HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-2012 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 2
February 8, 2012
Draft Minutes 4
Application MOD11-0003 14781 Farwell Avenue(397-20-096)
S3 Design Group / Franca
Staff Report - 14781 Farwell Ave.7
Att. 1 - Reso - 14781 Farwell Avenue 13
Att. 2 - Geotechnical Memo 18
Att. 3 - Neighbor Notification Forms 19
Att. 4 - Notices, Labels and Affadavit 22
Att. 5 - E-mail from 19915 Bella Vista 26
Application PDR11-0035/ 15230 Sobey Road (397-07-107)
Wang
Staff Report 27
Attachment 1 - Resolution of Approval for Design
Review 32
Attachment 2 - Public Hearing Notice, Mailing
addresses for project notification 36
Attachment 4 - Arborist Report 39
Attachment 5 - Geotechnical Clearance Letter 49
Attachment 6 - Green Points Checklist 50
Attachment 7 - Development Plans 59
Attachment 8 - Color Board 73
Application PDR 10-0021 & SUB 11-0003 & CUP 12-0001;
14651 Big Basin Way (503-25-015); John and Sue Kang / Tom
Sloan
Staff Report 75
Resolution 86
Negative Declaration 94
Noticing 116
Neighbor Forms 124
Arborist Report 131
Geotechnical Review 141
Traffic Memo 143
Traffic Memo Peer Review 145
Greenpoints 146
Exhibit A - Development Plans, Tentative Map, Colors
and Materials 158
1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - 7:00 PM
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners – Chair Douglas Robertson, Vice-Chair Tina K. Walia, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Pragati Grover, Joyce
Hlava, David Reis and Yan Zhao
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 8, 2012
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three 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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to the Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 16, 2012
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, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants 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. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application MOD11-0003 14781 Farwell Avenue (397-20-096) S3 Design Group / Franca - The
applicant requests Design Review approval for an addition (940 square feet on the first floor and 862
square feet on the second floor) to an existing single family residence at 14781 Farwell Avenue. The
second floor addition would be deemed as a legal second dwelling unit. (Michael Fossati)
2. Application PDR11-0035; 15230 Sobey Road (397-07-107); Dr. David N.K. Wang / Michael Helm -
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new twenty-one foot tall 3,510 square
foot single-story home on an unimproved lot at 15230 Sobey Road. (Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP)
3. Application PDR 10-0021 & SUB 11-0003 & CUP 12-0001; 14651 Big Basin Way (503-25-015); John
and Sue Kang / Tom Sloan - The applicant is requesting approval to replace an existing 2,430 square foot
building with a new 11,557 square foot mixed-use building located at 14651 Big Basin Way. The new
building would include three residential condominium units, one apartment unit, 1,246 square feet of retail
space, and a 7,090 square foot basement parking garage. (Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP)
2
NEW BUSINESS
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
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 City Council was posted and available for public review on February 16, 2012 at the City of
Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at
www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
3
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - 7:00 PM
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners – Chair Douglas Robertson, Vice-Chair Tina K. Walia, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Pragati Grover, Joyce
Hlava, David Reis and Yan Zhao
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 25, 2012 (Approved 6:0:1(Hlava –
abstain))
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three 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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to the Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 2, 2012
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, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants 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. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. APPLICATION PDR11-0024/15100 Park Drive (510-01-190) Mittal & Singh - The applicant is
requesting approval of a Design Review application to construct a 5,105 square foot, approximately 26 feet
tall, two-story single-family home. The existing house on the lot will be removed. Four trees are proposed
for removal and include a 15” Arizona Cypress, a 24.4” California sycamore, a 17.2” London plane, and a
13.8” London plane. (Christopher Riordan, AICP) (Approved, 7:0)
2. APPLICATIONS PDR11-0026, GRE11-0001, VAR11-0005/22551 Mount Eden Road (503-13-117)
Smit - The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review application for a new 4,179 square foot,
25’ tall two story single family home and a 442 square foot guest house with a request for Variances to
reduce the required front setback from 70’-6” to 30’ and to construct on slopes in excess of 40%. The
project would also include a Grading Exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading. (Christopher
Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner) (Continued to March 28, 2012 hearing, 7:0)
4
3. APPLICATION PDR11-0021/14422 Big Basin Way (517-09-017) MBA Architects & Klear - The
applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review application to construct a 3,994 square foot, 35-feet
tall three story office building located at 14422 Big Basin Way behind the Mint Leaf Restaurant. The
existing two story single family home will be removed. The existing driveway/alley would be remodeled
into a landscape courtyard to include an outdoor dining area for the Mint Leaf Restaurant. (Christopher
Riordan, AICP) (Continued to March 14, 2012 hearing, 7:0)
4. APPLICATION PDR11-0010 & CUP11-0007; 22100 Mt. Eden Road (503-09-005); John and Tara
Couch - The project is a request for design review approval, a use permit, and variation from standards for
lot coverage. The applicant has deconstructed the existing home, barn/stable, horse corral, and swimming
pool. The project would include a new 6,072 square foot two-story home with attached garage, 876 square
foot secondary dwelling unit, and existing 1,620 square foot detached garage. In the future, the applicant
would construct a 5,402 square foot stable and feed shed plus additional lot coverage for an outdoor kitchen
and driveway around the equestrian uses. The total proposed floor area on the site would be 13,971 square
feet and the total proposed lot coverage would be 42,019 square feet. The project has been the subject of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act. The project would be
subject to a Development Agreement and would include a conservation easement over the steepest portion
of the lot. The City Arborist has made findings for removal of eight protected trees to construct the project.
(Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP) (Approved as amended with a change to the conditions, 7:0
Deed Restriction: Trails Easements. The property Owner shall record a deed restriction,
satisfactory to the Community Development Director, dedicating trail easements to the City of
Saratoga as provided in the Trail Easement Agreement and depicted on the Trails Master Plan
included in the Open Space Conservation Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan.
Specifically, the property Owner shall dedicate an equestrian trail easement from Mt. Eden Road
to the north-east property corner. In addition, the property Owner shall dedicate a pedestrian and
equestrian easement in the vicinity of existing roadway located in existing Ingress and Egress
Easement along a portion of the southerly property line. This easement shall be a floating
easement to assure the trail slope is feasible for equestrians and to avoid conflict with vehicular
traffic on the roadway. A legal description and plat plan or a verbal trail description shall be
prepared for each trail easement dedication and submitted to the City Public Works Department
for review and approval. The width and exact location of the trail easements are subject to
approval by the Public Works Department. These Trail Easements shall be recorded on the deed
prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Building Permit.)
5. Removal of the timeline for the surplus parking provision in the C-H district (City Code Section 15-
35.020(k). - The off-street parking requirements in any C-H district would be waived until the available
excess parking surplus has been utilized. (Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP) (Approved, 7:0)
NEW BUSINESS
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
5
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 City Council was posted and available for public review on February 2, 2012 at the City of
Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at
www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
6
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: February 22, 2012
Application: Design Review / MOD11-0003
Location / APN: 14781 Farwell Avenue / 397-20-096
Owner / Applicant: Franca / S3 Design Group
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
14781 Farwell Avenue
7
SUMMARY
ZONING:
R1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
RVLD (Very Low Density Residential)
PARCEL SIZE:
1.50 acres (net)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE:
Approximately 15.3%
GRADING REQUIRED:
Not applicable
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Design Review approval for an addition (940 square feet on the first
floor and 862 square feet on the second floor) to an existing single family residence at 14781
Farwell Avenue. The second floor addition would be deemed as a legal second dwelling
unit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-005 approving the
project subject to conditions of approval.
PROJECT DATA
R1-40,000 Zoning District
Net Site Area: 65,247 sq. ft.
Proposed Allowed
Site Coverage
Buildings
Driveways/Walks
Deck/Gazebo
Total
4,977 sq. ft.
9,128 sq. ft.
1,638 sq. ft.
15,743 sq. ft. (18%)
Maximum Coverage
allowed is 25,120sq. ft.
(35% + 10% bonus for 2nd
Dwelling Unit)
Floor Area
1st Floor
2nd Floor
Detached Garage
Total
4,723 sq. ft.
862 sq. ft.
900 sq. ft.
6,485 sq. ft.
Maximum Floor Area is
6,842 sq. ft. (10% bonus for
2nd Dwelling Unit)
Setbacks
Front
Left Side
Right Side
Rear
1st Floor
54.5’
20'
280'
95'
2nd Floor
54.5’
46.17’
280’
174.5’
1st Floor
30’
20’
20’
50’'
2nd Floor
30’
25’
25’
60’
Application No. MOD11-0003; 14781 Farwell Avenue Page 2 of 6
8
Height
Lowest Elevation
Highest Elevation
Average Grade
Proposed Building Height
489.7'
490.5'
490.1’
516' (25.9')
Maximum Building Height
is 516.1 (26')
PROJECT DETAILS
This project is subject to Design Review pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1).
Site Description & Improvements
The project site is a relatively level rural property adjacent to Farwell Avenue. The 15%
average slope is mainly due to the steep slope that drops from Farwell Avenue and Wildcat
Creek, which bisects the eastern and western portions of the property. The residence is
accessed via a lengthy driveway from Farwell Avenue. An existing bridge over a portion of
Wildcat Creek provides access to the detached garage. The property has many mature trees
and landscaping which creates a heavily wooded appearance and assists in screening privacy
or view impacts from all immediate neighbors.
Architectural Style
The home was built in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. The design has a modern-
contemporary architectural style which includes vertical wood siding, exposed roof
beams and gabled roof forms with certain windows extending to the full height of the
gabled ends. The proposed addition will continue the contemporary design by following
the same lines, while incorporating newer design features such as river rock wainscoting
and details.
Detail Colors and Materials
Windows Dark Brown – Solid Vinyl to closely match existing
Garage Door Brown - Wood Carriage Style in Metal
Stone Veneer Gray-Brown, River Rock “Reno Blend”
Building Ext. Dark Beige – Board & Batten wood siding to match existing
Roof Gray-Brown - Asphalt Shingle to match existing
Second Dwelling Unit
The applicant has proposed a deed-restricted second dwelling unit, which would be built
above the attached garage. The studio style second dwelling unit would include a multi-
purpose bonus room, game room and bathroom. Permanent cooking facilities would be
placed in the bonus room. In order for a second dwelling unit to be approved, development
standards outlined in the City Code must be met. The table below demonstrates that all of
the development standards of the City Code would be met by the proposed project:
Development Standard Meets Requirement
Application No. MOD11-0003; 14781 Farwell Avenue Page 3 of 6
9
Net Lot size at or greater than minimum of zoning district Yes
Meets current building code Yes
Meets current zoning regulations Yes
Meets current parking regulations Yes
Common access as main residence Yes
Common Entrance as main residence Yes
No more than two bedrooms Yes
Similar appearance to main residence Yes
Trees
As previously stated, the property is surrounded by many mature trees. An arborist report
was not required because construction of the proposed project does not have the potential to
affect protected trees onsite.
