The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-24-15 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents Agenda 3 May 27, 2015 and June 10, 2015 May 27, 2015 5 June 10, 2015 8 Applications CUP14-0009/PDR15-0003; 12600 Saratoga Avenue (386-14-003); Abe Kaabipour / Black & Veatch – The applicant previously submitted an application requesting a modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit and approval of a Design Review application to install a hydrogen fuel cell and dispenser at the service station. The additional dispenser and related equipment will be located behind the existing sales office building in a screened structure and adjacent to the northeast property line. The net site area is 22,500 square feet and the property is zone RM-5,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 Staff Report 10 Attachment 1 -18 Attachment 2 - April 16, 2015 PC Report 23 Attachment 3 - Traffic Study 33 Attachment 4 - Landscape Plan 39 Attachment 5 - Existing CUP 41 Attachment 6 - List of Cities with Hydrogen Fueling Facilites 44 Attachment 7 - Background Information 45 Attachment 8 - Fire Review 50 Attachment 9 - Arborist Report 52 Attachment 10 - Sheriff's Data 60 Attachment 11 - Neighbor Notification Forms 61 Attachment 12 - Neighborhood Outreach 66 Attachment 13 - Written Public Comments 75 Attachment 14 - Public Hearing Notice 80 Attachment 15 - Option 1 Photo Sim 85 Attachment 16 - Option 2 Photo Sim 94 Attachment 17 - Option 3 Photo Sim 103 Attachment 18 - Development Plans 112 Application ZOA15-0006, Citywide - Amendment of City Code 15-50.070 of the Tree Regulations - The City Council has requested an amendment to permit the expedited removal of dead trees through an over the counter process. Staff Report 132 Resolution 134 Exhibit A 136 1 Application PDR14-0024/ARB13-0071; 14538 Horseshoe Dr (397-20-032); Oscar Bakhtiari - The applicant is requesting approval for a new 25’-11” tall, 5,996 square foot one-story home with a 451 square foot second unit and a basement. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new one-story home residence over 18 feet in height. Twenty-five protected trees are being proposed for removal and three are proposed to be transplanted to different locations on the lot. Staff Contact: Justin Shiu, (408)868-1230. Staff Report 138 Att. 1 144 Att. 2 149 Att. 3 151 Att. 4 165 Application PDR10-0009/VAR15-0002; 15397 Peach Hill Road; 517-22-100; Amini - The applicant requests Design Review and Variance approval to construct a 357 square foot addition to an existing 5,238 square feet, three-story, single-family residence. In addition, the project includes extensive remodeling of the exterior of the residence resulting in a completely different architectural style. The maximum height of the project is 26 feet. The parcel size is approximately 1.2 acres and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408)868-1235 Staff Report 166 Attachment 1 - Resolution 173 Attachment 2 - Neighbor Notices 177 Attachment 3 - Photo Rendering 181 Attachment 4 - Public Hearing Notice 182 Attachment 5 - Project Plans 183 Application ZOA15-0007/ENV15-0004; City Wide; Kevin Tsai – The applicant is request a City Code Amendment to modify Article 16-65 (Ground Movement Regulations) of the City Code as they pertain to limiting construction in the Pmw, Pd, and Pdf geotechnical zones as depicted on the City’s Ground Movement Potential Map. The modifications would allow residential remodels and additions to existing single-family homes to a maximum remodel of 50% of the existing building footprint and additions of whichever is greater 500 square feet or 25% of the square footage of the existing structure when geotechnical remediation has been shown to be technically or financially infeasible. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235. Staff Report 192 Attachment 1 - Resolution 196 Attachment 1A - Negative Declaration 199 Attachment 1B - Ordinance 234 2 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 24, 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 and June 10, 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. Applications CUP14-0009/PDR15-0003; 12600 Saratoga Avenue (386-14-003); Abe Kaabipour / Black & Veatch – The applicant previously submitted an application requesting a modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit and approval of a Design Review application to install a hydrogen fuel cell and dispenser at the service station. The additional dispenser and related equipment will be located behind the existing sales office building in a screened structure and adjacent to the northeast property line. The net site area is 22,500 square feet and the property is zone RM-5,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 Recommended action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review applications with the architectural modifications as depicted in Option Two with the required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution with a determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval for this project. 2. Application ZOA15-0006, Citywide - Amendment of City Code 15-50.070 of the Tree Regulations - The City Council has requested an amendment to permit the expedited removal of dead trees through an over the counter process. Recommended action: 3 Adopt Resolution No. 15-024, which amends Section 15-50.070 of the Tree Regulations, and recommends approval of the Code Changes to the City Council. 3. Application PDR14-0024/ARB13-0071; 14538 Horseshoe Dr (397-20-032); Oscar Bakhtiari - The applicant is requesting approval for a new 25’-11” tall, 5,996 square foot one-story home with a 451 square foot second unit and a basement. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new one-story home residence over 18 feet in height. Twenty-five protected trees are being proposed for removal and three are proposed to be transplanted to different locations on the lot. Staff Contact: Justin Shiu, (408)868-1230. Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-030 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 4. Application PDR10-0009/VAR15-0002; 15397 Peach Hill Road; 517-22-100; Amini - The applicant requests Design Review and Variance approval to construct a 357 square foot addition to an existing 5,238 square feet, three-story, single-family residence. In addition, the project includes extensive remodeling of the exterior of the residence resulting in a completely different architectural style. The maximum height of the project is 26 feet. The parcel size is approximately 1.2 acres and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408)868-1235 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-029 approving Design Review PDR10-0009 and VAR15-0002 subject to conditions of approval 5. Application ZOA15-0007/ENV15-0004; City Wide; Kevin Tsai – The applicant is request a City Code Amendment to modify Article 16-65 (Ground Movement Regulations) of the City Code as they pertain to limiting construction in the Pmw, Pd, and Pdf geotechnical zones as depicted on the City’s Ground Movement Potential Map. The modifications would allow residential remodels and additions to existing single-family homes to a maximum remodel of 50% of the existing building footprint and additions of whichever is greater 500 square feet or 25% of the square footage of the existing structure when geotechnical remediation has been shown to be technically or financially infeasible. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235. Recommended action: Recommend the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration. 2. Adopt an ordinance which includes various changes to Articles 15-45 (Design Review) and 16-65 (Ground Movement Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code. 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 18, 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 WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS: 1) Provide privacy screening trees along the west property line. 2) Incorporate the proposed driveway design revision. 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. ADJOURNMENT WALIA MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:01 PM. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 7 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 10, 2015 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ROLL CALL PRESENT Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Leonard Almalech, 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 27, 2015 Action WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO CONTINUTE THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 24, 2015 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. 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 8 Action: HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-017 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 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. Action: WALIA/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-027 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 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. Action: SMULLEN/CHANG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-026 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 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 Action: HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-021 WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. - Modify the square footage of the rectory as listed in the resolution and staff report from 4,344 square feet to 3,775 feet and the overall site coverage is to be reduced to reflect the change. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ADJOURNMENT WALIA MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:00 PM. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 9 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 24, 2015 (Continued from April 22, 2015) Application: Conditional Use Permit CUP14-0009 Design Review PDR15-0003 Location / APN: 12600 Saratoga Avenue / 386-14-003 Owner / Applicant: Abe Kaabipour / Black & Veatch Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 12600 Saratoga Avenue SITE 10 Page 2 of 8 SUMMARY ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION MULTI-FAMILY RES. (R-M-5,000) RES. MULTI-FAMILY (RMF) PARCEL SIZE 22,500 SQUARE FEET PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant previously submitted an application requesting a modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit and approval of a Design Review application to install a hydrogen fuel cell and dispenser at the service station. The additional dispenser and related equipment will be located behind the existing sales office building in a screened structure and adjacent to the northeast property line. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on April 22, 2015 and continued the application to address the following design considerations and requests for information: · An on-site vehicular circulation plan · Revised directional signage · Improved aesthetics of the gas station building · Landscape plan The applicant has submitted a Traffic Operations Study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants which analyzed the vehicle movements of gasoline and hydrogens customers and delivery trucks. The applicant also submitted a landscape plan for the site. Finally, the applicant provided three possible options, one preferred and two alternatives, for architectural modifications to the existing service station building as well as the hydrogen enclosure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review applications with the architectural modifications as depicted in Option Two with the required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution with a determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval for this project. 11 Page 3 of 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTON AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Background: A full detailed analysis of the project can be found within the April 22, 2015 staff report (Attachment 2). The project was continued to the meeting of June 24, 2015 in order for the applicant to address concerns made by the Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted additional information and revised plans to address the concerns raised by the Commission which is discussed in the following paragraphs. On-site Vehicle Circulation The Commission expressed concerns related to the current on-site circulation at the gas station and the possible impacts to on-site circulation with the addition of the hydrogen station. In addition, the Commission discussed possible improvements to signage to improve on-site circulation for both vehicles and delivery trucks. The applicant submitted a Traffic Operations Study for the site dated June 8, 2015 prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Attachment 3). The traffic consultant observed the site on a weekday afternoon and determined that traffic entering and existing at all three driveways was light, with no onsite congestion, and that gasoline customers were able to access the pump islands from either direction. The hydrogen facility will be located behind the gas station. The report states that the physical separation of the hydrogen facility and the gasoline pumps is expected to minimize conflict with existing gasoline customers and delivery trucks. The report also recommends that the hydrogen fueling pump be marked for access by northbound traffic entering on Saratoga Avenue and driving behind the station. The report provides the following two options: 1) Lane markings in advance of the hydrogen pump as depicted in Option One. 2. A north-pointing arrow installed on the pavement north of the pump island as depicted in Option Two. Option 2 is preferred by the applicant because they are developing a smart phone App which will direct hydrogen fuel customers directly to the dispenser thereby eliminating lane markings in front of the dispenser. Staff has previously met with the applicant and stated a preference for Option One with the request that the lane markings for a ‘Hydrogen Lane’ be extended to a point at least adjacent to the south side of the building or beyond so they are visible to hydrogen customers entering the site. This has been added as a condition of approval. The analysis also considered additional driveway restrictions, such as requiring an exit driveway on Bucknall Road, but due to the size of the site, limited number of fuel pumps, and small sales office, the report recommends that the traffic circulation on-site not be further constrained beyond the pavement markings for the hydrogen facility. It is recommended that the driveway pavement arrows be repainted and obsolete arrows removed to eliminate conflicting traffic movements. An analysis was also made of the hydrogen and gasoline delivery truck routes. While the routes do overlap in specific 12 Page 4 of 8 locations, due to light traffic and restricted delivery times, the report states that conflicts are not a significant concerns. Aesthetics of the gas station building and hydrogen enclosure The applicant has submitted three design alternatives for the hydrogen enclosure and the gas station building. The hydrogen enclosure has a flexible design that can be modified based on the selected design of the gas station building. The attached photo simulations (Attachments 15-17) visually depict the enclosure and the three designs for the gas station building. The applicant has stated that that each design has increasing levels of cost, all of which attempt to improve the aesthetics on-site and with the surrounding development. Hydrogen Enclosure The design expresses its functional nature by maintaining the appearance of the enclosure, while relating to the main buildings material palette without duplicating its form. Slumpstone columns will visually support the steel trellis members and serve to break up the mass of the enclosure. Board and batten exterior siding would be used for Options One and Two and the stucco wall for Option Three both relate to the main building siding in form, texture, and color. The trellis and upper panels will be painted charcoal to relate to the roof of the gas station building and visually reduce the appearance of the enclosures height. Grape vines and shrubs around the enclosure will soften the mass of the enclosure and reduces its visual impacts as view from off site. Gas Station Building Option One – The design would update the original appearance of the building with new paint and repairs to exterior materials. The design of the building was originally designed to be compatible with the surrounding mid-century ranch style neighborhood with its shingle roof, wood siding and slumpstone trim. The slumpstone will be sandblasted to remove the existing paint and expose the natural color of the material. The roof will be painted charcoal grey and a blue band would be painted around the building to match and unify the canopy with the building. These minor changes will maintain the character of the existing building while providing it with a fresh exterior appearance. Option Two –. The existing exterior materials of the main building include either cedar or redwood of substantial thickness and painted slumpstone. Both the wood siding and the stone would be sandblasted to remove the existing paint. The wood siding would be finished with opaque stains to maintain its original natural color. The slumpstone would have the texture and appearance of the original and would match the stone used for the enclosure. A new slumpstone wainscot would be added to the north side of the building and near the western side near the cashier. Existing iron window bars on both the south and east elevations would be removed to provide a less imposing appearance. The roof would be painted charcoal grey. A grape arbor and additional landscaping would be located at the buildings front. A blue strip on the building would help increase the integration with the existing canopy. Option Three – This design would include resurfacing the exterior of the gas station building with smooth stucco. The slumpstone would be sandblasted to its natural color and the window bars would be removed. A new slumpstone wainscot would be added to the north side of the building and near the western side near the cashier. Window bars would be 13 Page 5 of 8 removed. A grape arbor and additional landscaping would be located near the front of the building. The roof would be painted charcoal grey and the fascia would be painted blue to match the color of the canopy. According to the applicant, this design may require extensive construction to the site, including modifying the electrical wiring that may disrupt the operation of the business and the added cost will not allow for energy efficiency lighting improvements, as stucco is the most expensive of the three options. Option Two is the design preferred by the applicant as it uses the least invasive construction method to achieve improvement. Restoring the current building materials instead of demolishing them could be considered as more environmentally friendly as compared to Option Three. Because this option is the most cost effective, the applicant has stated that additional improvements could be made to the site such as energy efficiently lighting upgrades. Landscape Plan The applicant submitted a landscape plan (Attachment 4). It includes drought tolerant native plants and shrubs located at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road, in the island between the two driveways on Bucknall Road, and near the hydrogen enclosure. Shrubs that will grow 6-8 feet tall will be planted along the southern and western property line to provide additional screen for neighboring property owners. All landscaping would have drip irrigation. