The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-12-15 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents Agenda 3 July 8, 2015 Draft Minutes 5 APPLICATION PDR15-0016; 20700 Verde Vista Ln. (503-58- 003); Jiang – The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing house and construct a new 23 foot, 6 inch tall single-story 4,268 square foot home that would include a two-car garage and deed -restricted second dwelling unit. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new single- story residence over 18 feet in height. No protected trees are proposed for removal. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868- 1212 Staff Report - Continuation Memo 8 APPLICATION FER15-0001; 19521 Farwell Ave (397-17-012); Mischou - The applicant is requesting a Fence Exception to install a 5’ tall wrought iron fence and pedestrian gate with 5’-6” veneer stone pilasters within the side setback along Farwell Avenue. The wrought iron fence and pilasters would continue at the corner of Farwell & Fruitvale Ave, connecting to the existing wood fence, within the front setback. No native or protected trees would need to be removed in order to construct the gate or fence. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess (408) 868-1230. Staff Report 9 Att 1 - Resolution 14 Att 2 - Arborist Report 19 Att 3 - Neighbor Notification 26 At 4 - Notice of Public Hearing 30 Att 5 - Letter from Applicant 33 Att 6 - Site Plan & Elevations 34 Att 7 - Neighborhood Context 38 Applications PDR15-0008/ZOA15-0004/ENV15-0003; 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue, 397-30-047; Sacred Heart Parish - The project includes a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned- Combined Zoning District (P-C) overlay to a 11.4 acre parcel (APN 397-30-047) and a design review application to construct a 2,425 square foot single-story addition to the existing 10,072 square feet two-story Parish Center of the Sacred Heart Church complex located at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 Staff Report 55 Attachment 1 - Resolution 62 Attachment 2 - Ordinance 66 Attachment 3 - Public Benefits List 71 Attachment 4 - Sacred Heart Milestones 72 Attachment 5 - Initial Study/Negative Declaration 75 Attachment 6 - Neighbor Notification Forms 99 Attachment 7 - Public Hearing Notice 100 Attachment 8 - Project Plans 101 1 Applications PDR15-0011 & ARB15-0024;15181 Hume Drive;510-01-015; Vanessa Stephens - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to demolish an existing one story single-family residence and construct a new 5,862 square foot, 24.9 feet tall two story single-family residence. Four protected trees are proposed for removal. The net site area is 44,007 square feet and is zoned R-1-20,000. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 Staff Report 108 Attachment 1 - Resolution 114 Attachment 2 - Arborist Report 118 Attachment 3 - Public Hearing Notice 128 Attachment 4 - Neighbor Notification Forms 129 Attachment 5 - CalGreen Checklist 132 Attachment 6 - Development Plans 140 Applications PDR14-0025,GRE15-0001,ARB14-0046;20888 Kittridge Road;517-14-087; Christopher Pan - The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a 6,410 square foot two story single-family home on a vacant site. The project also includes a grading exception for 2,112 cubic yards of grading. The net site area is 7.97 acres or 347,173 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 Staff Report 159 Attachment 1 - Resolution 167 Attachment 2 - Arborist Report 171 Attachment 3 - Geotechnical Clearance 178 Attachment 4 - Public Hearing Notice 179 Attachment 5 - Neighbor Notification Forms 180 Attachment 6 - CalGreen Checklist 184 Attachment 7 - Photo Rendering 192 Attachment 8 - Development Plans 198 2 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 12, 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 July 8, 2015 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION PDR15-0016; 20700 Verde Vista Ln. (503-58-003); Jiang – The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing house and construct a new 23 foot, 6 inch tall single-story 4,268 square foot home that would include a two-car garage and deed-restricted second dwelling unit. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new single-story residence over 18 feet in height. No protected trees are proposed for removal. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212 Recommended action: Continue to the meeting of September 9, 2015. 2. APPLICATION FER15-0001; 19521 Farwell Ave (397-17-012); Mischou - The applicant is requesting a Fence Exception to install a 5’ tall wrought iron fence and pedestrian gate with 5’-6” veneer stone pilasters within the side setback along Farwell Avenue. The wrought iron fence and pilasters would continue at the corner of Farwell & Fruitvale Ave, connecting to the existing wood fence, within the front setback. No native or protected trees would need to be removed in order to construct the gate or fence. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess (408) 868-1230. Recommended action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Fence Exception Request application (FER15- 0001) with required findings and conditions by adopting Resolution No. 15-031. 3 3. Applications PDR15-0008/ZOA15-0004/ENV15-0003; 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue, 397-30-047; Sacred Heart Parish - The project includes a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) overlay to a 11.4 acre parcel (APN 397-30-047) and a design review application to construct a 2,425 square foot single-story addition to the existing 10,072 square feet two-story Parish Center of the Sacred Heart Church complex located at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-034 thereby adopting the Negative Declaration and recommend City Council approve the project subject to conditions of approval. 4. Applications PDR15-0011 & ARB15-0024;15181 Hume Drive;510-01-015; Vanessa Stephens - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to demolish an existing one story single-family residence and construct a new 5,862 square foot, 24.9 feet tall two story single-family residence. Four protected trees are proposed for removal. The net site area is 44,007 square feet and is zoned R-1-20,000. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-035 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. 5. Applications PDR14-0025,GRE15-0001,ARB14-0046;20888 Kittridge Road;517-14-087; Christopher Pan The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a 6,410 square foot two story single-family home on a vacant site. The project also includes a grading exception for 2,112 cubic yards of grading. The net site area is 7.97 acres or 347,173 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-036 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on August 6, 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, July 8, 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, Tina Walia, Chair Leonard Almalech ABSENT Commissioners Joyce Hlava and Dede Smullen ALSO PRESENT Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Michael Fossati, Planner Liz Ruess, Planner COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 24, 2015 WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 24, 2015 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: HLAVA, SMULLEN. 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. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPLICATION ELN15-0008; 18546 Ravenwood Dr (397-43-044) Shahani - The applicant is proposing a remodel and addition to a legal non-conforming two-story single-family residence. The project will result in the increase of 876 square feet. The addition consists of a new family room, kitchen and master bedroom on the first floor. The remodel will convert the first floor study, master bedroom, and kitchen into two offices and a bathroom. The facades of the new areas have been designed to match the style, material and colors of the existing structure. The project also includes the remodel of the porch columns at the front entry. Staff Contact: Justin Shiu (408)868-1230. Action: FITZSIMMONS/CHANG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-032. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 5 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 FER15-0001; 19521 Farwell Ave (397-17-012); Mischou - The applicant is requesting a Fence Exception to install a 5’ tall wrought iron fence and pedestrian gate with 5’-6” veneer stone pilasters within the side setback along Farwell Avenue. The wrought iron fence and pilasters would continue at the corner of Farwell & Fruitvale Ave, connecting to the existing wood fence, within the front setback. Along Farwell Avenue, there would be a five foot wide decorative iron pedestrian gate and a 15 foot wide decorative iron vehicle gate within the exterior side setback. No native or protected trees would need to be removed in order to construct the gate or fence. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess (408) 868-1222. Action: ALMALECH/AHUJA MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE AUGUST 12, 2015 MEETING. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: HLAVA, SMULLEN. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2. APPLICATION PDR15-0016; 20700 Verde Vista Ln. (503-58-003); Jiang – The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing house and construct a new 23 foot, 6 inch tall single-story 4,268 square foot home that would include a two-car garage and deed-restricted second dwelling unit. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new single-story residence over 18 feet in height. No protected trees are proposed for removal. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212 Action: ALMALECH/AHUJA MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE AUGUST 12, 2015 MEETING AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: HLAVA, SMULLEN. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. APPLICATION PDR14-0022 and FER14-0003; 0 Pierce Road (503-18-002); Hong / Tang - The applicant is proposing a new 20 foot, 6 inch tall single-story 4,512 square foot home that would include a two-car garage and deed-restricted second dwelling unit. The project also includes a fence exception to allow a seven foot soundwall in the front along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and portion of exterior side setback along Pierce Road. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new single- story residence over 18 feet in height and a wall taller than three feet within the required exterior side setback. Nine protected trees are being proposed for removal. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868- 1212 Action: ALMALECH/CHANG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-001 WITH AN ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS WITHIN THE RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:  PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC PLAN THAT IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.  A BLOCK SOUNDWALL MAY BE CONSTRUCTION ALONG SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE AROD, BUT NOT ALONG PIERCE ROAD. THE WALL MAY BE NO TALLER THAN EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT AND REQUIRES A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SARATOGA. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: HLAVA, SMULLEN. ABSTAIN: NONE: 6 DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Ordoñez gave the Commissioners copies of the City Council resolutions of the following: definition action minutes and length of Commission meeting. Director Ordoñez updated the Commission on the July 1, 2015 City Council meeting: Annual Code Update – Adopted Geo Hazard Zone – 1st reading approved Tree Ordinance – 1st reading approved; no action taken on suspension of replacement trees Church of Ascension – BMR requirement removed; Council approved the flexibility to have retreats, fundraisers and activities in the church. ADJOURNMENT ALMALECH MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:05 PM. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: HLAVA SMULLEN. ABSTAIN: NONE. 7 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 12, 2015 Application: PDR15-0016 Location / APN: 20700 Verde Vista Ln. / 503-58-003 Owner/Applicant: Barclay Jiang / Rachel Jin Staff Planner: Michael Fossati PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing house and construct a new 23 foot, 6 inch tall single-story 4,268 square foot home that would include a two-car garage and deed-restricted second dwelling unit. Planning Commission design review is required because the project consists of a new single-story residence over 18 feet in height. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The applicant has requested that the project be continued to the meeting of September 9, 2015. Page 1 of 1 8 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 12, 2015 Application: Fence Exception / FER15-0001 Location/APN: 19521 Farwell Avenue / 397-17-012 Owner / Applicant: Greg & Martha Mischou Staff Planner: Liz Ruess 19521 Farwell Avenue 9 Application No. FER15-0001 / 19521 Farwell Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ZONING Single-Family Residential (R1-40,000) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Very Low Density Residential (RVLD) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are requesting a fence exception to install a five foot tall wrought iron fence with five foot, six inch tall stone veneer pilasters within the required exterior side yard setback and within the required front yard setback (at the corner), at 19521 Farwell Avenue. Along the frontage of Farwell Avenue, a five foot six inch tall, decorative iron pedestrian gate is also proposed to be aligned with the fence. A 15-foot wide decorative iron vehicle gate is proposed within the exterior side setback at approximately 16 feet from the property line and 25 from edge of pavement along Farwell Avenue. The vehicle gate would range in height from six feet at the edge of structure to eight feet at the center. Seven foot tall pilasters would support the gate on either side of the driveway. The wrought iron sections of the fence allow for the passage of light, maintain visibility and avoid the appearance of a “walled-compound”. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on July 8, 2015 but continued the application to August 12, 2015 in order for the applicant to address concerns noted by the Planning Commission. The applicant has revised the project in response to the concerns expressed by Planning Commission: • Addressing the location of the pilaster along Farwell, closest to Fruitvale Avenue. • Increase the distance between the pilaster and the edge of pavement, without negatively impacting the Heritage Garden. The applicants have responded to the Commission’s comments and worked with their designer to develop revised plans. The pilaster along Farwell, closest to Fruitvale Avenue has been moved further into the property by six feet, increasing the distance from the edge of pavement to the pilaster to twelve feet, four inches and provides additional “clear” space for pedestrian safety Due to the revised location of this pilaster, the approximately 53-foot section of wrought iron fencing that runs between this pilaster and the next pilaster along Farwell, would angle; ranging from twelve feet, four inches from the edge of pavement to ten feet, six inches from the edge of pavement. The rest of the fence along Farwell would remain ten feet, six inches from the edge of pavement, as previously proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Fence Exception Request application (FER15-0001) with required findings and conditions by adopting Resolution No. 15-031. 