Geotechnical Clearance
The project site is constrained by strong seismic ground shaking, potential surficial creep and
shallow instability of nearby steep local slopes. The applicant submitted a geotechnical
report for City review. The City Geologist determined the proposed construction is in
conformance with prevailing geotechnical standards and granted clearance for the project.
The requirements from the City Geologist have been added as conditions of approval to the
resolution.
Energy Efficiency
Due to the scope of work, a Build-it-Green Checklist was not required for submittal. Policy
5 of the Residential Design Guidelines requires that projects be designed with energy
efficiency in mind. This project would include radiant barrier roof decking to reduce
summer heat gain, which helps lower cooling costs. The project would also include high
efficiency exterior lighting in the kitchen addition on the first floor. The project would
include energy star appliances and energy efficient windows.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached
neighbor notification forms. The applicant was able to attain one signature. The property
owner at 19915 Bella Vista refused to sign, but requested the applicant replace an existing
fence near the existing detached garage. Although work is not being proposed in that area,
the applicant has informed staff that they will install a new fence in the area abutting the
property line between 14781 Farwell Avenue and 19915 Bella Vista.
Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the
Saratoga News. Staff received one phone call and e-mail from the property owner of 19915
Bella Vista. She had no objection to the proposed project, but reminded Staff about the
Application No. MOD11-0003; 14781 Farwell Avenue Page 4 of 6
10
fence she requested. Staff has included an e-mail from the property owner of 19915 Bella
Vista regarding their concerns.
Design Review Findings
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof
to support making all of those required findings:
Finding #1: The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The
project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with neighboring views
and privacy by proposing the following:
a. Maintaining substantial setbacks of the new additions to the residence from
adjacent properties.
b. Proposing construction nearby the existing established footprint of the main
residence and located significantly away from nearby homes.
c. Proper site planning that allows a highest ridge of the second story addition
to match the existing grade of Farwell Avenue.
d. Utilize the established, well-matured landscaping to buffer nearby residences
and continue privacy screening of adjacent properties.
As discussed above, the finding can be made in the affirmative.
Finding #2: The project preserves the natural landscape. The property is located in a semi
rural region of Saratoga that has well-established mature vegetation. By citing the addition
adjacent to the existing main residence, the applicants can create greater floor area without
impacting established landscape that surrounds the property. This finding can be made in
the affirmative.
Finding #3: The project preserves native and heritage trees. The proposed project is
consistent with this finding in that no native or heritage trees will be removed or impacted on
site due to the proposed construction. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
Finding #4: The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The project meets
this finding in that the proposed new addition continues the modern existing architecture that
includes a simple roof plan with the combination of gable and shed roof structures. The
varying rooflines created by the proposed design break up the mass of the front elevation.
The elevations have been softened by the incorporating board and batten siding with river
rock stone accents. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
Finding #5: The project is of compatible bulk and height. The project meets this finding
in that the proposed addition will not create a residence that is out of character with the other
estates within the existing neighborhood. The appearance and size of the proposal will
Application No. MOD11-0003; 14781 Farwell Avenue Page 5 of 6
11
Application No. MOD11-0003; 14781 Farwell Avenue Page 6 of 6
continue the single-family residential character of the existing homes in the surrounding
area. The project has incorporated materials that blend with the natural environment. This
finding can be made in the affirmative.
Finding #6: The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The project
meets this finding in that the proposed new construction will incorporate current grading,
erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention conditions the City adheres too.
Grading and erosion will be limited due proposed area of construction. This finding can be
made in the affirmative.
Finding #7: The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The project
meets this finding in that it will utilize the following:
e. The proposed project is compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and
height with neighboring properties. (Policy 1, Technique #5)
f. The use of natural, earthtone materials and colors allow the project to blend
in with the rural surroundings. (Policy 2, Technique #1)
g. Avoid interference with appropriate site planning that exceeds required
setback standards. (Policy 4, Technique #2)
h. The proposed project has been designed for energy efficiency by utilizing
radiant barrier decking, high-efficiency lighting, and energy-efficient
appliances. (Policy 5, Technique #4)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the
Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion
of up to three single-family residences.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval – 14781 Farwell Ave.
2. Geotechnical Clearance Memo – 14781 Farwell Ave.
3. Neighbor Notification Forms
4. Notice, mailing labels and affidavit – 14781 Farwell Ave.
5. E-mail from 19915 Bella Vista.
6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”
12
RESOLUTION NO. 12-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE, NO. MOD11-0003,
LOCATED AT 14781 FARWELL AVENUE
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2011 an application was submitted by S3 Design Group,
requesting Design Review approval for a proposed first and second story addition to an existing
single--story, single-family residence located at 14781 Farwell Avenue. The proposed additions
will increase the overall floor area to 6,472 sq. ft. The proposed additions will create a second
dwelling unit within the proposed second story. The height of the proposed residence (including
the attached second dwelling unit) would be approximately 26 feet. The property is located
within the R-1-40,000 Zoning District (APN 397-17-070); and
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 February 22, 2012, 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 Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 1.1 in
that the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached
residences and LU 1.2 to continue to review all residential development proposals to ensure
consistency with Land Use Element goals and Policies.
Section 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 avoids
unreasonable interference with views and privacy; preserves the natural landscape, native and
heritage trees; minimizes the perception of excessive bulk and is of compatible bulk and height;
13
Resolution No. 12‐005 Page 2
uses current grading and erosion control methods; and follows appropriate design policies and
techniques.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves MOD11-0003,
located at 14781 Farwell Avenue, subject to the above Findings, and Conditions of Approval
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 22nd day of
February 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Tina K. Walia
Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
14
Resolution No. 12‐005 Page 3
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MOD11-0003
14781 FARWELL AVENUE (APN: 397-20-096)
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 of 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 Zoning Regulations 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.
15
Resolution No. 12‐005 Page 4
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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
5. Previous Resolution Superseded. All conditions of approval (including, but not limited to,
approved plans, exhibits, and attachments) per Resolution 08-047 (PDR08-0020) will be
superseded by conditions of approval established per Resolution 12-005 (MOD11-0003).
6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated February 13, 2012,
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. 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. 9 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. 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;
d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
e. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or
public right-of-way.
9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section
16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
16
Resolution No. 12‐005 Page 5
PUBLIC WORKS
10. Encroachment Permit. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and
all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including the stormwater swale
prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review Approval.
11. Geotechnical Condition - The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans,
specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants’ recommendations. The results
of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and
submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits for project
construction.
12. Geotechnical Condition - 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 basement excavation, and foundation construction,
prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-
built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a
letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final (as-built) Project
Approval.
13. Geotechnical Condition - The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated
with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
14. Geotechnical Condition - 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.
17
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Fossati, Project Planner, Community Development Department
CC: Paulo Franca (Owner) / S3 Design Group (Agent)
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO11-0012 at 14781 Farwell Avenue
DATE: February 6, 2012
1. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details
accurately reflect the consultants’ recommendations.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a
letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits for project
construction.
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
basement excavation, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by
the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) 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.
18
19
20
21
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 22nd day of February, 2012, 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: MOD11-0003 / 14781 Farwell Avenue
APPLICANT/OWNER: S3 Design Group / Franca
APN: 397-20-096
DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new attached
garage and second-story addition bonus room to an existing single family residence located at
14781 Farwell Avenue. The proposed new addition (565 sq. ft. on the 1st floor and 388 sq. ft. on
the second floor) will increase the total floor area to 5,623 sq. ft. The height due to the addition
to the existing residence would be approximately 26 feet. The proposed colors include beige
painted stucco siding with dark brown accents. The proposed materials include a slate roof in a
gray-brown palette, wood carriage style garage doors, wood details, a copper standing roof over
the dining room, and a black iron door. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga
Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. The site is approximately 1.50 acres and is located within
the R-1-40,000 zoning district.
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 Tuesday, February 7, 2012.
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.
Michael Fossati
Planner
(408) 868-1212
22
2/13/2012 Page 1 of 2City of Saratoga
Radius Notification Parcel Report
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
39717041 19795 FARWELL AV CHANG ELLIS AND CAROLINE 19795 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718003 14900 FARWELL AV YEH CHIA L AND WANG HUEY L 14900 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718004 14866 FARWELL AV RODRIGUEZ LUPE AND BARBARA S T P.O. BOX 3563 SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718005 14860 FARWELL AV RUDDELL KENNETH H AND ROSA M 20390 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718008 14760 FARWELL AV GIALLO 14760 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718011 19700 FARWELL AV MEDHEKAR AJIT K AND DESAI GEET 19700 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718013 14721 LIVE OAK LN MIRANDA JOSE A TRUSTEE 14721 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718045 14700 FARWELL AV GONZALES ERIC D AND MELINDA TR 14700 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718046 19740 FARWELL AV ROSSEN RONALD M AND LINDA S TR 19740 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718050 14740 FARWELL AV ARIKO BARRY M AND LESLIE J 14740 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718051 14720 FARWELL AV MOUNT DANIEL S AND BARBARA S 14720 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718060 14920 FARWELL CT LONG MARY B AND GRUNBAUM H
DAV
14920 FARWELL CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718061 14880 FARWELL CT DESMET ERVIN A AND ALICE L TRU 14880 FARWELL CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718062 14870 FARWELL CT O MARA DAVID M 14870 FARWELL CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718063 14860 FARWELL CT RAMAKRISHNAN CHULANUR
TRUSTEE
14860 FARWELL CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718064 14850 FARWELL AV ROBERT H. DWYER 14850 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718065 14810 FARWELL AV CARTER GENE P AND PATRICIA J T 14810 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718074 14691 LIVE OAK LN LEE MING-LUNG AND YI-LAN KU TR 14691 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718093 14725 LIVE OAK LN HORVATH GEORGE JR AND THERESA 14725 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
39718094 14766 LIVE OAK LN CHONA ASHISH TRUST 14766 LIVE OAK LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720004 14651 FARWELL AV OBERTHIER JERRY W AND JUDITH L 14651 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720005 14681 FARWELL AV DIETRICH GUY W L AND VIRGINIA 14681 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720006 14701 FARWELL AV MORAN THOMAS W ET AL 14701 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720008 14835 FARWELL AV BRADY ELIZABETH R TRUSTEE & ET 14835 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720009 14855 FARWELL AV BOURQUE MARGOT 14855 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720010 14911 FARWELL AV GLADWELL MALCOLM R AND PATRICI 14911 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720014 20018 BELLA VISTA LEE LUNG-CHIU AND JA-YING L 20018 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720057 19915 BELLA VISTA SUSMAN BARBARA B TRUSTEE 3674 W PACIFIC COAST HY VENTURA, CA 93001
39720058 20022 BELLA VISTA HUBER ROBERT M SR AND DONNA D 20022 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720059 19990 BELLA VISTA MERHIGE MERWYN W TRUSTEE 19990 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720064 19980 BELLA VISTA SHAPIRO PAUL J AND ELIZABETH S 19980 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720065 19950 BELLA VISTA TUNG CHANG-YUNG AND GRACE C 19950 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
GEO10 23
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
39720066 BELLA VISTA KATICICH MATT P AND BARBARA J 9974 E FAIRCHILD RD STOCKTON, CA 95215
39720074 20017 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA SWIMMING CLUB P O BOX 133 SARATOGA, CA 95071
39720075 20015 BELLA VISTA MABANTA WILFRED 20015 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720078 BELLA VISTA KRAFT JOHN K AND SUSAN 20021 BELLA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720079 14582 HORSESHOE DR CLARK WILLIAM G AND ELIZABETH 14582 HORSESHOE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720085 FARWELL AV S C V W D FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720090 19908 BELLA VISTA HOMAYOUN TALIEH 19908 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720091 20021 BELLA VISTA KRAFT JOHN K AND SUSAN 20021 BELLA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720096 14781 FARWELL AV FRANKA PAULO & EUN HEE 14781 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720099 20011 BELLA VISTA CHU TRICIA Y ET AL 20011 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
39720100 19931 BELLA VISTA THURNHER OSKAR R AND BARBARA J 19931 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA, CA 95070
Affected Parcels 43
GEO10 24
25
To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission February 7, 2012
Mary-Lynne Bernald
David Reis
Chair, Dougles R. Robertson
Pragati Grover
Joyce Hlava
Yan Zhao
Tina K. Walia
Re: Application: MOD11-0003/14781 Farwell Avenue
Applicant/Owner: S3 Design Group/Franca
Comments from Barbara Tracy Susman, 19915 Bella Vista, Saratoga re same
Dear Gentle Persons:
I hope you will get to see this property from my Bella Vista address perspective
Look: As you comes down my driveway from Bella Vista the Franca house is straight ahead. Their
address is 14781 Farwell but my house at 19915 Bella Vista is impacted by what they do with their
house and garage.