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit Findings The findings required for issuance of a Use Permit pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.040 as set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of the required findings: (a) The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Project meets this finding. A gasoline service station has been located on the site for over 50 years and was existing prior to the City’s incorporation in 1956. The service station is one of three gasoline service stations in Saratoga where residents can purchase gasoline. It will be the only station in the City where hydrogen will be sold to power hydrogen vehicles and is integral to development of a statewide hydrogen network and is consistent with the State of California’s mandate for providing zero emission fuels which will help to reduce air pollution. The service station is located on Saratoga Avenue which is a major arterial and is near the Highway 85 interchange. The hours of operation of the service station will not be modified with the introduction of the hydrogen fueling so as to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. The hydrogen fueling facility has been reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and no negative impacts were identified and a separate review of the plans for the facility and an issuance of a permit by the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Division must be obtained. (b) The proposed conditional use will [not] adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, or will [not] adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The Project meets this finding. The service station includes a 1,176 14 Page 6 of 8 square foot one-story gasoline service station sales office, a gasoline service island with four gasoline pumps, each with two nozzles with the capability of fueling eight vehicles simultaneously, an overhead canopy covering the gas pumps, and a freestanding price/identification sign. The addition of a hydrogen fueling facility will not include a modification of the stations allowed operating hours nor changes to onsite vehicle circulation that could adversely affect surrounding properties. The hydrogen fueling facility has been reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and no negative impacts to surrounding properties is anticipated – the facility will also be reviewed and a permit issued by the Santa Clara County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division prior to building permit issuance. The applicant has submitted a noise study which indicates that the noise produced by the hydrogen fueling facility will below the daytime and evening noise limits. The facility will not be operational during nighttime hours and no noise will be generated. The traffic generation rate of 162 new daily trips which include 10 A.M. peak-hour trips and 13 P.M. peak-hour trips using the standard trip generation rates for service stations is not conserved significant. There is no evidence that the operation of the hydrogen fueling facility would adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood or surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. (c) The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Saratoga City Code. The Project meets the required findings for Use Permit establishing the parameters for the site to operate as a service station. The project has been conditioned to comply with all applicable City regulations including, but not limited to the requirements of the Saratoga Building and Zoning Regulations. (d) The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Project meets the required findings for Use Permit establishing the parameters for site to operate as a service station. The project has also been conditioned to comply with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction. A gasoline service station has existed on the subject site prior to the City’s incorporation in 1956 and the City and there is no evidence of detriment to public health, safety or welfare from such uses or material injury to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Design Review 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, roof material, color and appurtenances. The project meets this finding. The hydrogen storage tanks will be housed in a 647 square feet 13 feet tall concrete enclosure located behind the service station and adjacent to the eastern property line. The design of the enclosure will be consistent in appearance as the gas station building and will include ‘board and batten’ siding and matching paint colors. The associated electrical equipment including a pad transformer will be located behind the concrete enclosure and will not be visible from offsite. The facility will primarily be visible from Bucknall Road and the intersection with Saratoga Avenue. 15 Page 7 of 8 (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. This finding is not applicable as the site has one existing sign and no other signs are 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 for the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The project meets this finding as no trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist has identified a total of four trees along the eastern property line in potential conflict with the project and which qualify for removal. These include three Evergreen ash ranging in size from 16 – 32 inches in diameter which are in poor health and an 11” diameter Coast live oak in poor condition. The applicant intends to preserve all four trees and will coordinate with their project arborist and the city arborist to save the trees. New landscaping is proposed. It includes drought tolerant native plants and shrubs located at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road, in the island between the two driveways on Bucknall Road, and near the hydrogen enclosure. Shrubs that will grow 6-8 feet tall will be planted along the southern and western property line to provide additional screen for neighboring property owners. All landscaping would have drip irrigation. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be non-reflective. The project meets this finding. The design of the enclosure will be consistent in appearance as the gas station building and will include ‘board and batten’ siding and consistent paint colors which are non-reflective. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, other materials such a composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The project meets this finding. The existing roof of the main building will be painted charcoal grey. The trellis and upper panels of the enclosure will be painted charcoal to relate to the match of the gas station building. No equipment 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 project meets this finding. The 647 square feet 13 feet tall hydrogen storage tank concrete enclosure will be consistent in appearance as the gas station building and will include ‘board and batten’ siding and matching paint colors. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The State of California recognizes hydrogen fueling stations as posing no significant to the environment. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, Class 1 “Existing Facilities”- this exemption allows for minor alterations of existing private structures; and 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”- this exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities, or structures. 16 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review application. 2. Copy of April 16, 2015 Staff Report without attachments 3. Traffic Operations Study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, dated June 8, 2015 4. Landscape Plan 5. Copy of existing Conditional Use Permit #UP 550.1 6. List of cities with existing or proposed hydrogen fueling stations. 7. Background information about hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles. 8. Fire Department project review comments. 9. City Arborist Report 10. Sheriff’s data for the site. 11. Completed neighbor notification forms. 12. April 10 neighborhood meeting outreach material. 13. Written public comments. 14. Copy of mailed public notice and mailing list. 15. Photo Simulation – Option One 16. Photo Simulation – Option Two 17. Photo Simulation – Option Three 18. Development Plans – Exhibit A 17 RESOLUTION NO. 15-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 14-0009) AND DESIGN REVIEW (PDR15-0003) FOR A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 12600 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, applications were submitted by Black and Veatch Corporation on behalf of Abe Kaabipour requesting Design Review and modification of their existing Use Permit to install a Hydrogen Fueling Station at an existing gasoline service station. The site is located within the RM- 5,000 Zoning District (APN 386-14-003). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, Class 1 “Existing Facilities”- this exemption allows for minor alterations of existing private structures; and 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”- this exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities, or structures. WHEREAS, on April 22, 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 and continued the project to their meeting of June 24, 2015. 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 following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Goal CI.1b which is encourage healthy, active living, reduce traffic congestion and fossil fuel use; Circulation and Scenic Highway Action CI-Action-2.7 which is to require a transportation analysis for all development projects resulting in 25 or more net new peak-hour trips; Land Use Element Goal LU.1 which is to maintain the predominantly small town residential character of Saratoga; Land Use Element Goal LU.2 which is to encourage the economic viability of Saratoga’s existing commercial areas; and Land Use Element Goal LU 13 to use the design review process to assure that new construction is compatible with the site and adjacent surroundings. Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the improvements are consistent with the Conditional Use Permit findings in that the project is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, or will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof; will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Saratoga City Code; and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 18 Attachment 1 Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the improvements are consistent with the Design Review findings in that where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious; where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance; landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems for 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 non- reflective; roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, other materials such a composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened, and that 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 approves application CUP14-0009 and Design Review PDR15-0003 for a Gasoline Service Station located at 12600 Saratoga Avenue as described in the staff report, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 22nd day of April 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Chair, Planning Commission 19 Attachment 1 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CUP14-0009 / PDR15-0003 12600 SARATOGA AVENUE 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, grading, or building permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office in form and content acceptable 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 Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose, any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 5. Any intensification of the uses approved under this Use Permit shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. Examples of intensification of use include, but are not limited to, physical changes to the site or structures that result in ongoing increases in traffic, noise, or other physical effects. 6. The uses/structures/project shall maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the City, including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations. The uses/structures/project shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 7. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by Design Review Approval. 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: 20 Attachment 1 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, the 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 Community Development Director. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8. This resolution supersedes all previous use permit resolutions issued for a gasoline service station at this site. 9. The gasoline service station and hydrogen fueling facility shall be open and operated only between the hours of: Monday – Thursday: 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday: 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 10. Landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner in a good and orderly condition for the life of this use permit. All future landscaping shall emphasize native and drought tolerant species. 11. The single driveway access onto Saratoga Avenue shall be designated and used as an “entrance only” driveway. Directional signs shall be consistent with Section 15-30 of the City Code. If marking is not deemed to be effective, alternative measures shall be considered. If the driveway markings are determined not be effective, additional measures are to be considered. 12. The driveways shall be chained (with reflectors) after closing to prevent vehicular access to the site. 13. All gasoline and hydrogen pumps including storage tanks shall comply with the regulations of the San Francisco Bay Area Pollution Control District and with the City of Saratoga’s Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance. 14. Any office exterior lighting visible from outside of the structure shall be turned off at the time of closing specified in condition #9. 15. Design Review approval is required for any price or identification sign for the stations use. 21 Attachment 1 16. Any other exterior modification to the gasoline service station or use intensification will require approval by the Planning Commission. 17. The station shall be kept in good repair and free of dilapidated autos or other eyesores. 18. Per Section 15-55.100 of the City Code, this application shall remain under the continuous jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Any violation of the above code shall constitute grounds for consideration of use permit revocation. 19. The Community Development Director shall provide to the Planning Commission a status report of the operation or any issues related to the hydrogen fueling facility after the facility has been operating for a period of two years.’ 20. Existing pump islands and pumps shall be maintained and no more than eight gasoline pumps and one hydrogen fueling cell and dispenser shall be allowed. 21. The markings for a Hydrogen Lane are to extended to a point at least adjacent to the south side of the building or beyond so they are visible to hydrogen customers entering the site. 22. A convenience market is not permitted at this location. To be considered incidental to the primary use of the site as a gasoline service station, no more than 25% of the sales office floor area area shall be dedicated to retail, food and/or beverage display or sales for off-site human consumption. 23. The station shall be operated in accordance with the most current Best Management Practices for Gasoline Stations promulgated by the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Program and/or City to control Non-Point Source Pollution. 24. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities must be met. 22 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 22, 2014 Application: Conditional Use Permit CUP14-0009 Design Review PDR15-0003 Location / APN: 12600 Saratoga Avenue / 386-14-003 Owner / Applicant: Abe Kaabipour / Black & Veatch Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 12600 Saratoga Avenue SITE 23 SUMMARY ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION MULTI-FAMILY RES. (R-M-5,000) RES. MULTI-FAMILY (RMF) PARCEL SIZE 22,500 SQUARE FEET PROJECT DESCRIPTION An existing Valero gasoline service station is located at 12600 Saratoga Avenue at the intersection of Bucknall Road. The service station use is authorized to continue its operations by a Conditional Use Permit approved in May 1993. A gasoline service station has existed at this site and pre-dates the City’s incorporation in 1956. The applicant is requesting a modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit and approval of a Design Review application to install a hydrogen fuel cell and dispenser at the service station. The additional dispenser and related equipment will be located behind the existing sales office building in a screened structure and adjacent to the northeast property line. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, Class 1 “Existing Facilities”- this exemption allows for minor alterations of existing private structures; and 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”- this exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities, or structures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit and approve the Design Review application by adopting the attached resolution with a determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Staff is recommending the conditions of approval included in the prepared resolution. Page 2 of 10 24 PROJECT DESCRIPTON AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Background: The subject site is occupied by a commercial use (gasoline service station) within a multi- family residential zoning district. Uses on the site include a 1,176 square foot sales office, a gasoline service island with eight gasoline pumps under an overhead canopy, and a freestanding price/identification sign. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the north and west and multi- family residences to the south and east. The site is a corner lot that has frontage on Saratoga Avenue, one of the City’s primary arterial roadways, and Bucknall Road, a residential street. Site History A gasoline service station has existed on the subject site before the City’s incorporation in 1956. Prior to 1983 the site was zoned commercial which allowed gasoline service stations as a conditional use. In May 1983 the General Plan designation of the site was amended from Planned Development (P-D) to Residential Multi-Family (RMF). In September 1983 the site’s zoning designation was changed from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Residential Multi-Family (R-M-5,000) to be consistent with the General Plan. The rezoning of the property caused the service station use to become non-conforming with the requirements of the residential zoning. After the General Plan and zoning amendments were adopted, a former property owner applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to continue operation of the gasoline service station. The City Code allows a non-conforming use to continue to operate when subject to conditions of approval. The CUP application was approved in January 1984 and included a condition to reevaluate the status of the service station at the end of each subsequent ten year period to determine if the use should be continued. In February 1993 the current property owner submitted an application to modify the use permit to extend the use of the service station for a period of ten years. The Planning Commission denied the applicants request and determined that the original 10 year (1984- 1994) time period remained appropriate as an in-depth analysis of the existing conditions would be completed in January 1994. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to City C ouncil. In May 1993 the City Council granted the applicant’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and deleted the condition requiring that the use permit be renewed every 10 years. A copy of this Use Permit is included as Attachment 2. Project Description: The applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review application to install a hydrogen fuel cell and dispenser at the subject site. According to the applicant, major automakers including Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and Mercedes-Benz are producing hydrogen powered vehicles and these vehicles will be available to the general public later this year. The State of California is supporting the development of a hydrogen network to help assure that hydrogen will be available as the demand increases for hydrogen powered vehicles. Hydrogen fuel stations are currently under development in 19 cities in California Page 3 of 10 25 including Campbell, San Jose, Redwood City, and Mill Valley. The full list of cities with existing or proposed hydrogen stations is included as Attachment 3. Hydrogen vehicles are actually electric vehicles powered by hydrogen which use a fuel cell to produce electricity on-board the vehicle to power an electric motor. The fuel cell combines hydrogen with oxygen to generate electric power with zero emissions. Clean water vapor is the only exhaust from a hydrogen powered vehicle. Hydrogen vehicles can be filled in less than five minutes and have a driving range of 300 miles. The applicant has submitted background information about hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles which is included as Attachment 4. Equipment The hydrogen storage tanks will be housed in a 647 square feet 13 feet tall concrete enclosure located behind the service station and adjacent to the eastern property line. The design of the enclosure will be consistent in appearance as the gas station building and will include ‘board and batten’ siding and matching paint colors. The facility is not covered as it must remain open for hydrogen to escape. Electrical equipment including a pad transformer will be located behind the concrete enclosure and not visible from offsite. Access is provided on both the north and south side of the enclosure. The facility will primarily be visible from Bucknall Road and the intersection with Saratoga Avenue. With the exception of the hydrogen fuel dispenser which will be located outside the enclosure and accessible to the public, the remaining equipment and storage tanks will be located within the locked enclosure. The hydrogen fueling facility would consist of the following elements: Hydrogen Storage Approximately 66 gallons (250 kilograms) of compressed, gaseous hydrogen located within three high pressure storage tanks. Hydrogen Pretreatment Components The hydrogen gas is compressed and pre-cooled before being dispensed into a vehicle. The facility will include a compressor, high-pressure storage tubes, and a cooling system to facilitate the pretreatment of the gas. When operational, the cooling equipment will produce a maximum noise level no higher than 54 dBA as measured at the eastern property line which is below the City’s daytime and evening noise limits. The facility will not be operational during nighttime hours and no noise will be generated. Hydrogen Dispenser Looks and operates very similar to a standard gasoline pump and will be located outside of the enclosure facing Bucknall Road. The dispenser is self-serve, payment is by credit card, and the only part of the fueling system accessible by the public. Vehicular access to the dispenser would be from Bucknall Road. Fire Department Review The project was reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. No potential negative issues or hazards were identified by the Fire Department. A copy of these comments is included as Attachment 5. In addition, a separate review of the plans for the Page 4 of 10 26 facility and an issuance of a permit by the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Division must be obtained prior to Building Permit Issuance. The project would return to the Planning Commission if this review resulted in any significant modifications to the hydrogen dispenser. Saratoga already has a gasoline service station where alternative fuel tanks are located. The Union 76 service station at 14395 Big Basin Way has an above ground liquid petroleum tank located on site for over 20 years. The installation of this tank required detailed review and analysis by the Santa Clara County Fire Department as well as ongoing required inspections. The Fire Department does not have a history of negative or potentially dangerous issues related to this liquid petroleum refueling facility. Trees The City Arborist has identified a total of four trees along the eastern property line in potential conflict with the project and which qualify for removal. These include three Evergreen ash ranging in size from 16 – 32 inches in diameter in poor health and an 11” diameter Coast live oak in poor condition. The applicant intends to preserve all four trees and will coordinate with their project arborist and the city arborist to save the trees. The arborist report includes replacement values for all four trees in the event any should not survive impacts from construction. Tree protection fencing and a tree bond are required to be installed by the applicant prior to building permit issuance. A copy of the City Arborist report is included as Attachment 6. Parking/Circulation/Traffic No parking requirements are associated with the existing gasoline pumps or the proposed hydrogen facility – vehicles queue up adjacent to the pumps and exist once fueling is complete. The existing gasoline service building is 1,176 square feet. The uses in the building include a cashier, restrooms, office space, storage space, and a small amount of incidental retail sales. A total of six off-street parking spaces are required to be provided on site (1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area). The site currently includes 8 marked parking spaces behind the station and along the eastern property line and four unmarked spaces adjacent to the north side of the building for a total of 12 spaces. The gasoline service station once included automobile service bays and this number of parking spaces would have been utilized. The construction of the project will eliminate 4 parking spaces at the rear of the station and 2 parking spaces adjacent to the building. A new parallel parking space will be added near the entrance driveway from Saratoga Avenue. When complete the site will contain 8 parking spaces which exceed the number that are required. Sheet Z-7 of the development plans includes the circulation plan of the gasoline and hydrogen trucks which will provide fuel to the station. These trucks will maintain the existing pattern of entering the site from the Saratoga Avenue driveway and exiting the site with a left turn from the Bucknall Road driveway. Vehicles entering the site to access the hydrogen pump are expected to enter the site on Bucknall Road and after fueling will turn around and exit the site on Bucknall Road. Page 5 of 10 27 Initially, four hydrogen fueling truck deliveries are expected per week with seven anticipated truck deliveries per week by 2020. Deliveries would occur weekdays during off- peak hours between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Weekend deliveries could only occur on an as needed basis. Existing gasoline deliveries to the station occur 2-3 times per week on weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The average daily traffic volume on Saratoga Avenue is 37,100 trips per day. Due to the short history of hydrogen cars and relatively small fleet of available vehicles, a definitive traffic generation model or vehicle trip generation for hydrogen dispensers does not exist. As a very conservative, threshold and methodology, the City’s traffic engineer Fehr and Peers is using the traditional gasoline fuel based trip generation rates and traffic analysis to estimate potential additional trips that could be added by the hydrogen dispenser. The traffic consultant reviewed the project and determined that the hydrogen pump could generate 162 new daily trips which include 10 A.M. peak-hour trips and 13 P.M. peak-hour trips using the standard trip generation rates for service stations. These traffic generation rates are based on gasoline pumps and likely overestimate the number of trips that could be generated a hydrogen pump dispenser because the demand for hydrogen fuel is dramatically less than for gasoline. A detailed transportation analysis is not required because the project will generate less than 25 new peak hour trips. Existing Conditional Use Permit The gasoline service station is authorized to operate by Conditional Use Permit # UP 550.1 approved in May 1993. This use permit was approved by City Council after the property owner appealed the Planning Commission’s denial. The use permit contains limitations on the operation of the gasoline service station including hours of operation and a restriction on the number of fuel pumps. The use permit also includes a condition that the Planning Director is to provide an annual status report to the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting a modification of the following condition limiting the number of fuel pumps with this application: Condition #14 - ‘Existing pump islands and pumps shall be maintained with no additional pumps allowed’ The station currently has four fuel pumps under an existing canopy, each pump with two nozzles, which allows eight vehicles to be fueled simultaneously. The project would add an additional pump in the form of a hydrogen fuel dispenser. The revised condition would read as follows: ‘Existing pump islands and pumps shall be maintained and no more than eight gasoline pumps and one hydrogen fueling facility shall be allowed’ Staff is recommending a revision to Condition #12 which requires the annual status report by the Planning Director because the City does not have a history of code enforcement complaints against the subject property. In addition, the Sheriff’s office provided staff Page 6 of 10 28 police and service report data for the property which is included as Attachment 7. No significant crime has been reported since 2010. In-lieu of the annual report, staff is proposing a report from staff after two-years of operation. The revised condition reads as follows: ‘The Community Development Director shall provide to the Planning Commission a status report of the operation or any issues related to the hydrogen fueling facility after the facility has been operating for a period of two years.’ On Site Food/Beverage Sales The gasoline service station sells soft drinks, snack foods and other sundry items inside the sales office as an amenity for customers who purchase gasoline. The existing conditional use permit allows the operation of a gasoline service station on site but does not include the operation of a market or a convenience store. A market is defined in the City Code as an establishment where more than 25% of the floor area is dedicated to food and/or beverage sales for off-site human consumption. Retail or Food sales less than 25% of floor area in the context of gasoline sales are considered incidental to the primary service station use of the site. A condition has been added to the recommended conditions of approval for the project limiting the retail and food sales to no more than 25% of floor area. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The Applicant mailed Neighbor Notification Forms for the project to all adjacent neighbors. Five of these forms were returned and are included as Attachment 8. Two of the forms include comments related to potential traffic impacts from an increase in vehicular traffic and the safety issues related to the hydrogen facility. On Friday April 10 at 4:00 p.m. the applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting at the project site. Invitations to the meeting and information about the hydrogen facility were mailed by the applicant to all property owners within 500 feet. The meeting was attended by approximately 10 neighbors. A copy of the materials that were mailed is included as Attachment 9. Staff did receive an emails and letter from an adjacent neighbors with concerns related to the potential removal of existing trees, safety issues, limiting expansion of a commercial facility adjacent to residential lands uses, and the appearance of the existing service station. Copies of this correspondence are attachment 10. A Public Notice was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. A copy of this notice and the mailing list is included as Attachment 11. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit Findings The findings required for issuance of a Use Permit pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.040 as set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of the required findings: Page 7 of 10 29 (a) The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Project meets this finding. A gasoline service station has been located on the site for over 50 years and was existing prior to the City’s incorporation in 1956. The service station is one of three gasoline service stations in Saratoga where residents can purchase gasoline. It will be the only station in the City where hydrogen will be sold to power hydrogen vehicles and is integral to development of a statewide hydrogen network and is consistent with the State of California’s mandate for providing zero emission fuels which will help to reduce air pollution. The service station is located on Saratoga Avenue which is a major arterial and is near the Highway 85 interchange. The hours of operation of the service station will not be modified with the introduction of the hydrogen fueling so as to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. The hydrogen fueling facility has been reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and no negative impacts were identified and a separate review of the plans for the facility and an issuance of a permit by the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Division must be obtained. (b) The proposed conditional use will [not] adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, or will [not] adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The Project meets this finding. The service station includes a 1,176 square foot one-story gasoline service station sales office, a gasoline service island with four gasoline pumps, each with two nozzles with the capability of fueling eight vehicles simultaneously, an overhead canopy covering the gas pumps, and a freestanding price/identification sign. The addition of a hydrogen fueling facility will not include a modification of the stations allowed operating hours nor changes to onsite vehicle circulation that could adversely affect surrounding properties. The hydrogen fueling facility has been reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and no negative impacts to surrounding properties is anticipated – the facility will also be reviewed and a permit issued by the Santa Clara County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division prior to building permit issuance. The applicant has submitted a noise study which indicates that the noise produced by the hydrogen fueling facility will below the daytime and evening noise limits. The facility will not be operational during nighttime hours and no noise will be generated. The traffic generation rate of 162 new daily trips which include 10 A.M. peak-hour trips and 13 P.M. peak-hour trips using the standard trip generation rates for service stations is not conserved significant. There is no evidence that the operation of the hydrogen fueling facility would adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood or surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. (c) The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Saratoga City Code. The Project meets the required findings for Use Permit establishing the parameters for the site to operate as a service station. The project has been conditioned to comply with all applicable City regulations including, but not limited to the requirements of the Saratoga Building and Zoning Regulations. (d) The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Project meets the required findings for Use Permit establishing the parameters for site to operate as a service station. The project has also been conditioned to comply with all applicable regulations of Page 8 of 10 30 the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction. A gasoline service station has existed on the subject site prior to the City’s incorporation in 1956 and the City and there is no evidence of detriment to public health, safety or welfare from such uses or material injury to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Design Review 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, roof material, color and appurtenances. The project meets this finding. The hydrogen storage tanks will be housed in a 647 square feet 13 feet tall concrete enclosure located behind the service station and adjacent to the eastern property line. The design of the enclosure will be consistent in appearance as the gas station building and will include ‘board and batten’ siding and matching paint colors. The associated electrical equipment including a pad transformer will be located behind the concrete enclosure and will not be visible from offsite. The facility will primarily be visible from Bucknall Road and the intersection with Saratoga Avenue. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The project meets this finding as no new signage is proposed. The gasoline service station has an existing identification/price sign at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. The proposed hydrogen fueling facility will not include new signage or modifications to existing signage that would be incompatible with existing site signage. (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 for the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The project meets this finding as no trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist has identified a total of four trees along the eastern property line in potential conflict with the project and which qualify for removal. These include three Evergreen ash ranging in size from 16 – 32 inches in diameter which are in poor health and an 11” diameter Coast live oak in poor condition. The applicant intends to preserve all four trees and will coordinate with their project arborist and the city arborist to save the trees. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be non-reflective. The project meets this finding. The design of the enclosure will be consistent in appearance as the gas station building and will include ‘board and batten’ siding and matching paint colors which are non-reflective. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, other materials such a composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The project meets this finding. The project will include a false shingle roof to match the existing service station building that will provide the appearance of an actual roof as viewed from offsite. No roof is proposed as facility must remain open for hydrogen to escape. Page 9 of 10 31 (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The project meets this finding. The 647 square feet 13 feet tall hydrogen storage tank concrete enclosure will be consistent in appearance as the gas station building and will include ‘board and batten’ siding and matching paint colors. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The State of California recognizes hydrogen fueling stations as posing no significant to the environment. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, Class 1 “Existing Facilities”- this exemption allows for minor alterations of existing private structures; and 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”- this exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities, or structures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review applications with the required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval for this project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review application. 