2 10 Application No. FER15-0001 / 19521 Farwell Avenue SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Project Description: The applicant is requesting a fence exception to install a five foot tall wrought iron replacement fence with five foot, six inch tall stone veneer pilasters within the exterior side yard setback and within the front yard setback (at the corner), at 19521 Farwell Avenue. The subject parcel has a required front setback of 30 feet and a required exterior side yard setback of 25 feet. Article 15-29 (Fences and Hedges) of the City Code, requires fences and walls within front setbacks and exterior side to be limited to a height of three feet, unless a fence exception is granted. The front property line for 19521 Farwell is located on Fruitvale Avenue as defined by the City Code. The property line along Farwell Avenue is considered the exterior side yard. An existing wood fence, that ranges in height from five feet to six feet, six inches, would remain along the front, interior side, and rear of the property. A new fence to replace a previous four foot, six inch foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed in the exterior side yard setback, along Farwell Avenue that would be five feet in height, with five foot, six inch tall pilaster, and approximately 175 feet long. This portion of fence would be located one foot, six inches from the property line and ten feet, six inches from edge of pavement. Along this side, there would be a five foot six inch tall, decorative iron pedestrian gate aligned with the fence, and a 15 foot wide decorative iron vehicle gate within the exterior side setback, approximately 16 feet from the property line and 25 from edge of pavement. The fence proposed at the corner of Farwell Ave. & Fruitvale Ave., within the front yard setback, would be approximately 50 feet long and connect to the existing wood fence that is to remain. This portion of fence would be located approximately 28 feet from the front property line at the southern pilaster and approximately five feet, six inches from the front property line at the northern pilaster, where it connects to the existing wood fence. The proposed fence would be visible from Farwell Ave. and a portion of the fence would be visible from the corner of Farwell Ave. at Fruitvale Ave. The proposed fence at the corner is pulled back, outside of the intersection sightline and would run behind a large tree at the corner of the lot. Existing landscaping would screen views of the house. The applicant has stated that the purpose and location of the replacement fence is to enclose their property, which is along a heavily trafficked intersection, to provide additional safety for their family, which includes two young children. The site is located at the corner of Farwell Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue which is a heavily travelled street and commute corridor. Section 15-29.090 of the City Code allows property owners to apply for fence exceptions. The subject property is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district and is approximately one acre in size. The applicant has provided a letter explaining why they are requesting the fence exception. Please see attachment #5. Materials and Colors Proposed: The proposed replacement fence would be wrought iron powder coated in a dark bronze color with stone veneer pilasters and foam cap that would be light tan in 3 11 Application No. FER15-0001 / 19521 Farwell Avenue color to match the existing house. The wrought iron sections of the fence allow for the passage of light, maintain visibility and avoid the appearance of a “walled-compound”. Arborist Review No trees are proposed for removal. The fence would be located in the vicinity of three protected trees. The City Arborist reviewed potential impacts to the trees and has granted conditional clearance to proceed. A copy of the Arborist report is included as Attachment #2. Neighborhood Compatibility Several homes in the immediate neighborhood, including those on Farwell Avenue, Montalvo Road, and Sunnyside Drive, have front and exterior side yard fences exceeding the three foot limit. These include fences ranging in height between five feet and six feet with pilasters from five feet, six inches to six feet, six inches, in height. Similar to the proposed fence, the majority of these fences are made of iron and are painted a dark color, with pilasters made of brick or stone. The majority of homes in the surrounding neighborhood that do not have a fence, have shrubs in excess of three feet along the street. The design, colors, and materials of the proposed fence are complimentary to existing fences and screens in the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant has provided maps and photos of similar fences throughout their neighborhood. Please see Attachment #7. Neighborhood Notification The applicant received completed neighbor notification forms from four adjacent neighbors which are included as Attachment #3. Each of these neighbors signed the forms without providing additional written comments. The public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and is included as Attachment #4. Staff has not received any comments to date. FINDINGS: The findings required for issuance of a Fence Exception pursuant to City Code Section 15-29.090 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: Finding #1: The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the neighborhood. This finding can be made because the proposed fence would be compatible with the location and placement of existing fencing in the surrounding neighborhood. The fence would be wrought iron with stone veneer pilasters and foam cap that would be light tan in color to match the existing house as well as other structures in the neighborhood. The proposed fence would be taller than adjacent fences but would be wrought iron to maintain views of existing landscaping would not overly detract from the surrounding rural neighborhood. Finding #2: The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable. This finding can be made because the fence would be constructed from wrought iron with stone veneer pilasters and foam cap. All of the materials would be durable and be of high quality and would be able to weather the outdoor environment. 4 12 Application No. FER15-0001 / 19521 Farwell Avenue Finding #3: The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which the fence is located. This finding can be made because the wrought iron fence would allow for passage of light and views of the existing landscaping and landscape improvements currently underway at the property. The design and openness of the proposed fence would avoid a walled-compound appearance. The proposed wall would incorporate high-quality materials that are consistent with the main residence as well as other structures in the neighborhood not overly detract from the character and integrity of the existing community. Finding #4: The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located. This finding can be made because all of the proposed materials for the fence and gate would be high quality and similar in color and style to other fences in the neighborhood. There would be extensive landscaping on the interior side of the fence as to maintain privacy while still allowing passage of light and air. The fence would be installed and located so as to provide the required sight distance for the driveway and street intersection. The fence would enclose the property which is on a heavily trafficked intersection and provide additional safety for the family. This finding can be in made in the affirmative. Finding #5: The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties. As previously stated, the proposed fence would provide the required sight distances for the driveway and intersection. The proposed fence would not interfere with visibility for pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicular traffic within the area. The applicants have revised their design to address the comments of the Planning Commission and complies with the City’s traffic safety standards. This finding can be made in the affirmative. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed Fence Exception Request is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15303) “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption applies. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Arborist Report 3. Neighbor Notification 4. Mailed Notice of Public Hearing, Address Labels 5. Letter from Applicant 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" 7. Neighborhood Context (provided by applicant) 5 13 RESOLUTION NO: 15-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING FENCE EXCEPTION FER15-0001 LOCATED AT 19521 FARWELL AVENUE (APN 517-22-100) WHEREAS, on May 14, 2015, an application was submitted by Greg & Martha Mischou requesting Fence Exception approval to install a five foot tall wrought iron fence with five foot, six inch stone veneer pilasters within the exterior side yard setback and within the front yard setback (at the corner), at 19521 Farwell Avenue. Along the frontage of Farwell Avenue, there would be a five foot six inch tall, decorative iron pedestrian gate aligned with the fence, and a 15 foot wide decorative iron vehicle gate within the exterior side setback approximately 25 from edge of pavement. The vehicle gate would range in height from six feet at the edges, up a maximum of to eight feet in the center and would have seven foot tall pilasters on either side. The site is located within the R-1-40,000 Zoning District. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on July 8 , 2015 and August 12, 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 proposed Fence Exception Request is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15303) “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; 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 14 Resolution No. 15-031 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 FER15-0001, located at 19521 Farwell Avenue, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 12th day of August 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 15 Resolution No. 15-031 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. Construction must be commenced within 36 months of the date of this approval, or the resolution will expire. 16 Resolution No. 15-031 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans with revision date of August 4, 2015 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition 3, above. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division for the vehicle gate. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; d. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8. Arborist. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated June 23, 2015 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. 9. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 10. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 11. Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges not in connection with the proposed fence exception shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 12. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take into account the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 17 Resolution No. 15-031 c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees 13. Fire Department Requirements. Owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 14. Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. PUBLIC WORKS 15. Encroachment Permit. The applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 18 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB15-0039 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 19521 Farwell Avenue Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Greg and Martha Mischou Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-17-012 Email: mischou@pacbell.net Report History: Report 1 Date: Plans received June 4, 2015 Report completed June 23, 2015 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to install a new perimeter fence with columns around the property. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist, with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $10,135 Tree protection – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – None requested or permitted. Replacement trees – None required. FINDINGS: Tree Removals No trees are requested or approved for removal to construct this project. 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. 1 19 19521 Farwell Avenue Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. The submitted arborist report, once copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans, can satisfy this requirement. This report is also to be included in the final set of plans. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information 2 – Conditions of Approval 3 – Map showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing 2 20 19521 Farwell Avenue Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: Evergreen Landscaping Date of Plans: April 22, 2015 One sheet (no number) Landscape Planting Plan (no title) TREE INFORMATION: Arborist Report reviewed: Preparer: Richard Gessner, Monarch Consulting Arborists, LLC Date of Report: May 11, 2015 An arborist report was submitted to the City for this project that inventoried three trees protected by Saratoga City Code. Information on the condition of each tree, potential impacts from construction, suitability for preservation, appraised values and tree protection recommendations was provided. No trees protected by Saratoga City Code are requested for removal to construct this project. A table summarizing information about each tree is below is taken from the submitted report. 3 21 19521 Farwell Avenue Attachment 1 4 22 19521 Farwell Avenue Attachment 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2. Al recommendations in the arborist report dated May 11, 2015 prepared by Richard Gessner of Monarch Consulting Arborists, LLC shall become conditions of approval. 3. The arborist report dated May 11, 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. It is acceptable to include duplicated information one time. 5. The designated Project Arborist shall be Richard Gessner, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 6. Tree Protection Security Deposit a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be $10,135 be for tree(s) 1 – 3. c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond. e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 7. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of straw wattle wrapped around the trees trunks to a height of 6 feet. d. Shall have a layer of mulch under the tree as described on the attached map. e. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. f. 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. g. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. h. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting before performing work. 8. The Project Arborist shall visit the site when fence post holes and holes for columns are dug near to protected trees 1 – 3. 5 23 19521 Farwell Avenue Attachment 2 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree canopies. 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. 12. Trenching to install utilities is not permitted under tree canopies. 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. 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. 15. No trees are requested or approved for removal to construct this project. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 6 24 1 Attachment 3 Legend Tree Canopy Tree Protection Straw Wattle 3 19521 Farwell Avenue From arborist report dated May 11, 2015 by Richard Gessner A layer of mulch with steel plates or 3/4 inch plywood on top of it shall be placed under the canopies of the three protected trees. Tree trunks are to be wrapped with straw wattle. 