My concerns are:
A 26 ft. house will be more visible than a 12-15 ft. house
Unless steps are taken to ameliorate the visual impact of the Franca house as you drive down my
driveway, my property looks more and more like a “flag lot”. The value of my property is diminished.
The previous owners, the Dennerlines, and I were in discussion how to do this “camouflage” and a
higher, longer fence, one the length of their present garage, was suggested, and plantings to reinstate
the rustic, woodsy look that used to be there. This was after a lengthy legal battle proving to them they
had no easement over my driveway.
The people who sold the house to the Dennerlines cut down 40 year-old-plantings on my side of the
fence and paved that earth to make my driveway connect with theirs and sold my driveway as “the
service entrance” to an “estate” with entrances on Farwell and Bella Vista.
My Father had died; I had inherited the house. I was not in residence at the time or this would not have
happened.
The Francos and their designer are aware of my concerns and have been cordial. But I would like to
have screening of their property from mine on approach from Bella Vista be a condition of permit so it
will go on the record and transfer with land title.
They may not live there forever and this would make things clean and tidy.
(signed) Barbara Susman, Trustee
26
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: February 22, 2012
Application: Design Review PDR11-0035
Location / APN: 15230 Sobey Road / 397-07-107
Owner/Applicant: Dr. David N.K. Wang / Michael Helm
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP
15230 Sobey Road
27
Application No. PDR 10-0021; 15230 Sobey Road Page 2 of 5
SUMMARY
ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
R1-40,000 Residential Very Low Density (RVLD)
PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE
1.14 ac. (49,658 sf.) 11.55%
GRADING REQUIRED
Cut 366 c.y. & Fill 366 c.y.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a
new twenty-one foot tall 3,510 square foot single-story home on an unimproved lot at 15230
Sobey Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 12-006 approving the project subject to the conditions of approval.
P ROJECT DATA
R1-40,000 Zoning District
Net Site Area: 42,706 sq. ft.
Proposed Allowed
Site Coverage
Buildings
Driveways/Walks
Covered Porches
Total
4,825 sq. ft.
4,525 sq. ft.
350 sq. ft.
9,700 sq. ft.
Maximum Coverage is
14,947 sq. ft. (35%)
Floor Area
1st Floor
Garage/Workshop
Covered Porch
Total
3,510 sq. ft.
1,315 sq. ft.
75 sq. ft.
4,900 sq. ft.
Maximum Floor Area is
6,040 sq. ft.
Setbacks
Front
Left Side
Right Side
Rear
1st Floor
30’
100'
60'
50'
2nd Floor
n/a
1st Floor
30’
20’
20’
50’'
2nd Floor
n/a
Height
Lowest Elevation
Highest Elevation
Average Grade
Proposed Building Height
426
435’
430.5’
20.5 (451' elevation)
Maximum Building Height is
26’
28
Application No. PDR 10-0021; 15230 Sobey Road Page 3 of 5
PROJECT DETAILS
This project is subject to Design Review pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(3).
Site Description & Improvements: The site is located on Sobey Road, about ¼ mile north-
west of Quito Road. The property is undeveloped with the exception of an existing tennis
court that will be removed. Access to the site is provided by a paved driveway that is
shared with the adjacent lot, under the same ownership. The improvements include the
single-story home with attached garage and workshop, and covered porch. No other
buildings are proposed.
Architectural Style: The design of the home is a contemporary V-shaped ranch with
interior courtyard. The entrance is flanked by a stonewalled courtyard which helps
ground the more contemporary zinc roof and expansive glass windows and doors. A
stone chimney and wood timbering also help integrate the home into the surrounding
landscape.
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior Gingerbread Man Light brown colored stucco
Sand Dune Stone Veneer
Trim Medium Brown stain Douglas Fir
Windows Chestnut Bronze Aluminum Clad Wood Sash windows
Entry Medium Brown stain Douglas Fir
Garage Doors Medium Brown stain Douglas Fir
Roof Weathered zinc
Trees: The City Arborist has approved the removal of three trees (Attachment 4). The
three trees include a fallen dead pine tree, an Acacia, and a coast live oak. The applicant
has also asked to remove another coast live oak (tree #5 in the Arborist Report) that has
been incorrectly pruned in the past; however, it is not in conflict with the project and
should be retained and preserved during construction. Twenty-two new 24-inch box sized
trees will be planted as part of the project.
Geotechnical Clearance: Geotechnical Clearance with conditions has been granted for
the project (Attachment 5).
Green Points: The Greenpoints checklist shows a total value of 104 points (Attachment
6). Green features include a high efficiency irrigation system, water efficient fixtures, low
VOC finishes, environmentally preferable flooring, and energy star appliances.
Neighbor Correspondence: Three neighbor notification forms were received by staff
(attachment 4). One neighbor has concerns about the amount of grading and stormwater
drainage plan. The amount of proposed grading is reasonable and the project is conditioned
to comply with all stormwater requirements.
29
Application No. PDR 10-0021; 15230 Sobey Road Page 4 of 5
FINDINGS
Design Review Findings:
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Article 15-45 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support
making all of those required findings:
Finding #1: The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The
project meets this finding. The property is setback significantly from the road and is
completely surrounded by mature landscaping. The single-story residence meets or exceeds
the required setbacks and is less than 21 feet in height, where 26 feet is allowed. Twenty-
two new 24-inch box sized trees will be planted as part of the project to provide
additional screening.
Finding #2: The project preserves the natural landscape. The project meets this finding.
The proposed floor area and lot coverage is well below what is currently allowed on this
nearly one-acre lot. Three trees will be removed; however 22 new trees will be planted.
Finding #3: The project preserves native and heritage trees. The project meets this
finding. One Coast Live Oak will be removed. It grows in the footprint of the proposed
new house and its proximity to another much larger oak supports its removal through
good forestry practices. There are also many other trees on site that contribute to the
property’s aesthetic beauty, shade, and privacy.
Finding #4: The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. The project meets
this finding. The low-profile roof and expansive windows help minimize the perception of
bulk. The proposed V-shaped footprint and interior courtyard also minimize the perception
of bulk. The proposed residence is significantly setback from the road and will be well
screened by existing and new landscaping.
Finding #5: The project is of compatible bulk and height. The project meets this finding.
Many of the residences along Sobey Road are large two-story homes. The proposed home is
well below maximum height and size allowed on the lot.
Finding #6: The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. The project
meets this finding in that it is conditioned to meet required grading and erosion control
standards.
Finding #7: The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. The project
meets this finding by minimizing the perception of bulk by minimizing the building height
(Policy 1, Technique 4), integrating the residence with the environment by using existing
and new landscaping (Policy 2, Technique 3), avoiding interference with privacy using
existing and new landscaping (Policy 3, Technique 3), preserving views and access to views
by maximizing views but avoiding conflict with privacy (Policy 3, Technique 3), and
30
Application No. PDR 10-0021; 15230 Sobey Road Page 5 of 5
designing for energy efficiency by incorporating energy saving devices into the design
(Policy 5, Technique 4).
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. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway
infrastructure.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review
2. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing addresses for project notification
3. Neighbor Notification forms
4. Arborist Report, dated January 24, 2011
5. Geotechnical Clearance Letter, dated January 26, 2011
6. Green Points Checklist
7. Development Plans and Color Board (Exhibit "A")
31
RESOLUTION NO: 12-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW (PDR 11-0035)
LOCATED AT 15230 SOBEY ROAD (APN 397-07-107)
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, an application was submitted by Dr. David N.K. Wang
requesting Design Review approval for a new twenty-one foot tall single-story home with a
proposed floor area of 4,900 square feet and lot coverage of 6,465 square feet. The Arborist has
provided clearance for the removal of three trees. The lot is 49,658 square feet in area and the site is
zoned R-1-40,000.
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 February 22, 2012, 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 or
conversion of up to three single-family residences.
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 avoids unreasonable
interference with views and privacy; preserves the natural landscape; native and heritage trees;
minimizes the perception of excessive bulk and is of compatible bulk and height; uses current
grading and erosion methods; and follows appropriate design polices and techniques.
32
Resolution No. 12-006
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR11-0035,
located at 15230 Sobey 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 22nd day of
February 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
33
Resolution No. 12-006
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR11-0035
15230 Sobey Road (APN 397-07-107)
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 of 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.
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 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 Zoning Regulations 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 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.
34
Resolution No. 12-006
5. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated February 16, 2012
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.
6. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a
bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department 150% of the estimated cost of the
installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
7. Retaining Walls. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no retaining wall located in a front setback area shall exceed three feet in height.
35
36
37
38
Page 1 of 7
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the
information in this report and implement the required conditions.
Application #: ARB11-0067
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 15230 Sobey Road
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Dr. David N. K. Wang
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-07-107
Email: davidnkwang@gmail.com
Report History:
#1
Plans received October 27, 2011
Report done November 21, 2011
#2 – this report replaces report #1 Plans received January 4, 2012
Report completed January 24, 2012
PROJECT SCOPE
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to build a new single story house with detached garage
on a vacant lot.