2. Copy of existing Conditional Use Permit #UP 550.1 3. List of cities with existing or proposed hydrogen fueling stations. 4. Background information about hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles. 5. Fire Department project review comments. 6. City Arborist Report 7. Sheriff’s data for the site. 8. Completed neighbor notification forms. 9. April 10 neighborhood meeting outreach material. 10. Written public comments. 11. Copy of mailed public notice and mailing list. 12. Photo Simulations 13. Development Plans Page 10 of 10 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 LOW MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN V2 (TYP OF 3, SEE LEGEND) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (SEE NOTES, AND ARBORIST REPORT) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (SEE NOTES, AND ARBORIST REPORT) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (SEE NOTES, AND ARBORIST REPORT) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (SEE NOTES, AND ARBORIST REPORT) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (SEE NOTES, AND ARBORIST REPORT) VOLUNTEER SCRUB OAK TO BE REMOVED V1 (TYP OF 4, SEE LEGEND) MINIMUM 2" LAYER OF MULCH, SEE NOTES ON SHEET L-2 MINIMUM 2" LAYER OF MULCH, SEE NOTES ON SHEET L-2 MINIMUM 2" LAYER OF MULCH, SEE NOTES ON SHEET L-2 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (SEE NOTES, AND ARBORIST REPORT) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (SEE NOTES, AND ARBORIST REPORT) CONCRETE CURB SARATOGA AVE BUCKNALL ROADPOTENTIALLY IMPACTED EXISTING TREES. IF DAMAGED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION REPLACE WITH ADDITIONAL SCREENING SHRUBS (SEE NOTES, AND ARBORIST REPORT) PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN NORTH 0 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 403010520 5 GAL 8' SYMBOL SIZE 1 GAL @12" O.C. TRIANGULARY SPACED. 5 GAL 5 GAL GROUNDCOVERS / PERENNIALS LANDSCAPE LEGEND 2' 30" 5 GAL VIBURNUM AWABUKII VIBURNUM EUPHORBIA 'ASCOT RAINBOW'APRICOT TWIST WALLFLOWER ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' BEARBERRY7' 6' 16 4 5 GAL 10 Trees 1 GAL @ 2 O.C. 3 MATURE HEIGHTQTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MEDIUM WATER USE LOW WATER USE LOW WATER USE MEDIUM WATER USE ANNUALS/VINES/MISC. FLATS 12"PLANTER TUBS W/ANNUALS (COLOR PER CLIENT, SEASONAL AVAILABILITY) ANNUALS SEE SHEET L-2 FOR NOTES AND WORKSHEETS LANDSCAPE NOTES SHRUBS 6 NA GRAPE VINE GRAPE-1 GAL 3 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SEE NOTES 12' NA NA VARIES SEE PLAN HELIANTHEMUM NUMMULARIUM 'HENFIELD BRILLIANT' 1 GAL @18" O.C. TRIANGULARY SPACED. 6"SUNROSE FESTUCA MUELLERI MUELLERS FESCUE BOLDERS PER PLAN TYPE PER CLIENT, SIZE PER PLAN, SET 13 INTO SOIL 2'-3' 5 GAL 13 PHORMIUM HYBRID 'BLACK ADDER' NEW ZEALAND FLAX3' 1 GAL 30"27 LIMONIUM PEREZII SEA LAVENDER AJUGA REPTANS CARPET BUGLE TYPE PER CLIENT4"-6"COBBLE 1 GAL @12" O.C. TRIANGULARY SPACED. 12"GERANIUM INCANUM CRANESBILL 5 GAL 21 2'PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 'WHEELERS DWARF' TOBIRA 1 GAL @4' O.C. TRIANGULARY SPACED. 9" ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI 'POINT REYES'BEARBERRY CLYTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOIDES TRUMPET VINE-1 GAL 4V1 V2 RIBES SANGUINEUM GLUTINOSUM PINK FLOWERING CURRENT LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TAXANUM'JAPANESE PRIVET 5 GAL RHAMNUS ALATERNUS ITALIAN BUCKHORN616' 39 RIBES S.GLUTINOSUM EUPHORBIA 'ASCOT RAINBOW' ARCTOS.. 'HOWARD MCMINN' HELIANTHEMUM 'HENFIELD BRILLIANT' FESTUCA MUELLERI PHORMIUM 'BLACK ADDER'LIMONIUM PEREZII AJUGA REPTANS GERANIUM INCANUM PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA ARCTO. UVA-URSI 'POINT REYES'CLYTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOIDES EUONYMOUS J. 'SILVER KING' LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM VIBURNUM AWABUKII LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IRRIGATED PRIMARILY BY A COMBINATION OF DRIP AND BUBBLERS, WITH LOW GALLONAGE SPRAY SPRINKLERS AT THE SIGN. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A CONTROLLER CAPABLE OF DUAL PROGRAMMING, A RAIN SENSOR, BACKLFLOW DEVICE AND PRESSURE REGULATOR. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A MINIMUM OF 3" (2" PER CITY OF SARATOGA) WESTERN FIR BARK EXCEPT CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVER. 3. PLANT MATERIAL CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON WULCOLS DATABASE. 4. ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED ON CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF SARATOGA "WATER-EFFICIENT DESIGN CRITERIA, INCLUDING MINIMUM 8" INCH REQUIREMENT OF NON-COMPACTED SOIL IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. 5. REFER TO LATEST ARBORIST REPORT FOR THIS PROJECT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND GUIDELINES. 40 Attachment 2 41 42 43 Attachment 3 44 Attachment 4 45 46 47 48 49 Attachment 5 50 51 Attachment 6 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Attachment 7 60 Attachment 8 61 62 63 64 65 Attachment 9 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Attachment 10 75 76 77 78 79 Attachment 11 80 81 82 83 84 SITE NUMBER: CA-FE1003 SITE NAME: N SARATOGA SITE ADDRESS: 12600 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 DATE: 06/08/15 APPLICANT: FIRSTELEMENT FUEL, INC. CONTACT: BRYAN HANSEN BLACK & VEATCH (913) 458-7343 1 PROPOSED HYDROGEN FUELING STATION SITE LOCATION VIEW 1 VIEW 4 VIEW 2 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 The included Photographic Simulation(s) are intended as visual representations only and should not be used for construction purposes. The materials represented within the included Photographic Simulation(s) are subject to change. VIEW 3 VIEW 6 VIEW 5 VIEW 7 VIEW 8 85 2 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHTS AND METAL TRELLIS PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT FLAME DETECTOR AND SECURITY CAMERA MOUNTED TO CANOPY PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR 86 3 PROPOSED PARKING STRIPES BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY PROPOSED WOOD GRAPE ARBOR PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHTS, FUEL STANCHION AND METAL TRELLIS PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURE 87 4 PROPOSED WOOD GRAPE ARBOR BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT FLAME DETECTOR AND SECURITY CAMERA MOUNTED TO CANOPY PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHTS, FUEL STANCHION AND METAL TRELLIS 88 5 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH METAL TERLLIS PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT FLAME DETECTOR AND SECURITY CAMERA MOUNTED TO CANOPY PROPOSED WOOD GRAPE ARBOR 89 6 PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR 90 7 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED VALERO BLUE BAND PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY 91 8 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY PROPOSED VALERO BLUE BAND 92 9 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED VALERO BLUE BAND PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED PARKING STRIP PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY 93 SITE NUMBER: CA-FE1003 SITE NAME: N SARATOGA SITE ADDRESS: 12600 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 DATE: 06/08/15 APPLICANT: FIRSTELEMENT FUEL, INC. CONTACT: BRYAN HANSEN BLACK & VEATCH (913) 458-7343 1 PROPOSED HYDROGEN FUELING STATION SITE LOCATION VIEW 1 VIEW 4 VIEW 2 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 The included Photographic Simulation(s) are intended as visual representations only and should not be used for construction purposes. The materials represented within the included Photographic Simulation(s) are subject to change. VIEW 3 VIEW 6 VIEW 5 VIEW 7 VIEW 8 94 2 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHTS AND METAL TRELLIS PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT FLAME DETECTOR AND SECURITY CAMERA MOUNTED TO CANOPY PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY PROPOSED LANDSCAPING 95 3 PROPOSED PARKING STRIPES BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY PROPOSED WOOD GRAPE ARBOR PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHTS, FUEL STANCHION AND METAL TRELLIS PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURE 96 4 PROPOSED WOOD GRAPE ARBOR BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT FLAME DETECTOR AND SECURITY CAMERA MOUNTED TO CANOPY PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHTS, FUEL STANCHION AND METAL TRELLIS 97 5 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH METAL TERLLIS PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT FLAME DETECTOR AND SECURITY CAMERA MOUNTED TO CANOPY PROPOSED WOOD GRAPE ARBOR 98 6 PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR 99 7 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED VALERO BLUE BAND PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY PROPOSED WINDOWS WITH WINDOW BARS REMOVED 100 8 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED VALERO BLUE BAND PROPOSED GRAPE VINES ON TRELLIS WIRE PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY PROPOSED OPAQUE STAIN ON BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR 101 9 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED PARKING STRIP PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY PROPOSED OPAQUE STAIN ON BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING 102 SITE NUMBER: CA-FE1003 SITE NAME: N SARATOGA SITE ADDRESS: 12600 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 DATE: 06/08/15 APPLICANT: FIRSTELEMENT FUEL, INC. CONTACT: BRYAN HANSEN BLACK & VEATCH (913) 458-7343 1 PROPOSED HYDROGEN FUELING STATION SITE LOCATION VIEW 1 VIEW 4 VIEW 2 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 The included Photographic Simulation(s) are intended as visual representations only and should not be used for construction purposes. The materials represented within the included Photographic Simulation(s) are subject to change. VIEW 3 VIEW 6 VIEW 5 VIEW 7 VIEW 8 103 2 PROPOSED LANDSCAPING BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHTS AND METAL TRELLIS PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT FLAME DETECTOR AND SECURITY CAMERA MOUNTED TO CANOPY PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY 104 3 PROPOSED PARKING STRIPES BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY PROPOSED WOOD GRAPE ARBOR PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHTS, FUEL STANCHION AND METAL TRELLIS PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURE 105 4 PROPOSED WOOD GRAPE ARBOR BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT FLAME DETECTOR AND SECURITY CAMERA MOUNTED TO CANOPY PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHTS, FUEL STANCHION AND METAL TRELLIS 106 5 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT HYDROGEN FUEL DISPENSER WITH CANOPY BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH METAL TERLLIS PROPOSED FIRSTELEMENT FLAME DETECTOR AND SECURITY CAMERA MOUNTED TO CANOPY PROPOSED WOOD GRAPE ARBOR 107 6 PROPOSED VALERO BLUE FASCIA BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY 108 7 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED GRAPE VINES ON TRELLIS WIRE PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY PROPOSED WINDOWS WITH WINDOW BARS REMOVED PROPOSED VALERO BLUE FASCIA 109 8 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED VALERO BLUE FASCIA PROPOSED GRAPE VINES ON TRELLIS WIRE PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY PROPOSED STUCCO PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR 110 9 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION - 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE - BUILDING 34 - OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210 – 913-458-2000 PROPOSED VALERO BLUE FASCIA PROPOSED SLUMPSTONE VENEER- NATURAL COLOR PROPOSED PARKING STRIP PROPOSED ROOF-PAINTED CHARCOAL GREY PROPOSED STUCCO 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 24, 2015 Application: ZOA15-0006 Location City Wide Owner/Applicant: City of Saratoga City Arborist: Kate Bear RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the attached resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the ordinance with the proposed change to Section 15-50.070, Tree Regulations (Zoning) of the Saratoga City Code. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2015, as part of the City Council’s comprehensive review of drought related impacts, the Council directed Staff to bring back for its consideration, a recommendation to facilitate the expedited removal of dead trees through an over-the-counter review process. On June 9, 2015, the Planning Commission held a study session where commissioners and residents discussed recommended changes to the Code. DISCUSSION: As part of the City’s Tree Regulations, City Code Section 15-50.070, requires that property owners requesting to remove a tree make an application for tree removal to the Community Development Director. After making a determination on an application, the Community Development Director shall provide notification of the decision to the applicant and property owners within 150 feet of the boundaries of applicant's property. Property owners may appeal the determination by filing an appeal application and processing fee to the City within 15 days after the notice is mailed. Application fees for the removal of dead trees are refunded after City verification that the tree is dead. The City Council has requested an expedited process to facilitate the issuance of over-the-counter permits to remove dead trees and ensure that replacement trees are being planted. Currently, permit application fees to remove dead trees are refunded upon City verification that the tree is dead. The City Arborist does an on-site inspection of trees on permit applications prior to sending notices to neighbors. Notices are sent to neighbors and a 15 day appeal period is required prior to issuing permits to owners of dead trees. The proposed changes to the Tree Regulations will expedite the processing time for property owners to obtain permits to remove dead trees and reduce staff time and costs associated with tree removal 132 ZOA15-0006 Page 2 of 2 permit applications for dead trees. As proposed, the recommended changes will enable a property owner to submit a tree removal permit application and a photo of the dead tree to the Community Development Department. The application fee will be waived. Upon City Staff verification that the tree in the photo is dead, and is located at the address on the application, the permit can be issued to the applicant. The currently required notification of neighbors within 150 feet and 15 day appeal period will be waived. A permit can be issued over the counter or within a day or two of submittal once verification has occurred that the tree is dead. The changes in the process will benefit the community in that once trees are dead, they become a safety concern for property owners and nearby neighbors. They may drop branches, completely fail, or more easily catch fire. Part of Saratoga is in the Wildland Urban Interface for a Very High Fire Hazard Zone and dead trees in the hills can contribute to the spread of a fire. Dead trees also detract from the aesthetics of the community, which prides itself on its beautiful tree canopy. An expedited removal of dead trees can improve both the appearance and safety of the City. Cost savings in both staff time and materials will occur. Community Development Department staff time to process an application will be reduced in that notices to neighbors will not need to be created and mailed. Staff time to refund application fees will be saved in both the Community Development and the Finance Departments by no longer needing to process and mail refund checks to applicants. The costs associated with paper, envelopes and postage will be saved in that the approximately 150 notices are sent out each week. ATTACHMENT: 1. Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to Section 15 – 50.070 of the Tree Regulations, contained in Chapter 15 – Zoning Regulations. 133 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO: 15-024 Application ZOA15-0006 Amendment to Section 15-5-.070 of the City Code, Tree Regulations The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-described application: WHEREAS, during the City Council meeting held on May 6, 2015, Council directed Staff to bring a recommendation back to Council that would expedite the removal of dead trees through an over-the-counter process; and WHEREAS, Section 15-50.070 of the Zoning Regulations requires that neighbors within 150 feet of an application for the removal of a dead tree be notified and given 15 days to appeal the determination; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the proposed amendment to the City Code described above at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments, staff report, correspondence, presentations from the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. 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 proposed amendments to the City Code are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, and pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15304(b) and 15304(i), the Code changes will result in minor alterations to landscaping and management of fuel. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Section 3: After careful consideration of the staff report and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend that the City Council amend the City Code as shown in Exhibit A. 134 2 Application No. ZOA15-0006 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 24th day of June 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission Attachment: Exhibit A – Proposed Amendment to Section 15-50.070 of the Zoning Regulations 135 Exhibit A 15-50.070 - Application for permit. (a) Application. Application for a tree removal, pruning, or encroachment permit shall be made to the Community Development Director on such form as he or she may prescribe. The application shall contain the number and location of each tree to be removed, pruned, or encroached upon, the type and approximate size of the tree, the reason for removal, pruning or encroachment and such additional information as the Director may require. The application shall be signed by the owner of the property upon which the tree is located and if the applicant is not the owner of said property shall include a statement that the owner consents to the activity described on the permit application. (b) Notice. After making a determination on an application for tree removal, the Community Development Director shall provide notification of the determination to the applicant and residents within one hundred fifty feet of the boundaries of applicant's property, in accordance with paragraph 15-50.100. If the Community Development Director determines that the tree is a Dead tree as defined in Section 15-50.020(i), the Community Development Director may waive notification of neighbors and may issue a permit without any right of appeal or any appeal period prior to the exercise of the permit. (c) Pruning Permit. (1) A permit is required for structural pruning in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the canopy of any protected tree within a two year period. ISA Standard. s (the 2001 Edition of which is hereby adopted by reference) any given growth period. or year of any protected tree. ( The 2001 Edition of the ISA Pruning Standards, known as ANSI A300 (Part 1) – 2001 Pruning 2001 Edition of which is adopted for reference.) Pruning shall not exceed wenty-five percent of the canopy. No permit is required for structural pruning, which complies with ISA Pruning Standards., or for the pruning of productive agricultural trees. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, either written p (2) Permission in writing from the owner of the tree or a permit is required for prior to the pruning of a protected tree the trunk of which is at least partially located on a neighboring property. If the trunk of a tree is located on a property line, written permission is required from the property owner on both sides of the property line prior to pruning, as it is a tree owned by both property owners. (3) No permit is required for structural pruning of trees on an owner’s own property which complies with ISA Pruning Standards., or No permit is required for the pruning of productive agricultural trees. (d) Encroachment Permit. Where no Planning Division or Building Division permit is needed for work near a tree, but a protected tree will be encroached upon, a Tree Encroachment Permit is required from the Community Development Department. 136 Exhibit A (e) Application Fee. Fees shall be charged as set forth in the City’s Fee Schedule. No fee shall be required for a permit to remove a Fallen or Dead tree and the permit fee for removal of a Dead tree shall be refunded to the applicant upon issuance of the permit. provided that tree replacement requirements as a condition of the tree removal permit are met. 137 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date: June 24, 2015 Application: PDR14-0024/ARB13-0071 Location / APN: 14538 Horseshoe Dr. / 397-20-032 Applicant/Owner: Oscar Bakhtiari Staff Planner: Justin Shiu, Contract Planner 14538 Horseshoe Dr. 138 Application PDR14-0024/ARB13-0071; 14538 Horseshoe Dr./397-20-032 Page 2 of 6 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Design Review approval to demolish a 4,034 square foot home and to construct a new 25’-11” tall, 5,996 square foot one-story home with a 451-square foot second unit and a 5,726 square foot basement. The total floor area of the home is 6,447 square feet. Twenty-five protected trees are being proposed for removal and three are proposed to be transplanted at different locations on the lot. Planning Commission approval is required because the proposed size of the home (i.e. greater than 6,000 square feet) and the height of the new home (i.e. greater than 18 feet) exceed the project thresholds that can be approved via the Administrative Design Review process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-030 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: 72,216 sf gross/net Average Slope: 6.7% Grading: 2,809 cy of cut and 1,089 cy of fill General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (RVLD) Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-20,000) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Impervious Hardscape Pervious Paver Driveway Pervious Artificial Turf Total Site Coverage Front Yard Impervious 27,097 sf 2,135 sf (50% of 4,270 sf) 1,002 sf (50% of 2,004 sf) 23,960 sf (33%) 2,487 sf (19%) 32,497 sf (45%) 6,413 sf (50% of 12,826 sf ) Floor Area First Floor Garage Second Unit Basement (excluded) Total Floor Area 5,338 sf 658 sf 451 sf (5,726 sf) 6,447 sf 6,600 sf (6000 sf + 10% bonus for deed-restricted second unit) Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 89.64’ 92.99’ 91.31’ 117.15’ (25’11”) 26 feet Maximum 139 Application PDR14-0024/ARB13-0071; 14538 Horseshoe Dr./397-20-032 Page 3 of 6 Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 64’- 5” 33’- 9” 33’- 2” 69’- 10” 30’ 15’ 15’ 35’ PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW Site and Neighborhood Description: The project site is a 72,216 square foot property located at 14538 Horseshoe Dr. The residential lots along Horseshoe Drive typically range in size from 20,000 to 30,000 square feet. The neighborhood includes predominantly single-story homes, ranging from approximately 3,600 to 5,000 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a new 5,996 square foot home that is 25’11” in height and a 451 square foot second unit to replace the 4,304 square feet of existing structures on the site. Planning Commission review is required because the floor area of the new structures exceeds 6,000 square feet and the height of the home exceeds 18 feet. At 6,447 square feet of floor area, the proposed square footage of the project is larger than the existing floor area of properties in the neighborhood, which range approximately from 3,000 to 5,000 square feet. The 72,216 square foot lot of 14538 Horseshoe Drive, however, is considerably larger than typical lots in the neighborhood, which range from 23,000 to 46,000 square feet. With regards to the ratio of floor area of a structure to its lot size, the proposed project has an 8.9% ratio compared to the neighboring properties, which generally range from 10.3% - 18.5% with an average of 12.2%. The floor area of the proposed project in relation to lot size does not exceed the floor area ratios of the typical properties in the neighborhood and is less intensive than the existing development (Attachment 2). Potential privacy impacts and the perception of proposed structure’s mass are mitigated by the location and the natural features of the site. The proposed location of the home is set back more than 64 feet from the street, which is greater than the 30 foot required front setback, and surrounded along the side and rear property lines by mature vegetation. The site contains 69 protected trees, the majority of which would be preserved. The applicant proposes the removal of twenty-five protected trees and transplant of three protected trees to allow for the development of the project. Trees abutting the side and rear property lines would be preserved. Architectural Design: The applicant has stated that this home is designed as a traditional home and is accentuated with elements inspired by the French style. The proposed dormers, window fenestration, roof, and entry elements are all components drawn from French architectural styles. These features have been used by the designer to accent the form of this traditional home design and reflect the owner’s personal preference as to what his ideal home should look like. The scale, mass, and traditional form of the proposed home is generally compatible with other homes in the neighborhood based on these architectural considerations. Proposed exterior materials of the home include slate roofing, natural stone roof dormers, and entry and stone veneer composed of Indiana Limestone. 140 Application PDR14-0024/ARB13-0071; 14538 Horseshoe Dr./397-20-032 Page 4 of 6 Trees/Landscaping: The property currently has 69 protected trees on the lot. With the exception of a modest addition, a development project to construct a new home of this size would likely have some impact on protected trees. The applicant has proposed the removal of twenty-five protected trees which satisfy the City Code thresholds for protection (Attachment 3). The applicant’s arborist report notes that the trees proposed for removal are in fair to poor condition. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to relocate and transplant three protected trees on site. The project as proposed retains the majority of trees on site and proposes replacement trees equal to the value of the 25 trees proposed for removal. The City Arborist is able to make the findings for removal required by the City Code based on her review and has approved the removal of the 25 trees noted and the transplantation of the three other trees. The applicant is required to provide a tree deposit of $274,270 and install tree protection fencing around the remaining trees on site prior to the issuance of building permits if this project is approved by the City. Second Unit: The applicant proposes a 451 square feet detached second unit in the rear yard. The structure is 17’3” tall when viewed from the front elevation and 19’5” when viewed from the rear due to the change in grade. Covered patios extend from west and southeast side of the second unit. The applicant has requested a 10 percent floor area bonus to accommodate the new second unit because the 5,997 square foot primary dwelling unit is close to the 6,000 square foot limit for the zoning district. The bonus is granted under Article 15-56.030(d), provided that the applicant files a deed-restriction with Santa Clara County limiting rents to levels affordable to lower income households. The inclusion of the second unit increases the total size of the project above 6,000 square feet, which is a threshold that requires Planning Commission design review. Grading: The project avoids excessive change to natural contours by locating the building, including the basement area, in a relatively flat portion of the site. However, the new basement requires excavation. The proposed grading will result in a net export of 1,720 cubic yards of soil volume from the site, which results from 2809 cubic yards of cut and 1089 cubic yards of fill. The proposed 5,726 square foot basement generates the majority of the excavated soil from the site. To mitigate potential neighborhood impacts resulting from the off-haul of soil by construction vehicles, staff is recommending a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to prepare a Construction Management Plan and Construction Traffic Control Plan prior to issuance of a Building Permits. The plans will include, but is not limited to, specific requirements addressing traffic management for vehicles moving to and from the site, parking during construction and demolition, and off-hauling the soil from the site. Detail Colors and Materials Stucco “Kelly-Moore Paints” Feather Stone (Beige) Stone Veneer “Buechel Stone Corp.” Indiana Dimensional Roof “Capistrano” Americana Collection Charcoal 141 Application PDR14-0024/ARB13-0071; 14538 Horseshoe Dr./397-20-032 Page 5 of 6 Story-poles: Story-poles were established on the site, as required for all Design Review applications. The installation was completed on June 8, 2015 and was certified by the project civil engineers (Attachment 4). Staff confirmed that story poles were in place at the specified date. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted neighbor notification forms as part of the application process. The forms received by Staff contained no comments from neighbors. A public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. Staff received no comments prior to the completion of the staff report. 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 proposed residence is located in roughly the same area developed with the existing house. The applicant proposes the residence, including the basement, on a fairly flat portion of the site, minimizing change to natural contours. Given the size of the lot, the grading and excavation in the area of construction will occur on a relatively small proportion of the site. (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, with the exception of a modest addition, a replacement home of this size would likely impact protected trees. The project proposes to minimize the number of trees that would require removal while putting forth a design that allows the owner to reasonably enjoy his property. 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 it is a single-story structure located on a lot that minimizes privacy impacts. The proposed home is setback more than 64 feet from the property line, which reduces its prominence when viewed from the street. The mature vegetation on the property provides significant screening from side and rear property lines, mitigating potential privacy impacts. The project does not impact any identified community viewsheds. 142 Application PDR14-0024/ARB13-0071; 14538 Horseshoe Dr./397-20-032 Page 6 of 6 (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 in that the design of the home and the existing characteristics of the lot reduce the perception of mass. The structure features well-proportioned and well-defined building forms. The perception of mass is mitigated by the variations in wall planes. An otherwise large expanse of roofing is broken up with the inclusion of dormers. Although the property is zoned R-1-20,000, the 72,216 square foot parcel is larger than standard lots for the district and is indeed larger than neighboring lots. In comparing the proportion of floor area of a home to the size of the lot, the project would not appear overly large compared to typical properties in the surrounding area – the floor area ratio does not exceed that of typical neighboring lots. (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 hardscape surfaces constitute only about 19 percent of 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 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 designing the structure with simple and well-proportioned massing; deemphasizing the garage presence from the street; following the natural contours of the site; designing and locating the structure to avoid unreasonable impacts to privacy; setting back the structure in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; establishing an entry height in proportion to the structure; 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. Floor Area Ratio in the Neighborhood 3. Arborist Report 4. Story Pole Certification Letter 5. Development Plans 143 RESOLUTION NO: 15-030 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0024 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB13-0071 LOCATED AT 14538 HORSESHOE DR WHEREAS, on August 14, 2014 an application was submitted by Oscar Bakhtiari requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home, a basement, and related site improvements located at 14538 Horseshoe Dr. Twenty-five protected trees are proposed for removal and three for relocation on a site with sixty-nine trees. The project has a total floor area of 6,447 square feet (not including the 5,726 square foot basement). The height of the proposed residence is approximately 26 feet. The site is located within the R-1-20,000 Zoning District (APN 397-20-032). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on June 24, 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 144 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 PDR14-0024 and ARB13-0071 located at 14538 Horseshoe Dr., subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 24th day of June 2015 by the following vote: AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 145 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. 146 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 June 3, 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 June 4, 2015 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. 8. Tree number 34, shown on Sheet A-1 Existing & Demo Site Plan, shall be not be removed without approval from the City Arborist. 9. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, a Tree Bond for $274,270 shall be placed with the City, as indicated in the City Arborist Report dated June 4, 2015. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall file a second unit deed-restriction limiting rental of the second unit to lower income households. 11. The owner/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. 12. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan for approval by the Building Division and Public Works Department. 13. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a Construction Traffic Plan shall be prepared. The Plan shall provide the approach to mitigate neighborhood impacts from construction traffic by detailing the traffic management proposal for vehicles moving to and from the construction site; describing parking on site during demolition and construction; and providing the strategy to off- haul excess soil remaining after cut and fill operations. 14. 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. 147 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. 148 Floor Area Ratio of Neighboring Lots Zoning Address Floor Area Lot FAR R-1-20,000 14591 Horseshoe Dr 4400 36500 12.1% R-1-20,000 14571 Horseshoe Dr 4000 32900 12.2% R-1-20,000 14551 Horseshoe Dr 3100 45100 6.9% R-1-20,000 14580 Carnelian Cr 5200 37400 13.9% R-1-40,000 19965 Douglass Ln 5000 40000 12.5% R-1-40,000 19964 Douglass Ln 4400 40800 10.8% R-1-20,000 14552 Horseshoe Dr 5200 43100 12.1% R-1-20,000 14562 Horseshoe Dr 5700 44200 13.7% R-1-20,000 14584 Horseshoe Dr 3000 44300 6.8% R-1-20,000 14606 Horseshoe Dr 3100 30100 10.3% R-1-20,000 14610 Horseshoe Dr 2800 23600 11.9% R-1-20,000 14590 Horseshoe Dr 4200 23900 17.6% R-1-20,000 14570 Horseshoe Dr 3400 24800 13.7% R-1-20,000 14555 Horseshoe Dr 5000 40500 12.3% R-1-20,000 14575 Horseshoe Dr 4500 22500 20.0% R-1-20,000 14595 Horseshoe Dr 4500 24300 18.5% R-1-20,000 14605 Horseshoe Dr 3100 24300 12.8% Average 4153 34018 12.2% 14538 Horseshoe Dr (Proposed) 6447 72216 8.9% 149 14591 Horseshoe Dr 12.1% 14571 Horseshoe Dr 12.2% 14551 Horseshoe Dr 6.9% 14580 Carnelian Cr 13.9% 19965 Douglass Ln 12.5% 19964 Douglass Ln 10.8% 14552 Horseshoe Dr 12.1% 14562 Horseshoe Dr 12.9% 14584 Horseshoe Dr 6.8% 14606 Horseshoe Dr 10.3% 14610 Horseshoe Dr 11.9% 14590 Horseshoe Dr 17.6% 14570 Horseshoe Dr 13.7% 14555 Horseshoe Dr 12.3% 14575 Horseshoe Dr 20.0% 14595 Horseshoe Dr 18.5% 14605 Horseshoe Dr 12.8% 150 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB13-0071 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 14538 Horseshoe Drive Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Oscar Bakhtiari Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-20-032 Email:oscarbakhtiari@aol.com Report History: Report 1 Date: Plans received August 18, 2014 Report completed September 9, 2014 Report 2 Revised plans and arborist report received May 6, 2015 and May 15, 2015 Report completed May 18, 2015 Report 3 – This report replaces reports 1 and 2 Revised plans received June 3, 2015 Report completed June 4, 2015 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and build a new one story house with basement, attached three car garage, new pool, new sport court and new second dwelling unit. A total of 69 trees grow on the property. The applicant has modified the design to minimize grading and retain more trees than originally planned. Twenty five trees are requested for removal and replacement. Three young oaks are requested for relocation. All of these trees meet the City’s criteria allowing removal and replacement, or relocation, as part of the project. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $274,270 (44 trees) For trees 1 – 10, 13, 18, 19, 33 – 43, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61 – 66, 68 – 70, 72, 81, 84 and 85 Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals and relocation – Removals: Trees 22 – 32, 44 – 49, 53, 55, 71, 73, 77, 78, 79 and 80 are permitted for removal or relocation once building permits are obtained. (25 trees) Relocation: Oak trees 40, 41 and 43. (3 trees) 1 151 14538 Horseshoe Drive Replacement trees – Required = $120,580 FINDINGS: Tree Removals Whenever trees are requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. The applicant has worked extensively with the City Arborist and the Project Arborist to retain the maximum number of good quality trees on the property. They have redesigned the project to retain trees originally requested for removal. Tree Removal Criteria met: Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Details of how each criterion has been met are provided below. Criteria 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 have been met allowing trees to be removed and replaced. Criteria 2, 3 and 8 do not pertain to this situation. Trees requested for removal were found to be in fair or poor condition by the Project Arborist and are in conflict with the proposed project (criterion 1). There will be a large number of trees on the property even after the removal of these trees, and new trees will be planted to replace those removed (criterion 4). Many of the trees currently growing on the property are too close together for good forestry practices (criterion 5). Even if the trees were not in conflict with the project, for many there is no feasible alternative to their removal due to their poor condition (criterion 6). Replacing the removed trees with healthy new trees is consistent with the Tree Regulations (criterion 7). Removal and replacement with new trees provides economic and other enjoyment of the property to the applicant when there is no feasible alternative (criterion 9). If solar panels will be installed a greater setback of trees from the house may be needed (criterion 10). Trees requested for removal: Sixteen trees (11, 12, 14 – 17, 20, 21, 54, 60, 67, 74 – 76, 82 and 83) were removed recently because they died, fell apart or were in poor condition. They will be replaced as part of the project. Three trees (40, 41 and 43) are young oaks suitable for relocation. Eighteen trees (23, 26 – 32, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 53, 77, 78, 79 and 80) are in conflict with the project. The remaining 7 trees (22, 24, 25, 46, 55, 71 and 73) are in in poor condition and not suitable for retention independent of the project. These trees have a total appraised value of $120,580. Replacement Trees The total appraised value of trees requested for removal is $120,580. New trees equal to this appraised value will be required as a condition of the project. Replacement trees will be required in the front yard to provide screening from the street and replace trees in conflict with the new driveway. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. Replacement Tree Values: 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 2 152 14538 Horseshoe Drive 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. Tree Preservation Plan The submitted arborist report dated April 23, 2015 prepared by Deborah Ellis, Consulting Arborist once copied in the final set of plans, will satisfy the requirement for a Tree Preservation Plan under Section 15-50.140 of the City Code. This report is also to be copied onto the final set of plans. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed 2 – Tree Information 3 – Tree Removal Criteria 4 – Conditions of Approval 5 – Map of Site showing tree locations and protective fencing 3 153 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: Memarie Associates Date of Plans: Revised plans received May 6, 2015 Sheet A-0 Cover Sheet Sheet A-1 Existing and Demo Site Plan Sheet A-2 New Site Plan Sheet A-5 Main Floor Plan Sheet A-6 Basement Floor Plan Sheets A-7, A-8 and A-9 Exterior Elevations Sheet A-10 Secondary Unit – Floor Plan and Section Sheet A-11 Secondary Unit – Elevations and Section Sheets A-13 and A-14 Building Sections Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: SMP Engineers Date of Plans: October 22, 2013, revised March 2, 2015 Sheet T-1 Topographic and Boundary Survey Sheet C-2 Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet C-3 Grading and Drainage Plan Details and Sections Landscape Plans reviewed: Preparer: W. Jeffrey Heid Date of Plans: August 9, 2014, revised May 14, 2015 Sheet L-1 Conceptual Landscape Plan Sheet L-2 Landscape Details TREE INFORMATION: Preparer: Deborah Ellis, M.S., Registered Consulting Arborist #305 Dates of Arborist Reports and letter: April 23, 2015, June 16, April 15, October 21 and September 29, 2014 An arborist report submitted for this project inventoried 85 trees on the property protected by Saratoga City Code. The report included a map of the site and tree locations, the condition of each tree, its appraised value, and tree protection recommendations. It also provided comments on likely impacts from the proposed construction. Sixteen trees were previously requested and approved for removal with tree removal permits TRP14-0185, TRP14-0197 and TRP14-0371. 4 154 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 2 TREE INFORMATION: Table 1: Summary of Tree Information from April 23, 2015 report. 5 155 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 2 6 156 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 2 7 157 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 2 8 158 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 2 9 159 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 3 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. 10 160 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and to implement the required conditions. 2. Al recommendations in the arborist report dated April 23, 2015 prepared by Deborah Ellis shall become conditions of approval. 3. The arborist report dated April 23, 2015 shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 4. This report shall also be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans. 5. The designated Project Arborist shall be Deborah Ellis, Consulting Arborist unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 6. Tree Protection Security Deposit a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be $274,270 c. Shall be for tree(s) 1 – 10, 13, 18, 19, 33 – 43, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61 - 66, 68 – 70, 72, 81 and 85. d. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. e. May be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. f. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. g. 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 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 week during grading activities and monthly thereafter. Following visits to the site, the Project Arborist shall provide the City with a report including photos documenting the progress of the project and noting any tree issues. 11 161 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 4 9. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within: a. 8 feet of trees 1 – 10, 19, 33 – 38, 57 b. 10 feet of trees 39, 50, 51, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 81 c. 20 feet of trees 69, 70 10. The Project Arborist shall monitor: a. The relocation of oak trees 40, 41 and 43. b. Installation of the columns at the driveway entrance. c. Excavation for the foundation for the second unit, covered patio, outdoor kitchen and pool equipment. d. Installation of the driveway by trees 34 and 35. e. Excavation associated with installation of utilities. f. Construction of sport court wall by tree 81. 11. Prior to and following relocation of oaks 40, 41 and 43, applicant shall water them as recommended by the Project Arborist and the tree moving company to ensure their survival. 12. Trenching to install utilities is not permitted inside tree protection fencing. 13. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 14. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 15. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. 16. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 17. Stockpiling of construction materials or equipment, and the disposal of construction debris or harmful products, is prohibited under tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies. 18. 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. 19. Oaks 40, 41 and 43 are approved for relocation out of the path of construction. At least one of these trees shall remain in the front yard. 20. Trees 22 – 32, 44 – 49, 53, 55, 71, 73, 77, 78, 79 and 80 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building Division permits have been obtained. 12 162 14538 Horseshoe Drive Attachment 4 21. 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. 22. New trees equal to $120,580 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. 23. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 24. At least 4 new trees shall be planted in the front yard. 25. The rest of the replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. 26. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 27. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. 28. Should any tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant new trees, some or all of the replacement value for trees shall be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. 29. 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 following construction. 30. 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. 13 163 Attachment 5 Legend Tree Protection Fencing 14538 Horseshoe Drive Map is from April 23, 2015 arborist report. Tree protection locations have been added. 14 164 165 Page 1 of 7 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: PDR10-0009/VAR15-0002 / 15397 Peach Hill Road Type of Application: Design Review and Variance application to remodel an existing three story single-family home. Applicant/Owner: Mehdi and Azar Amini Staff Planner: Chris Riordan Meeting Date: June 24, 2015 APN: 517-22-100 15397 Peach Hill Road SITE 166 Page 2 of 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review and Variance approval to construct a 357 square foot addition to an existing 5,238 square feet, three-story, single-family residence. In addition, the project includes extensive remodeling of the exterior of the residence resulting in a completely different architectural style. The maximum height of the project is 26 feet. The parcel size is approximately 1.2 acres and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The proposed design of the applicant’s remodel was previously approved by the Planning Commission on August 9, 2006 and expired 36 months later on August 9, 2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-029 approving Design Review PDR10-0009 and VAR15-0002 subject to conditions of approval. Design Review Approval is required for an addition to an existing structure that would expand the second story floor area by one hundred square feet or more per City Code Section 15-45.065(2). Planning Commission approval of a variance is required by per City Code Section 15- 70.020. PROJECT DATA: Gross Site Area: 53,162 square feet (1.22 acres) Average Site Slope: 22% Zoning: R-1-40,000 General Plan Designation: RVLD (Very Low Density Residential) Proposed Allowable/Required Proposed Site Coverage Residence: Covered Porch Deck: Hardscape/Walkways Driveway Total Proposed Site Coverage 2,665 SF 1,105 SF 2,907 SF 1,256 SF 10,016 SF 17,949 SF (33.7%) 18,609 SF 35% Floor Area Garage Lower Floor: First Floor: Second Floor Total Proposed Floor Area 364 SF 550 SF 2,665 SF 2,016 SF 5,595 SF 5,610 SF Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point Highest Elevation Point Average Elevation Point Proposed Topmost Point 124.36 FT 133.06 FT 124.36 FT 154.71 (26.00 FT) 154.71 (26 Feet) 167 Page 3 of 7 Setbacks Front: Rear: Left Side (1st and 2nd Floors): Right Side (1st and 2nd Floors): 125’-10” 116’-9” 24’-2”/26’-9” 64’-11”/64’-11” 30’ 50/60’ 20’/25’ 20’/25’ PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The 53,162 square feet project site is located at 15397 Peach Hill Road. A private road provides vehicular which encircles the site along it southern edge. The site slopes to the north and east with an average slope of 22%. The project site is located in a residential area that consists of both one and two-story homes on large, generally one-acre lots. The area has many eclectic architectural styles that vary from French eclectic, Craftsman, Contemporary, Modern, to Mediterranean. The project is visible from the immediate homes to the north and east but the homes immediately to the west and south are screened from view by vegetation. The applicant request Design Review approval to construct a 357 square foot addition including 119 feet on the main floor and 238 square feet on the upper floor. The applicant is also proposing to extensively remodel the interior and exterior of the building, resulting in a complete alteration of its architectural style. The lower level of the residence contains an existing 550 square foot secondary dwelling unit and a two car garage. This area is not considered a ‘basement’, and is therefore considered floor area, because the finished floor of the main level is greater than 42 inches above existing grade. Because the lower level is not a basement it is included in the calculation of floor area and is therefore considered a ‘floor’. Both the main and upper levels are located above the lower level. The City Code prohibits three story residences (Section 15-12.100(c) and therefore it is considered to be a nonconforming structure. The estimated valuation of the remodel will exceed 50% of the construction valuation of the structure and therefore it is considered to be a ‘voluntary reconstruction’ and must conform to all applicable standards (conversion to a two story). The applicant has applied for a variance to remodel the structure and to maintain the three story structure in its current configuration. This project as proposed was originally approved by the Planning Commission in August 2006. Design review approval expires within 36 months from the date on which the approval became effective, unless a building permit is issued and construction commenced prior to the expiration date. A building permit was not issued and the project approval expired. The applicant resubmitted a Design Review application in June 2010. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Beige colored cement plaster Trim Light tan colored cast-stone sills and columns Windows Beige colored wood clad Entry Door Stained wood Roof Composition 168 Page 4 of 7 Historic Evaluation The existing residence is approximately 85 years old and its architecture was originally reflective of the late Arts & Crafts design in its simple shape, gables and use of natural materials. The original shingles have been replaced and the wood frame windows have been retrofitted with aluminum sash frames. Most of the interior has been renovated and, except for the central living room, it is no longer substantially consistent with the Arts and Crafts design. The original application from 2006 included a historic and architectural evaluation prepared by Archives and Architecture. It was determined that the structure is not associated with significant persons in history and that it current design is no longer reflective of the Arts and Crafts Design. The Heritage Preservation Commission visited the site and agreed with the historic evaluation. Design/Architecture The remodeled residence incorporates both Greek and Classical Revival architectural styles. A new front porch is to be added with tall columns and a faux balcony with balustrades above the entrance. The covered porch area along the lower level of the east elevation is to be replaced with a covered porch with columns that extend from the first to the second level and around to the front of the structure. The proposed rear elevation includes a new balcony. The existing rear wood deck does not allow sufficient access to the basement-level garage and it will be removed and replaced with a new deck reminiscent in style as the reminder of the structure. When the Planning Commission initially reviewed the project in August 2006 the primary areas of concern were with the projects bulk and mass. More specifically, the Commission requested that the applicant consider reducing the thickness of the fascia and columns and related design elements to help reduce the sense of bulk. An additional issue for the Commission was the intermingling of architectural elements which contributed to the sense of mass. Prior to receiving Commission approval the project was redesigned with narrower columns with a base and volutes in the Ionic style, multi-paned rectangular windows were added with decorative crowns with a narrower cornice with corbels beneath. The front entry cover was extended beyond the edge of the porch and a balcony was added over the front entrance. Variance The residence contains a lower level which is not considered a ‘basement’, and is therefore considered floor area, because the finished floor of the main level is greater than 42 inches above existing grade. Because the lower level is not a basement it is included in the calculation of floor area and is therefore considered a ‘floor’. The City Code prohibits three story residences. Both the main and upper levels are located above the lower level. The applicant has applied for a variance to remodel the structure and to maintain the three story structure in its current configuration. The current project has the same configuration as the project that was originally approved by the Planning Commission and it was an oversight in the review process that a variance application was not required which the project was approved in August 2006. 169 Page 5 of 7 Trees The site contains a significant number of trees. The project is contained within an area that is developed and no trees are impacted by the project. Arborist review was not required. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence The applicant has shown the proposed plans to adjacent neighbors. No negative neighbor comments were received. Completed Neighbor Notification forms are included as Attachment #4. Staff mailed a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Attachment #3). The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. No additional written comments, either positive or negative, were received prior to the completion of this staff report. FINDINGS Design Review Findings The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings. These findings are in addition to and not a substitute for compliance with all other Zoning Regulations. (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 project site is already developed with an existing home and paving. The project is limited to a remodel of the existing residence with a minimal sized first story addition. No grading is proposed that could modify the natural contours of the site. (b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. The project meets this finding because even though the site contains a significant number of protected trees, there are no protected trees in the vicinity of the project site that will be impacted by the project. (c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. The project meets this finding because the project is located and designed to minimize interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties to the north, south, and west. New windows and balconies are proposed on the upper floor that will not unreasonably interfere with privacy of adjacent residences. In addition, setbacks meet or significantly exceed the minimum required setbacks and adjacent homes are screened by mature landscaping. 170 Page 6 of 7 (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 architectural style and proposed colors and materials will minimize the perception of excessive bulk by the use of elements of Greek Revival architecture. The walls are set back from the edge of the porch and include detailing and windows that are consistent with Greek Revival architecture and add interest and articulation to the building. (e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project meets this finding because the front setback area is landscaped with existing vegetation that will not be impacted by the project. The driveway circles the sides and rear of the lot and minimizes hardscape in the front setback area. The existing landscaping is complementary to the neighborhood streetscape and existing landscaping of the area by its use of native vegetation. (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the house is located approximately at the center of the site and the second story setbacks exceed the minimum requirements which when taken together would minimize shadows being cast on adjacent properties which could limit or reduce their solar energy opportunities. (g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. (h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoids unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. The project meets this finding because the site is not located in a Hillside Residential Zoning District and although the site is classified as a hillside lots because the average slope exceeds 10%, there is no impact to ridgelines, significant hillside features, nor community viewsheds. Variance Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Variance findings stated in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-70.060: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in same zoning district. The project meets this finding because the existing three story single-family home was legally constructed in 1928 prior to Saratoga’s incorporation in 1956. The residence was 171 Page 7 of 7 originally constructed as a two-story home with a basement but became nonconforming with the adoption of the City’s zoning code. The City Code considers a ‘story’ as those areas of a basement where the main story finished floor exceeds 42 inches above finished grade. A portion of the main story and the upper stories are located above the basement which classifies the residences as a three-story building. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The project meets this finding because the subject residence is classified as a three story structure due to lower level being considered a floor and not a basement. The project will not be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the R-1-40,000 zoning district because the City’s development regulations do not allow three story structures. Since the structure already exists and was constructed when there was not a limit on three story structures, there is no special privilege because the house already exists and will be maintained in its current configuration. (c) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project meets this finding because the project would be limited to a remodel of the existing structure within the existing building footprint. The project would be required to meet California Building Code Standards. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the regulations and will have no negative impact to the public health, safety, or welfare. 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 of one single- family residence in a residential area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Neighbor Notification Forms 3. Project Rendering. 4. Public hearing notice 5. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A) 172 RESOLUTION NO: 15-029 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR10-0009 AND VARIANCE 15-0002 LOCATED AT 15397 PEACH HILL ROAD WHEREAS, on June 8, 2010, an application was submitted by Mehdi Amini requesting Design Review and Variance approval to remodel and existing three story home at 15397 Peach Hill Road. The project has a total floor area of 5,595 square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 26 feet. The site is located within the R-1-40,000 Zoning District (APN 517-22-100). 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, the project was previously approved by the Planning Commission on August 9, 2006. Construction did not commence within 36 months and the approval expired, and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2010, the applicant submitted a new application for the same project, and WHEREAS, on June 24, 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. 173 Resolution No. 15-029 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 project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the improvements are consistent with the variance findings in that there special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified; the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR10-0009 and VAR15-0002, located at 15397 Peach Hill Road, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 24th day of June 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 174 Resolution No. 15-029 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 the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not 175 Resolution No. 15-029 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". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. 176 177 178 179 180 181 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 24th day of June 2015, 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: PDR10-0009 & VAR15-0002; 15397 Peach Hill Road OWNER: Amini APN: 393-33-055 DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review and Variance approval for a 119 square foot first story and a 238 square foot second story addition and a substantial exterior remodel to an existing 4,926 square feet legal non-conforming three story single-family home. The structure is considered nonconforming because the City Code prohibits three story residences in the R-1 zoning district. The net site area is 53,162 square feet and the property is zone R-1-40,000. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 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 22, 2015. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Senior Planner (408) 868-1235 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 24, 2015 Application: ZOA15-0007 / ENV15-0004 Location City Wide Owner/Applicant: Kevin Tsai Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration. 2. Adopt an ordinance which includes various changes to Articles 15-45 (Design Review) and 16-65 (Ground Movement Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code. BACKGROUND: The geologic areas of the City are identified and depicted on the City’s “Ground Movement Potential Map”. This map identifies areas of geologic instability and are separated into categories consisting of Sbr, Sls, Sun, Paf, Ps, Pd, Pdf, Ms, Md, and Pf. A definition for each of these categories in included in the attached ordinance. The most stable areas of the City are designated as Sun, Sls, Ps, Paf. The Sun designation includes the majority of the City that is not hillside. Development in this area requires the submittal of a soils report and building department approval, review and approval by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant is not required. The Sls, Ps, and Paf zones do require a geological soils investigation and approval by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. Construction measures to achieve a stable foundation in these zones require relatively standard geotechnical techniques. Construction in the Md zone is prohibited and construction in the Pf zone is severely restricted and limited by fault line location. The Pmw, Pd, and Pdf, and Ms are the most widespread areas of geotechnical instability in the hillsides. Construction in these areas requires the submittal of a geologic and soils investigation report which is reviewed by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant to determine if the project, as designed, will be structurally safe from earth movement. In some instances, the geotechnical remediation measures required to obtain the required clearances to determine that the project is structurally safe from earth movement may not be technically or financially feasible for relatively small projects such as minor building additions. For example, deep landslides and/or recommended repairs sometime extend onto adjacent 192 Page 2 of 4 properties which are beyond the control of the applicant, or the scope of recommended slide repairs (and associated costs) are so large that they are disproportionate to the project size and financially infeasible for a single property owner. Many of the existing homes in geotechnical hazard areas were constructed prior to the City’s incorporation in 1956 and the majority do not meet current building or seismic code regulations (i.e. lack of shear walls, engineered foundations, etc.) Several cities in the Bay Area have similar geotechnical conditions for hillside areas but allow more flexibility for existing structures and new development than the City’s regulations. The proposed amendment is intended to provide a minimum amount of flexibility for homeowners to add on or remodel their homes in these geotechnical hazard areas without compromising the stringent safety requirements adopted by the City. DISCUSSION: The applicant reviewed an addition to his home with City Staff and it was determined that the property is located in a Pd area. The proposed project includes a 1,116 square foot residential addition to an existing 4,452 square foot single-family home located at 20972 Saratoga Hills Road. he applicant has submitted the required geotechnical report and it was determined by the applicant’s geologist and the City’s Geotechnical Consultant that the existing landslide in the area is of a depth that may make it impossible to design the project to prevent earth movement even with the installation of extremely expensive remediation measures. Due to these unresolved geotechnical concerns, the City has suspended further reviews of the addition application. In response to the City Code requirements, the property owner of 20972 Saratoga Hills Road submitted an application for a Code Amendment to the City Code which if approved would enable his project to continue through the City’s development process. The proposed amendment would allow limited-scale residential additions only for existing homes in specified geologic hazard zones when a remediation measures required by a geotechnical analysis and report have been determined to be technically or financially infeasible by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. The proposed amendments would be included in a new section of Article 16-65 and would allow limited additions, defined as a Categorically Permitted Project, to existing structures as follows: · An addition not exceeding 500 square feet, or 25% of the square footage of the existing building, whichever is greater; · Remodel of the existing floor area limited to 50%; · The recordation of a statement acknowledging the risk of constructing in a geotechnical hazard area. · Execution of an agreement which indemnifies the City of any risks or responsibilities All applications for a Categorically Permitted Project will still be required to submit a geotechnical report for review by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant to specify all necessary 193 Page 3 of 4 geotechnical remediation’s for the project. As part of the review of the report, the City with the recommendation from the City’s Geotechnical Consultant could determine that the specified remediation are not be feasible due to the scope of the project and in this case, the applicant could submit an application for a Categorically Permitted Project to be reviewed for approval. Additionally, Categorically Permitted Projects will be required to meet all modern building and seismic code regulations. A Categorically Permitted Project will be required to demonstrate to the City’s Geotechnical Consultant, that the design of the project will include an “Engineered Design” which will improve the overall safety of the existing building. An Engineered Design requires appropriate soil, foundation, and structural measures to provide an improved foundation and an overall safer development than the existing home on the project site. Planning Commission Study Session - During a June 9, 2015 Study Session the Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the proposed amendments to the City’s Ground Movement Potential Regulations. Other than recommended minor revisions to proposed ordinance text, the primary direction provided by the Commission focused on: 1. The amount of total allowable square footage for Categorically Permitted Projects; and 2. Whether Categorically Permitted Projects should be subject to approval by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission during Design Review. As mentioned in a preceding paragraph, a Categorically Permitted Project is limited to an addition not exceeding 500 square feet, or 25% of the square footage of the existing building, whichever is greater. The Commission expressed concern that allowing a residential addition of 25% could result in some large homes in geologically unstable areas depending on the original size of the house. Section 16-65.060 of the ordinance has been modified to reflect the Commission’s direction that Categorically Permitted Projects are not to exceed a total floor area of 6,000 square feet. As proposed, a Categorically Permitted Project can be approved by the Community Development Director as a ministerial project and would not include formal public notice such as mailed notices to surrounding property owners. The Commission expressed concerns that adjacent property owners would not be made aware of a pending project and may not be afforded an opportunity to provide project related comments. The general consensus of the Commission was that Categorically Permitted Projects should be subject to Design Review approval by the Planning Commission which includes a 500 foot radius mailing of a hearing notice and project description to surrounding property owners. Section 16-65.060 of the ordinance has been modified to reflect the Commission’s direction that Categorically Permitted Projects would be subject to Planning Commission Design Review. A related modification has been made to Section 15-45.060 to include a Categorically Permitted Project in the list of projects subject to design review approval by the Planning Commission. An alternative to the Planning Commission reviewing all applications for Categorically Permitted Projects is that these applications could be made subject to Administrative Design Review that would be reviewed and approved by planning staff. This type of review would still include a formal mailed notice to adjacent property owners, but the mailing radius would be 250 feet instead of 500 194 Page 4 of 4 feet. Staff approval of Categorically Permitted Project would still be subject to an appeal to the Planning Commission. Initial Study/Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts - The updates to the Ground Movement Potential Regulations are subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared pursuant CEQA requirements and it was determined that the adoption of the revisions to the Ground Movement Potential Regulations would not have a potentially significant effect on the environment. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published in the Saratoga News and filed with the County Recorder for a public review period from June 4, 2015 through June 24, 2015. A copy of the Initial Study / Negative Declaration is included as Attachment #1A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Resolution for Approval with the following Attachments: · Exhibit A – Negative Declaration · Exhibit B – Ordinance 195 Attachment 1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO: 15-028 Applications ZOA15-0007 & ENV15-0004 Updates to Article 15-45 (Design Review), 16-65 (Ground Movement Regulations) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines with respect the above described application: WHEREAS, the purpose of the Ground Movement Potential Maps is to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and prohibit building in areas of existing earth movement or areas having extreme potential for earth movement, and not to permit building in those areas which are marginally stable and have either moderate or high potential for earth movement unless and until adequate precautionary measures are taken and further professional opinion is obtained certifying that the site is safely developable, and WHEREAS, in some instances, the geotechnical remediation measures required to obtain the required clearances to determine that the project is structurally safe from earth movement may not be technically or financially feasible for relatively small projects such as minor building additions, and WHEREAS, if it is determined that the specified remediation will not be feasible due to the scope of a project the City would accept an application for a Categorically Permitted Project, and WHEREAS, a Categorically Permitted Project will be required to demonstrate to the City’s Geotechnical Consultant, that the design of the project will include an “Engineered Design” which will improve the overall safety of the existing building. An Engineered Design requires appropriate soil, foundation, and structural measures to provide an improved foundation and safer development than the existing structure, and WHEREAS, categorically permitted projects will require Planning Commission Design Review approval, and WHEREAS, a purpose of Article 16-65 (Ground Movement Regulations) of the City Code is to implement the goals and policies contained in the Safety Element, and WHEREAS, modification to Articles 15-45 (Design Review) would provide consistency within the City Code; and WHEREAS, public participation opportunity was provided through a Planning Commission Study and Public Hearing, and 196 2 WHEREAS, on June 24, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the draft amendments to Article 15-45 (Design Review) and 16-65 (Ground Movement Regulations) at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission considered the draft amendments to the City Code, the Staff Report, CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing, and WHEREAS, environmental review was completed in the form of an Initial Study and it was determined that the proposed adoption of the amendments to the City Code would not result in potential significant impacts to the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from June 4, 2015 through June 24, 2015 and represents the City’s independent judgment and analysis, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed amendments are consistent with the City of Saratoga General Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The legislation described in the recitals is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the Project. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Goals and Policies: Land Use Element 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 Goal SAF-1 which provides that the City shall protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage resulting from land instability and geologic hazards; Safety Element Policy SAF-1.1 that the City shall limit shall not permit development in geologic hazard areas without individual site-specific geotechnical investigations to determine depth of bedrock, soil stability, location of rift zones and other localized geotechnical problems Section 4: After careful consideration of the staff report, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts (Exhibit A) and amendments to Articles 15-45 (Design Review) and 16-65 (Ground Movement Potential Maps) of the City Code (Exhibit B). PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 24th day of June 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: 197 3 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission Exhibit A – Negative Declaration Exhibit B – Ordinance 198 Exhibit A 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 Exhibit B 1 ORDINANCE __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE REGARDING GROUND MOVEMENT REGULATIONS Findings 1. The City of Saratoga wishes to update the City Ground Movement Regulations. 2. The updates in this ordinance affect provisions of the City’s ground movement regulations. These amendments were considered by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga and the Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on ______, 2015, recommended adoption of these updates to City Ground Movement Regulations. 3. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on _____________, 2015 and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing, introduced this ordinance. Therefore, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is amended as set forth below. Text to be added is indicated in bold double underlined font (e.g., underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font is readopted by this ordinance. 