibility of liquefaction. The following mitigation measure would reduce the possible impact to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The project sponsor shall be required to provide the following:  Geotechnical Plan Review – The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e. including building, setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The geotechnical consultant shall ensure that the grading plan identifies and appropriately mitigates all previously placed site fill materials. The result of the plan review shall be summaries in a letter by the geotechnical consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building and grading permits.  Geotechnical Construction Inspections – The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Consultant shall observe the drilling of foundation piers to verify adequate embedment into competent native materials. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. b) The project will not result in substantial soil erosion as the project will be significantly setback from the top bank of Saratoga Creek. The possible impact is less than significant. c) There is a possibility of potential liquefaction, but by following GEO-1, the possible impact will become less than significant. d) The project may be located in an area where expansive soil can be found, yet by following GEO-1, the possible impact will become less than significant. e) The project location is within the city limits and will have access to adequate waste water disposal systems. 152 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 17 Mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Geology and Soils. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site and City of Saratoga General Plan) VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is included in the body of environmental document. While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to provide the public and decision-makers as much information as possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding the project’s direct and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the environmental document. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a-b) The proposed project involves the construction of four townhome style apartments and associated parking. As shown, the proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and zoning district and would not conflict with any plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 153 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 18 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION: a-h) The project consists of the development of four townhome style apartments. All site modifications proposed will not involve in the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.. The site is not included on any list of hazardous material sites. The site is not located within two miles of a public airport, nor is there a relevant airport land use plan. There are no known private airstrips in the vicinity. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, nor expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to hazards and hazardous materials. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 154 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 19 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow DISCUSSION: a) The project would not violate any water quality standards because the site, as conditioned, must provide adequate wastewater facilities for the proposed apartment units. The project has been reviewed and cleared by the West Valley Sanitation District with the belief that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed four units. b) The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supply because the project will not be constructed within the creek corridor, where groundwater is typically fed from. c) The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site because, as conditioned, the project will be required to dispose and provide treatment of stormwater that complies with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Standards and implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. d) See (c) above. e) See (c) above. f) See (c) above. g) The project will not be placed within a 100 year flood hazard area because it is setback 25 feet from the adjacent Saratoga Creek. h) See (g) above. i) The project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding because the project will have to comply with current building code regulations, which includes, but not limited too, appropriate pier and grade foundations and sufficient load bearing structures and details. 155 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 20 j) The project location is not near an area that would be affected by seiche, or tsunami. The creek is on a substantially lower grade; therefore mudflow will not result in impacting the site. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality Resources. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site) X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-c) The project includes the construction of four townhome style apartments with associated parking. The project has been designed to meet the required standards regarding setbacks, site coverage, floor area and height of the City Code. The project would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any known habitat conservation or natural community plans of the City of Saratoga. The project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan nor the regulations contained in Chapter 15 of the City Code. There is no known applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan in the vicinity of the project. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Land Use and Planning. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and site, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12) XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: 156 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 21 a-b) The project site is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral deposits of value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Mineral Resources. (Sources: City Staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan) XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: a-f) The project includes the construction of four townhome style apartment units and associated parking. Once constructed, the use includes residential living quarters for future residents. During construction, the applicant will be required to follow the standards established by the City’s Noise Ordinance. Since there will be a greater number of dwelling units than that is currently there, the ambient noise levels could potentially increase, but they would not increase to a substantially permanent levels. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Noise impacts. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project, Chapter 15 of the City Code, Article 7-30 of the City Code) XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 157 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 22 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a-c) The project includes the construction of four townhome style apartments with associated parking. The project will induce population growth, but the growth would not be substantial. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people because the proposed four apartments are replacing one main residence and one cottage. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project) XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: a) The developed site currently has one main residence and one detached cottage located on the property. Those structures will be replaced with four townhome style apartments and associated parking. The density of the site will increase, but only marginally, with a net increase of two dwelling units. The small increase in resident population associated with the project is not expected to substantially increase usage of any of these facilities, such that new facilities would be needed to maintain service standards. 158 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 23 Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Public Services. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project) XV. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a-b) The project may increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks, since the project will potentially increase the population of the area, but the increase would not such that it would substantially deteriorate a recreational facility or require the expansion or construction of a new recreational facility. As conditioned, the project applicant will be required to dedicate a trail easement, consistent with proposed future trails, as shown in the City of Saratoga’s Circulation and Scenic Highway Element in the City’s General Plan. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Recreation. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan) XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 159 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 24 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION: a-f) The developed site currently has one main residence and one detached cottage located on the property. Those structures will be replaced with four townhome style apartments and associated parking. The project site has a general plan and zoning designation to allow multi-family residential uses, which is being proposed. The increased density of the project may potentially increase traffic to and from the site, but the increase would not substantially affect the traffic flow or traffic patterns of the area. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project and City of Saratoga General Plan) XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: a-g) The developed site currently has one main residence and one detached cottage located on the property. Those structures will be replaced with four townhome style apartments and associated parking. The project would have minimal effect on existing utilities and service systems, yet those impacts would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new wastewater facilities or require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. The project has been reviewed by the sanitation district and solid waste hauler that will serve the project site and, as determined, there is adequate capacity to handle the increased density proposed by the project. 160 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Arbeleche Apartments Page 25 No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Utilities and Service Systems. (Sources: City staff’s review of the project, discussions with West Valley Sanitation and Waste Connections) XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a) Of the 20 special status animal species potentially occurring in the area, a total of three may reside within the project area. Site development may result in mortality of those species which are protected by State and Federal law. In order to mitigate this issue, the City has implemented the mitigation measure BIO-1 and BIO-2 in order to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. b) The project, as proposed, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project includes the construction of four townhome style apartments within a multi-family zoned district. The project property is located near a protected creek, but the applicant has provided a 25 foot structure setback from the top bank of the creek to mitigate impacts to the waterway. c) The project will have a less than significant impact on creating a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project will be constructed to meet the standards and objectives of the Saratoga City Code and State of California Building Code. GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES: 1. Biotic Evaluation – Asgari Property, Live Oak Associates, dated January 27, 2012 2. Biotic Evaluation Update Letter – Evaluation of proposes site plan for the Arbeleche Apartment project, Saratoga, California (PN 1595-01), Live Oak Associates, dated February 12, 2013 3. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation, Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and Safety Element) 4. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map 5. Cultural Resource Evaluation for 20440 Arbeleche Lane, Archaelogical Resource Management, dated February 25, 2001. 161 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. Application #: ARB12-0022 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 20440 Arbeleche Lane Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Ezzat Lokzadeh Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-27-029 Email: njavanmard123@yahoo.com Report History: #1 Date: Plans received March 29, 2012 Report done May 14, 2012 New design submitted: #2 – This report replaces report #1 Plans received November 5, 2012 Report completed November 7, 2012 New design submitted: #3 – This report replaces report #2 Plans received January 23, 2013 Report completed February 5, 2013 #4 – This report replaces report #3 Plans received April 29, 2013 Report completed May 3, 2013 PROJECT SCOPE The project proposes to demolish the existing buildings and construct four new two story apartment units with parking. Pines #62 and 63 are requested for removal as part of the project. Both trees meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced as part of the project. One magnolia shown on the plans to be removed is not protected by City Code, and may be removed at any time without a permit. CLEARANCE – with conditions This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the Conditions of Approval at the end of this report. PLAN REVIEW Plans Reviewed: A new design was prepared by Paragon Design Group, Inc. (not dated) and received by the Arborist on April 29, 2013. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet A-1, Proposed Exterior Elevations and Site Maps; Sheet A-2, Proposed Site Plan; Sheets A-3 and A-4, Proposed Floor Plans and Exterior Elevations. Revised civil plans were prepared by TS Civil Engineering, Inc. and dated April 22, 2013. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet C-1, Topographic Boundary Survey and Existing Page 1 of 7 162 20440 Arbeleche Lane Conditions; Sheet C-2, Existing Conditions , Topo/Demo Plan; Sheet C-3, Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; Sheet C-4, Preliminary Utility Plan; and Sheet C-5, Preliminary Grading and Drainage, Cross Sections and Details. For the initial submittal, an arborist report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates dated February 6, 2012, and a biotic evaluation report prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc. and dated January 27, 2012, were provided. TREE INFORMATION An arborist report prepared by Barrie D. Coate and dated April 9, 2013 reviewed the revised design and was submitted along with the plans. The designated Project Arborist for this project will be Barrie D. Coate and Associates. Tree Inventory: Thirty three trees protected by City Code were inventoried and appraised for the project. Each tree has been marked with a round aluminum tag, numbered from #41 – 73, for ease of identification. Inventoried trees include two Douglas firs (#41 and 72), one black acacia (#42), twenty coast redwoods (#43 – 60, 66 and 73), three California sycamores (#61, 65 and 69), three Monterey pines (#62, 63 and 64), one black walnut (#67), one California bay (#86) and two coast live oaks (#70 and 71). Data for each tree can be found in the Tree Inventory Table attached to the end of this report. Locations of trees and protective fencing are shown on the attached copy of the site plan. Tree Removals: Trees 62 and 63 are protected by City Code and requested for removal as part of the project. See the Findings section below for a detailed discussion of these two trees. Tree Protection: Chain link fencing is required around individual trees or groups of trees for protection during construction, and work is not permitted within these fenced areas. Fences are to be posted with signs indicating that they are for the protection of trees and may not be taken down or moved without prior approval from the City Arborist. Areas that require fencing are shown on the map attached to the end of this report and locations are shown on the Site Plan. No equipment is permitted on site until after the City Arborist inspects and approves tree protection fencing. See the Conditions of Approval for tree protection specifications. Douglas fir #41: This large tree is in good condition and serves as the focal point of the property upon entry. The proposed new driveway extends to about 13 feet from the trunk of this tree. The recommendation from Barrie Coate, to preserve the raised mound of soil to the east side of the trunk must be adhered to in order to protect this tree. He further recommends that fill soil used to raise the grade even with the mound be of a sandy loam. The new driveway may be contained with a curb on top of grade. To minimize compaction from vehicles on the driveway the use of biaxial geogrid is recommended. This material is commonly used to spread the load of heavy vehicles on roadways. Installation of the driveway should be monitored by the Project Arborist to ensure adequate protection of tree #41. Page 2 of 7 163 20440 Arbeleche Lane Acacia #42: This young acacia is in good condition and grows right next to the proposed driveway. It is likely that this tree will be compromised with construction of the new driveway. Barrie Coate recommends removing this tree in his report. The plans show it to be retained. Either excavation for the driveway should remain at least 6 feet from the trunk of the tree, or it should be requested for removal. Coast redwoods #43 – 60: These redwoods provide a screen for the adjacent property. They are all fairly healthy. They can be adequately protected with fencing during construction. Construction of the drainage swale between the trees and the property line should be accomplished either by adding small amounts of fill soil to raise the sides of the swale, or excavation by hand, leaving all exposed roots that measure two inches or more intact. The submitted detail does not consider trees. California sycamore #61: This large sycamore is out of the way of the project and not likely to be impacted by it. Chain link fencing can adequately protect this tree. California sycamore #65: This is a very large sycamore in good condition growing close to apartment #2. The Project Arborist has recommended a pier and on grade beam foundation for a corner of this apartment that is close to the tree. Installation of the foundation should be supervised by the Project Arborist where it is under the canopy of the tree. Coast redwood #66: This large redwood is in good condition and grows near to sycamore #65 and apartment #3. Barrie Coate has recommended the use of a pier and on-grade beam foundation for a portion of this apartment. Installation of the foundation should be supervised by the Project Arborist where it is under the canopy of the tree. California sycamore #69: This is a very large sycamore in good condition growing out over the creek. To adequately protect this tree, no roots may be cut within 15 feet of the trunk. Installation of the foundation should be supervised by the Project Arborist where it is under the canopy of the tree. Coast live oak #70: This young coast live oak is in good condition and can be adequately protected during construction with tree protection fencing. Coast live oak #71: This very large coast live oak growing below the proposed guest parking area is in good condition. The new design has relocated the guest parking and drainage so that they are 40 feet from the tree. This is acceptable. Douglas fir #72: This tree grows right next to the property line fence and is in fair condition. The patio should remain at least 8 feet from the tree’s trunk. Coast redwood #73: This redwood grows next to the driveway as one enters the site, and is in good condition. The new driveway should avoid excavation within six feet of the tree’s trunk. It is acceptable to install a driveway on top of grade and to contain it with a curb placed on top of grade. Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees: Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees impacted by the project is required. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a security deposit in the amount of $158, 210 for the protection of trees #41 – 58, 65 – 66, and 68 – 73, prior to the receipt of building permits. The security deposit may be in the Page 3 of 7 164 20440 Arbeleche Lane form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and acceptance by the City. Appraisals: Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. FINDINGS Tree Removal Whenever trees are requested for removal as part of a project, specific tree removal criteria must be met and certain findings made. If trees are approved for removal as part of the project, they may be removed after the building permit for the project has been issued. New trees become a condition of approval for the project to replace trees approved for removal. Trees #62 and 63 are requested for removal. Tree #62 is dead and tree #63 is in poor condition. Both trees meet removal criteria #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and qualify for removal. Tree removal criteria have been attached to the end of this report for reference. Replacement trees Two trees in 15 gallon containers shall be planted to replace the two pines. They may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This entire arborist report, including the Tree Inventory Table and attached map showing locations for trees and protection fencing, shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans. 2. Barrie D. Coate and Associates shall be the designated Project Arborist. 3. Trees #62 and 63 are requested for removal as part of the project. Both trees meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced as part of the project. 4. Tree Protection Security Deposit – $158,210 a. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit prior to obtaining Building Division permits. b. The deposit shall be for trees #41 – 58, 65 – 66, and 68 – 73 which are potentially impacted by construction. c. The tree protection security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project to ensure the protection of the trees. d. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City, the bond will be released. Page 4 of 7 165 20440 Arbeleche Lane 5. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”. e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting. 6. The Project Arborist shall monitor the following work: a. Demolition of structures inside of tree protection fencing. b. Installation of the driveway under the canopy of tree #41. c. Creation of bioswale under trees 43 – 50. d. Installation of foundations of apartments under the canopy of trees #65, 66, 68 and 69. 7. The applicant shall hire the Project Arborist to monitor the work listed above and prepare a report for the City following work that requires monitoring. The report shall include photos and documentation of how work was carried out. 8. The bioswale shall be constructed in a manner that roots measuring two inches or more in diameter are retained and worked around. 