Three trees protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. One is a dead
tree that has fallen and was not included in the inventory. The others two are coast live oak #10 and
acacia #17. A detailed discussion of these two trees can be found in the section on Findings for the
project.
On additional tree (#10) is in conflict with the project as proposed and will require removal or a
modification of the design.
CLEARANCE – with conditions
This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed with the conditions noted below in the
Requirements section.
PLAN REVIEW
Plans Reviewed:
Architectural plans were prepared by Michael Helm, AIA Architect & Associates and dated
September 12, 2011. Revised plans were received on January 4, 2012, addressing comments from
the initial arborist report. Plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet C, Cover Sheet and
Notes; Sheet 2, Proposed Site Plan; Sheet 3, Proposed Floor Plan; Sheet 4, Building Sections; Sheets
5 and 6, Exterior Elevations; Sheet C1, Grading and Drainage Plan; Sheets C3 and C4, Construction
Details; Sheet L-1, Landscape Plans; and Sheet L-2 Planting Legend, Construction Details and
Irrigation Notes.
Also provided for review was an Existing Topography Plan (Sheet 1) prepared by Ward Surveying
dated November 23, 2011.
39
15230 Sobey Road
Page 2 of 7
A site visit determined that trees #1 – 3 were placed on the west side of the proposed driveway,
when they are actually located on the east side. This has been revised in this report and map.
The plans indicate that 22 new 24 inch box sized trees will be planted as part of the project. This is
acceptable and satisfies the condition to replace tree #10 with new trees.
TREE INFORMATION
Tree Inventory:
Twenty four trees protected by City Code were inventoried for this report. Inventoried trees include
twelve coast live oaks (#1 – 6, 9 – 12, 15 and 23), one Monterey pine (#7), one Italian stone pine
(#8), one valley oak (#13), six deodar cedars (#14, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22), and two silver wattle
acacias (#16 and 17). Each tree has had a numbered aluminum tag attached to it for reference. Data
for each tree is included in the Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Their locations are
shown on the attached site map.
An additional tree has been inventoried and included in this report. It is coast live oak #24, located
between trees #10 and 11.
Tree Removals:
Two trees protected by City Code (#10 and 17) are requested for removal. An additional tree, which
was not included in the inventory, has also been requested for removal as part of the project.
Whenever a tree is requested for removal to construct a project, certain findings must be met. A list
of criteria permitting the removal of these trees is attached to the end of this report. See the Findings
section below for a detailed discussion of trees requested for removal.
Tree Protection:
Trees #1 – 3 are young coast live oaks along the proposed driveway to the new house. The original
arborist report placed them on the wrong side of the driveway, and their locations have been
corrected (between the driveway and the creek). To best protect these three trees, no changes in
grade should occur under their canopies for installation of a new driveway surface or utilities. All
such work must be done outside of the canopies of these three trees.
Tree #4 is a medium sized oak tree in good condition. It is far enough from the proposed work that it
can be adequately protected as long as there is no need for grading within 20 feet of the tree’s trunk.
Tree #5 is a coast live oak in good health that has fair structure. It has been poorly pruned in the past,
but can be retained and preserved during construction. This tree may require pruning to remove
some of the lower branches.
Tree #6 is a medium sized oak in good condition. It will be impacted by grading and installation of
the driveway and motor court. To best protect this tree, no grade changes should occur within 15 feet
of the tree’s trunk.
Trees #7 and 8 are pines in fair condition. They can be adequately protected during construction with
tree protection fencing.
40
15230 Sobey Road
Page 3 of 7
Tree #9 is a multi-trunked coast live oak in good condition growing very close to the proposed
house. To best protect this tree no changes in grade should occur within 15 feet of the trunk of this
tree.
Tree #10 is a young coast live oak with two trunks that grows in the footprint of the house. It meets
the criteria for removal to construct the project, and may be removed and replaced with new trees
following construction. See the Findings section below for a detailed discussion.
Trees #11 – 16 are far enough from the sport court that they can be adequately protected with tree
protection fencing during demolition.
Tree #17 is a silver wattle acacia that is leaning significantly. Although it is in good health, it is
crowded by other trees and meets the criteria for removal and replacement. If this is desired, the tree
should be shown to be removed on the plans. Otherwise, it can be adequately protected during
removal of the sport court with tree protection fencing.
Trees #18 – 22 are deodar cedars in fair condition growing near to the sport court. If the steps next to
them will be removed, this should be done by hand to best protect these trees. Otherwise, they can be
adequately protected during construction with tree protection fencing.
Tree #23 is a coast live oak on the adjacent property, next to the fence. It is young enough and far
enough from the proposed work that it can be sufficiently protected during construction.
Tree #24 is a coast live oak growing between trees #10 and 11. It is in good condition, and can be
adequately protected with fencing during construction.
Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees:
Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised
value of trees impacted by the project is required. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community
Development Director, the required security deposit prior to the receipt of building permits. The
security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond.
The required security deposit for this project is $48,680 and is equal to the total appraised value of
trees #1 – 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 20, 21 and 24. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and
acceptance by the City.
Appraisals:
Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for
Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by
the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
FINDINGS
Tree Removal
Two trees are requested for removal to construct the project. One is a dead pine tree that has fallen.
The second is a coast live oak (tree #5 in this report) that has been incorrectly pruned in the past, but
is not in conflict with the project and can be preserved during construction.
41
15230 Sobey Road
Page 4 of 7
It is acceptable to remove the dead pine as part of the project, but the oak tree should be retained and
preserved during construction.
A third tree, coast live oak #10 was not shown on the plans, but is in conflict with the project. It
meets the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced as part of the project.
Summary of tree removal criteria that are met.
Tree # Criteria met Criteria not
met Criteria not pertinent
Not inventoried 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8
10 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 2 8
17 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 2 3
Dead and fallen pine – not included in inventory:
There is a dead and fallen pine tree on the property that was not inventoried for this report. It may be
removed as part of the project. It is dead and has fallen so it meets criterion #1. It does not threaten
damage, so it does not meet criterion #2. Criterion #3 is not a consideration in this situation, in it is
acceptable to remove a tree that has died and/or fallen. Removal of this tree would improve the
aesthetic appearance of the property, and there are many other trees on site so it does meet criterion
#4. Criterion #5 is pertinent because the tree has died. The alternative to removing this tree is to
leave it as habitat, but this is not requires, so it meets criterion #6. Removal and replacement of this
tree is consistent with the intent of this article, which is to replace trees if it is not feasible to retain
them (criterion #7). Safety is not pertinent to this situation because the tree has fallen (criterion #8).
Removal of this tree provides economic enjoyment to the property owners (criterion #9).
Tree #10 – Coast live oak:
Tree #10 is a young oak in good condition. It grows in the footprint of the proposed new house, so it
meets criterion #1. It does not threaten damage to any structures at this time, so criterion #2 does not
pertain to the situation. It does help with erosion, but there is another, larger oak nearby that is more
important with managing erosion, so it does meet criterion #3. There are many other trees on site
that contribute to the property’s aesthetic beauty and shade, and privacy is not an issue, so it does
meet criterion #4. It is close to another much larger oak and good forestry practices would permit
tree #10’s removal, so it does meet criterion #5. The alternative to removing this tree is to redesign
the project so that it does not conflict with the tree, but that is not a practical solution because the
tree would still be very near to the larger oak, so it does meet criterion #6. Removal and replacement
of tree #10 is necessary to build the house as designed, and is consistent with the intent of this
article, which is to replace trees if it is not possible to retain and preserve them (criterion #7). This
oak does not present a safety or public health concern so criterion #8 is not pertinent to the situation.
Removal of this tree and replacement with new trees would provide economic and other enjoyment
to the property owners, so it meets criterion #9.
Tree #17 – Silver wattle acacia:
Tree #17 is in good health but it leans significantly. It meets criterion #1 in that it leans and is at risk
of failure. It does not meet criterion #2 in that it does not threaten damage to any structures if it is
retained. It does help with erosion, but the lot is flat in this location, and there are many other trees in
the area, so criterion #3 is not pertinent. There are many other trees on site that contribute to the
property’s aesthetic beauty, shade and privacy is not an issue, so it does meet criterion #4. It is too
close to other trees for good forestry practices, so it does meet criterion #5. The alternative to
42
15230 Sobey Road
Page 5 of 7
removing this tree is to leave a tree that is at risk of failure, so it does meet criterion #6. Removal
and replacement of tree #17 is consistent with the intent of this article, which is to replace trees if it
is not possible to retain them (criterion #7). This oak is at risk of failure, and so does present a safety
concern and criterion #8 is met. Removal of this tree would provide economic and other enjoyment
to the property owners, so it meets criterion #9.
Replacement Trees:
Trees #10 and 17 have a total appraised value of $1,080. It is acceptable to remove these two trees
and plant new trees equal to their appraised value as part of the project. No tree may be removed
until all applicable permits have been obtained. Replacement values for new trees can be found at
the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the
property.
New Construction
Based on a review of information provided, the project complies with the requirements for the
setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code.
REQUIREMENTS
1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of trees
and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of job copy plans and titled
“Tree Preservation”. Earlier reports do not need to be included in the plans.
2. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $48,680
a. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree
Protection security deposit for trees #1 – 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 20, 21 and 24, prior to
obtaining Building Division permits.
b. The tree protection security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction
of the project to ensure the protection of the trees.
c. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City, the bond will
be released.
3. 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, 1 7/8-
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 REMOVE
WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”.
e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division
permits.
f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City
Arborist to arrange a field meeting.
4. All trees included in this inventory shall be surveyed and included on the plans.
43
15230 Sobey Road
Page 6 of 7
5. 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.
6. Applicant is responsible for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction
work. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his
responsibilities under this Code.
7. Utilities shall be shown on the final plans. Utilities include, but are not limited to, electrical,
drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping.
8. No excavation is permitted under the canopy of any protected tree on site without prior
approval from the City Arborist. Approval shall be obtained before any work takes place.
Failure to do so may lead to a hold on the Tree Protection Security Deposit put in place by
the property owner for a period of up to five years after the completion of construction.
9. No changes in grade, including addition of fill soil, soil cuts, or trenching is permitted within
the distances listed below:
a. 12 feet – trees #1 – 3
b. 15 feet – trees #6 and 9
10. Tree #10 meets the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building
Division permits have been obtained.
11. New trees equal to $1,080 shall be planted as part of the project. Replacement values for new
trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table attached to the end of this
report.
12. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property.
13. Unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist, all construction activities must be conducted
outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). 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.
14. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards.
15. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under
tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies.
Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies.
16. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing, call
City Arborist for a final inspection.
44
15230 Sobey Road
Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENTS:
Tree Removal Criteria
Tree Inventory Table
Map showing tree locations and protective fencing
TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article
15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If
findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and
replacement during construction.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to
existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services;
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property;
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and
the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes;
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal
would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the
general welfare of residents in the area;
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry
practices;
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on
the protected tree;
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose
and intent of this Article;
(8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes
of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is
no other feasible alternative to the removal.