1. Article 15-45 DESIGN REVIEW: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 15-45.060 - Planning Commission design review; public hearing. (a) Pursuant to this Article, the following projects shall receive design review approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district: (1) Any new multi-story main structure or multi-story accessory structure. (2) Any conversion of a single-story structure to a multi-story structure. (3) Any new structure over eighteen feet in height or any existing structure that would exceed eighteen feet in height as a result of the proposed construction. (4) Any project that requires design review under the terms or conditions of any tentative or final subdivision map, use permit, variance or conditional rezoning. (5) Any new dwelling on a lot having a net site area of less than five thousand square feet. 234 Exhibit B 2 (6) Any project that increases the cumulative floor area of all structures on a site to more than six thousand square feet. (7) Any project that, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, may be significantly inconsistent with the design review findings required in Section 15-14.080 of this Article, or may cause excessive damage to the natural environment, or may result in excessive intensification of the use or development of the site. (8) Any addition to a structure over eighteen feet in height that would expand the existing floor area by more than fifty percent or modify the existing footprint by more than fifty percent. (9) All Categorically Permitted projects located within the Pmw, Pd, and Pdf areas as identified on the City’s Ground Movement Potential Map. (b) A public hearing on the application for design review approval under this Article shall be required. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site which is the subject of the application. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. (Amended by Ord. 71.98 § 11, 1991; Ord. 71.113 § 10, 1992; Ord. 71-179 § 1, 1998; Ord. 221 § 2 (part), 2003; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006; Ord. No. 314, § 1, 3-5-2014) and by Ord. No. ___, § ____, 06-__-2015) 2. Article 16-65 GROUND MOVEMENT REGULATIONS Sections: 16-65.010 Purposes of Article 16-65.020 Adoption of Ground Movement Potential Maps 16-65.025 Definitions 16-65.030 Md Area prohibitions 16-65.040 Sls, Sun, Paf, Pmw, Ps, Pd, Pdf and Ms Area restrictions 16-65.050 Pf Area restriction 16-65.060 Categorically Permitted Projects 16-65.070 Criteria for Approval of Categorically Permitted Projects 16-65.080 Application for Categorically Permitted Projects 16-65.090 No Appeal 235 Exhibit B 3 16-65.010 - Purposes of Article. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is essential to restrict building in areas of existing earth movement or areas having extreme potential for earth movement, and not to permit building in those areas which are marginally stable and have either moderate or high potential for earth movement unless and until adequate precautionary measures are taken and further professional opinion is obtained certifying that a site is safely developable. The purpose of this Article is to adopt certain ground movement potential maps relating to various areas of the City having actual or potential earth movement, and to establish restrictions and requirements for development in these areas based upon the designations of slope stability as shown on such maps. (Amended by Ord. No. 307, § 1.D.28, 10-16-2013) 16-65.020 - Adoption of Ground Movement Potential Maps. (a) Reference is hereby made to the following maps, copies of which have been filed with the City Engineer for use and examination by the public, which maps are is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference, together with any amendments thereto: (1) Ground Movement Potential Map—City of Saratoga, California, dated April 2013, prepared by Cotton, Shires and Associates, Geotechnical Consultants. Reference is further made to the designations of slope stability shown on said maps, consisting of Sbr, Sls, Sun, Paf, Pmw, Ps, Pd, Pdf, Ms, Md, and Pf, which designations are defined in Section 16-65.025 below and graduate generally from the most stable areas to the least stable areas. The precise location of the boundary of each designated area is subject to adjustment by the City on the basis of a site specific geologic and geotechnical report prepared by a certified engineering geologist licensed by the State. (b) The restrictions and requirements set forth in this Article shall apply to all areas as shown on said maps which are located within the City limits, and all areas which may hereafter be added to the City through annexation or other legal process. (Amended by Ord. No. 307, § 1.D.28, 10-16-2013 and by Ord. No. ___, § ____, 06-__-2015) 16-65.025 - Definitions. The following definitions are established for the purposes of this Article: “Alteration and Repair.” For purposes of this Article only, alteration (remodel) and repairs occurs when construction does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the square footage of the existing building or structure being altered or repaired. “Categorically Permitted Project.” A Categorically Permitted Project is a remodel and/or addition to one legally existing structure on a legally existing parcel based on an Engineered Design and limited to a maximum remodel of fifty percent (50%), and an 236 Exhibit B 4 addition of 500 square feet or twenty-five percent (25%) of the square footage of the existing building or structure, whichever is greater. “Engineered Design.” An Engineered Design requires a thorough geotechnical investigation and appropriate soil, foundation and structural measures to provide an improved foundation and safer development. “Ground Movement.” Earth movement including without limitation all types of landsliding. Ground Movement expressly does not include house settlement unrelated to landsliding or earth shaking from seismic activity that does not cause lateral earth displacement. “Md.” Md means moving deep landslide (more than 10 feet deep). “Ms.” Ms means moving shallow landslide (10 feet deep or less). “Paf.” Paf means artificial fill which can settle. “Pd.” Pd means potentially deep landslide, deeper than 10 feet. “Pdf.” Pdf means debris flow, fast moving. “Pf.” Pf means potential for primary ground rupture and displacement along faults. “Pmw.” Pmw means potential movement or mass wasting on steep slopes, by rockfalls and slumping. “Ps.” Ps means potentially shallow, slope areas that could creep and/or fail by land sliding up to 10 feet deep. “Reconstruction.” For purposes of this Article only, reconstruction means any work that would expand the floor area by more than fifty percent (50%) or modify the footprint by more than fifty percent (50%) of the square footage of the existing building or structure being reconstructed. “Sbr.” Sbr means stable bedrock within three feet of the surface. “Sls.” Sls means naturally stabilized ancient landslide debris. “Sun.” Sun means stable unconsolidated material on gentle slopes or low slope, (e.g., alluvial type soils). “Staff.” Staff includes, but. is not limited to: City Geologist , City Geotechnical Consultant, City Engineer, City Building Inspector and City Community Development Director. 237 Exhibit B 5 “Unstable Ground.” Unstable Ground as referred to in this Article is earth that has a potential for Ground Movement and not identified on the Potential Ground Movement Map adopted under Section 16-65.020 with an “S” for stable. 16-65.030 – Md Area prohibitions. (a) No tentative or final subdivision approval shall be granted for any property which includes land in an Md area, unless such inclusion will not result in or permit any building, structure, driveway or street to be located in such area, and the entire Md area is dedicated as open space on a recorded map or agreement which contains an express prohibition against the construction or installation of any improvements in such area. (b) No building or grading permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of any building or structure or any foundations therefor in an Md area, except for repair, reconstruction or modification of existing buildings or structures where such does not increase the floor space under roof and where such repair, reconstruction or modification does not require or involve any new or additional foundation. 16-65.035 – Sun, Sls, Ps and Paf area requirements No tentative or final subdivision approval shall be granted, nor shall any building or grading permit be issued for the construction or installation of any new building or structure, or addition to any existing building or structure, nor shall any new building or structure be constructed or installed until all of the following requirements have been fully satisfied: (a) Within Sun areas, a geologic and soils investigation report is prepared in accordance with Section 14-20.020 of this Code which is subject to review and approval by the Chief Building Official. (b) Within Sls, Ps and Paf areas, a geological or geotechnical investigation report as required by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant is prepared in accordance with 14- 20.020 of this code which is subject to review and approval by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. (c) Issuance of a building permit in accordance with Section 16-05.030. 16-65.040 – Sls, Sun, Paf, Pmw, Ps, Pd, Pdf and Ms Area restrictions. No tentative or final subdivision approval shall be granted, nor shall any building or grading permit be issued for the construction or installation of any new building or structure, or addition to any existing building or structure, nor shall any new building or structure be constructed or installed in any Sls, Sun, Paf, Pmw, Ps, Pd, Pdf or Ms area unless and until all of the following requirements have been fully satisfied: 238 Exhibit B 6 (a) A geologic and soils geotechnical investigation report has been prepared in accordance with Section 14-20.020 of this Code and a site development plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 14-25.100 of this Code, and such report and development plan have been approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. (b) The owner of the property executes and files with the City Clerk and the Community Development Department a written statement representing to the City that he/she is relying upon the written investigation, report and opinion of the owner's geologist and geotechnical consultant regarding the safety of proposed development and that if the requested subdivision or site approval or building, grading or other permit or permits are granted, the owner agrees to and does thereby indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, boards, commissions, employees, agents and professional consultants, free and harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, suits or liabilities claimed by the owner or any other person by reason of any actual or potential geologic hazard, including, without limitation, land slippage, landslide, earthquake, slope instability, soil or sub-soil instability, or lack of lateral or subjacent support of any kind or nature, including any failure, collapse or damage to any building or structure or its foundation, and further stating that the owner is voluntarily and knowingly assuming the all risks thereof. (c) In addition to the foregoing requirements, for a Pmw, Pd, Pdf or Ms area, the geologic and geotechnical report referred to in subsection (a) of this Section is finalized, and contains the opinion of applicant’s certified engineering geologist or geotechnical consultant, stating that the proposed subdivision, building site or land development and the proposed improvements to be constructed or installed thereon, as designed, will be safe for the intended use against hazard from earth movement. (d) In Pmw, Pd, and Pdf areas, after compliance with the foregoing requirements with the exception of Section 16-65.040(c), a Categorically Permitted Project may be approved, subject to compliance with Sections 16-65.060 and 16-65.070. Amended by Ord. No. 307, § 1.D.28, 10-16-2013 and by Ord. No. ___, § ____, 06-__-2015) 16-65.050 – Pf Area restrictions. No tentative or final subdivision approval shall be granted, nor shall any building or grading permit be issued for the construction or installation of any new building or structure, or addition to any existing building or structure, nor shall any new building or structure be constructed or installed in any Pf area unless and until all of the following requirements have been fully satisfied: (a) A geologic investigation report has been prepared by a certified engineering geologist and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant, showing the location or suspected location of faults; 239 Exhibit B 7 (b) A setback zone has been established along the identified or suspected fault location, as approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant, and a map or agreement has been recorded designating such setback area as open space and prohibiting the construction of any buildings or structures therein; and (c) The owner of the property has executed and filed with the City Clerk a written statement and indemnity agreement as described in subsection 16-65.040(b) of this Article. (Amended by Ord. No. 307, § 1.D.28, 10-16-2013 and by Ord. No. ___, § ____, 06-__-2015) 16-65.060 – Categorically Permitted Projects in Pmw, Pd, and Pdf areas. (a) General provisions for all Categorically Permitted Projects in Pmw, Pd, and Pdf areas. Categorically Permitted Projects in Pmw, Pd, and Pdf areas may be considered in deliberations on the associated applications for development and are subject to Design Review approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 15-45.060 of this code. A Categorically Permitted Project may be allowed only for a remodel and/or addition to one legally existing structure on a legally existing parcel based on an Engineered Design (as defined in Section 16-65.025) and limited to a maximum remodel of fifty percent (50%) and addition of 500 square feet or twenty-five percent (25%) of the square footage of the existing building or structure, whichever is greater, with the exception that the total floor area of the remodeled structure shall not exceed 6,000 square feet. A Categorically Permitted Project may only be approved when it is clearly demonstrated to the City’s Geotechnical Consultant that such Categorically Permitted Project will improve the overall safety of existing buildings and will not unduly jeopardize human safety, property on the site, or adjoining public or private property. Nothing in this Section shall be interpreted as authorizing anything in contradiction to any other City policy or regulation, including, without limitation, the City General Plan and all City building and zoning regulations including but not limited to floor area requirements. No new variance for floor area or site coverage shall be allowed if a Categorically Permitted Project is approved on a site. This provision allows for maintenance, repair, or limited alteration (remodel) of, and/or limited addition to a qualifying existing building or structure whether or not the building or structure has been damaged by ground movement. Total reconstruction of a building or structure may not be approved as a Categorically Permitted Project. When an Engineered Design is approved for a building or structure, the building or structure can be permitted by Planning Commission to achieve the floor area allowed under the General Plan and Chapter 15 of the Zoning Regulations. Each proposed Categorically Permitted Project shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the Planning Commission shall further limit the building or 240 Exhibit B 8 structure based on the “Criteria for Approval of Categorically Permitted Projects” in Section 16-65.070 below and other applicable regulations. A Categorically Permitted Project shall not be allowed that involves the conversion of a non-dwelling structure to a dwelling unit, as dwelling unit is defined in Section 15-06.240(a) of the Zoning Regulations. (b) Review Based Additionally on Criteria in Section 16-65.070 and Other Chapter 16 Requirements. Since an Engineered Design may require significant grading and access by drilling equipment, excavation equipment and trucks, an Engineered Design must impose requirements that carefully control implementation of the project. Accordingly, each application for a Categorically Permitted Project employing an Engineered Design shall be reviewed based on the “Criteria for Approval of Categorically Permitted Projects” in Section 16-65.070 below, with particular attention to the minimization of impact on drainage, native terrain, vegetation and neighboring properties. There shall be no significant adverse change in grading or drainage and the grading and resulting drainage shall comply with City standards for grading in Chapter 16. (c) Limitations in Square Footage of Alteration (Remodel) and Addition Based on Size of Existing Structure at Time of First Application for Categorically Permitted Project. Once a Categorically Permitted Project is issued an approval for a building or structure, subsequent modification(s) may not in total exceed any square footage limitation for either alteration (remodel) or addition established by this Section. These square footage limitations do not prevent changes in architectural details. 16-65.070– Additional Criteria for Approval of Categorically Permitted Projects. (a) The Planning Commission shall evaluate each application for a Categorically Permitted Project against the following criteria. The degree of compliance with the listed criteria shall be commensurate with the scope of the work subject to the building permit applied for as determined by the Planning Commission. Findings must be made with respect to each criterion listed below for each Categorically Permitted Project. (1) Use standards of practice structural/geotechnical engineering methods taking into account the underlying geology. (2) Limitation and control of the final project and construction process, including grading and the use of excavation equipment, drilling equipment and trucks, so as to minimize impacts on the natural characteristics of the site. (3) Control of drainage to minimize on-site and offsite adverse impacts. (4) Demonstration that the improvements do not interfere with existing, or proposed, septic tanks and/or drainfields and that the septic system complies with applicable public health standards. 241 Exhibit B 9 (5) Stabilization of actively moving ground when deemed necessary and feasible. (6) Improvement of the overall safety of a building or structure and site over the safety of the building or structure and site that existed prior to making improvements. Improvements shall address problems related to the geologic stability of the site, but may address other factors, for example, improvements in fire safety. (7) Avoidance of imposing a risk to adjoining properties. (8) Adequate demonstration that the building or structure is a legally existing building or structure. 16-65.080 – Application for Categorically Permitted Project. An application for a Categorically Permitted Project shall describe the exact nature of the Categorically Permitted Project on a form provided by the City Community Development Department and provide any and all other information required by the Community Development Director. The Categorically Permitted Project application shall expressly describe how and to what extent the project conforms to each of the items listed under the “Criteria for Approval of Categorically Permitted Projects.” Each Categorically Permitted Project application shall include a report by an engineering geologist on behalf of the applicant unless the City’s Geotechnical Consultant notifies Staff that such information is not needed. END OF AMENDMENTS Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act The proposed amendments and additions to the City Code are the subject of an Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15070(b)). The ND has been adopted by a separate Resolution adopted prior to this Ordinance. This ND is based on an Initial Study which identifies no potentially significant effects. Section 3. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. 242 Exhibit B 10 Following a duly notice public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the ____ day of __________, 2015, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the ___ of _________, 2015. 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 243