9. Installation of the driveway under the canopy of tree #41 shall incorporate special materials to mitigate the compaction of soil and spread out the weight of vehicles. 10. The new driveway shall be constructed on top of grade within the following distances: a. 2 feet from acacia #42 b. 6 feet from redwood #73 c. 15 feet from Douglas fir #41 11. Two new trees in 15 gallon containers shall be planted to replace the two pines approved for removal as part of the project. They may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property. 12. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 13. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 during all construction work. Page 5 of 7 166 20440 Arbeleche Lane 14. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 15. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards. 16. The grassy swale along the line of coast redwoods (trees #43 – 60) shall be constructed by hand and under the supervision of the Project Arborist. All roots measuring two inches or more in diameter shall be retained and worked around 17. The deck for apartment #4 shall be supported by piers. Holes for piers shall be hand dug for the first two feet. Any roots measuring two inches in diameter or larger shall be retained and worked around. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 18. The drainage dissipater pit has been designed to remain about 40 feet from oak tree #71. This is acceptable. 19. Landscaping under oaks: a. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy. b. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oaks. 20. Irrigation controllers, valve boxes and lateral irrigation lines shall be located outside of tree canopies. 21. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies. Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies. 22. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. ATTACHMENTS: Tree Removal Criteria Tree Inventory Table dated May 14, 2012 Map showing protective fencing around trees from the April 9, 2013 report by Barrie D. Coate Page 6 of 7 167 20440 Arbeleche Lane TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes; (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area; (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices; (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree; (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article; (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Page 7 of 7 168 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueDouglas fir 41 Pseudotsuga menziesii 44.5 50 80 80 Good High 2 $16,000 Black acacia 42 Acacia melanoxylon 14 25 90 80 Good High 2 $1,040 Coast redwood 43 Sequoia sempervirens 10.6 15 90 80 Good Moderate 2 $1,210 Coast redwood 44 Sequoia sempervirens 10.7 25 90 90 Good High 2 $2,030 Coast redwood 45 Sequoia sempervirens 11.5 25 90 90 Good High 2 $730 Coast redwood 46 Sequoia sempervirens 7 15 70 70 Fair Moderate 2 $520 Coast redwood 47 Sequoia sempervirens 7.2 10 60 80 Fair Moderate 2 $1,850 Coast redwood 48 Sequoia sempervirens 15.2 30 80 80 Good High 2 $2,090 Coast redwoodCoast redwood 49 Sequoia sempervirens 11.8 15 50 60 Good Low 2 $1,480 Coast redwood 50 Sequoia sempervirens 16 20 80 80 Good High 2 $1,600 Coast redwood 51 Sequoia sempervirens 11.8 20 80 80 Good Moderate 2 $2,840 Coast redwood 52 Sequoia sempervirens 15.9 25 80 80 Good High 2 $2,880 Coast redwood 53 Sequoia sempervirens 16 25 80 80 Good High 2 $2,600 Coast redwood 54 Sequoia sempervirens 15.2 25 80 80 Good Moderate 3 $2,640 Coast redwood 55 Sequoia sempervirens 15.3 25 80 80 Good Moderate 3 $2,840 Coast redwood 56 Sequoia sempervirens 9.2 15 60 80 Fair Low 4 $2,600 Coast redwood 57 Sequoia sempervirens 10.6 15 60 80 Fair Moderate 4 $1,000 20440 Arbeleche Lane May 14, 2012 169 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueCoast redwood 58 Sequoia sempervirens 6.5 10 40 40 Poor Low 5 $290 Coast redwood 59 Sequoia sempervirens 8 10 80 80 Good Moderate 5 $1,030 Coast redwood 60 Sequoia sempervirens 8.8 20 80 80 Good High 5 $11,600 California sycamore 61 Platanus racemosa 29 60 70 70 Good High 5 $11,800 Monterey pine 62 Pinus radiata 27 000DeadRemove5 $0 Monterey pine 63 Pinus radiata 21 20 20 50 Poor Remove 5 $350 Monterey pine 64 Pinus radiata 23 30 30 50 Poor Low 5 $730 California sycamore 65 Platanus racemosa 37 50 70 70 Good High 2 $18,200 Coast redwood 66 Sequoia sempervirens 35 30 80 80 Good High 2 $19,500 Black walnutBlack walnut 67 Juglans hindsii 17, 17 35 50 50 Fair Moderate 2 $3,500 California bay 24, 20, 20 68 Umbellularia californica16, 12, 10, 8 50 50 30 Fair Moderate 1 X X $23,600 California sycamore 69 Platanus racemosa 44 50 60 50 Good High 2 $16,900 Coast live oak 70 Quercus agrifolia 11 30 80 80 Good High 2 $2,160 Coast live oak 71 Quercus agrifolia 40 70 70 70 Good High 4 $26,400 Douglas fir 72 Pseudotsuga menziesii 19, 9 25 60 50 Fair Moderate 2 $2,920 Coast redwood 73 Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 25 70 80 Good High 2 $9,900 Total appraised value $184,930 Should any tree listed above be removed or damaged beyond repair, owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal to its appraised value. Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 20440 Arbeleche Lane May 14, 2012 170 20440 Arbeleche Lane Tree protection fence locations determined by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, are ap- proved by the City of Saratoga. Kate Bear, City Arborist. May 3, 2013 73 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 26th day of June, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: PDR12-0004 / 20440 Arbeleche Ln. APPLICANT/OWNER: Fatemeh Asgari / Ezzat Lokzadeh APN: 397-27-029 DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested to demolish the existing single-family residence and cottage, totaling 1,500 sq. ft. in order to construct four, two-story townhome style apartment units and associated parking. The size of the units will range between 1186 sq. ft. to 1,430 sq. ft. An Initial Study / Negative Declaration was required because both project is near riparian habitat. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 4, 2013 – June 24, 2013. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, June 24, 2013. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. Michael Fossati Planner (408) 868-1212 197 APN Owner Address City, State, Zip 397-22-015 SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DIST 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-018 SARATOGA CITY OF SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-021 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH INC 14370 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-023 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH 20390 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-032 JOSEPH & SUSAN D LONG PO BOX 95 SARATOGA CA 95071 397-22-033 DIPA H PATEL 20411 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-044 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH 14370 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-045 JOHN L OSTROWSKI 3417 TICE CREEK DR #8 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 397-22-066 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH 20390 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-22-067 SARATOGA FIRE DIST SCC P.O.BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94042 397-23-007 BIERACH FAMILY TR 20355 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-001 SARATOGA CITY OF 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-007 SARATOGA CITY OF 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-010 BO KOOK & ANNA PARK 14165 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-011 RAJIV & MINAKSHI MATHUR 14185 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-012 DANIEL E KAYPAGHIAN 14200 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-013 JAGDEEP & KAREN SINGH 14190 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-014 PAUL S CLARKE 14180 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-017 BREWER M L 14170 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-018 CYNTHIA A KERR 14160 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-022 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 397-27-025 GROVER B & MARYANN STEELE 20410 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-026 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 397-27-028 DAN W & GWEN L NEALE 129 WHITNEY AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 397-27-029 EZZAT LOKZADEH 20440 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-030 SUMMERHILL CREEKSIDE LLC 777 CALIFORNIA AVE PALO ALTO CA 94304 397-27-032 NEAL FAMILY LLC 230 MT HERMON RD #204 SCOTTS VALLEY CA 95066 397-27-033 LIN & CAI XIAOHUA SHEN 20520 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-034 THANH VAN WHITE 10705 DUBLIN CANYON RD PLEASANTON CA 94588 397-27-035 ARUN A & ANYA K IYENGAR 20580 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-036 JASON C & KATHLYN HUNTER 20890 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-037 YANBIN & DONG LI 20850 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-27-038 FARSHAD & MEHRI E HAGHIGHI 20810 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-31-003 ROBERT K LOUDEN 14285 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-31-004 TERRACE SPRINGS LLC 14527 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 397-31-005 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 397-31-008 DAVID L & SONJA A GUNN 14215 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-31-011 G & G MCCANDLESS PROPS LLC P.O. BOX 1962 LOS ALTOS CA 94023 397-31-017 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 397-31-020 ENGINEERING INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC 14395 SARATOGA AVE #220 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-001 JOSEPH P YONG P O BOX 714 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-002 EVELYN E DUGGAN 261 HARTZ AVE DANVILLE CA 94526 397-33-003 GRACE S HSU 14347 SARATOGA AVE #B SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-004 KAIMENG HUANG 18136 ARROYO LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-005 PATRICIA I CHUI 14349 SARATOGA AVE #B SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-006 PERRY ROPP 14349 SARATOGA AVE #C SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-007 BRUCE J & JAIME L BARCLAY 14351 SARATOGA AVE #A SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-008 DENNIS W & SHIULIEN KUO KING 14351 SARATOGA AVE #B SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-009 THOMAS & CHRISTINE M CSUBAK 19646 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-010 ROBERT W PENNELL 1432 CERRO VERDE SAN JOSE CA 95120 397-33-011 MULJADI JACK TR/FAM TR 14353 SARATOGA AVE D SARATOGA CA 95123 397-33-012 MARK H PIERCE 15070 BECKY LN MONTE SERENO CA 95030 397-33-013 BRAD R WATSON 14353 SARATOGA AVE #C SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-014 GERALDINE E MANN 19986 MALLORY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-015 MALEKSALEHI ELIZABETH L TR 14355 SARATOGA AVE D SARATOGA CA 95011 397-33-016 ANTHONY J & MARGARET J CANNIZZARO 19540 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 397-33-017 KAREN E BURGNER 14355 SARATOGA AVE #C SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-018 RAY W PERSICO 14761 6TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-019 JONATHAN W MULHOLLAND 14357 SARATOGA AVE #D SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-020 DOLLIE S LEY 19944 CHARTERS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-021 DAVID A & SUSAN H JOHNSON 18403 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 