45
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueCoast live oak
1 Quercus agrifolia 6 15 80 80 Good High 2 $700
Coast live oak
2 Quercus agrifolia 11 30 80 60 Good High 2 $1,890
Coast live oak
3 Quercus agrifolia 9 15 80 90 Good High 2 $1,570
Coast live oak
4 Quercus agrifolia 18 40 80 80 Good High 2 $7,300
Coast live oak
5 Quercus agrifolia 30 30 80 40 Good High 2 $14,000
Coast live oak
6 Quercus agrifolia 22 35 80 70 Good High 2 $10,200
Monterey pine
7 Pinus radiata 13.5 20 60 60 Fair Moderate 2 $710
Italian stone pine
8 Pinus pinea 18.3 25 70 50 Fair Moderate 2 $2,730
Coast live oakCoast live oak
9 Quercus agrifolia 20 30 80 50 Good High 2 $5,900
Coast live oak
10 Quercus agrifolia 4.5, 5 15 80 50 Good Low 1 X $980
Coast live oak
11 Quercus agrifolia 20 40 80 80 Good High 3 $8,300
Coast live oak
12 Quercus agrifolia 22 30 80 80 Good High 4 $10,100
Valley oak
13 Quercus lobata 20 30 80 80 Good High 4 $14,000
Deodar cedar
14 Cedrus deodara 12 30 70 70 Fair High 4 $2,680
Coast live oak
15 Quercus agrifolia 10.5, 11 30 80 50 Good High 4 $4,520
15230 Sobey Rd January 24, 2012
46
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueSilver wattle acacia
16 Acacia dealbata 12 20 70 40 Fair Low 4 $150
Silver wattle acacia
17 Acacia dealbata 10 20 70 30 Fair Low 4 $100
Deodar cedar
18 Cedrus deodara 20 40 70 80 Good High 2 $7,200
Deodar cedar
19 Cedrus deodara 14 25 50 70 Fair Moderate 3 $2,330
Deodar cedar
20 Cedrus deodara 15 20 50 50 Fair Moderate 3 $2,090
Deodar cedar
21 Cedrus deodara 12 15 50 50 Fair Moderate 4 $1,440
Deodar cedar
22 Cedrus deodara 18 30 60 60 Fair Moderate 2 $3,810
Coast live oak
23 Quercus agrifolia 8 15 80 80 Good High 4 X $1,240
0
24 Quercus agrifolia 11 15 80 80 Good High2 X $2,590Qgfg$,
Total appraised value $106,530
Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal to its appraised value.
Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
15230 Sobey Rd January 24, 2012
47
1
2
1
4
6
7
8
3 5 2
9 10
11
12
13
14 15 16
17 18
19
20
21
22
15230 Sobey Road
Revised January 24, 2012
Legend
Tree Protective
Fencing
Tree Canopy
No tree
23
24
48
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cynthia McCormick, Project Planner, Community Development Department
CC: David Ng (Owner) / Michael Helm (Agent)
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO11-0015 at 15230 Sobey Road
DATE: January 26, 2012
1. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for retaining walls and foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications
and details accurately reflect the consultants’ recommendations.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits
for project construction.
2. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and foundation excavations prior to placement of steel and concrete. The
consultant shall inspect project pier drilling to verify adequate embedment into supporting
materials. Final site drainage improvements shall be inspected for conformance with
geotechnical standards.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by
the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review
and approval 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.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: February 22, 2012
Application No: PDR 10-0021 & SUB 11-0003 & CUP 12-0001
Type of Application: Design Review/Conditional Use Permit/
Tentative Subdivision/Negative Declaration
Location / APN: 14651 Big Basin Way / 503-25-015
Owner/Applicant: John and Sue Kang / Tom Sloan
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 1 of 11
75
SUMMARY
ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Commercial Historic (CH2) Commercial Retail (CR)
PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE
31,978 gross s.f. (25,784 net s.f.) 36.16%
GRADING REQUIRED
Cut 172 c.y (Basement Cut 3,215 c.y.)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval to replace an existing 2,430 square
foot building with a new 11,557 square foot mixed-use building located at 14651 Big Basin Way.
The new building would include three residential condominium units, one apartment unit, 1,246
square feet of retail space, and a 7,090 square foot basement parking garage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 12-007 recommending the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and approve the
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Map subject to conditions of approval.
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 2 of 11
76
PROJECT DATA:
Net Lot Size:
25,784 square feet
Proposal Allowed
Density: 4 units 11 units (20 units per net acre)
Floor Area:
Condominiums
Apartment
Common Space
Total Residential:
Retail/Restrooms
Entry / Trash Enclosure
Total Floor Area
7,938 SF (2,646 x 3)
1,570 SF
195 SF
9,703 SF
1,246 SF
608 SF
11,557 SF
The residential portion may be greater than 50% if
approved by the Planning Commission (see findings)
Building Coverage 1 : 8,412 sq. ft. (33%) 60% Maximum
Open Space: 22,083 sq. ft. (86%) 20% Minimum
Setbacks:
Front:
Rear
Side
Side
15 ft.
191 ft.
5 ft.
1 ft.
Minimum
15 ft.
54 ft.
0
0
Height:
Lowest elevation pt.
Highest elevation pt.
Average
Topmost elevation pt.
Maximum height
Building 1:
519.05
519.05
519.05
545.00
26 ft.
Building 2:
510.96
519.04
515.00
541.00
26 ft.
26ft. Maximum
Parking:
Residential:
Retail:
Total:
10 spaces
1 space
11 spaces
10 spaces (1 garage space, 1.5 additional spaces per unit)
3 spaces (1 space per 500 sf of “extensive retail” use)
13 spaces
1 In commercial and multi-family zones the site coverage includes structures only and places no limitation on impervious
coverage.
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 3 of 11
77
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This applicant is seeking approval of a Tentative Map, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
pursuant to City Code Sections 14-20.070, 15-58.020(c), and 15-46.040 respectfully.
Tentative Map: The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative map to create three (3)
residential condominiums in addition to a common area which includes the retail use, apartment,
private driveways that provide on-site circulation for the site and common land areas. The units are
proposed for individual ownership (condominiums only own air space), with maintenance of the
common area to be the responsibility of a homeowners association (HOA). The attached resolution
lists conditions of approval that must be met prior to recordation of a final map. The conditions
relate primarily to improvement plans that show the boundary of the lot that will be shown upon the
Tract Map. The applicant will also be required to provide documentation (e.g., Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions) that set the legal parameters of the condominiums and the HOA. The
Final Map approval requires an action by the City Council prior to recordation of the map. The
applicant meets the required findings for a tentative map, as detailed on pages 7 and 8 of this report.
Conditional Use Permit: Mixed-use developments are a conditional use in the CH-2 zoning
district. The percentage of residential floor area on the mixed-use site may be greater than fifty
percent if the Planning Commission makes certain findings. The applicant meets the required
findings, as detailed on pages 10 and 11 of this report.
Design Review: A mixed-use project with commercial and residential uses requires design
review approval. The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is
able to make certain findings. The applicant meets the required findings, as detailed on pages 8
and 9 of this report.
Site Description: The project is located at 14651 Big Basin Way, west of 6th Street, in the CH-2
zoning district. The site is approximately 31,978 (25,784 net) square feet in area with an average
slope of approximately 36.16%. The steepest part of the property is in the center of the lot after
which point it slopes down to the creek where it flattens out slightly then drops down again as it
gets closer to the creek. The site contains an existing 2,430 square foot residence which includes
a licensed home occupation for the pottery business.
Project Description: The existing building and hardscape would be demolished. Each of the
three (3) condominiums would have 2,646 square feet of floor area. The residential apartment
would have 1,570 square feet of floor area. Residential common space on the second floor would
constitute 195 square feet of floor area. The total residential portion is 9,703 square feet in area.
The retail portion of the project would be 1,246 square feet in area. Both the residential and retail
portions of the building would be served by a 418 square foot covered entry and a 190 square
foot trash enclosure. The closest building is setback approximately 150 feet from the top of the
creek bank where only 50 feet is required
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 4 of 11
78
Architectural Style: The project has been designed in a contemporary style with Japanese and
Korean influences. The exterior would be finished with an integral smooth troweled limestone
color. The architecture would be accented by wood throughout including the entry, siding, doors,
railing, and trellis. The wood clad windows and steel awnings help break up the mass of the two-
story building and create a sense of openness. The expansive windows on the façade also
highlight the retail pottery space within the building. The low pitch of the roof is not visible yet a
parapet with wood beams and corbels add depth and reduce the perception of bulk and mass.
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior Limestone colored integral smooth troweled stucco
Trim Dark Stain Wood
Windows Dark Bronze Metal Clad Wood Trim
Retail Entry Door Dark Bronze Metal Clad Wood Trim
Balcony Door Dark Bronze Metal Clad Wood Trim
Roof “Cool” colored weather-proof composite (hidden behind parapet)
Siding Medium Stain Wood
Open Space: In accordance with City Code Section 15-58.020(g), the project would provide
adequate open space including a private courtyard and public access to the creek and other outdoor
space. Approximately 86% of the net lot is open space, where 20% is required. Each condominium
would have a private balcony overlooking the creek and the apartment would have two balconies.
Screening from noise and privacy impacts: The building massing, additional setbacks, and
window placement would provide adequate privacy protection. In accordance with City Code
Section 15-58.020(i), the project shall have sound walls and landscape screening in order to
protect the privacy of abutting residences.
Parking: As shown in the table, the project requires 10 residential parking spaces and 3 retail
parking spaces. The project would provide 11 parking spaces including six (6) dedicated garage
spaces and five (5) open parking spaces all located within an underground parking structure. City
Code Section 15-35.020(k) provides that no off-street parking shall be required of any new structure
in any C-H district until such time as the ‘surplus floor area’ (i.e., surplus parking) has been
allocated. As of February 7, the remaining surplus floor area was 17,671 square feet or the
equivalent of approximately 39 parking spaces. Thus, the shortage of two parking spaces for the
project could be met through the City’s surplus parking allowance. Furthermore, City Code Section
15-58.020(d) provides that the Planning Commission may approve shared parking if it determines
that the project will not result in adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Based on the traffic analysis
discussed below, the 11 parking spaces proposed for the project could be considered adequate.
Thus, staff recommends that shared parking be allowed.
Traffic Analysis: An evaluation prepared by the applicant’s traffic consultant (attachment 8), and
peer reviewed by the City traffic consultant (attachment 9), determined that trips generated by the
project are not likely to cause any significant impacts on the surrounding transportation network.