7 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Trellis w/Espaliered AppleTurfTurfTurf(E)CaCa(E)(E)(E)(E)Av(E)De(E)Ma(E)PeCr(E)(E)(E)HoOlPlanter (E) OrchardPaving StoneTravertineHeritage GardenRecycled Brick(E)ExistingPaving BoTeCBuCeArJOlL TeAHeF & HeM mixPhCaLPhDEuG(E)PhAJaLaPLaO(E)Play AreaPedestrian Gate 5'-5'6"hVehicle Gate 6'-8'hDriveway(E)Steel BordersLaHDGFeDGDGDGDGCeDGWeWCiSPiCPlant ListTREE1 24" bx Ja Jacaranda mimosifolia2 15 gal Ap Apple espaliered2 15 gal CuT Cupressus 'Tiny Tower'SHRUB16 1 gal AlJ Aloe 'Johnson's Hybrid1 5 gal An Anigozanthos 'Big Red'5 5 gal ArP Arctostaphylos 'John Dourley'10 1 gal ArP Arctostaphylos 'Pt. Reyes'7 5 gal Bo Bougainvillea 'Rozenka'35 1 gal Bu Buxus 'Suffruticosa'18 4" CaP Carex pansa2 2 gal CaA Carpet rose 'Amber'16 5 gal CaL Callistemon 'Little John'7 5 gal Ce Ceanothus 'Anchor Bay'4 1 gal CiS Cistus 'Sunset'8 5 gal El Elaeagnus pungens 4 5 gal EuG Euonymus 'Green Spire'18 1 gal EuR Euphorbia rigida2 15 gal Fe Fejoia sellowiana8 1 gal FeS Festuca 'Siskiyou Blue'52 1 gal HeS Helictotrichon sempervirens6 1 gal He Hemerocallis 'Frank Gladney'6 1 gal He Hemerocallis 'Mountain Violet'10 1 gal LaH Lavandula 'Hidcote'4 1 gal LaO Lavandula stoechas 'Otto Quast'8 1 gal LaP Lavandula 'Provence'6 5 gal LaPi Lavandula 'Pinnata'30 1 gal Ne Nerium oleander 'Petite Salmon'17 5 gal OlL Olea 'Little Ollie'4 5 gal Ph Philotheca myoporoides4 5 gal PhD Phormium 'Dark Delight'1 5 gal PhA Phormium 'Allison Blackman'6 1 gal PiN Pittosporum crassifolium 'Nana'12 5 gal PiC Pittosporum 'Cream de Mint' 2 2 gal Ro Rosa carpet 'White'2 1 gal RoT Rosmarinus 'Blue Spires'2 5 gal Sa Salvia clevelandii Whirly Blue'1 1 gal SaL Salvia 'Limelight'13 1 gal Sc Scaevola aemula Su Succulent combo6 1 gal TeA Teucrium fruticans4 5 gal WeW Westringia 'Wynnyabie Gem'(E) Existing(E) Existing TreesAv AvocadoDe Cedrus deodaraMa MaytenusOl OleaPiCCuTCaPFeSLaPiAlJScRoRoTPerennial Beds TurfTurfTurfDGRo(E)Perennial Bed Planter(E)50'50'Edge of PavementMiddle of PavementPo 25' SetbackOl(E)12'12'12'12'HeSArPEuRAlJNeSa(E)Turf(E)Fruitvale Ave.Farwell Ave.Existing Wood FenceExisting WoodFenceExisting WoodFenceProperty Line6--Stone Pilasters w/Cap & Iron FenceElevation:SuSuIntersection SightlineDriveway SightlinesMiddle of PavementEdge of Pavement18'13'9'9'5'6"18"AnBElPlan prepared for:Greg & Martha Mischou19521 Farwell AvenueSaratoga, Ca 95070Plan prepared by:Jay Fettgather & Judith PiperEvergreen Landscaping14510 Big Basin Way, Ste 2Saratoga, Ca 95070(408)978-7179CL#429503Drawing: 2/15/2015 8/4/2015 rev. Scale: 1" = 10' Mischou Residence19521 Farwell AvenueSaratoga, Ca 95070N5' fencePedestrian Gate:Height at shoulder = 5'Height at center = 5'6"Vehicle Gate:Height at shoulder = 6'Height at center = 7'6" 30'SetbackEXTERIOR SIDEREARINTERIOR SIDEFRONT7' 5'6" 1'6"Vehicle Gate Pilaster7'24"6' h 5'6"SETBACK 25' Exterior Side SetbackCrosswalkEdge of PavementEdge of Pavement10'6"Slight GradeCe12'4"Edge of Pavement(E)EXHIBIT A34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 12, 2015 Application: Design Review PDR15-0008 / Zoning Amendment ZOA15-0004 / Negative Declaration ENV15-0003 Location / APN: 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue / 397-30-047 Owner / Applicant: Sacred Heart Parish Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue SITE 55 2 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P- C) overlay to a 11.4 acre parcel (APN 397-30-047) and a design review application to construct a 2,425 square foot single-story addition to the existing 10,072 square feet two- story Parish Center of the Sacred Heart Church complex located at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue. The zoning of the site is single-family residential (R-1-10,000). The floor area, building height, and site coverage of the Sacred Heart Church complex exceed the development standards of the residential zoning district. The placement of the Planned-Combined (P- C) Overlay District onto the existing residential zoning district would modify the standards of development of the zoning district from R-1-10,000 to P-C / R-1-10,000 to allow the improvements proposed and would be specific to the project site. The zoning action is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-034 thereby adopting the Negative Declaration and recommend City Council approve the project subject to conditions of approval. PROJECT APPROVALS: This project includes applications for the following: Design Review The City Code requires Design Review approval for all structures for conditional uses in a planned combined district. Zoning Amendment A stated purpose of the P-C combined district is to provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit which would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. A public benefit may include, but is not limited to, buildings which exceed the City’s green building standards, provision of community facilities that are open to the public, or examples of innovative in-fill design. An application for a proposed P-C zoning district requires final approval from the City Council. PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 11.4 acres General Plan Designation: CFS (Community Facility) Zoning: R-1-10,000 56 3 Proposed Allowed/Required Existing Site Coverage Church/School Buildings Paving/Hardscape New Site Coverage Addition to Parish Center Total Proposed Site Coverage 68,690 sq. ft. 294,532 sq. ft. 2,425 sq. ft. 365,647 sq. ft. (73.5%) 298,322 sq. ft. (60%) Existing Floor Area Parish Center School Church Geary Hall Clergy House (Rectory) Clergy House Accessory Structure New Floor Area Addition to Parish Center Total Proposed Floor Area 10,072 sq. ft. 26,907 sq. ft. 18,775 sq. ft. 13,439 sq. ft. 5,805 sq. ft. 1,256 sq. ft. 2,425 sq. ft. 78,679 sq. ft. 8,000 max allowed Structure Heights Parish Center School Church Geary Hall Clergy House Clergy House Accessory Structure Bell Tower 23.7 ft. 20.0 ft. 30.0 ft. 24.0 ft. 22.0 ft. 22.0 ft. 80.0 ft. 26 feet tall Setbacks (Parish Center) Front (north) Left Side (east) Right Side (west) Rear (south.) 310 ft. 41 ft. 480’ 360’ 25 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. The development standards for height, floor area and site coverage noted above exceed the limits allowed within the R-1-10,000 residential district. The City Council has the ability to approve a P-C district overlay when a project will not conform to the underlying development standards provided that the proposed P-C district is consistent with the General Plan, and would provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. The applicant, Sacred Heart Church, provides a number of public benefits, such as hosting weddings, religious and other community services, elementary and middle school education (K-8), meeting rooms, public festivals, and social areas for the general public. A list of public benefits has been included as Attachment 3. 57 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS History: Three years after the City of Saratoga incorporated in 1956, an Architectural and Site Control Permit for Sacred Heart Parish was approved in July 1959 for the development of a school building, rectory, faculty residence, and parish hall. In February 1969, a Design Review application was approved for a new church building to replace the temporary church building that was constructed onsite. The application for the new church building included a variance to construct the 80 foot tall bell tower found on site. In later years the faculty residence was converted to the Parish Center and is used for administrative purposes. In November 2000, a Conditional Use Permit was approved in association with the expansion of the Church’s school and administrative offices because the permit was not previously required with the original approvals. The applicant has submitted a ‘milestone’ timeline illustrating the history of Sacred Heart Parish which is included as Attachment 4. Site Description: The 11.4 acre project site is bounded by Saratoga Avenue to north, Saratoga’s Heritage Orchard to the east, Saratoga Creek to the south, and single-family homes to the west. All vehicle access is from Saratoga Avenue. A 236 vehicle capacity parking lot provides parking for the school and church. Grass playfields are located in the southern corner of the site. P-C DISTRICT ANALYSIS: Project Summary The project includes an interior remodel and 2,425 square foot single story addition to the Parish Center. The addition to the Parish Center will include an enlarged reception area, conference rooms, and storage areas with exterior access. The interior of the second floor will be completely remodeled with new offices and meeting areas and the height of the roof will be increased from 23.7 feet to 26 feet. New second story windows will be installed on the south elevation and existing second story windows on the western elevation will be relocated. An existing kindergarten classroom within the school building will be relocated to an area that is currently used as an office. No exterior modifications to the school building are proposed. All new exterior materials and colors will match the existing building which includes tan colored stucco and composition shingle roofing. No changes are proposed for any of the other buildings or parking areas. Heritage Lane – Heritage Preservation Commission Review Sacred Heart Parish is located on a portion of Saratoga Avenue designated as a Heritage Lane. The City of Saratoga has two designated Heritage Lanes which include the portion of Austin Way on the west side of Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue to 14301 Saratoga Avenue. The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is responsible for reviewing and providing comments for all projects located on a Heritage Lane. On July 14, 2015, the HPC visited the project site. The HPC commented on the architectural requirement to increase the overall building height to 26 feet as well as the minimal roof slope of the first story addition and ultimately recommended approval of the project. 58 5 Neighbor Correspondence The applicant reviewed the project plans with adjacent neighbors. Copies of the completed Neighbor Notification Forms are included as Attachment 6. Staff has also sent out notices for the public hearing to all neighbors within 500 feet and no public comments were received prior to preparation of this report. ZONING AMENDMENT FINDINGS The findings required for the issuance of a Zoning Amendment Approval for a Planned- Combined zoning district are pursuant to City Code Section 15-16.060(b) and are set forth below. The Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of these required findings: 1) That the proposed location of the planned combined district is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The project meets this finding because the church is located on a site that has a General Plan designation of Community Facilities which is intended for private institutions, including, but not limited to, religious facilities. Furthermore, the site is located in a residentially zoned district which permits community facilities and institutional uses as conditional uses. 2) That standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community and produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the overall objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project meets this finding because the single-story addition to the Parish Center is consistent with the architectural style and exterior materials of the existing building, and the addition is not visible from Saratoga Avenue which is a Heritage Lane. 3) That the uses in the development will complement each other and will not adversely affect existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public health, safety and welfare. The project meets this finding because the uses on site will complement each other in that all buildings are used by the church and school; the existing uses have co- existed with surrounding uses for over 56 years; the existing residential land uses in the vicinity will not be adversely impacted by the project because nearest residential uses to the west are located 480 feet from the project site and the project area is separated by existing buildings and landscaping; the construction of the project will require review by the building department and the issuance of a building permit to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 4) The application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes contained within Section 15-16.010. The project meets this finding because the approval will allow the City to provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations, such as allowing the 30’ tall church and 80 feet tall bell tower, additional floor area and site coverage for educational purposes, and encouraging innovative design that achieves a specific goal and policy of 59 6 the General Plan, such as providing sufficient land area for public, quasi-public and similar land uses in Saratoga (Goal LU 4). DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-46.040 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The project meets this finding because while the 26 feet tall Parish Center building will not be as tall as the 30 feet tall church building, it will be more consistent in height as the 24’ tall Geary Hall building and the 22 feet tall clergy house which are both one story. In addition, the distance separating the remodeled Parish Center building from the other buildings on site reduces the perception of any height differences. The parish center building will be consistent in color and roofing materials as the existing buildings on site. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The project meets this finding because the site contains an existing monument sign on the Saratoga Avenue frontage and no additional signs are being proposed at this time. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The project meets this finding because the project will not remove protected trees and the addition is being constructed in an existing developed area. No new landscaping is proposed. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. The project meets this finding because the colors of the exterior materials will include tan colored stucco and composition tile roofing; these colors are non-reflective and will blend with the existing landscape. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The project meets this finding because the roofing materials will be composed of dark colored asphalt shingles and no mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units, will be located on the roof. 60 7 (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 because the Parish Center will be compatible in height, colors, and exterior materials as other structures on site and the 26 foot tall building height will be consistent with the maximum height of adjacent single-family homes. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from July 17, 2015 – August 6, 2015. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on August 12, 2015. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Ordinance 3. Public Benefit List 4. Milestones in Sacred Heart’s History (prepared by applicant) 5. Negative Declaration 6. Neighbor Notification Forms 7. Public Hearing Notice 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.” 61 RESOLUTION NO. 15-034 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV15-0003), ZONING AMENDMENT (ZOA15-0004) AND DESIGN REVIEW (PDR15-0008), LOCATED AT 13716 & 13718 SARATOGA ROAD PROSPECT ROAD FOR SACRED HEART PARISH WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Sacred Heart Parish, for a Zoning Amendment and Design Review approval, to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to a 11.4 acre parcel (APN 397-30-047) and a design review application for an interior remodel and 2,425 square foot single story addition to the Parish Center. The addition to the Parish Center will include an enlarged reception area, conference rooms, and storage areas with exterior access. The interior of the second floor will be completely remodeled with new offices and meeting areas and the height of the roof will be increased from 23.7 feet to 26 feet. New second story windows will be installed on the south elevation and existing second story windows on the western elevation will be relocated. An existing kindergarten classroom within the school building will be relocated to a new area that is currently used as an office. No exterior modifications to the school building are proposed. All new exterior materials and colors will match the existing building which includes tan colored stucco and composition shingle roofing. The zoning of the site is single-family residential (R-1-10,000). The floor area, building height, and site coverage of the existing church and school buildings exceed the development standards of the residential zoning district. Since the site does not comply, the placement of the Planned-Combined (P-C) Overlay District onto the existing residential zoning district would modify the standards of development of the underlying zoning district from R-1-10,000 to P-C / R-1-10,000. By allowing the P-C district, the City will further their objectives of providing a public benefit, such as exceeding the City’s providing community facilities open to the public and providing a below market rate housing unit. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the project is located on the portion of Saratoga Avenue designated as a Heritage Lane and therefore requires review by the Heritage Preservation Commission. On July 14, 2015, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval. WHEREAS, on August 12, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The 62 Resolution No. 15-034 intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from July 17, 2015 – August 6, 2015. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on August 12, 2015. Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 4 in that the City shall continue to provide sufficient land area for public, quasi-public and similar land uses in Saratoga. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code Section 15-46.040 in that where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofing materials, color, and landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced, and that colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective, and the roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission, and that no mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened, and that the proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV15-0003 and approve application ZOA15- 0004 and PDR15-0008 for the project located at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 12th day of August 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 63 Resolution No. 15-034 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 64 Resolution No. 15-034 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition No. 4, above. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; d. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16- 75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10. Expiration of Design Review. Per City Code Section 15-46.050, Design Review approval shall expire 24 months from the date on which the Design Review approval became effective. 