397-33-022 MAHTAB BRUDNY 14359 SARATOGA AVE A SARATOGA CA 94558 397-33-023 MARJORIE M BUENROSTRO 14359 SARATOGA AVE #B SARATOGA CA 95070 198 397-38-001 TABARI K & DORIS M KAM 16177 RIDGECREST AVE MONTE SERENO CA 95030 397-38-002 KATHLEEN J FILICE 14333 SARATOGA AVE 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-003 JAMES M & MARY A CAMPBELL 15495 LOS GATOS BLVD #9 LOS GATOS CA 95032 397-38-004 LESLIE E CASE 14333 SARATOGA AVE #4 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-005 JACQUELINE D ANDERSON 14333 SARATOGA AVE #5 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-006 RAJU FAMILY 1999 REVOC TRUST 19015 SPRING BROOK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-007 FARSHAD & NEDA GHAHGHAHI 14333 SARATOGA AVE #7 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-008 JOSEPHINE A CHRISTENSEN 14333 SARATOGA AVE #8 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-009 SURESH KUMAR & UPASANA KAUL BHAT 14333 SARATOGA AVE #9 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-010 JANNA C MACOY 6627 DARTMOOR WAY SAN JOSE CA 95129 397-38-011 NORMA SUTTER 14333 SARATOGA AVE #11 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-012 CATHERINE A CLIFTON 14333 SARATOGA AVE #12 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-013 JIE & HSU WEN-JUNG CHEN 13901 RIVER RANCH CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-014 HOLLICE & JEAN OBRIEN 2422 VILLA NUEVA WAY MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040 397-38-015 SHERI AMIRI 14333 SARATOGA AVE #15 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-016 PERRY T ZHENG 14333 SARATOGA AVE #16 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-017 BRIX FAMILY TR 14333 SARATOGA AVE 17 SARATOGA CA 397-38-018 IVAN MIN-HONG & JACQUELINE A LEE 14333 SARATOGA AVE #18 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-019 DANUT MANEA 14333 SARATOGA AVE #19 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-020 MAYLING WANG 20740 4TH ST #11 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-021 RADHIKA MAHAJAN 14333 SARATOGA AVE 21 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-38-022 NICKSON FAMILY TR 14333 SARATOGA AVE 22 SARATOGA CA 397-38-023 SUJAN CHAKRABORTY 14333 SARATOGA AVE 23 SARATOGA CA 95030 397-38-024 PERRY RICHARD L TR/TR 14333 SARATOGA AVE 24 SARATOGA CA 397-39-001 JULIE R BILLINGTON 14345 SARATOGA AVE #11 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-002 PRASHANT CHATTERJEE 14345 SARATOGA AVE #12 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-003 ELIZABETH AVVAKUMOVITS 14345 SARATOGA AVE #13 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-004 ELIZABETH A LESLIE 14345 SARATOGA AVE #14 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-005 WILLIAM SILVEIRA P O BOX 334 CUPERTINO CA 95015 397-39-006 JENNIFER CHANG 14345 SARATOGA AVE #16 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-007 ALYCE M & DAVID M KRAMER 14345 SARATOGA AVE #17 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-008 NAM & TRUONG NANCY LAM 14345 SARATOGA AVE #18 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-009 WILLIAM E LAGERSTROM 14345 SARATOGA AVE #21 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-010 GARY J & PATRICIA A VICK 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-011 MARK P PALAIMA 14345 SARATOGA AVE #23 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-012 LANI R SMITH 14345 SARATOGA AVE #24 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-013 HIROHIDE & JONIE O TAKATSUJI 14345 SARATOGA AVE 25 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-014 ROBERT S & JOAN V SEIPEL 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLOW SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-015 HELLENS C R VON 1909 E MEDLOCK DR PHOENIX AZ 85016 397-39-016 AURELIO & JING RIOS 14271 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-017 WILLIAM W REYES 14345 SARATOGA AVE #31 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-018 REZVAN ZAREBAGHBIDI 14345 SARATOGA AVE #32 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-019 ROBERT B & MARY R ABINGTON 14345 SARATOGA AVE #33 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-020 AUSAFF & MOHAMMAD A CHAUDHRY 12380 INDIAN ROCK WAY LOS GATOS CA 95033 397-39-021 PETER A TAFARELLA 14345 SARATOGA AVE #35 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-022 SARATOGAN 77 S COLINAS LN SAN JOSE CA 95119 397-39-023 BAHRAM NADIMI 14345 SARATOGA AVE #37 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-024 JEAN L & PHIL Z YOUNG 14345 SARATOGA AVE #38 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-39-025 SUZANA SEBAN 172 CLIPPER ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 503-23-010 DONALD K & MAYA BERNARDO 20544 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-011 ALLEN TRUST 20530 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-012 HOWARD O ALLEN 20520 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-014 NEALE FAMILY LLC 230 MT HERMON RD #204 SCOTTS VALLEY CA 95066 503-23-015 ALDO & HEIDI J OLIVERI 14225 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-017 MARGARET SEAGRAVES 13371 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-018 MARGARET SEAGRAVES 13371 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-019 GORDON A & HELEN J DUNCAN 316 NICHOLSON AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 503-23-020 CHICH-HSING & HSIAO-JEN TSAO 20567 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-021 YUAN HAI MEI 20571 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-022 IAN & HELEN WHITING 20601 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-027 VIRGINIA B HIGGINS 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-028 VIRGINIA B HIGGINS 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-029 HUGH A & GLORIA M JACOBS 20510 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-054 MYONG SHIN WOO 18800 TERRACE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 199 503-23-055 JOHN R & ROZ A FAZIO 18820 TERRACE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-056 JANICE & JOEL S CHAFFIN 18880 TERRACE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 503-23-057 CATHERINE D & MARK D WILSON 18815 TERRACE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 503-24-034 RONALD W & BARBARA S WORDEN 14505 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 503-24-038 S C V W D 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 503-24-078 MATTHEW & THERESA HARRIGAN 14401 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 503-24-079 DENNIS M CUNNINGHAM 16 KITE HILL RD SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 200 Notification Map APN: 397-27-029 500’ Radius Subject Address: 20440 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 201 202 ZONING MAP AEREAL VIEW OF THE SITE GENERAL PLAN MAP LOT R-M-4,000 RMF = RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY • PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS • • & SITE MAPS • • Proposed Arbeleche Apartments • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA A-1 APPLICANTS NAME: FATEMEH ASGARI SITE LOCATION:20440 ARBELECHE (OWNER ADDRESS SAME)SARATOGA, CA 95070-5439 APN:397-27-029 SITE PARCEL MAP FRONT ELEVATION TYPE C & D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION TYPE A scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION TYPE B scale 1/8" = 1'-0" PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 office@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 REV. 04-22-2013 203 63 (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED HEALTH=0% DEAD TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK 40" D. FIR 35" SYC. 33" REDWOOD 40" OAK44" SYC. sycamore 22" WALLNUT FIRE TURN-A-ROUND 2 3 4 1 1 CAR GARAGE 1 CAR GARAGE 1 CAR GARAGE 1 2 SARATOGA CREEK SARATOGA CREEK PATIO DECK N ORTH • P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N • SCALE. 1""=10'-0"5'-0"25'-0" SETBACK± 33' OPEN RAIL OAK SITE DATA: SITE SIZE 34,000 S.F. 1 UNIT PER 4,000 S.F. = 16,000 S.F. 4 UNITS ON SITE OK.25'-0" SETBACKREDWOODS REDWOODS OUTLINE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING OUTLINE OF NEW EXISTING RESIDENTAIL BUILDING EXI S T I N G PAR K I N G ARE A EXI S T I N G PAR K I N G ARE A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DATA: 1 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT UNIT (2 STORY) 3 4 BEDROOM APARTMENT UNITS (2 STORY) 4 COVERED PARKING 1 DISABLE PARKING 5 FULL SIZE PARKINGS 2 COMPACT PARKINGS 12 TOTAL PARKING SPACES A-2 EXISTING NEW MOTOR COURT 2 5 ' - 0 "16'22'1 CAR GARAGE DECK 4 5 3 7 8 compact compact A B C D A/C UNIT 61 62 (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED 64 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 50 51 52 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 41 (18) 65 (11) 66 (10) 67 (9) 73 42 68 (8) 69 (7) 70 71 72 1 CAR GARAGE + 25 ' BAY13' MIN.4'-0"6 6 A/C DECK DECK DECK + 8 ' A/C DOUGLAS FIR A/C HEALTH=50% monterey pine sycamore HEALTH=40%REDWOODS HEALTH=0% DEAD TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK 40" D. FIR 35" SYC. 33" REDWOOD 40" OAK44" SYC. sycamore 22" WALLNUT FIRE TURN-A-ROUND 2 3 4 1 1 CAR GARAGE 1 CAR GARAGE 1 CAR GARAGE 1 2 SARATOGA CREEK SARATOGA CREEK PATIO DECK N ORTH • P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N • SCALE. 1""=10'-0"5'-0"25'-0" SETBACK± 33' OPEN RAIL OAK SITE DATA: SITE SIZE 34,000 S.F. 1 UNIT PER 4,000 S.F. = 16,000 S.F. 4 UNITS ON SITE OK.25'-0" SETBACKREDWOODS REDWOODS OUTLINE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING OUTLINE OF NEW EXISTING RESIDENTAIL BUILDING EXIS T I N G PAR K I N G ARE A EXIS T I N G PAR K I N G ARE A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DATA: 1 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT UNIT (2 STORY) 3 4 BEDROOM APARTMENT UNITS (2 STORY) 4 COVERED PARKING 1 DISABLE PARKING 5 FULL SIZE PARKINGS 2 COMPACT PARKINGS 12 TOTAL PARKING SPACES A-2 EXISTING NEW MOTOR COURT 2 5 ' - 0 "16'22'1 CAR GARAGE DECK 4 5 3 7 8 compact compact A B C D A/C UNIT 61 62 63 64 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 50 51 52 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 41 65 66 67 73 42 68 69 70 71 72 1 CAR GARAGE + 25 ' BAY13' MIN.4'-0"6 6 A/C DECK DECK DECK + 8 ' rev. 01-15-2013 A/C DOUGLAS FIR A/C HEALTH=50% monterey pine HEALTH=50%sycamore HEALTH=40%REDWOODS PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 office@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 PROTECTIVE FENCE typ. PROTECTIVE FENCE KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE PROTECTIVE FENCE typ. lemon 10" mag.±12'8'1 2 ' ±12' + 15 ' (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED SHADED AREA INDICATES NO EXCAVATION AREA ALL BUILDING FOUNDATION @ THIS AREA SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY PIER AND ON-GRADE BEAM FOUNDATION @ THIS CORNER SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY PIER AND ON-GRADE BEAM FOUNDATION @ THIS CORNER SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY PIER AND ON-GRADE BEAM LEMON ACCESS ROAD NOTE: ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF (E) GRADE AND CONTAINED WITH CURB ON TOP OF (E) GRADE TO PRESERVE TREE 73 & 42 THE AREA OF PIRT TYPE FOUNDATION SHALL HAVE EXPLORATORY DRILLING AS PER ARBORIST (BARRIE COATE) RECOMENDATIONS TREE NUMBER NOTE: FIRST NUMBER BY CITY ARBORIST REPORT. 