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 5 of 11
79
Arborist Review: The City Arborist has reviewed the project and inventoried 10 protected trees that
may be potentially impacted by construction (attachment 2). The Arborist has approved the
removal of a Japanese maple (#7) and an olive tree (#10). Protective measures and an $80,220 Tree
Protection security deposit are required by the arborist for the remaining eight (8) trees in conflict
with the project. New trees equal to $12,490 in value shall be planted to replace the two (2)
removed trees.
Geotechnical Clearance: The project has been reviewed by the City Engineer and received
geotechnical clearance (Attachment 3). The project requires approximately 2,795 cubic yards of soil
to be exported off site. Grading for the proposed basement garage would require approximately 10-
to 12-feet of excavation below the current elevation of the existing fill pad. Temporary shoring
would be required for safety and for excavations along property lines to prevent adverse offsite
impacts.
Archeological Review: The proposed project is located adjacent to the Saratoga Creek. No known
significant Native American or archeological resource, site structure or object has been identified on
the project site. There are no known unique ethnic, cultural or religious resources, and therefore, no
potential for restrictions. However, waterways, including streams and creeks were often places
where Native Americans lived or carried out activities. Therefore, if archaeological resources or
human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within a 50-meter radius of
the find until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate it. If the find is determined to be
significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented.
Historic Evaluation: On August 10 2011, the Heritage Preservation Commission determined
that the existing building on the property is not a heritage resource.
Green Points: The Greenpoints checklist shows a total value of 157 points (Attachment 10).
Green features include drought tolerant landscaping, high efficiency irrigation, noise and
vibration controls, engineered lumber, water efficient fixtures, solar panels, and energy star
appliances.
Neighbor Correspondence: The applicant contacted 13 adjacent neighbors. Four neighbor
notification forms were received by staff (attachment 4). One neighbor was concerned about noise
and the cleanliness of the work site. Another neighbor was concerned about the hours of
construction and the regular pick-up of garbage and debris. The city has standards regulating noise,
construction hours, and construction site control. Any complaints in violations of these standards
will be investigated.
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 6 of 11
80
FINDINGS
Tentative Subdivision Map Findings:
The findings required for issuance of a Tentative Map Approval pursuant to City Code Section 14-
20.070 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of
those required findings:
Finding #1: The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plans. The proposed parcel is consistent with the General Plan designation of Mixed-Use, which
allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The maximum number of units allowed on this site is 11
whereas the proposal is only for 4. The proposed parcel meets and exceeds the minimum lot size
required of 7,500 sq. ft. pursuant to the municipal code. Proposed lot dimensions including width,
depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code.
Finding #2: The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design and improvements of the proposed
subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. The proposed configuration, access and building
envelopes are consistent with the code and are compatible with the existing density in the project
vicinity. The proposed building coverage meets the maximum allowable coverage for the site. The
building setbacks meet or exceed the development regulations. Design review approval is being
considered concurrently with the Subdivision Map application, as applicable in the Municipal Code,
for a new multi-family development. The project meets the required Design Review findings
addressing appropriate mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues with the existing adjacent
neighborhoods.
Finding #3: The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The project was
reviewed for geological and geotechnical hazards and constraints present on the site. The applicant
has developed appropriate measures to avoid and/or mitigate those hazards and constraints to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant and has received geotechnical
clearance. The Project Geotechnical Engineer will inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The applicant’s consultant shall complete an
inspection of completed site drainage improvements for conformance with geotechnical
recommendations.
Finding #4: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site
meets or exceeds the minimum required area for development of 4 units. The development meets or
exceeds the zoning district standards for the development of condominium units as proposed by this
subdivision. Development of the immediate surrounding area to the west and south is characterized
by multi-family residential uses. Therefore the project is compatible with the surrounding density of
development.
Finding #5: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. A Negative
Declaration (“ND”) was prepared for the project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15070 and following of Title 14, Division
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 7 of 11
81
6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The ND is based on an Initial Study which indicates there is
no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Saratoga, that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment. The Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative
Declaration was circulated for public review. The IS and ND were available for review from
January 23, 2012 through February 22, 2012.
Finding #6: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems.
The project meets the finding. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by the Planning Department
and the following agencies. West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara County Fire Department,
and the City Arborist have provided conditions of approval that shall be met by the applicant. No
comments have been received to date by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Caltrans, San Jose
Water, Santa Clara County Health Department, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health, Pacific Gas & Electric, or School Districts. The applicant will be required to comply with all
conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site requested by other Agencies or
Utilities having jurisdiction over the project. All structural improvements to the property will be
reviewed by the Building Department and Public Works Department.
Finding #7: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access or use. The
title report for the site contains two references to easements. Item 4 of the title report refers to “Any
easement for water course over that portion of land lying within Saratoga Creek.” The project will
maintain the minimum setback from the creekbank and potential flood zone. Item 4 also refers to
easements shown on the Record of Survey (on file with the Community Development Department);
however this map does not show any easements.
Finding #8: The proposed subdivision of land is not subject to a contract executed pursuant to
the Williamson Act. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.
Finding #9: The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community
sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements. The West Valley Sanitation
District of Santa Clara County has reviewed the proposed subdivision (reference correspondence
dated January 23, 2012). The applicant will be required to submit a sewer improvement plan and
on-site privately maintained sewer system designed in accordance with District standards.
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:
Finding #1: 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 retail and residential portions of the
property are integrated to be harmonious. The mixed-use development has been designed to meet
the objectives of Village Design Guidelines regarding both the pedestrian nature and commercial
context of the Village. The front elevation highlights the retail pottery studio through the use of
expansive display windows that draw the pedestrian in; while the dark stain wood trim and
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 8 of 11
82
architectural features add depth and visual interest. The exterior includes smooth-troweled
limestone colored plaster, wood siding, and dark bronze metal finishes; colors and materials that
integrate well with the natural surroundings. The basement level parking is in keeping with the
Village Design Guidelines that call for a minimal visual exposure of parking facilities and of
ingress-egress from Big Basin Way. The roof is obscured by a Parapet and distinctive wood
beams and corbels. The proposed height meets the standard for the CH-2 zoning district.
Finding #2: 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 proposed signage will be integrated into the architecture of the building. The
signs will be designed in wood and/or metal with a matte finish in keeping with the Village
Design Guidelines.
Finding #3: 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. New landscaping
will be drought tolerant, California Natives, or other appropriate species. Plants will be grouped
by water needs (hydrozoning) and planting beds will be mulched. High efficiency irrigations
systems will be used to ensure water conservation. The site will include an expansive open space
area; benefiting from the adjacent Saratoga Creek and mature landscaping. The City Arborist has
inventoried 10 protected trees that may be potentially impacted by construction. The Arborist
has approved the removal of two non-native trees. Protective measures and a security deposit are
required to ensure protection of the trees. New trees shall be planted to replace the two removed
trees.
Finding #4: Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and
be nonreflective. The limestone colored exterior, wood siding, dark stain wood trim and railings,
and dark bronze metal finishes blend with the natural environment and are of low reflective
value. The simple flat roof is concealed behind a decorative parapet and distinctive wood beams
and corbels, an architectural form encouraged by the Village Design Guidelines.
Finding #5: 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 roofing is composed of a
high quality composite material designed to withstand the elements in a sustainable and
attractive manner. Mechanical equipment will be screened behind the roof parapet.
Finding #6: The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and
design with other structures in the immediate area. The CH-2 zoning district is the more
residential area of the Village. Although the project contains a retail component, the height of the
proposed building is in keeping with the 26 foot height limit for residential projects, promoting
compatibility with the adjacent properties. The façade along Big Basin Way is designed to take
up a majority of the width of the lot so that there are no “dead spaces”, maintaining a street front
rhythm, reflecting the objectives of the Village Design Guidelines. Also in conformance with the
Village Design Guidelines, the architecture includes horizontal rectilinear building forms and an
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 9 of 11
83
expanse of windows and doors, linking the pedestrian environment outside with the pottery
studio inside.
Mixed-Use Findings:
The findings required for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for mixed-use projects with an over
50% residential component pursuant to City Code Section 15-58.020(c) are set forth below and the
Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings:
Finding #1: The proposed location of the mixed-use is in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project meets
this finding. Mixed-use developments are allowed in the CH-2 zoning strict with a use-permit. The
project meets the findings required for a use permit as well as the standards set for mixed-use
projects and the CH-2 zoning district. The project meets the following objectives with respect to the
Saratoga Village:
a) Preservation and enhancement of the small-scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make
the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners. The mixed-use development has been
designed to meet several objectives of the Village Design Guidelines. The residential portion of
the mixed-use project would be located at the rear of the property such that the retail portion of
the project fronts along Big Basin Way. Expansive windows will draw the pedestrian in.
Pedestrians may access the building from Big Basin Way via a covered entry that will protect
them from the elements.
b) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village. The
exterior colors and materials integrate well with the surrounding landscape. The site contains
80% open space where only 20% is required. Landscaping will be maintained by a
Homeowner’s Association.
c) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops,
services and residences. The proposed mixed-use project would provide three picturesque
condominiums facing the creek, a retail pottery studio, and an apartment above the studio for
local and international visitors.
d) Conservation of historic structures. The Heritage Preservation Commission has determined
that the existing building on the property is not a historic structure or heritage resource and
could be demolished.
Finding #2: The proposed location of the mixed-use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Site Plan was reviewed
by the Planning Department, West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara County Fire
Department, City Arborist, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Caltrans, San Jose Water, Santa
Clara County Health Department, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health,
Pacific Gas & Electric, and School Districts. The applicant will be required to comply with all
conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site requested by Agencies or Utilities
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 10 of 11
84
Application No. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003; 14651 Big Basin Way Page 11 of 11
having jurisdiction over the project. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed
by the Building Department and Public Works Department.
Finding #3: The proposed mixed-use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this Chapter. Mixed-use developments are allowed in the CH-2 zoning strict with a use-permit.
The project meets the findings required for a use permit as well as the standards set for mixed-
use projects and the CH-2 zoning district.