65 1 ORDINANCE __________ AN ORDINANCE REZONING ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 397-30-047 FROM R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED DISTRICT) SACRED HEART PARISH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Findings 1. Saratoga City Code Article 15-16 establishes the P-C (Planned Combined) District to provide the City the authority to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning district so as to achieve the following objectives: (a) To provide a means of guiding development or redevelopment of properties in areas of the City that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns and standards. (b) To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings that exceed the City's green building standards, provides community facilities that are open to the public, or allows for innovative in-fill design. (c) To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more specific goals and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. 2. A Planned Combined District may be combined with any zoning district upon the granting of a change of zone in accord with the provisions of this Article. A Planned Combined district shall be designated by the symbol "P-C" following the zoning district designation with which it is combined. 3. The addition to the Parish Center will include an enlarged reception area, conference rooms, and storage areas with exterior access. The interior of the second floor will be completely remodeled with new offices and meeting areas and the height of the roof will be increased from 23.7 feet to 26 feet. New second story windows will be installed on the south elevation and existing second story windows on the western elevation will be relocated. An existing kindergarten classroom within the school building will be relocated to a new area that is currently used as an office. No exterior modifications to the school building are proposed. All new exterior materials and colors will match the existing building which includes tan colored stucco and composition shingle roofing. The zoning of the site is single-family residential (R-1-10,000). The floor area, building height, and site coverage of the existing church and school buildings exceed the development standards of the residential zoning district. Since the site does not comply, the placement of the Planned-Combined (P-C) Overlay District onto the existing residential zoning district would modify the standards of development of the underlying zoning district from R-1-10,000 to P-C / R-1-10,000. By 66 2 allowing the P-C district, the City will further their objectives of providing a public benefit, such as exceeding the City’s providing community facilities open to the public. 4. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission and City Council have each found that that the change is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance set forth in Section 15- 05.020, and following additional findings required in support of the rezoning to R-1-10,000 P-C: (a) That the proposed location of the planned combined district is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. (b) That standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community and produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the overall objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (c) That the uses in the development will complement each other and will not adversely affect existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public health, safety and welfare. (d) That the application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes contained within Section 15-16.010 (as set forth above, particularly purposes (b) and (c) under Finding 1 above). 5. The City Council may by ordinance adopt a change of zone to a planned combined district as applied for or in modified and/or conditional reclassification. The conditions of this rezoning are set forth in Attachment 1 hereto and include limitation of the exceptions to the City’s floor area, site coverage and height regulations as specified in Finding 3 above. 6. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on (insert date), and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof. Therefore, the City Council hereby amends the City Code as follows: Section 1. Adoption. The Saratoga City Zoning Map is amended to conditionally rezone ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 397-30-047 (owned by Sacred Heart Parish and also known as 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California from R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED DISTRICT) subject to the conditions specified in Attachment 1 hereto. Section 2. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City 67 3 Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration which included a review of the environmental impact of this Rezoning and the City Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. Section 4. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly notice public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on (insert date), and was adopted by the following vote on (insert date). COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________ HOWARD MILLER CRYSTAL BOTHELIO MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________ RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 68 4 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ORDINANCE _______ 19550 PROSPECT ROAD (386-35-069) CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This ordinance supersedes all previous use permit resolutions issued for an institutional use for this site. 2. All permitted uses per City Code Sections 15-12.020 and 15-12.030 are allowed. Additional permitted uses include a community facility, an institutional facility, a religious and charitable institution (per UP-00-007). The conditions of approval from UP-00-007 are number below as 3-9. 3. Neighbors shall be able to call 867-3634 to reach a Church representative during special events or activities to register concerns or complaints. The Church shall make a good faith effort to respond to these complaints. The City shall be notified if this contact telephone number changes. 4. There shall be no more than 360 classroom students on-site an any one time. 5. Delivery trucks servicing the site shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Garbage collection trucks are required to service the site after 6:00 a.m. or per the City’s contract. The City shall be responsible for enforcing these hours. The Church shall maintain the garbage dumpster in an interior location where its pick-up will not disturb neighbors. 6. Special events that require outdoor amplified sound shall end by 9:00 p.m., with the exception that no more than three Friday or Saturday special events per year may go later. These three exception special events shall cease by 11:00 p.m. Special events shall be defined as any large- scale congregation of people, excluding typical school and church activities. 7. The applicant shall provide a schedule of upcoming special events to the City and to adjacent neighbors at least 30 days prior to each event. 8. Not more than six temporary signs or banners may be erected per year. Each sign or banner may be displayed for not more than one week. 9. Class scheduling shall be coordinated with Saint Andrews School and Redwood Middle School to minimize overlapping peak school drop-off and pick-up times. 10. The maximum site coverage is 73.5 percent. 11. All required setbacks shall be per City Code Section 15-12.090 for the R-1-10,000 zoning district. 69 5 12. Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15-35 of the City Code. 13. Construction of any future structures shall comply with applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15-46 of the City Code. 14. The total allowable floor area for the site shall be no greater than 78,679 square feet. 15. The allowable building height shall be no taller than 30 feet, with the exception of the bell tower which is 80 feet. 16. All uses permitted on site shall be open to the public. 70 Sacred Heart Parish 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue List of Public Benefits Education provider for classes K-8 Community meeting rooms After school youth programs Public Use of Gymnasium Weddings Funerals Holiday Boutiques and Festivals 71 72 73 74 Initial Study & Negative Declaration For: Zoning Amendment and Design Review Sacred Heart Parish 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Public Review Period: July 17, 2015 to August 6, 2015 75 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 2 1. Project title: Parish Center Remodel and Addition 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner (408) 868-1235 4. Project location/APN: 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue / 397-30-047 5. Project sponsor name and address: Sacred Heart Parish 13716 & 13718 San Jose, CA 95112 6. General plan designation: Community Facility (CFS) 7. Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R-1-10,000) 8. Description of project: The project includes a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to a 11.4 acre parcel (APN 397-30-047) and a design review application to remodel and expand the floor area of the existing 10,072 square feet two-story Parish Center located at the northeastern portion of the site and adjacent to the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project location is bounded by Saratoga Avenue to the north, the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard to the east, Saratoga Creek to the south, and single-family homes to the west. 10. Other public agencies whose review is required Santa Clara County Fire District 76 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 3 Project Location SITE 77 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 4 Site Plan 78 Building Elevations 79 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 8 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required Christopher Riordan Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Date: July 7, 2015 City of Saratoga 80 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 81 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 8 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No scenic view or viewsheds exist in the vicinity of the project site. There are no scenic views or view sheds explicitly identified in the City’s General Plan or other planning documents. The zoning amendment and the remodel and first story addition of the existing two story parish center would be consistent with the exiting architectural style of the building and will not have a substantial adverse effect on neighborhood views. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway The zoning amendment and remodel of the existing parish center would not damage scenic resources and no trees are proposed for removal. The project is located on a portion of Saratoga Avenue designated as a heritage lane and the project has been reviewed by the City’s Heritage Preservation Commission as it was determined that the project would have a negative visual impact. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The parish center is an existing 10,072 square feet two-story building. Other than an interior remodel of the existing building, the project also includes a 2,425 square feet first story addition that will be architecturally compatible with the existing building. The area of building expansion will only be visible from the rear of the site which is screened by vegetation along Saratoga Creek. The project will not be 82 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 9 visible from Saratoga Avenue and existing buildings block views from adjacent residential properties. The project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and all design review findings will be met prior to project approval. There will be no negative degradation of the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project would include the remodel and 2,425 square foot addition to the existing Parish Center. The project is limited to expanding the size of existing uses within the building and no new uses are proposed that will modify the operations of the building that will affect day or nighttime views of the area. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impact on Aesthetics. (Source: staff review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element, and Saratoga City Code §15-46). II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 83 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 10 DISCUSSION: a-e) The project site is developed with buildings and asphalt parking area and located within a single- family residential area and is not proposing any conversion of agricultural or forest land. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Agricultural and Forest Resources. (Sources: staff review of the project, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12, California Public Resource Code) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The project would not have any substantial impact on air quality. All associated construction of the proposed project would be required to follow Best Known Methods (BKM) and Best Management Practices (BMP) from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air Quality. (Sources: BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 84 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 11 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: (a-f) The project is located in a developed area surrounding by asphalt parking and adjacent buildings. There would be no substantial adverse effect on existing trees, riparian habitat, sensitive natural community or species, wetlands, or corridors for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. (Sources: Staff review of the project) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a-d) The project site is a developed 11.4 acre parcel site that has been used as a church for more than 50 years and is not recognized as a historic structure on the Heritage Resource Inventory. The site is located on a portion of Saratoga Avenue designated as a Heritage lane. The project has been reviewed by the City’s Heritage Preservation Commission and it was determined that since the project will not be visible from Saratoga Avenue that there would be no effect on the existing visual character of the 85 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 12 Heritage Lane. The zoning amendment and design review would not substantially adversely modify any historic resources, as there are no historic resources located on the property. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural Resources. (Sources: staff review and City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project includes a zoning amendment and design review for a first story addition to the existing Parish Center building. No other construction onsite is proposed. Any proposed construction due to entitlement approvals would be required to follow the most recent International Building Code (IBC) which references proper construction methods regarding seismic issues, such as ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides. Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on geology and soils. (Sources: Staff’s review of the project, Seismic Hazard Zones Map) 86 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 13 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a-b) The project includes a 2,425 square foot first story addition to the existing 10,072 square foot two story Parish Center. CEQA categorically exempts additions to existing structures provided that the addition does not result in an increase of 2,500 square feet. The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions during project construction and these emissions are expected to be insignificant and limited to the construction timeframe. The project will not generate new uses on site that would create a long term source of greenhouse gas emissions. The project will not conflict with any policies for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of greenhouse gases. (Sources: Staffs review of the project) VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 87 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 14 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION: a-h) The project includes a zoning amendment and design review of an expansion of an existing use and structures that are not located on or near a hazardous waste and substance site. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public regarding hazardous materials because the project would include no exposure to hazardous materials. There are no airports or protected wild lands within the area of the project and the project, as proposed, would not impair the implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of hazards or hazardous materials. (Sources: California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed May 19, 2014), staff’s review of the project.) IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 88 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 15 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow DISCUSSION: a-j) The proposed project includes a zoning amendment and design review to construct a 2,425 square foot addition to the existing Parish Center. The project would not violate water standards, deplete groundwater supplies or significantly alter drainage patterns. The project is not located within a 100- year flood hazard area or an area potentially affected by a levee, dam, or tsunami. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality Resources. (Sources: FEMA Map Service Center FEMA Website: https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001 &langId=-1/ (accessed May 19, 2014); Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014. Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Tsunami Planning Areas. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/(accessed May 19, 2014.) X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-c) The proposed project includes a zoning amendment for a Planned Combined District and Design Review for the construction of a 2,425 square foot first story addition to the existing Parish Center. The existing site is currently used for religious service and a catholic school for grades K-8 and the project would not physically divide an established community. The project, as proposed would not be in conflict of any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction, including any applicable habitat conservation plan. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Land Use and Planning. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga Municipal Code, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element) 89 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 16 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: a-b) The property is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral deposits or value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Based on the above discussion, the project does not present the potential for a significant adverse effect on the environment related to mineral resources. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Mineral Resources. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Open Space Element) XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 90 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 17 DISCUSSION: a-f) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The following table lists noise standards for residential uses in the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance (Article 7-30 of the City Code). Because the site is not located in close proximity to high-traffic roadways, ambient noise levels on the site are low, and are expected to be in the range of 50 – 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) or lower. Noise sources around the project site include light traffic volumes, public and private functions held by both Sacred Heart School and Church and landscaping activities. Implementation of the proposed project could increase noise levels in the vicinity of the site during the project construction period. Construction of the proposed project is scheduled to extend over a period of 3-6 months. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity but would end once construction is completed. Mitigation would not be required, because the applicant is mandated to follow construction practices as stated per the City Code. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Residents adjacent to the project site may be exposed to temporary increased levels of ground borne vibration and ground borne noise during the construction period. These increases are expected to occur infrequently, and for only short durations during the project construction period, which is expected to extend over 3-6 months. As such, the exposure of such noise levels is considered less than a significant impact. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Long-term use of the project site will not substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels because the existing and proposed uses are currently located within the project area. There is no impact that would substantially increase ambient noise levels permanently within the project vicinity. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity but would cease once construction is completed. This increase in noise levels is considered less than significant because the proposed construction is similar to other residential construction which happens throughout the City of Saratoga. Table 1: Residential Ambient Noise Standards (dBA) Land Use Daytime Leq Lmax Evening Leq Lmax Nighttime Leq Lmax Outdoor 55 65 45 55 40 50 Source: City of Saratoga, July 2014. City Code, Article 7-30. 91 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 18 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to high levels of airport-related noise. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose site visitors to high levels of airstrip-related noise. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to noise impacts. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga City Code) XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a-c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The project is an expansion of the existing Parish Office. No increase in onsite housing is proposed to induce substantial population growth. The proposed project would not displace existing housing. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace people or dwelling units. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Housing Element) 92 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 19 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: The following discussion addresses the potential impacts of the project on fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Fire protection. The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) provides firefighting services to the project site. Since the project will be reviewed and conditioned by the SCCFD, the environmental impacts relating to fire protection will be less than significant. Police protection. The proposed project would receive crime enforcement services from the West Valley Division of the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff. The proposed project is an expansion of an existing use and would not increase demand for Sheriff services. Schools. The project does not include housing which could increase demand for schools. Parks. The project does not include housing which could increase demand for parks. Other public facilities. The project does not include housing which could increase demand for public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Public Services. (Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan. Saratoga Municipal Code. Developmental Review Comments for Congregation Beth David, dated 12/11/13 – SCCFD ) 93 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 20 XV. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The project does not include housing which could increase demand for parks. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project does not include formal recreational facilities; therefore, there would be no impact that would adversely physically effect the environment. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Recreation. (Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Open Space Element) XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 94 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 21 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially result in an increase in traffic because the existing and proposed use (community facilities) would remain the same. The proposed construction of the addition to the Parish Center is not expected to cause an increase in traffic and is not of a capacity that would be in conflict with the circulation plan. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a designated roadway to exceed a level of service standard established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency because the project is not expected to substantially increase vehicle trips on any road or highway within the vicinity of the project site. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project site is not located near an airport and, if implemented, would have no effect on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would not change public road access; therefore it would not increase hazards due to design features. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Implementation of the proposed project would not cause inadequate emergency access because the project, as conditioned, is required to construct (or maintain) adequate emergency access to the project site. The project sponsor will utilize existing driveways to enter the site, which already satisfies the requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. 95 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 22 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted plans, policies, or programs supporting alternative transportation because the City of Saratoga does not have such policies as part of single-family residential development or a lot line adjustment application. No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic. (Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Circulation Element, Developmental Review Comments for Congregation Beth David, dated 12/11/13 – SCCFD ) XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: a - g) Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for wastewater treatment because the project would not increase the existing number of dwelling units currently established in the vicinity. Furthermore, the proposed addition is modest in size and does not include the construction of additional restrooms. Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Utilities and Service Systems. 96 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 23 (Source: Review of the project, phone conversation with Thanh Nguyen, Cupertino Sanitation District, dated 6/24/14) XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Implementation of the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the exiting environment because the project site is already utilized for religious uses and surrounded by established uses. The site does not contain riparian woodland where fish, wildlife, or endangered plants or animals are located. Furthermore, there are no examples of structures that reflect major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The proposed project would result in the continuation of community facilities that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning regulations. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project is considered either less than significant or no impact within this Initial Study. 97 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Sacred Heart Parish - 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue Page 24 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project site has been historically developed for church and educational uses. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would result with contaminated soil or groundwater. The site is not located in a high wildfire risk area. Therefore, the proposed project would not have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES: 1. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation , Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and Safety Element) 2. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map 3. City of Saratoga Housing Element 4. City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory 5. City of Saratoga Seismic Hazard Zones Map, dated April 2013. PROJECT RELATED SOURCES/REFERENCES: 6. Project Plans. 7. California Public Resource Code, 2014. Website: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/calawquery?codesection=prc (accessed April 2015) 8. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2014. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA %20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en (accessed April 2015) 9. California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed April 2015). 10. FEMA Map Service Center, Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/(accessed April 2015.) 98 99 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 12th day of August 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: ENV15-0003 / PDR15-0008 / ZOA15-0003 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue APPLICANT/OWNER: Rockwood Design Associates / Sacred Heart Parish APN: 386-35-069 DESCRIPTION: The project includes a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) overlay to a 11.4 acre parcel (APN 397-30-047) and a design review application to construct a 2,425 square foot single-story addition to the existing 10,072 square feet two-story Parish Center located at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue. 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, August 3, 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. Chris Riordan Senior Planner (408) 868-1235 100 41'-2" SCHOOL CHURCH GEARYHALL PARISHCENTER CLERGYHOUSE SARATOGA AVE. 6 N (E) STRUCTURE ADDITION TOPARISH CENTER LANDSCAPE_PERVIOUS SCOPE OF WORK A.Sacred Heart Church 13716 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA ! (408) 867-3634 ! ROCKWOOD DESIGN DRAWN BY: LORENA PEREZG1.1S A C R E D H E A R T P A R I S H1 3 7 1 6 & 1 3 7 1 8 S A R A T O G A A V E . S A R A T O G A , C A . 9 5 0 7 0DATE:03-19-2015 SCALE 1" = 40'-0" 3 HIGH SCHOOL COURT LOS GATOS CA. 95030 408-354-2128 AROCKWOOD@ROCKWOODDESIGN.NET SITE PLAN1 Zoning Analysis for Sacred Heart Parish Project Location: Sacred Heart Parish 13716 and 13718 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, CA. 95070 Administrator for Project at Sacred Heart: Janice Thornburg, Parish Administrator 408-867-3634 x502 Project APN: 397-30-047 Existing Zoning: R-1-20,000 Existing Site Area: 497,203 Square Feet Zoning Standards: 15-12.050 Site Area, Interior Lot 20,000 Square Feet 15-12.070 Frontage, Width and Depth Frontage: 80’-0” required Width: 110’-0” required Depth: 140’-0” required Allowable Site Coverage: 45% 15-12.085 Allowable Floor Area: 8,000 Square Feet for lots more than 200,000 square feet 15-12.090 Setbacks Front: 30’-0” Side Interior: 15’-0” First Floor Setback / 20’-0” Second Floor Setback Rear: 35’-0” First Floor Setback / 45’-0” Second Floor Setback 15-12.100 Maximum Height (For single family dwellings) 26’-0” Site Information: Gross Site Area: 497,203 Square Feet Structural Impervious coverage: 68,690 square feet (ﬁrst ﬂoor all structures) hardscape / other impervious coverage: 294,532 square feet Total Site Coverage: 363,222 square feet Existing Site Coverage Ratio: 363,222 / 497,203 = 73% Proposed site coverage: 363,222 s.f. existing 2,425 s.f. proposed Total Proposed Coverage: 365,647 square feet Proposed Site Coverage Ratio: 365,647 / 497,203 = 73.5% Floor Area Information: Structure 1 of 6: Parish Center- Remodel and Additions Existing First Floor: 6,305 Square Feet Existing Second Floor: 3,767 Square Feet Total Existing: 10,072 square feet Proposed Addition to ﬁrst ﬂoor: 2,425 square feet Total Existing and Proposed Parish Center: 12,497 square feet existing/ proposed Ht. NTE 26'-0" Structure 2 of 6: School- Interior Remodel Only existing / Proposed: 26,907 square feet (E) HT. +/- 20'-0" Structure 3 of 6: Church- No Scope of work existing: 18,775 square feet (E) HT. +/- 30'-0" Structure 4 of 6: geary hall (gym and cafetaria)- no scope of work existing ﬁrst ﬂoor: 12,407 square feet existing second ﬂoor: 1,032 square feet total geary hall: 13,439 square feet (E) HT. +/- 24'-0" Structure 5 of 6: Clergy house – no scope of work existing ﬁrst ﬂoor: 3,040 square feet existing second ﬂoor: 2,765 square feet total clergy house: 5,805 square feet (E) HT. +/- 22'-0" Structure 6 of 6: Clergy house accessory structure – no scope of work existing ﬁrst ﬂoor: 1,256 square feet total clergy house accessory structure: 1,256 square feet (E) HT. +/- 22'-0" Total Existing Square Footage all 6 structures: 1 of 6: Parish Center: 10,072 s.f. 2 of 6: School: 26,907 s.f. 3 of 6: church 18,775 s.f. 4 of 6: geary hall: 13,439 s.f. 5 of 6: Clergy House: 5,805 s.f. 6 of 6: Clergy House Accessory structure: 1,256 square feet TOTAL Existing Square Footage: 76,254 square feet Total site area: 497,203 Square Feet Existing F.A.R.: 76,254 / 497,203 = .153 FAR. Proposed F.A.R.: TOTAL Existing Square Footage: 76,254 square feet Total proposed additions to structure 1 of 6: 2,425 square feet Total proposed square footage: 78,679 square feet Total site area: 497,203 Square Feet Proposed f.a.r.: 78,679 / 497,203 = .158 FAR. LOCATION MAP: ASSESSOR MAP: INDEX: G1.1 TITLE PAGE_SITE PLAN A1.1 PROPOSED_EXISTING_PARISH CENTER FIRST FLOOR A1.2 PROPOSED & EXISTING PARISH CENTER SECOND FLOOR PROPOSED & EXISTING PARISH CENTER ROOF PLAN A2.1 PROPOSED & EXISTING PARISH CENTER ELEVATION & SECTIONS A2.2 PROPOSED & EXISTING PARISH CENTER ELEVATION & SECTIONS A3.1 EXISTING SCHOOL FLOOR PLAN A3.2 PROPOSED SCHOOL FLOOR PLAN DESIGN FIRM: ROCKWOOD DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 HIGH SCHOOL COURT LOS GATOS CA. 95030 PROJECT MANAGER: ADAM ROCKWOOD AIA ASSOC. PROJECT DESIGNER: LORENA PEREZ AIA ASSOC. 