2ND NUMBER IN PARENTESIS (-) BY PROJECT ARBORIST REPORT, TYP. PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 office@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 REV. 04-22-2013 204 LINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINEN• PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS & EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS •A-3 UNIT 1 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS walk-in closet BEDROOM 12' X 11' BEDROOM 11' X 11'closet BATH BATH REF KITCHEN 10' X 8' LIVING 9' X 11'POWDER UP1 CAR GARAGE 10' X 20' CLR. DINING 9' X 8' C.L. PATIO REAR ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LEFT SIDE ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENUPCL 1 CAR GARAGE 10' X 20' CLR. POWDER BEDROOM 10' X 9' DECK LIVING 10' X 10' KITCHEN 8' X 10' BREAKFAST OPEN RAIL ON DECK RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR FRONT LEFT SIDE ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REARFRONT FRONT ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION scale 1/8" = 1'-0" scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LOWER LEVEL TYPE B scale 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL TYPE B scale 1/8" = 1'-0" ROOF PLAN TYPE B680 S.F. 535 S.F. 1 CAR GARAGE 215 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LOWER LEVEL TYPE A 441 S.F. 1 CAR GARAGE 215 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL TYPE B 530 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING TYPE A 530 S.F. UNIT 2 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 office@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 REV. 04-22-2013 205 • PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS & EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS •A-4 LINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENLINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENdwUP CL 1 CAR GARAGE 10' X 20' LIVING 10' X 10' POWDER REF KITCHEN 8' X 8'BEDROOM 10' X 9' DINE 8'X 7' DECK UPCL 1 CAR GARAGE 10' X 20' CLR. POWDER BEDROOM 10' X 9' DECK LIVING 10' X 10' KITCHEN 8' X 10' BREAKFAST DECK OPEN RAIL ON DECK RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION, TYPE C scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REARFRONT 438 436 434 432 F.F. 440 DECK ELEV. 439.50 FINISH & EXISTING GRADE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION TYPE D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR FRONT 438 436 434 (E) GRADE UNITS 3 & 4 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONSscale 1/8" = 1'-0" LOWER LEVEL TYPE D 535 S.F. 1 CAR GARAGE 215 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL TYPE D 680 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LOWER LEVEL TYPE C 535 S.F. 1 CAR GARAGE 215 S.F. scale 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL TYPE C 680 S.F. ROOF PLAN TYPE D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" LINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENLINEN MASTER BEDROOM 12' X 11' MASTER BATH DN BEDROOM 10' X 11'BATH BEDROOM 10' X 11'LINENROOF PLAN TYPE C scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION C scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION C scale 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION D scale 1/8" = 1'-0" PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 409 Alberto Way, Suite 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph.408.358.3707 office@paragondgi.com • www.paragondgi.com Arbeleche, Apartments Arbeleche Lane. Saratoga, Ca. Project # 21035 REV. 04-22-2013 206 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 10, 2015 Application: Design Review PDR13-0030 / Zoning Amendment ZOA13-0003 / Negative Declaration ENV13-0005 Location / APN: 19550 Prospect Rd. / 386-35-069 Owner / Applicant: Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose / Church of the Ascension Parish Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 19550 Prospect Road SITE 207 2 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P- C) to a 7.53 acre parcel (APN 386-35-069) and an application for design review to construct a 4,344 square feet single-story priest residence (rectory) at the Church of the Ascension Parish campus located at 19550 Prospect Road. The rectory would have the architectural style of a one story single-family residence and would be located in an existing lawn area at the corner of Miller Avenue and Ascension Way. The zoning of the site is single-family residential (R-1-10,000). The floor area, building height, and site coverage of the existing and proposed church buildings exceed the development standards of the residential zoning district. Since the site does not comply with the R-1-10,000 development standards, the placement of the Planned-Combined (P- C) Overlay District onto the existing residential zoning district would modify the standards of development of the underlying zoning district from R-1-10,000 to P-C / R-1- 10,000. The proposed zoning amendment as proposed is a project and is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared and is recommended by staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-021 adopting the Negative Declaration and recommend approval of the project to the City Council, subject to conditions of approval. PROJECT APPROVALS: The project includes applications for the following: Design Review Pursuant to City Code any new single-story residence or accessory structure greater than 250 square feet in floor area requires Design Review approval. Zoning Amendment Pursuant to the City Code, a purpose of the P-C combined district is to provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit which would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings that exceed the City’s green building standards, provides community facilities that are open to the public, or allows for innovative in-fill design. A P-C zoning district requires final approval from the City Council. 208 3 PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 7.53 acres General Plan Designation: CFS (Community Facility) Zoning: R-1-10,000 Proposed Allowed/Required Existing Site Coverage Church Buildings Paving New Site Coverage Priest Residence (Rectory) Total Proposed Site Coverage 35,551 sq. ft. 161,950 sq. ft. 4,344 sq. ft. 201,845 sq. ft. (61%) 196,020 sq. ft. (60%) Existing Floor Area Church Buildings New Floor Area Priest Residence (Rectory) Total Proposed Floor Area 31,276 sq. ft. 4,344 sq. ft. 35,551 sq. ft. 4,000 max allowed Height (Priest Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height Church Parish Hall Parish Office 1000.2 1002.8 1001.5 1017.9 (16.4 Ft.) 29’-6” 19’-6” 20’-6” 26 feet tall Setbacks (Priest Residence) Front (East – Miller Ave.) Rear (West – Scully Ave.) Left Side (South – Ascension Dr.) Right Side (North– Prospect Rd.) 38 ft. 100 + 26’-1” 100+ 25 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Per the above table, the development standards for height, floor area and site coverage exceed those allowed within the R-1-10,000 residential district. The City can approve a P-C district overlay when a proposed project will not conform to the underlying development standards provided that the proposed P-C district is consistent with the General Plan, would provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. Church of the Ascension has provided, and continues to provide, a number of public benefits, such as hosting weddings, religious and other community services, gymnasium use, meeting rooms, social areas for the general public, and housing the homeless. If approved, Church of the Ascension will have the opportunity to provide affordable below 209 4 market rate onsite housing for the Pastor and two assistant parish priests. A list of public benefits has been included as Attachment 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS History: On May 24, 1965, the City approved a Conditional Use Permit for a church and school to be located on a 10.6 acre site at 19550 Prospect Road at the intersection with Miller Avenue. The approved Use Permit and overall master plan (see Attachment 6) for the site included church buildings, classrooms for grades K-8, a convent, sport courts, play fields, and vehicle parking. The original farmhouse was retained as a parish office. The school, sports fields, and related buildings including the convent were not constructed as other catholic schools were constructed in the general vicinity (i.e. Sacred Heart) and the need for an additional catholic school diminished. In October 1972, the City approved a modification of the Use Permit for a revised master plan. This plan included the sale of approximately three acres, which had been set aside for the sport courts and a softball field, to Congregation Beth David for the development of a synagogue. The Synagogue was constructed in 1974 and the Planning Commission recently approved a remodel of the Synagogue in 2014. The sale left 7.5 acres for the Church. The revised master plan included retention of the church building and farmhouse and the planned future construction of a religious education building and rectory. In later years the 12,180 square foot religious education building was constructed and the farmhouse which had been used as an administration office was removed and replaced with a new 3,000 square foot administration office. The rectory was not constructed but remained as a future project. Site Description The 7.53 acre project site is bounded by Prospect Road to the north, Miller Avenue to the east, Ascension Drive to the south, and Scully Road to the west. Single-family homes are located on the opposite side of all adjacent streets. The two parcels owned by Congregation Beth David are located west of the site adjacent to Scully Avenue. Existing buildings on the Church of the Ascension site include a church building, a multi-purpose building, and an administration office. Three parking lots provide a total of 301 spaces for the church. Congregation Beth David has a shared parking agreement with the church for the large parking lot adjacent to Prospect Road. An open lawn area dominates the southeastern corner of the church site which had originally been designated as the location for the rectory and convent buildings. P-C DISTRICT ANALYSIS: Project Summary No changes are proposed for any of the existing buildings or the parking areas. New construction will be limited to the development of the rectory. As mentioned in preceding paragraphs, the master plan for the site included the future construction of a rectory to provide housing for the parish priest. The proposed rectory building will be located in an open landscaped area at the intersection of Miller Avenue and Ascension Drive in the general location as depicted on the master plan. The building will be 210 5 constructed to resemble a single-family home and would be compatible in scale as existing homes on the opposite site of Ascension Drive and Miller Avenue. The rectory will have one kitchen and three bedrooms. The 4,344 square feet one-story building will be approximately 16 feet in height and includes an attached two-car garage. The building will have a stucco exterior with a brick veneer wainscot, square windows, and an asphalt shingle roof. Garage access will be from Ascension Drive. The rectory will provide housing for the parish pastor and two assistant priests. The diocese will own the rectory just as they own the entire site and all of the buildings. The priests will not pay rent to live in the rectory and therefore it can be considered a below market rate unit or BMR in the Very Low Income category. The project includes a condition of approval requiring that the rectory will only be used for providing housing for parish priests and that a deed restriction will be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit requiring its provision as a BMR unit. An architectural rendering of the front of the building is located on the cover sheet of the Development Plans (Attachment 7). A colors and materials board is on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at the site visit and public hearing. Parking The site includes 301 existing vehicle parking spaces within the three parking lots. These include 236 spaces in the main parking lot adjacent to Prospect Road, 50 spaces in the lot adjacent to Ascension Drive, and 15 spaces accessible from Miller Avenue. The rectory will have a two car garage with driveway access from Ascension Drive. Congregation Beth David has recorded a parking agreement with the Church of the Ascension for use of the 236 space main parking lot. There has been little conflict with this shared parking arrangement as the primary uses of the two facilities occur on opposite days. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant reviewed the project plans with adjacent neighbors. Copies of the completed Neighbor Notification Forms with written comments are included as Attachment 5. Three of the adjacent neighbors provided project related comments. The neighbors at 19666 and 19642 Ascension Drive are concerned that the project would disrupt the view and “park like” setting of the applicant’s property and suggest that the building should be built closer to the other church buildings. The neighbor at 12111 Terrence Avenue supports the project but would like the applicant to address neglected landscaping along Ascension Drive. Staff has also sent out notices for the public hearing to all neighbors within 500 feet and has not received any comments to date. ZONING AMENDMENT FINDINGS The findings required for the issuance of a Zoning Amendment Approval for a Planned- Combined zoning district are pursuant to City Code Section 15-16.060(b) and are set forth below. The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of these required findings: 211 6 1) That the proposed location of the planned combined district is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The project meets this finding because the church is located on a site that has a General Plan designation of Community Facilities which has been reserved for private institutions, including, but not limited to, religious facilities. Furthermore, the site is located in a residentially zoned district which permits community facilities and institutional uses. 2) That standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community and produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the overall objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project meets this finding because the rectory will be constructed to resemble a single-family home in scale and appearance which will be consistent with existing single-family homes in the vicinity. 3) That the uses in the development will complement each other and will not adversely affect existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public health, safety and welfare. The project meets this finding because the uses on site will complement each other in that all buildings are used by the church; the existing residential land uses in the vicinity will not be adversely impacted by the project because the rectory is being constructed as a single-family home which will consistent with the adjacent residential land uses; the construction of the rectory building will require review by the building department and the issuance of a building permit to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 4) The application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes contained within Section 15-16.010. The proposed project meets this finding because the approval will allow the City to provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations, such as allowing the 29’-6” tall church structure, when only 26 feet is allowed, and encouraging innovative design that achieves a specific goal and policy of the General Plan, such as providing sufficient land area for public, quasi-public and similar land uses in Saratoga (Goal LU 4). DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-46.040 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The project meets this finding because while the 16.4’ tall rectory building will not be as tall as the 29’- 6” church building, it will be more consistent in height as the 19’ tall parish office and the 20’ tall parish hall which are both one story. In addition, the distance separating the new rectory building from the parish office and hall buildings reduces 212 7 the perception of height differences. The rectory building will be consistent in color and roofing materials as the existing buildings on site. (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 project meets this finding because the site contains one existing monument sign on the Prospect Road frontage and no additional signs are being proposed. (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. The proposed project meets this finding because the project will not be removing any trees; existing grass will be replaced with new grass to maintain landscape compatibility with the remainder of the landscaping on site which is also predominantly grass; new plants will be drought tolerant and will be located along the eastern side of the building to soften the buildings elevation as viewed from adjacent neighbors. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. The proposed project meets this finding because the colors of the exterior materials will include tan colored stucco, brown colored trim, gray colored roof tiles, and natural colored brick veneer; these colors are non-reflective and will blend with the existing landscape which is dominated by existing pine trees and grass. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The proposed project meets this finding because the roofing materials will be composed of gray colored asphalt shingles and no mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units, will be located on the roof. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project meets this finding because the rectory building will have the appearance of a single-family home design. The building will be located in the southeastern corner of the lot across the street from existing one-story single-family homes to increase the proposed building’s visual compatibility with existing single-family homes on adjacent sites. The rectory building will be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design as other residential structures in the vicinity. 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 213 8 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 May 22, 2015 – June 9, 2015. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on June 10, 2015. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Ordinance 3. Public Benefit List 4. Negative Declaration 5. Neighbor Notification Forms 6. Original Master Plan 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.” 214 RESOLUTION NO. 15-021 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV13-0005), ZONING AMENDMENT (ZOA13-0013) AND DESIGN REVIEW (PDR13-0030), LOCATED AT 19550 PROSPECT ROAD FOR THE CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Church of the Ascension Paris, for a Zoning Amendment and Design Review approval, to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to a 7.53 acre parcel (APN 386-35-069) and a design review application to construct a 4,344 square feet single story priest residence or rectory at the Church of the Ascension Parish located at 19550 Prospect Road. The rectory would have the architectural style of a one-story single-family residence and located in an existing lawn area at the corner of Miller Avenue and Ascension Way. The zoning of the site is single-family residential (R-1-10,000). The floor area, building height, and site coverage of the existing and proposed church buildings exceed the development standards of the residential zoning district. Since the site does not comply with standards of the existing zoning, the placement of the Planned-Combined (P-C) Overlay District onto the existing residential zoning district would modify the standards of development of the underlying zoning district from R-1-10,000 to P-C / R-1-10,000 to recognize the existing use of the site and the previously approved master plan. By allowing the P-C district, the City will further their objectives of providing a public benefit, such as exceeding the City’s providing community facilities open to the public and providing a below market rate housing unit. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2015, 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 May 22, 2015 – June 9, 2015. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on June 10, 2015. 215 Resolution No. 15-021 Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 4 in that the City shall continue to provide sufficient land area for public, quasi-public and similar land uses in Saratoga. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code Section 15-46.040 in that where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofing materials, color, and 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, and that colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective, and the roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission, and that no mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened, 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 City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV13-0005 and approve application ZOA13- 0013 and PDR13-0030 for the project located at 19550 Prospect Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 10th day of June 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 216 Resolution No. 15-021 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ENV13-0005, ZOA13-0013, PDR13-0030 19550 PROSPECT ROAD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 217 Resolution No. 15-021 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 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. Below Market Rate Deed Restriction: The use of the rectory is to be limited to providing affordable below market rate housing for parish priests. A deed restriction requiring the rectory’s provision as a BMR unit in the very low income category for a period not to exceed 55 years is to be recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 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 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. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; d. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 9. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 10. 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. 218 1 ORDINANCE __________ AN ORDINANCE REZONING ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 386-35-069 FROM R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED DISTRICT) CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION PARISH – 19550 PROSPECT ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Findings 1. Saratoga City Code Article 15-16 establishes the P-C (Planned Combined) District to provide the City the authority to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning district so as to achieve the following objectives: (a) To provide a means of guiding development or redevelopment of properties in areas of the City that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns and standards. (b) To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings that exceed the City's green building standards, provides community facilities that are open to the public, or allows for innovative in-fill design. (c) To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more specific goals and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. 