Finding #4: The proposed mixed-use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in
the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the
occupants thereof. The mixed-use residential condominiums and retail pottery studio meet the
design review findings required for commercial and multi-family structures. The mixed-use
project is compatible with other nearby multi-family units and commercial establishments.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project has been the subject of a Negative Declaration
(“ND”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15070 and
following of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). This ND is based on an
Initial Study which indicates there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before
the City of Saratoga, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The
Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was circulated for public review. The IS and ND
were available for review from January 23, 2012 through February 22, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval for Negative Declaration, Design Review, and Tentative Map
2. Initial Study and Negative Declaration, dated January 23, 2012
3. Public Hearing Notice, Notification Mailing Addresses, Subdivision Distribution List
4. Neighbor Notification forms
5. Arborist Reports, dated December 20, 2011 and January 10, 2012
6. Geotechnical Clearance Letter, dated December 9, 2010
7. Traffic Memo
8. Peer Review of Traffic Memo
9. Green Points Checklist
10. Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plans, and Color Board (Exhibit "A")
85
RESOLUTION NO. 12-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
AND APPROVE THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (SUB11-0003), DESIGN
REVIEW (PDR 10-0021) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 12-0001) LOCATED
AT 14651 BIG BASIN WAY
WHEREAS, on November 8 2010, an application was submitted by Tom Sloan on
behalf of the owners Jongheen Kang and Sue Kang, requesting design review and conditional
use permit approval to construct a mixed-use residential condominium and commercial units
located at 14651 Big Basin Way. The property is located within the Commercial Historic 2
Zoning District (APN 503-23-015); and
WHEREAS, on December 22 2011, an application was submitted by Jongheen Kang and
Sue Kang, requesting tentative map approval for a subdivision that creates air space units and
structures jointly owned as a fraction of the site located at 14651 Big Basin Way; and
WHEREAS, the limits of ownership, whether residential or commercial space, will be
defined on the condominium plans (a part of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R))
that will be prepared together with the tract map and recorded concurrently for three residential
condominiums and two commercial units; and
WHEREAS, a homeowner’s association will be formed to maintain both land and the
buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an initial study and
Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA
Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (ND) were duly noticed and
circulated for a 30-day public review period from January 23, 2012 through February 22, 2012.
All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the ND were given the opportunity to submit
written and oral comments on the adequacy of the ND up to and including the close of the Public
Hearing on Project before the Planning Commission on February 22, 2012; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City staff, the
applicant, and other interested parties. All comments on the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration raised during the public and agency comment period and at the Public Hearing(s) on
the Project were considered by the Planning Commission.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
86
Resolution No. 12-007 Page 2
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is consistent with Saratoga General Plan Land Use 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; Open
Space Element Policy 11.a which provides that the City shall ensure that projects are designed in
a manner that minimizes disruption to important wildlife, riparian and plant habitats; and Safety
Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping
and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to
issuance of permits.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and
improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project avoids
unreasonable interference with views and privacy; preserves the natural landscape, native and
heritage trees; minimizes the perception of excessive bulk and is of compatible bulk and height;
uses current grading and erosion control methods; and follows appropriate design policies and
techniques.
Section 4: The project meets the burden of proof required to support the conditional use
permit in that the proposed location of the mixed-use development is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located;
that the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity; the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this
Chapter; and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in
the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the
occupants thereof.
Section 5: The Negative Declaration (“ND”) is based on an Initial Study which indicates
there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Saratoga, that the
project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission recommends that all the
approvals be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Therefore, the City of Saratoga
Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve application #s PDR 10-
0021 & CUP 12-0001 & SUB 11-0003, located at 14651 Big Basin Way, subject to the Findings,
and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 22nd day of
February 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ___________________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
87
Resolution No. 12-007 Page 3
EXHIBIT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DESIGN REVIEW & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PDR 10-0021 & CUP 12-0001
& SUB 11-0003 LOCATED AT 14651 BIG BASIN WAY
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 of 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.
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 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 Zoning Regulations 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 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.
88
Resolution No. 12-007 Page 4
5. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated February 16, 2012
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.
6. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or
a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department 150% of the estimated cost
of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
7. Cultural Resources. If archaeological or cultural resources or human remains are discovered,
the following conditions shall be implemented.
a. If significant cultural materials are found during project construction activities, all
construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the
testing and mitigation measures required. The City of Saratoga shall be notified, and a
qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations
regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. Recommendations
could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural material.
Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the
public Resources Code of the State of California.
b. In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlay adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall
make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner
determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the
deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the
disposition of the remains pursuant to this State Law, then the land owner shall re-inter
the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in
a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
c. In the event any unrecorded archaeological resources are recorded, it will be the
responsibility of the project archaeologist to (at a minimum) record the location of the
resources on DPR archaeological site forms to be submitted to the Northwest Information
Center (NWIC) at the completion of the project. If it has been determined that additional
earthmoving activities will further disturb the resource, a plan for its evaluation under
current CEQA guidelines should be submitted to the City of Saratoga for approval before
a program of hand excavation is undertaken.
d. If evaluative testing demonstrates that the property contains an archaeological resource
eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources, the project
applicant should submit a plan for mitigation of impacts to that resource to the City of
Saratoga for approval before additional data recovery efforts are allowed to proceed in
areas of planned impacts. Mitigation can take the form of additional archaeological
monitoring along with recording and/or removal of significant archaeological materials
and information. Mitigation should also include the analysis and production of a report of
findings at the completion of archaeological fieldwork for submission to the City and the
NWIC.
89
Resolution No. 12-007 Page 5
e. After discovery of any significant cultural resources, a final report shall be submitted to
the City of Saratoga. This report shall contain a description of the monitoring and testing
program, a list of the resources found, a summary of the resources analysis methodology
and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/duration of the resources. The report
shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City of
Saratoga.
8. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Report. All requirements in the City
Arborist Report dated January 10, 2012, are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and
shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans.
9. Geotechnical Clearance. All requirements in the Geotechnical Clearance memorandum dated
December 9, 2010, and as specified by the City Engineer are hereby adopted as conditions of
approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans.
10. Prior to submittal of detailed plans for the building permit application, the selected
foundation design alternative shall be clarified. If pier foundations are to be utilized for
buildings near the steep northern slope, then the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall clarify
minimal lateral cover requirements for piers prior to application of passive resistance.
If mat slab foundations are to extend to the northern edges of proposed buildings, then a
grading plan shall be prepared illustrating where existing fill materials will be removed
and replaced along with necessary keyways and benching into in-place material. This
plan shall also indicate final proposed fill slope configurations to the north of proposed
buildings. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate any revised grading plan
prior to submittal to the City.
Appropriate documentation to address the above shall be submitted to the City for
review by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to acceptance of
detailed plans for building permit plan-check.
11. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details
accurately reflect the consultant’s recommendations. The consultant shall specifically
evaluate all geotechnical aspects of proposed project drainage design. Percolation or
discharge of collected storm drainage shall be avoided near the top of site fill slopes.
Drainage discharge shall be designed to minimize potential erosion or adverse slope
instability impacts. Geotechnical aspects of sharing design plans shall be evaluate.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical
Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of permits.
90
Resolution No. 12-007 Page 6
12. 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 fill keyways (if applicable), and foundation
construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The consultant shall complete an
inspection of completed 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 Registered Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted
to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval.
13. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
14. 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.
15. THIS CONDITION IS PERMANENT. Deed Restriction: Trail Easement. The property
Owner shall record a deed restriction, satisfactory to the Community Development Director,
dedicating a pedestrian trail easement along Saratoga Creek to the City of Saratoga as
provided in the Trail Easement Agreement and depicted on the Trails Master Plan included in
the Open Space Conservation Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan. A legal
description and plat plan or a verbal trail description shall be prepared for the trail easement
dedication and submitted to the City Public Works Department for review and approval. The
width and exact location of the trail easement is subject to approval by the Public Works
Department. This Trail Easement shall be recorded on the deed prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for a Building Permit.
16. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant)
shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil
Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property
corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each
new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the
Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
17. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance
with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-
40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall
contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. One copy of map checking calculations.
b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of
submittal for the Final Map.
c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map.
91
Resolution No. 12-007 Page 7
d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map.
e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will
facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer.
18. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the
time of submittal of the Final Map for examination.
19. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or
some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the
setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by
the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of
interior monuments.
20. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements
and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative
Map, prior to Final Map approval.
21. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in
conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and
improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public
agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to
approval of the Final Map.
Improvement requirements shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:
a. Replace sidewalk and the planting strip between the sidewalk and the roadway on North
side of Big Basin Way along the subdivision frontage per City Standard specifications.
The extent of the sidewalk and planting strip replacement shall be determined by the City
Engineer during the Encroachment Permit application.
b. The owner (applicant) shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City for any and all
improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the
work. The owner (applicant) shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans for any
and all improvements in Caltrans right-of-way prior to commencement of the work.
22. The owner (applicant) shall submit “As-Built” plans showing all modifications made during
construction. Included in “As-Built” plans will be certification about the total impervious
area. If the total project impervious area exceeds the 10,000 square feet threshold for projects
regulated by Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit, the project will need to comply
with all requirements listed in Provision C.3 at the time the Project’s initial approval by the
City.
23. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined
by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review.
24. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance
with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval.
92
Resolution No. 12-007 Page 8
25. The owner/applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit. The applicant shall use and maintain Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) for site design and storm water treatment. The project site shall be designed
to prevent pollutant from being washed into creeks and storm drains. Subdivision Improvement
Grading and Drainage Plan shall incorporate preliminary design, control, and engineered
treatment measures to comply with NPDES permit requirements.
26. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-
60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works
Director prior to Final Map approval.
27. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance
coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
28. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with
satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the
subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the
subdivision.
29. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public
agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision
improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be
provided to City Engineer.
30. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map
approval.
31. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and
Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing
storm water pollution.
32. Conditions Requested by Other Agencies or Utilities. Applicant shall comply with all
conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site requested by other Agencies
or Utilities having jurisdiction over the project. Such agencies include but are not limited to
the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to
issuance of city permits, the applicant must present evidence of permit approval by any such
agencies, as required for any activities within jurisdictional areas of said agencies.
93
DRAFT
Environmental Initial Study
and Negative Declaration
For:
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Subdivision
Owner:
John and Sue Kang
14651 Big Basin Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
Public Review Period:
January 23, 2012 to February 22, 2012
94
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 2
1. Project title
: PDR11-0010, SUB 11-0003
2. Lead agency name and address
13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070
: City of Saratoga; Planning Division
3. Contact person and phone number
(408) 868-1230
: Cynthia McCormick AICP, Planner
4. Project location/APN
: 14651 Big Basin Way; Saratoga, CA 95070 / 503-25-015
5. Project sponsor name and address
: John and Sue Kang
6. General plan designation
: Commercial Historic (CH2)
7. Zoning
: Commercial Retail (CR)
8. Description of project
: The project would create three (3) residential condominiums in addition to a
commercial retail and office unit with apartment above. The existing residence/office and hardscape
would be demolished. Each of the three (3) two-story condominiums would have 2,646 square feet
of floor area. The residential apartment would have 1,570 square feet of floor area. Residential
common space on the second floor would constitute 195 square feet of floor area. The retail portion
of the project would be 1,246 square feet in area. Both the residential and retail portions of the
building would be served by a 418 square foot covered entry, 190 square foot trash enclosure, and
basement parking garage. A homeowner’s association would be formed to maintain both land and
the buildings. Three trees protected by City Code have been cleared for removal.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The project is located in the western portion of the City’s
downtown Village and bounded to the north by Saratoga Creek. The site is approximately 31,978
gross square feet in area with an average slope of approximately 36.16%. The steepest part of the
property is in the center of the lot after which point it slopes down to the creek where it flattens out
slightly then drops down again as it gets closer to the creek. The site is surrounded by a mix of
residential and commercial uses including multi-family units across the street, single-family homes
on either side of the subject lot, and several office uses to the northeast of the property.