408-354-2128 AROCKWOOD@ROCKWOODDESIGN.NET SCOPE OF WORK 1. REMODEL OF PARISH CENTER FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ALONG WITH GROUND FLOOR ADDITIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 2,425 SQUARE FEET. REFER TO SHEETS A1.1, A1.2 AND A2.1. SCOPE INCLUDES NEW SECOND STORY ROOF. 2. REMODEL OF OFFICE SPACE LOCATED IN SCHOOL BUILDING FOR RELOCATION OF KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM. REFER TO SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2. 101 51'-8"24'-4"6'-4"21'-1"45'-4" 33'-91/2"26'-5"EXTERIOR COURTYARD (E) EXTERIOR BLOCK WALLMECHANICAL CHAPEL OFFICE SCRIP UNIFORM EXCHANGE KITCHEN OFFICE HALL 3 HALL 1 RECEPTION SACRISTY PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR ADDITION FIRST FLOOR B A STORAGE GARAGE OFFICE KITCHEN UNFORM EXCHANGE SCRIP OFFICE RECEPTION CHAPEL SITTING E6 WORK ROOM ENTRY LOBBY OFFICE RESTROOM HALL 1 CLOSET MECHANICAL HALL 3 RESTROOM RESTROOM STORAGE CONFERENCE CONF.CONFERENCE CLOSET MOP AND STORAGE HALL 4 OPERABLE PARTITION WALL ROCKWOOD DESIGN DRAWN BY: LORENA PEREZA1.1S A C R E D H E A R T P A R I S H1 3 7 1 6 & 1 3 7 1 8 S A R A T O G A A V E . S A R A T O G A , C A . 9 5 0 7 0DATE:03-19-2015 3 HIGH SCHOOL COURT LOS GATOS CA. 95030 408-354-2128 AROCKWOOD@ROCKWOODDESIGN.NET PARISH CENTER (E) FIRST FLOOR1 2 PARISH CENTER PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" N SCOPE OF WORK FIRST FLOOR: ADDITIONS TO ALLOW FOR NEW STORAGE, HALL AND CONFERENCE ROOMS ALONG WITH NEW RECEPTION AREA. MISC. FLOOR PLAN REVISIONS- REFER TO DRAWINGS. 102 SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR ADDITION FIRST FLOOR B A OFFICE E206 MEN'S CLUB E220 OFFICE E219 STORAGE E218 OFFICE E217 OFFICE E214 OFFICE E213 OFFICE E210 STORAGE E221 SHOWER E222 OFFICE E224 OFFICE E226 OFFICE E229 HALL E201 RESTROOM E207 RESTROOM E212 RESTROOM E216 OFFICE E202 OFFICERESTROOM OFFICE OFFICE RECEPTION OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE STORAGE MENS CLUB MEETING AREA KITCHEN HALL RESTROOM MECH SLOPE 2:12 SLOPE 2:12 SLOPE 2:12 SLOPE 2:12 SLOPE 2:12 SLOPE 2:12 NEW ROOF NEW ROOF AT 26'-0" ROCKWOOD DESIGN DRAWN BY: LORENA PEREZA1.2S A C R E D H E A R T P A R I S H1 3 7 1 6 & 1 3 7 1 8 S A R A T O G A A V E . S A R A T O G A , C A . 9 5 0 7 0DATE:03-19-2015 3 HIGH SCHOOL COURT LOS GATOS CA. 95030 408-354-2128 AROCKWOOD@ROCKWOODDESIGN.NET PARISH CENTER (E) SECOND FLOOR1 2 SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" N PARISH CENTER PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 3 PARISH CENTER PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SCOPE OF WORK SECOND FLOOR: RECONFIGURATION OF THE SECOND FLOOR LAYOUT TO ALLOW FOR BETTER SPACE PLANNING AND A MORE OPEN FLOOR PLAN. SCOPE MAY REQUIRE NEW ROOF AT SECOND FLOOR IF SO N.T.E. 26'-0" 103 SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR ADDITION FIRST FLOOR B A25'-0"16'-81/4"17'-51/4"13'-9"15'-9"A B 26'-0"AREA OF ADDITION NEW STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING STUCCO CONCRETE BLOCK WALL BRICK VENEER WOOD FENCE 5'-8"24'-81/2"WOOD GATE GARAGE DOOR A B OPEN ROCKWOOD DESIGN DRAWN BY: LORENA PEREZA2.1S A C R E D H E A R T P A R I S H1 3 7 1 6 & 1 3 7 1 8 S A R A T O G A A V E . S A R A T O G A , C A . 9 5 0 7 0DATE:03-19-2015 3 HIGH SCHOOL COURT LOS GATOS CA. 95030 408-354-2128 AROCKWOOD@ROCKWOODDESIGN.NET 5 SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" N 4 PARISH CENTER SIDE WEST ELEVATION_PROPOSED 2 PARISH CENTER REAR SOUTH ELEVATION_PROPOSED1PARISH CENTER EXISTING FRONT NORTH ELEVATION_NO CHANGES 3 PARISH CENTER REAR SOUTH ELEVATION_EXISTING PARISH CENTER SIDE WEST ELEVATION_EXISTING 104 SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR ADDITION FIRST FLOOR B A26'-0"25'-0"OPEN 15'-9"26'-0"26'-0"AREA OF ADDITION NEW STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING STUCCO CONCRETE BLOCK WALL BRICK VENEER WOOD FENCE OPEN ROCKWOOD DESIGN DRAWN BY: LORENA PEREZA2.2S A C R E D H E A R T P A R I S H1 3 7 1 6 & 1 3 7 1 8 S A R A T O G A A V E . S A R A T O G A , C A . 9 5 0 7 0DATE: 05-14-2015 3 HIGH SCHOOL COURT LOS GATOS CA. 95030 408-354-2128 AROCKWOOD@ROCKWOODDESIGN.NET 4 SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" N 3 PARISH CENTER SIDE EAST ELEVATION_PROPOSED 1 PARISH CENTER SECTION _A PROPOSED PARISH CENTER SIDE EAST ELEVATION_EXISTING 2 PARISH CENTER SECTION _B PROPOSED 105 EXISTING KINDERGARTEN ROOM EXISTING OFFICE MAIN OFFICE SCHOOL MAIN ENTRANCE ROCKWOOD DESIGN DRAWN BY: LORENA PEREZA3.1S A C R E D H E A R T P A R I S H1 3 7 1 6 & 1 3 7 1 8 S A R A T O G A A V E . S A R A T O G A , C A . 9 5 0 7 0DATE:03-19-2015 3 HIGH SCHOOL COURT LOS GATOS CA. 95030 408-354-2128 AROCKWOOD@ROCKWOODDESIGN.NET SCHOOL EXISTING & DEMO PLAN1 SCALE 3/32"=1'-0" N SCOPE OF WORK : RELOCATE EXISTING KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM TO NEW LOCATION. REFER TO AREA OF WORK ON THIS DRAWING ALONG WITH SHEET A3.1. 106 NEW FAITH FORMATION NEW KINDERGARTEN LOCATION MAIN OFFICE SCHOOL MAIN ENTRANCE ROCKWOOD DESIGN DRAWN BY: LORENA PEREZA3.2S A C R E D H E A R T P A R I S H1 3 7 1 6 & 1 3 7 1 8 S A R A T O G A A V E . S A R A T O G A , C A . 9 5 0 7 0DATE:03-19-2015 3 HIGH SCHOOL COURT LOS GATOS CA. 95030 408-354-2128 AROCKWOOD@ROCKWOODDESIGN.NET SCHOOL PROPOSED PLAN1 SCALE 3/32"=1'-0" N 107 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 12, 2015 Application: PDR15-0011 & ARB15-0024 Location / APN: 15181 Hume Drive / 510-01-015 Owner/Applicant: Vanessa Stephens Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 15181 Hume Drive SITE 108 Page 2 of 6 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to demolish an existing one story single-family residence and construct a new 5,862 square foot, 24.9 feet tall two story single-family residence. Four protected trees are proposed for removal. The net site area is 44,007 square feet and is zoned R-1-20,000. S TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-035 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(3). PROJECT DATA: Gross/Net Site Area: 48,384 SF / 44,007 SF Average Site Slope: 5.8% General Plan Designation: RLD (Residential Low Density) Zoning: R-1-20,000 Grading: 34 cubic yards (17 cut / 17 fill – 0 Export) Proposed Allowed/Required Proposed Site Coverage Residential Footprint/Main Residence Driveway Walkways/Decks/Patios Sport court (existing) Total Proposed Site Coverage 6,209 sq. ft. 4,321 sq. ft. 1,046 sq. ft. 1,209 sq. ft. 12,785 sq. ft. (29%) 19,803 sq. ft. Floor Area Main House First Floor Interior Height exceeding 15 feet* Second Story 3 Car Garage/Workshop Total Floor Area 3,828 sq. ft. 286 sq. ft. 528 sq. ft. 1,220 sq. ft. 5,862 sq. ft. 6,100 sq. ft. Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 107.50 110.25 108.875 133.795 (24.92 ft.) 26 Feet Setbacks Front Left Right Rear 1st Story 2nd Story 1st Story 2nd Story 69 ft. 21 ft. 30 ft. 62 ft. 69 ft. 74 ft. 46 ft. 121 ft. 30 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 35 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 45 ft. * 109 Page 3 of 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site Description: The 44,007 square foot project site is located at 15181 Hume Drive. The average slope of the site is 5.8% with an average grade change of 14 feet from the southwest corner of the site to its northeast corner. Surrounding adjacent uses include single family homes located on sites of similar size as the subject site. An existing 3,082 square foot residence and a 498 square foot detached garage are located towards the rear of the site. An existing sport court is located in the southeast corner of the site. Hume Drive crosses the western portion of the site. Four trees in conflict with the development of the project are proposed for removal. All existing structures and hardscape, with the exception of the sport court, will be removed. Project Description and Architectural Style: The project will include the construction of a 5,862 square foot two story single-family main residence with a height of approximately 25 feet. The contemporary designed residence will be predominantly a single-story structure with a 528 square foot second story element located above the garage. The exterior of the residence will be covered in a smooth finish integral colored plaster with red cedar vertical wood siding at the gable ends. All exterior windows will be square in shape. All entrance doors and garage doors will be wood and stained to match the wood exterior trim. No fireplaces are proposed. The standing seam metal gabled roof will have a zinc color. Landscaping: Vehicle access will be provided by a circular driveway composed of concrete pavers. The proposed landscape plan illustrates that the project will feature flowering plants, groundcover, and grasses. New trees will include Rosebud’s and a Peach tree. The existing row of Olive trees along the front property line and the existing Redwood trees along the north property line are being maintained and incorporated into the landscape design. The existing non- illuminated sport court in the southeast corner of the property will have a line of shrubs planted between the sport court and the south property line to screen the sport court from the adjacent property. Materials and Colors: Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Cream colored smooth stucco and red cedar wood siding Windows Bronze colored vinyl “aluminum clad” windows Doors Natural colored stained wood Roof Zinc colored standing seam metal roof Trees: A total of 35 trees potentially impacted by the project were reviewed by the City Arborist. Of these trees, 30 are classified as protected trees per City Ordinance. These include Coast live oaks, Coast redwoods and Olive trees. All trees are in fair or poor condition. Four protected trees are requested for removal in order to construct the proposed structures at the proposed project site. These include one Japanese maple, one mayten tree, one copper beach, and one magnolia tree which are in conflict with the location of proposed structures. 110 Page 4 of 6 The City Arborist has determined that all the trees proposed for removal meet the criteria allowing removal and replacement as listed in the arborist report. Remaining protected trees in the vicinity of the project will be protected during its duration. Details of the arborist findings and descriptions of the tree to be removed are included in the Arborist report which is included as Attachment #2. Residential CalGreen Measures: The project will meet the minimum CalGreen standards for a new home. The Residential CalGreen Measures Checklist is included as Attachment #5. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted three (3) Neighbor Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners. None of the forms included negative comments related to the project. Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as Attachment #4. A Public Notice was also sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. No additional concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this staff report. FINDINGS Design Review Findings - The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings. These findings are in addition to and not a substitute for compliance with all other Zoning Regulations (which constitute the minimum requirements, as provided in City Code Section 15-05.050). 1. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the proposed development and grading is located in a predominantly level area and in the approximate location of the existing house to minimize the need for additional grading. The retention of a large number of trees on site preserves the sites existing contours. Grading for the site will be primarily limited to contouring the site to direct drainage to landscaped areas and detention facilities. 2. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has been designed to reduce impacts to a minimum number of protected trees. The 35 trees that were inventoried as being potentially impacted include Coast live oaks, Coast redwoods and Olive trees The City Arborist has determined that the four trees proposed for removal meet the criteria allowing removal and replacement as listed in the arborist report. The remaining protected trees in the vicinity of the project will be preserved and protected during the duration of the project. Replacement trees will be required for the four trees to be removed. 3. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to 111 Page 5 of 6 community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the 1.1 acre size of the parcel, the distance from the subject project to adjacent structures, and existing and proposed vegetation and trees would screen views of the residence from adjacent properties. The height of the structure is consistent in height as the one and two-story structure located on adjacent properties. The second story windows located above the garage will face away from the adjacent residence and are setback more than 50 feet from nearest property line. The project would not impact any identified community viewsheds. 4. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the overall design, height, materials, and location of building features for the residence will avoid the perception of excessive bulk and the contemporary architectural theme of the project and the use of architecturally true elements helps unify the building façades. The facades of the buildings are well articulated with jogs in the building lines with varying height of roof elements, architectural projections, and rooflines. The elevations are softened by the use of varying materials to include earth toned smooth finished stucco and natural wood siding. The views from homes on adjacent sites are screened by existing and proposed landscaping. 5. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the hardscape in the front setback area is limited to the circular driveway composed of concrete pavers. The remaining area of the front setback is will be landscaped with lawn, flowering plants, and trees. 6. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the location of the nearest existing residence is located at a distance of more than 100 feet and that all proposed landscaping would be located in close proximity to the development so there would be no shadowing that could impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. Mature trees surround the development but because adjacent properties are of similar square footage and have large setbacks there would not be an unreasonable impact on adjoining properties. 7. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. 8. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable to the project as the site is not classified as a hillside lot. Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This 112 Page 6 of 6 exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-035 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 2. Arborist Report dated June 17, 2015 3. Public Hearing Notice 4. Neighbor Notification Forms 5. Calgreen Checklist 6. Development Plans (Exhibit A) 113 RESOLUTION NO: 15-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR15-0011 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB15-0024 LOCATED AT 15181 HUME DRIVE WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, an application was submitted by Mark Sutherland of G&S Architecture on behalf of Vanessa Stephens requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home and related site improvements located at 15181 Hume Drive. The project has a total floor area of 5,862 square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. The site is located within the R-1-20,000 Zoning District (APN 510-01-015). 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 August 12, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of one single-family residence in a residential area. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; preserves protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the 114 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 PDR15-0011 and ARB15-0024 located at 15181 Hume Drive, 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 12th day of August 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission Exhibit 1 115 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 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. 116 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 May 7, 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. Per City Code Section 15-45.090, Design Review approval shall expire 36 months from the date on which the Design Review approval became effective. 8. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated March 25, 2015 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. 9. The applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. The plan shall identify the location of construction vehicle parking. Construction vehicles shall not park in the common driveway area/easement. 10. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. 