2. A Planned Combined District may be combined with any zoning district upon the granting of a change of zone in accord with the provisions of this Article. A Planned Combined district shall be designated by the symbol "P-C" following the zoning district designation with which it is combined. 3. Existing buildings on the Church of the Ascension site include a 29’-6” tall church building, a 19’-6” tall parish hall, and a 20’-6” parish office. Three parking lots provide a total of 301 parking spaces. Total impervious coverage is 201,845 square feet. The Church proposes to construct a 4,344 square foot one story rectory building to provide housing for parish priests. The proposed rectory building will be located in an open landscaped area at the intersection of Miller Avenue and Ascension Drive in the general location as depicted on the master plan. The 4,344 square feet one story building will be approximately 16 feet in height and includes an attached two car garage. The zoning of the site is single-family residential (R-1-10,000). The floor area, building height, and site coverage of the existing and proposed church buildings exceed the development standards of the residential zoning district. Since the site does not comply, the placement of the Planned-Combined (P-C) Overlay District onto the existing residential zoning district would modify the standards of development of the underlying zoning district from R-1-10,000 to P-C / R-1-10,000. By allowing the P-C district, the City 219 2 will further their objectives of providing public benefit, such as providing below market rate housing and providing community facilities open to the public. 4. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission and City Council have each found that that the change is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance set forth in Section 15- 05.020, and following additional findings required in support of the rezoning to R-1-10,000 P-C: (a) That the proposed location of the planned combined district is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. (b) That standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community and produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the overall objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (c) That the uses in the development will complement each other and will not adversely affect existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public health, safety and welfare. (d) That the application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes contained within Section 15-16.010 (as set forth above, particularly purposes (b) and (c) under Finding 1 above). 5. The City Council may by ordinance adopt a change of zone to a planned combined district as applied for or in modified and/or conditional reclassification. The conditions of this rezoning are set forth in Attachment 1 hereto and include limitation of the exceptions to the City’s floor area, site coverage and height regulations as specified in Finding 3 above. 6. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2014, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof. Therefore, the City Council hereby amends the City Code as follows: Section 1. Adoption. The Saratoga City Zoning Map is amended to conditionally rezone ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 386-35-069 (owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose and also known as 19550 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California from R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED DISTRICT) subject to the conditions specified in Attachment 1 hereto. Section 2. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City 220 3 Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration which included a review of the environmental impact of this Rezoning and the City Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 4. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly notice public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on (insert date), and was adopted by the following vote on (insert date). COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________ HOWARD MILLER CRYSTAL BOTHELIO MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________ RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 221 4 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ORDINANCE _______ 19550 PROSPECT ROAD (386-35-069) CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This ordinance supersedes all previous use permit resolutions issued for an institutional use for this site. 2. All permitted uses per City Code Sections 15-12.020 and 15-12.030 are allowed. Additional permitted uses include a community facility, an institutional facility, a religious and charitable institution (per UP-80), a rectory to provide on-site housing for the Pastor and two assistant parish priests, and participation in the West Valley Rotating Homeless Shelter Program (per UP- 95-007). The homeless shelter shall conform to the following requirements: a) Shelter, meals, and employment assistance to a maximum of 15 transitionally homeless adults during the month of August. b) The program shall be operated only within the Parish Hall (Worner Hall). c) The Church shall submit the following information on an annual basis at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the program for Community Development Director review and approval: o Letters of approval from the Santa Clara County Fire Department, the Environmental Health Department and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. o A status report of the previous year’s program, and a projection of how many more programs will be provided (e.g. indefinitely, five more years, etc.). It is the Chuch’s responsibility to submit this information in a timely manner. Non-compliance with this condition shall terminate the Use Permit. d) At no time shall there be more than 15 shelter participants residing at the church, with no fewer than one (1) nighttime supervisor is attendance. e) The hours of the temporary housing program shall not exceed the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. seven (7) days a week. f) All activity (with the exception of showers) shall take place within the Parish Hall (Worner Hall). g) All food preparation shall be in accordance with the County of Santa Clara County Health Department Regulations. h) The Church shall post the names and phone numbers of representatives who will be available to address any neighborhood concerns or questions regarding the temporary housing program on the grounds of the Church. 3. The maximum site coverage is 61 percent. 4. All required setbacks shall be per City Code Section 15-12.090 for the R-1-10,000 zoning district. 222 5 5. Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15-35 of the City Code. 6. Construction of any future structures shall comply with applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15-45 of the City Code. 7. The total allowable floor area for the site shall be no greater than 35,551 square feet. 8. The allowable building height shall be no taller than 29’-6”. 9. All uses permitted on site shall be open to the public. 10. Use of the rectory shall be limited to providing housing for priests. 223 Church of the Ascension 19550 Prospect Road List of Public Benefits On site housing for the Church Pastor and two Assistant Priests Community meeting rooms Member of the West Valley Rotating Homeless Shelter Program After school youth programs Public Use of Gymnasium Weddings Receptions Birthday Receptions Polling Place Gift certificates for food for anybody who request Holiday Boutiques and Festivals Religious Sanctuary 224 Initial Study & Negative Declaration For: Zoning Amendment and Design Review Church of the Ascension Owner: Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose Church of the Ascension Parish 19550 Prospect Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Public Review Period: May 15, 2015 to June 3, 2015 225 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 2 1. Project title: New Priest Residence for Church of the Ascension 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner (408) 868-1235 4. Project location/APN: 19550 Prospect Road / 386-35-069 5. Project sponsor name and address: Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose 1150 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112 6. General plan designation: Community Facility (CFS) 7. Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R-1-10,000) 8. Description of project: The project includes a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to a 7.53 acre parcel (APN 386-35-069) and a design review application to construct a one story 4,344 square foot priest residence at the southeastern corner of the site near the intersection of Miller Avenue and Ascension Drive. The priest residence will have the appearance of a single-family home. No other modifications to the site are proposed. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project location is bounded by Prospect Road to the north, Miller Drive to the east, Ascension Drive to the South, and Congregation Beth David and Scully Avenue to the west. With the exception of Congregation Beth David all adjacent land uses are single-family homes. 10. Other public agencies whose review is required a. Santa Clara County Fire District b. Cupertino Sanitary District 226 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 3 Project Location Site Plan SITE 227 Building Elevations Grading and Drainage Plan 228 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 8 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required ____________________________________ ______________________ Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Date: April , 2015 City of Saratoga 229 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 230 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 7 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 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 exist in the vicinity of the project site. There are no scenic views or view sheds explicitly identified in the City’s General Plan or other planning documents. The zoning amendment and construction of the new priest residence in an existing open landscaped area at the corner of Miller Avenue and Ascension Drive would not have a substantial adverse effect on neighborhood views. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway The zoning amendment and construction of the new priest residence would not damage scenic resources, no trees are proposed for removal, and the location of the project is not considered historic. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The priest residence would be located at the corner of Miller Avenue and Ascension Drive. This corner of the subject property is an open lawn area and contains no buildings. Single-family homes are located on the opposite side of Miller Avenue and Ascension Drive. The proposed priest residence would have the appearance of a single-family home and would be architecturally consistent with homes on adjacent streets so as to not degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings. 231 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 8 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project would include the construction of one single-family home which would be compatible with surrounding existing single-family homes in materials, color, and appearance. The project would not be expected to be a new source of substantial light or glare or affect day or nighttime views in the area. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impact on Aesthetics. (Source: staff review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element, and Saratoga City Code §15-45). II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project is located within a single-family residential area and 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. 