117 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB15-0024 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 15181 Hume Drive Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Vanessa Stephens Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 510-01-015 Email:snwlprd@gmail.com Report History: Report 1 Date: Plans received March 26, 2015 Report completed April 29, 2015 Report 2 – This report replaces report 1 Revised plans received May 12, 2015 Corrected values received June 15, 2015 Report completed June 17, 2015 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and build a new two story house with attached three car garage. Four trees protected by Saratoga City Code (trees 16, 24, 26 and 27) are requested for removal to construct the project. They meet the City’s criteria allowing removal and replacement as part of the project. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $22,500 For trees 3, 7 – 13, 25 and 35 Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – Trees 16, 24, 26 and 27 are permitted for removal and replacement once a Building Permit has been issued. Replacement trees – Required = $21,410 1 118 15181 Hume Drive FINDINGS: Tree Removals Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Four trees protected by Saratoga City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. They include one Japanese maple (tree 16), one mayten (tree 24), one copper beech (tree 26) and one magnolia (tree 27). Table 1 below lists which of the tree removal criteria are met allowing removal and replacement of the tree for the project. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Species Criteria met Criteria not met 16 Japanese maple 1, 4, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 24 Mayten 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 26 Copper beech 1, 4, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 27 Southern magnolia 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 Replacement Trees The total appraised value of trees 16, 24, 26 and 27 is $21,410. New trees equal to this appraised value will be required as a condition of the project. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. The arborist report needs additional information to meet this finding. Tree Preservation Plan The arborist report dated May 15, 2015 by Michael Young of Urban Tree Management, Inc., once included in the final set of plans, will satisfy the requirement for a Tree Preservation Plan under Section 15-50.140 of the City Code. This report is also to be included in the final set of plans and provides conditions of approval for the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 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 2 119 15181 Hume Drive 4 – Map of Site with Tree Protection Fence Locations 3 120 15181 Hume Drive Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: G+S Architecture Date of Plans: March 23, 2015, revised May 7, 2015 Sheet A0.1 Cover Sheet and Project Information ARB-01 Tree Preservation Plan Sheet A1.0 Demolition Plan Sheet A1.1 Site Plan Sheet A2.0 Floor Plan and Building Sections Sheets A3.0 and A3.1 Exterior Elevations Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Flo-Rite Engineers Date of Plans: March 6, 2015 Sheet C-1 Title Sheet Sheet C-2 Notes Sheet C-3 Grading and Drainage Plan Preparer: TKM Land Surveryors Date of Plans: February 8, 2015 Sheet 1 Boundary and Topographic Survey Landscape Plans reviewed: Preparer: Core Landscaping Date of Plans: March 11, 2015 Sheet LA-1 Landscape Design Sheet LA-2 Irrigation Plan TREE INFORMATION: Arborist Report reviewed: Preparer: Urban Tree Management, Inc. Date of Plans: March 16, 2015, revised March 26, 2015 and May 15, 2015 The report inventoried 36 trees protected by Saratoga City Code. It provided information on the condition of trees, tree protection recommendations and appraised values. 4 121 15181 Hume Drive Attachment 1 Table 1: Appraised values of inventoried trees from submitted report. 5 122 15181 Hume Drive Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. 6 123 15181 Hume Drive Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2. The arborist report dated May 15, 2015 prepared by Michael Young of Urban Tree Management, Inc. shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 3. All recommendations of that report shall become conditions of approval for the project. 4. This arborist report shall be copied on to a plan and included in the final set of plans. 5. Tree Protection Security Deposit a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall $22,500 be for tree(s) 3, 7 – 13, 25 and 35. c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond. e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 6. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting before performing work. 7. The designated Project Arborist shall be Michael Young of Urban Tree Management, Inc. unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 8. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities and monthly thereafter. 7 124 15181 Hume Drive Attachment 3 9. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 15 feet of trees 7 – 15, 25 and 35. 10. Installation of a pier and beam foundation is acceptable at the distances from redwoods 13 – 15 shown on the Site Plan. It is acceptable to bury the beam as long as no roots measuring 2 inches or more in diameter require cutting. If roots of this size are encountered, have the Project Arborist guide the foundation work around these three trees. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching (including for utilities), equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 14. 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. 15. Trees 16, 24, 26 and 27 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building Division permits have been obtained. 16. 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. 17. New trees equal to $21,410 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species. 18. 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 19. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. 20. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 21. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. 8 125 15181 Hume Drive Attachment 3 22. 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. 23. 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. 9 126 Attachment 4 Legend Tree Protection Fencing 15181 Hume Drive 10 127 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 12th day of August 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: PDR15-0011 & ARB15-0024 / 15181 Hume Drive OWNER: Vanessa Stephens APN: 510-01-015 DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to demolish an existing one story single-family residence and construct a new 5,862 square foot, 24.9 feet tall two story single-family residence. Four protected trees are requested for removal to construct the project. These include one Japanese maple, one mayten tree, one copper beach, and one magnolia tree which are in conflict with the proposed building location. The net site area is 44,007 square feet and is zoned R-1-20,000. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. 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, August 3, 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 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 12, 2015 Application: PDR14-0025, GRE15-0001, ARB14-0046 Location / APN: 20888 Kittridge Road / 517-14-087 Owner/Applicant: Christopher Pan Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 20888 Kittridge Road SITE 159 Page 2 of 8 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a 6,410 square foot two story single-family home on a vacant site. The project also includes a grading exception for 2,112 cubic yards of grading. The net site area is 7.97 acres or 347,173 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). S TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-036 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(3). Grading Exception Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-13.050(f). PROJECT DATA: Gross Site Area: 378,536 SF / 8.69 acres Net Site Area: 347,173 SF / 7.97 acres Average Site Slope: 60% Average Slope at Bldg. Site 7.0% General Plan Designation: RHC (Hillside Conservation) Zoning: HR (Hillside Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Proposed Site Coverage Residential Footprint/Main Residence Driveway Patios Shed Pool Total Proposed Site Coverage 6,087 sq. ft. 1,585 sq. ft. 1,466 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 288 sq. ft. 9,626 sq. ft. (2.7%) 15,000 sq. ft. (Applicant request to exempt 9,955 square feet of site coverage for required site access per City Code Section 15-13) Floor Area Main House First Floor Second Story Garage Shed Total Floor Area 3,255 sq. ft. 2,310 sq. ft. 845 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 6,610 sq. ft. 7,390 sq. ft. Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 1,241 ft. 1,253 ft. 1,247 ft. 1,270 ft. (23.00 Ft.) 26 Feet 160 Page 3 of 8 Proposed Allowed/Required Setbacks (vacant site) Main House Front (20% of lot depth) Left (10% of site width) Right (10% of site width) Rear (25% of lot depth) 390 ft. 240 ft. 45 ft. 580 ft. 220 ft. (20% of lot depth) 37 ft. (10% of site width) 37 ft. (10% of site width) 275 ft. (25% of lot depth) Grading (Cubic Yards) Residence Driveway/Yard Total Cut 860 486 1,346 Fill 0 766 766 Total 860 1,252 2,112 1,000 Cubic Yards (Grading Exception Requested) PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site Description and Project History: The 8.69 acre site is located at the end of Kittridge Road in the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. The average site slope is 60% and the site is covered in dense vegetation which screens offsite views from adjacent properties. The relatively level building site has an average slope of 7% and is located on the northern portion of the site and towards its center. An existing unpaved driveway provides access to the building site. In March 2001 the Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Variance application for a previous property owner. These applications included the construction of a new 7,272 square foot, 26 feet tall two story residence with a craftsman architectural design and a variance application for retaining walls in excess of the five foot maximum height. The project also included a variance for impervious site coverage to exceed 15,000 square feet due to the length of the driveway. The project included 2,400 cubic yards of grading. The residence was not built and site construction was limited to the retaining walls located on the west side of the building site and the construction of the access driveway and related drainage improvements – the driveway was not paved. The project was abandoned and the site was purchased by the current owner in November 2012. Project Description and Architectural Style: The project will include the construction of a two story single-family residence with a contemporary design. The 5,565 square foot residence will be 23 feet tall with a three car garage. No basement is proposed. The project will be located in the same approximate location as the previously approved project. The residence will have a contemporary style with clean lines and minimal exterior detailing, wide eave overhangs, exposed supporting beams and structural members, and contrasting wall materials and textures. Exterior materials of the residence will include green colored stucco to blend with the surrounding natural environment, exposed decks with glass railings, and square windows. No fireplaces are proposed. Landscaping: The landscape plan (Sheet L of the Project Plans) indicates that the project will include a minimal amount of landscaping clustered close to the western side of the residence to will include drought tolerant turf areas and a small pool. No additional landscaping is proposed to disrupt the natural aesthetic of the site which is dominated by native grasses, plants, and trees. 161 Page 4 of 8 Materials and Colors: Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Green colored stucco and trim Railings Glass Panels Windows Green colored vinyl clad windows Roof Composition Shingles Geotechnical Review The City’s Ground Movement Potential Map indicates that the site and adjoining slopes are located in an area with both Pd (potentially deep landslides) and Pmw (weather and fractured rock subject to raveling, slumping, and rockfall) ground movement potential categories. Site specific geotechnical investigation concluded that no existing deep landslide is present on the site so it is the opinion of the City Geologist that the Pmw category is the most appropriate ground movement potential category. The project received Geotechnical Clearance on August 25, 2014 which is included as Attachment 3. Site Coverage Exemption An approximate 510 foot long driveway provides site access and terminates at an emergency vehicle turnaround adjacent to the residence. The total impervious site coverage is 19,581 square feet. The site coverage attributable to the driveway and emergency vehicle turnaround is 9,955 square feet. The maximum allowable site coverage is 15,000 square feet. The City Code allows the Planning Commission to exempt a portion of the driveway and any related emergency vehicle turnaround from the allowable site coverage if the project meets one or more of the following design objectives subject to the Design Review Findings: · Avoid placing structures in geologically unstable areas or on major or minor ridgelines; · Preserving trees; · Reducing any visual impacts; · Meeting public or safety emergency vehicle access requirements; · Reducing overall grading project grading or changes in slope. The square footage of the driveway is 8,755 square feet and the turnaround is 1,200 square feet. If the Planning Commission determines that the location of the project reduces its visual impacts, reduces overall site grading and/or the driveway is required to meet emergency vehicle access requirements, than the Planning Commission could exempt a portion of the driveway. A site coverage reduction of 4,581 square feet would bring the project into compliance with the maximum 15,000 square foot site coverage limit. Grading over one thousand cubic yards: The City Code limits the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission. The project includes a request for a grading exception for a combined cut and fill of 2,112 cubic yards (1,346 cut and 766 fill) with an export of 580 cubic yards. The proposed grading would be to: 162 Page 5 of 8 1. Limit construction of the project to an area of the site with the least amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the project geologist. 2. Provide a relatively level turnaround area for the Santa Clara County Fire Department with a minimum outside radius of 36 feet providing an emergency vehicle the opportunity to reverse direction. 3. The total grading of 2,112 cubic yards includes all cut and fill soil quantities. 580 cubic yards of the total grading quantity will be exported and deposited off site. This material will not be used as fill which could have the effect of modifying the existing contours of the site. 4. Maintaining a consistent floor plan elevation throughout the residence. 5. Integrating the building into the sloped area at the south side of the building footprint to locate the residence away from the northerly edge of the building pad and to improve the building’s integration into the natural topography of the site as recommended in the City’s Residential Design Handbook thereby potentially offsetting negative views of the project. Trees: The Project Arborist inventoried 14 trees on the project site potentially impacted by construction which included Coast Live oaks, California Bays, and a Douglas fir. No trees are proposed for removal. All protected trees in the vicinity of the project will be protected during project duration. Details of the arborist findings and descriptions of the trees to be preserved are included in the Arborist report which is included as Attachment #2. Residential Calgreen Measures: The project will meet the minimum CalGreen standards for a new home. The Residential Calgreen Measures Checklist is included as Attachment #6. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted four (4) Neighbor Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners and no negative comments related to the project were indicated. Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as Attachment #5. A Public Notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. No additional concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this staff report. FINDINGS Design Review Findings - The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings. These findings are in addition to and not a substitute for compliance with all other Zoning Regulations (which constitute the minimum requirements, as provided in City Code Section 15-05.050). 1. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that site development is limited to a previously graded building pad. Development is also limited to the portion of the site with the least amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the project geologist thereby preserving the natural contours of the site. 163 Page 6 of 8 2. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has been designed to reduce impacts to a minimum number of protected trees. The Project Arborist inventoried 14 trees on the project site which included Coast Live oaks, California Bays, and a Douglas fir. No trees are proposed for removal. All protected trees in the vicinity of the project will be protected during the duration of the project. 3. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative due to the 8.69 acre size of the parcel and separation from adjacent homes, the large building setbacks from property lines, the natural color of the building’s exterior materials, and existing and proposed vegetation and trees will screen views of the residence from surrounding properties. The development is not visible from any adjacent roads. Because the project is screened from adjacent properties and not visible from nearby roadways, setbacks far exceed the minimums, and existing vegetation will screen the project form residences on adjacent sites, there would be no unreasonable impact to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. 4. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the overall design, height, materials, and location of building features for the residence will avoid the perception of excessive bulk and the Contemporary architectural theme of the project and the use of architecturally true elements for the proposed architectural style helps unify the building façades. The facade of the structure is well articulated with jogs in the building lines with varying height of roof elements, architectural projections, and rooflines. The views from homes on adjacent sites are screened by existing and proposed landscaping. 5. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the front setback area will include no formal landscaping and existing grasses, bushes, and trees are to be preserved to maintain the sites rural and primarily undeveloped appearance. Hardscape within the front setback area will be limited to the existing single access driveway. 6. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the location of the nearest existing residence is located at a distance of hundreds of feet. All proposed landscaping would be located in close proximity to the development so there would be no shadowing that could impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. 7. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made 164 Page 7 of 8 in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. 8. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community view sheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is not located on a ridgeline, there are no significant hillside features in the near vicinity of the project site to be impacted, and the project is screened from offsite views by existing and proposed vegetation. The overall size of the parcel and the proposed building setbacks would not cause the project to unreasonably impact community viewsheds and the project is in compliance with City Code Section 15-13.100 (Height of Structures). Grading Over One Thousand Cubic Yards - City Code section 15-13.050 limits the combined cut and fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission based upon making all of the below listed findings. The project includes a request for a grading exception for a combined cut and fill of 2,112 cubic yards (1,346 cut and 766 fill) with an export of 580 cubic yards. 1. The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that construction of the project is limited to those portions of the site with the least amount of slope which coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the project geologist. The Santa Clara County Fire Department requires a relatively level turnaround area with a minimum outside radius of 36 feet providing an emergency vehicle the opportunity to reverse direction. Fire Department access must be provided to all structures. The grading would also improve the building’s integration into the natural topography of the site as recommended in the City’s Residential Design Handbook thereby potentially offsetting negative views of the project and would allow reasonable development of the property and achieve a reasonable access to the project site. 2. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that construction of the project is limited to previously graded portions of the site, and to those areas of the site with the least amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the project geologist. The grading export material will not be used as fill which could have the effect of modifying to an event greater extent the existing contours of the site. Limiting the project development to the geologically stable area as identified by the project arborist and exporting all excess grading material will preserve and protect the natural land forms of the site. 3. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the grading would integrate the building into the sloped area at the south side of the building footprint so as to locate the residence away from its more visible north edge and to improve the integration of the structures into the natural topography of the site by primarily limiting construction of the project to a previously graded building pad. The increased grading caused by integrating the project into 165 Page 8 of 8 the site and maintaining a consistent true architectural theme would promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. 4. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is screened from offsite views due to the size of the lot and existing and proposed vegetation and is screened would be screened from distant community views. 5. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will be located on an existing level building pad which was constructed for a project that had been previously approved for the project site but which was not constructed. The project will not be enlarging the size of the existing flat building pad. Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15-036 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 2. Arborist Report dated July 10, 2015 3. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions 4. Public Hearing Notice 5. Neighbor Notification Forms 6. CalGreen Checklist 7. Photo Renderings 8. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 166 RESOLUTION NO: 15-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0025, GRADING EXCEPTION GRE15-0001, AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB14-0046 LOCATED AT 20888 KITTRIDGE ROAD WHEREAS, on August 18, 2014, an application was submitted by Christopher Pan requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home at 20888 Kittridge Road. The project also includes a request for a grading exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading. The project has a total floor area of 6,610 square feet. The height of the proposed residence would be 23 feet. The site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District (APN 517-14-087). 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 August 12, 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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. 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 167 Resolution No. 15-036 elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook; and in the case of hillside lots, avoids unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13-100. Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the request for a grading exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading is consistent with the Grading Exception findings in that the additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected; the increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; the increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views; and that no building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. Section 6: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the request to exempt a portion of the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related emergency vehicle turnaround areas, from the calculation of site coverage, is consistent with the design objectives to avoid placing structures in geologically unstable areas or on major or minor ridgelines; preserving trees; reducing any visual impacts; meeting public or safety emergency vehicle access requirements; reducing overall grading project grading or changes in slope. Section 7: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0025 GRE15-0001, and ARB14-0046 located at 20888 Kittridge 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 12th day of August 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 168 Resolution No. 15-036 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 20888 Kittridge Road (APN 517-14-087) 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 169 Resolution No. 15-036 management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the 2007 Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. Additionally, the site development plan must not restrict, obstruct or alter the existing natural drainage swale along the rear property in any way that would cause or increase erosion. 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 7. City Arborist. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated July 10, 2015 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. 8. Expiration of Design Review. Per City Code Section 15-45.090, Design Review approval shall expire 36 months from the date on which the Design Review approval became effective. 9. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. 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. 170 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No: ARB14-0046 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 20888 Kittridge Road Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Yuancheng Christopher Pan Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 517-14-087 Email: Christopher.y.pan@gmail.com Review History: Report 1 Date: Plans received August 18, 2014 Report completed September 17, 2014 Report 2 – This report replaces report 1 Revised plans received January 26, 2015 Report completed February 18, 2015 Report 3 – This report replaces report 2 Revised plans received April 6, 2015 Report completed April 23, 2015 Report 4 – This report replaces previous reports Revised plans received July 1, 2015 Report completed July 10, 2015 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to build a new two story house with a three car garage and a pool on a vacant lot. No trees protected by Saratoga City Code are requested or permitted for removal to construct the project. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $42,900 For trees 1, 2, 3 and 7. Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – None requested or permitted. Replacement trees – None required. 1 171 20888 Kittridge Road FINDINGS: Tree Removals No trees are requested or approved for removal to construct this project. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirement for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan A Tree Preservation Plan is required for this project, per Section 15-50.140 of the City Code. The submitted arborist reports dated March 25, 2015, when copied onto a plan sheet and included in the plan set will serve as a tree preservation plan. This report is also to be copied onto a plan sheet. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information 2 – Map of Site and Tree Protection Fence Locations 3 – Conditions of Approval 2 172 20888 Kittridge Road Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: Christopher Pan Date of Plans: August 18, 2014, Revised January 26, 2015, March 25, 2015 and June 1, 2015 Sheet A1 Cover Sheet Sheet A2 Site Plan Sheet A3 Proposed Floor Plans Sheet A4 Proposed Elevations Sheet A6 Cross Sections Sheet A8 Tree Preservation Plan Notes Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Giuliani and Kull, Inc. Date of Plans: August 18, 2014, revised January 26, 2015 Sheet C-1 Cover Sheet August 18, 2014 Sheet C-2 Topography Survey August 18, 2014 Sheet C-3 Details Sheet August 18, 2014 Sheet C-4 Grading and Drainage Plan – West Half January 26, 2014 Sheet C-5 Grading and Drainage Plan – East Half Arborist report reviewed: Preparer: Katherine Naegele, Anderson Tree Care Specialists, Inc. Date: November 13, 2014, amended January 27, 2015, Revised March 25, 2015 An arborist report which inventoried 14 trees was submitted for this project. It provided information on the condition of each tree, tree protection measures, potential impacts from construction, and appraised values. The figure below shows a map of the trees, a table with tree information, and locations for tree protection fencing. The report indicated that no trees protected by Saratoga City Code were requested for removal to construct the project. The plans for the project show a total of 32 inventoried trees on the Site Plan. No information has been provided for the trees numbered 15 – 32. 3 173 20888 Kittridge Road Attachment 1 Table 1: Tree inventory from the submitted arborist report dated March 25, 2015. 4 174 Attachment 2 Legend Tree Protection Fencing 20888 Kittridge Road From the March 25, 2015 arborist report prepared by Katherine Naegele. 5 175 20888 Kittridge Road Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2. The arborist report dated March 25, 2015 shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 3. All recommendations in the arborist report dated March 25, 2015 prepared by Katherine Naegele of Anderson Tree Care Specialists, Inc. shall become conditions of approval. 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 Katherine Naegele, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 6. Tree Protection Security Deposit a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be $42,900 for tree(s) 1, 2, 3 and 7. c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond. e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 7. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the map in Attachment 2. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting. 8. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities and monthly thereafter. 9. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 15 feet of trees 1 – 3. 6 176 20888 Kittridge Road Attachment 3 10. No protected tree authorized for encroachment pursuant to this project may be encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 11. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. 12. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 13. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards. 14. No trees are requested or approved for removal to construct this project. 15. Should any tree be damaged beyond repair as a result of construction activity, new trees equal to its appraised value shall be planted on the site. Replacement values are listed below. 16. 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 17. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 18. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. 19.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. 20. 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. 7 177 Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Christopher Riordan, Project Planner, Community Development Department CC: Pan, Christopher (Owner & Applicant) FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO14-0010 at 20888 Kittridge Road DATE: August 27, 2014 1. The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Consultant shall verify that final construction plans contain appropriate design measures to address potential rock spalling or shallow sloughing hazard above the residence. We understand these measures will include a minimum 3-foot high debris wall. Results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The following items should be performed prior to final (as-built) project approval: 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant shall inspect final installed site drainage improvements for conformance with geotechnical recommendations. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 4. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 178 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 12th of August, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION: PDR14-0025, GRE15-0001, ARB14-0046 ADDRESS: 20888 Kittridge Road APPLICANT/OWNER: Christopher Pan APN: 517-14-087 DESCRIPTION: The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,410 square foot two story single-family home on a vacant site. The project also includes a grading exception for 2,112 cubic yards of grading. The net size area is 7.97 acres or 347,173 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, August 3, 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 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206