232 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 9 (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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: 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) and Best Management Practices (BMP) 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? 233 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 10 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: (a-f) The project would have no substantial adverse effect on existing trees, riparian habitat, sensitive natural community or species, wetlands, or corridors for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. (Sources: Staff review of the project) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a-d) The project site is a developed 7.5 acre parcel site within a residential suburban area. The site has been developed for more than 50 years and is not recognized as a historic structure on the Heritage Resource Inventory. The zoning amendment and design review would not substantially adversely change any historic resources, as there are no historic resources located on the property. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural Resources. (Sources: staff review and City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory) 234 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 11 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project includes a zoning amendment and design review for an existing church. Any proposed construction due to entitlement approvals would be required to follow the most recent International Building Code (IBC) which references proper construction methods regarding seismic issues, such as ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides. 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) 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? 235 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 12 DISCUSSION: a-b) The project includes the construction one priest residence which will have the appearance of a single-family home. CEQA categorically exempts the construction of one single-family home in an urbanized area. The project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions, or conflict with any policies for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The construction of one residence is consistent with the uses already located on adjacent properties. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of greenhouse gases. (Sources: Staffs review of the project) VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION: a-h) The project includes a zoning amendment and design review of an existing use and structures that are 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 would include no exposure to hazardous materials. There are no airports or protected wild lands 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. 236 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 13 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? 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 proposed project includes a zoning amendment and design review to construct one 4,300 square foot priest residence that will resemble a single-family home. The project would not violate water 237 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 14 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 proposed project includes a zoning amendment and Design Review to construct one approximately 4,300 square foot single-family home to be used as a priest residence. The existing site is currently used for religious service 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. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga Municipal Code, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element) 238 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 15 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? 239 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 16 DISCUSSION: 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). 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, public and private functions held by Congregation Beth David and Church of the Ascension, and landscaping activities. 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 is scheduled to extend over a period of 6-9 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. Mitigation would not be required, because the applicany 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 6-9 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 (community facility and single-family residential) are currently located within the project 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? 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 Table 1: Residential Ambient Noise Standards (dBA) Land Use Daytime Leq Lmax Evening Leq Lmax Nighttime Leq Lmax Outdoor 55 65 45 55 40 50 Source: City of Saratoga, July 2014. City Code, Article 7-30. 240 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 17 considered less than significant because the proposed construction is similar to other 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 Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a-c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The residence would be used as a priest residence for the Church of the Ascension and would be considered insignificant to induce substantial population growth. The proposed project would not displace existing housing. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace people or dwelling units. 241 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 18 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 firefighting 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 would result in the construction of one single-family residence and would have a negligible increase in demand for Sheriff services. Schools. The single-family residence will be used by priests of the local catholic dioceses. There will be no increase in demand for schools. Parks. Implementation of the proposed project would potentially increase park demand but the construction of one single- family home would be considered less than significant. Other public facilities. The project would include the construction of one single-family home to be used as a priest residence and would not substantially increase the demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. 242 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 19 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 Congregation Beth David, dated 12/11/13 – SCCFD ) 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? 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? 243 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 20 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) 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? Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially result in an increase in traffic because the existing and proposed use (community facilities) would remain the same. The proposed construction of the rectory would allow three priests to live on site and it is assumed that each priest would own a vehicle, however three additional vehicles is not a capacity that would be in conflict with the circulation plan. 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? Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a designated roadway to exceed a level of service standard established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency because the project is not expected to substantially increase vehicle trips on any road or highway within the vicinity of the project site. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project site is not located near an airport and, if implemented, would have no effect on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would not change public road access; therefore it would not increase hazards due to design features. 244 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 21 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Implementation of the proposed project would not cause inadequate emergency access because the project, as conditioned, is required to construct (or maintain) adequate emergency access to the project site. The project sponsor will utilize existing driveways to enter the site, which already satisfies the requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. 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? Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted plans, policies, or programs supporting alternative transportation because the City of Saratoga does not have such policies as part of single-family residential development or a lot line adjustment application. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic. (Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Circulation Element, Developmental Review Comments for Congregation Beth David, dated 12/11/13 – SCCFD ) 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: 245 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 22 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. Furthermore, the proposed addition is modest in size, with only one new restroom facility being proposed, which can be maintained by the existing sanitation district without increasing capacity. 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 Thanh Nguyen, Cupertino Sanitation District, dated 6/24/14) 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)? 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. Furthermore, there are no examples of structures that reflect major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 246 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 19550 Prospect Road Page 23 The proposed project would result in the continuation of community facilities with the potential of the addition of residential lots within an existing residential neighborhood, in a way that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning regulations. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed projects 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 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 April 2015) 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 April 2015) 9. California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed April 2015). 10. FEMA Map Service Center, Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/(accessed April 2015.) 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 f 4t 0 f ILL th C- i69 %I&( EL, VOLLE b&LL L 1 0 L I I i f - ... IT T=F1 Y- L 1 r_ / —r T / fl 2 0, OOL 3 . ...... ILI E M / SI 0 L Of T b4LL AV bA%E11bkLL NA 6 4 1. it I tl I L r' It WOJf P LO J I ( T PLOT LiV001 10 0 0 0 1 T 10 4 Illl 6 1 L I I I • I. 10 L( A t 111 L 10 E-1 F, 1. I h I I L 1000, T L I L 13. 0LWOL1 0 It V [ NT i1 LV C 19 L I L 1 0 ( I M(LO1 10) I U 1 0 u D L I Y E L 9 C Y V L I L 0 17 A I L 1.4H LOG KS 9 %1 LU [ 10 L I L7klL( S L t 1. A UPITO Lt UK 14 1 V 9 1 LL) 1 L it A to. I Lt k I T a(? V 11, 1 166L k Q p W14 10 Vt E I, 11-1 LLOM % V 0 0 W Oil LS 141 : Ll 0 L t L t Tit 16 4 1 111711LIGIL f Lt V 11 10 k % 14. Ia1EL10L IEYIIL r- E'I Eu(tutll fret M a t . P L o T 14 M CILIM LOOL 111k tj L 0 T W(TILML I T I I I f L I M bI 1IG I I T I l 14 11 No f L06 L tLkN M L I A I I L'I L (00111111$11 Pilo Itit, r I, 10 1 ftis Its fAltild-lit, 011 1 L V. Will I A M b d n neFLML1111%0 IND WWII[% tid Th L r L AMUE G aQ9 [ L L. LIME4 MAMMOR I-1-h- I L 0 p E E M U E M I L L E W. REPRODUCTION OF THIS 00 UMENT 1110T BE I ITION 7 Iv Vgwf.- A A Jwk, aj. . 12 t. ii 41 9, — 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263