10. Other public agencies whose review is required
a. Santa Clara County Fire District
b. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
c. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
d. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
95
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 3
Figure 1: Project Location
96
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 14651 Big Basin Way
Page 4
Figure 2 Tentative Parcel Map
97
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist
beginning on page 7 for additional information.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required
Signature: Date:
Printed Name: Cynthia McCormick For:
98
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer
is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project
will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a
brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
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.
99
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 7
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 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X
a-b) The site is located on Big Basin Way which represents a portion of State Route 9, a State Scenic
Highway Corridor. The existing residence to be demolished has been determined not to be historically
significant. The proposed structures will not have a significant adverse effect on the scenic value of the
area. The City Arborist has inventoried the site for potential conflict with trees. Three protected trees
meet the criteria for removal, and shall be replaced with trees equal in value.
c) The project has been designed in a contemporary style with a neutral colored smooth troweled stucco
exterior and wood accents including the entry, siding, doors, windows, railing, and trellis. The
architecture helps break up the mass of the two-story building.
d) The project is conditioned such that exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent
properties or roadways.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impact on
Aesthetics.
(Source: review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element, and Municipal Code §15-45).
100
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 8
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?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? X
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))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
a-e) The property is not zoned for farm or agricultural land uses and it is not under a Williamson Act
contract. No forest land, as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) exists on the property.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Agricultural and Forest Resources.
(Sources: Review of the project, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-13)
101
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 9
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? X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? X
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)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X
DISCUSSION:
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAQMD) CEQA Guidelines recommend air quality
significance thresholds, analytical methodologies and mitigation measures for local agencies to use
when preparing air quality impact analyses under CEQA. The BAQMD CEQA Guidelines contain
instructions on how to evaluate, measure, and mitigate air quality impacts generated from land
development construction and operation activities. The Guidelines focus on criteria air pollutant,
greenhouse gas (GHG), toxic air contaminant, and odor emissions generated from plans or projects. The
BAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide screening criteria to determine if a project may have potentially significant
impacts requiring a detailed analysis. This preliminary screening provides the lead agency with a conservative
indication of whether the proposed project would result in the generation of construction-related criteria air
pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the Thresholds of Significance. If all of the Screening Criteria are met,
the construction of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact from criteria air pollutant
and precursor emissions, and the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality
assessment of their project‘s air pollutant emissions. The project will be conditioned to meet the BAQMD
Screening Criteria.
a-e) Air emissions increases associated with the proposed project would not be considered significant
since the size of the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold levels for potential
significance. No wood burning fireplaces are proposed. Traffic generated by the project would not have
the potential to generate significant air quality impacts. The proposed project does not involve
construction activities that would result in significant air emissions or changes to regional air quality.
However, project construction activities may result in short-term changes to air quality in the immediate
vicinity of the project site and impacts to sensitive receptors. Temporary increases in emissions may
result from demolition activities, delivery of construction material, earthmoving, and construction. Dust
can be emitted by the action of equipment and vehicles and as a result of wind erosion over exposed
earth surfaces. Grading and earthmoving activities, although minimal, comprise the major source of
construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbance of the soil also generate dust emissions.
Short-term impacts would be mostly related to particulate matter emissions, an increase in exhaust
emissions produced during the transport of workers, machinery and construction materials to and from
the site could also occur. Heavy machinery powered by diesel engines that would be used during project
construction may create localized odors during the duration of construction operations. It is unlikely
102
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 10
that these odors would be noticeable by humans not on the project site. No permanent odors would be
created.
The City requires development applications to include a green points checklist from the Build It Green
program. In conjunction with this checklist the City encourages new development proposals to
incorporate energy conservation and sustainable/green building design though the use of construction
material choices, building orientation and site planning, energy efficient appliances and heating and
cooling systems among other things in an effort to reduce the cumulative impacts of construction on
Climate change.
(Sources: Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines (online) updated May 2011;
City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code)
The following conditions of approval will be placed on the project
1. The project shall not exceed the applicable screening level size for criteria pollutants and precursors
and Greenhouse Gases (GHG) show in Table 3-1 of the BAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included in the project design and implemented
during construction; and
3. Construction-related activities shall not include any of the following:
a. Demolition activities inconsistent with District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition,
Renovation and Manufacturing;
b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building
construction would occur simultaneously);
c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop
residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill
development);
d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use
Emissions Model [URBEMIS] for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or
e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export)
requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.
The following additional conditions of approval will be placed on the project as required for general
construction:
1) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure
103
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 11
Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions
evaluator.
8) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The
Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
9) Green building materials and strategies shall be incorporated into the construction of the proposed
new residences in accordance with City guidelines and standards.
10) A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace per residence may be installed consistent with City
regulations and BAAQMD guidelines.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air
Quality.
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
a-d) There are no known species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species within the
project area. The development will maintain a significant setback from the creek, thereby reducing any
104
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 12
potential impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species, or federally protected wetlands.
e) The City Arborist has inventoried the site for potential conflict with trees. Three protected trees meet
the criteria for removal, and shall be replaced with trees equal in value.
f) There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan in effect for the project area and no conflict with such a
plan is anticipated.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural
Resources.
(Sources: Review by City Arborist dated January 10, 2012)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? X
DISCUSSION:
a-d) There are no known historical resources, archeological resources, paleontological, unique
geological features, or human remains on the property. If archaeological, paleontological, or cultural
resources or human remains are discovered, standard conditions of approval shall be implemented.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Cultural
Resources.
105
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 13
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?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
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?
X
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? X
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?
X
DISCUSSION: The City’s Geotechnical Consultant reviewed the Geotechnical Investigation Report
prepared by Redwood Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., dated October 26, 2010; Engineering Geologic
Investigation prepared by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., dated October 22nd, 2010; and Architectural
Plans (8 sheets, various scales) prepared by Metro Design Group, dated November 5th
, 2010. In
addition, the Geotechnical Consultant reviewed pertinent technical documents and inspected site
conditions. Earthwork quantities proposed for the project include approximately 2,795 cubic yards of cut
material to be exported off the site. Grading for the proposed basement would require approximately 10-
to 12-feet of excavation below the current elevation of the existing fill pad. The City’s Geotechnical
Consultant does not have objections to the completed site investigations or recommended geotechnical
design parameters, and recommends approval of project Geotechnical Clearance conditions that will be
implemented into the resolution of approval.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on geology
and soils.
(Sources: Geotechnical Review, by City Geotechnical Consultant dated December 9, 2010)
106
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 14
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change is included in the body of environmental document.
While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to
provide the public and decision-makers as much information as
possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the
absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to
GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to
make a significance determination regarding the project’s direct
and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans
does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help
reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are
outlined in the body of the environmental document.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment. The project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore
no mitigation is necessary or required.
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? X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
107
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 15
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
a-h) The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment The project would not emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school. The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project is not
located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or
within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area
but would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore no mitigation is necessary or
required in relation to hazards and hazardous materials.
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? X
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)?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
108
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 16
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?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? X
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?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow X
DISCUSSION:
a-j) The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring conformance with applicable
water quality and hydrology standards. Given these requirements, the project will not 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; c-d) 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 or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; e) create or
contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; f) otherwise substantially degrade
water quality; g) place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; h) place within a
100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; i) expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result
of the failure of a levee or dam; or j) be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Hydrology and Water Quality Resources.
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? X
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?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? X
109
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 17
DISCUSSION:
a-c) The project involves an application to create three (3) residential condominiums in addition to a
retail pottery business and office unit with apartment above. The project would occur on a a 31,978
gross square foot commercial zoned property which allows for mixed-uses. The proposed project would
not physically divide an established community or conflict with any habitat conservation or natural
community plans of the City of Saratoga. The City of Saratoga General Plan includes numerous goals,
objectives and policies to guide new development. The proposed project does not conflict with any
goals or policies of the City’s General Plan, Subdivision ordinance or Zoning ordinance. Based on the
above discussion, the project does not present the potential for a significant adverse effect on the
environment related to land use and planning. 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)
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?
X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The property is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral deposits of
value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral resource recovery
site. Based on the above discussion, the project does not present the potential for a significant adverse
effect on the environment related to mineral resources. No mitigation is necessary or required in
relation to impacts on Mineral Resources.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Open Space Element)
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels? X
110
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 18
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project? X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X
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?
X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
a-d) The project site is subject to several sources of urban noise including vehicular traffic on Big Basin
Way. The project will not a) expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the City’s general plan or noise ordinance; b) expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; c) create a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or d) create a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project. e-f) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Based on the
above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to Noise impacts.
(Sources: Saratoga General Plan Noise Element)
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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? X
DISCUSSION:
a-c) The project involves the demolition of one single-family home and construction of three
condominiums, an apartment, and a retail pottery business. The neighborhood includes a mix of single-
family homes, multi-family units, and commercial uses. The project does not have the potential to
induce substantial population growth, displace substantial numbers of existing housing, or displace
substantial numbers of people. Based on the above discussion, the project does not present the potential
111
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 19
for a significant adverse effect on the environment related to population and housing. No mitigation is
necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Housing Element)
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
DISCUSSION:
a) Fire protection services are provided by the Santa Clara County Fire District. Development of the
project will comply with the most current Building and Fire Code requirements. Police protection is
provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, West Valley Division. The project site is already
served by the Sheriff’s Office, and development of the project would not affect their ability to provide
services. The project site is located in the Los Gatos Union School District and the Saratoga High
School District. Development of the project would result in a negligible increase in the number of school
age children attending local schools. Park in-lieu fees would be collected for any net increase in
residences to help fund improvements to City parks. The City is served by the Santa Clara County
Library System, which has a branch library located in Saratoga. Property taxes and assessments fund the
library operations.
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)
112
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
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?
X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The project will not significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood, regional or other
recreational facilities, nor does the project require construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
The applicant will be required to pay a park in-lieu fee. The project will require dedication of a trail
easement to connect with other existing trail easements; however the trail is not expected to have an
adverse physical effect on 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?
X
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?
X
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? X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
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?
X
113
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 21
DISCUSSION:
a-f) The proposed project would include the construction of three condominiums, an apartment, and a
retail pottery business. The project is projected to generate a negligible amount of new vehicle traffic.
The project will not conflict with any City plan, ordinance, or policy or applicable congestion
management program. The proposed project would not result in a change in traffic patterns, substantially
increase hazards due to a design feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed project
will not conflict with any adopted policies or plans supporting alternative transportation. Therefore no
mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic.
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? X
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?
X
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?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X
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?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste? X
DISCUSSION:
The project involves demolition of an existing residence and construction of three condominiums, an
apartment, and a retail pottery business on a commercial zoned property which allows for mixed-uses.
Water supply to the project site is served by Santa Clara Valley Water and sewer services are provided
by Cupertino Sanitation District. Development of the proposed project would not significantly increase
the demand for water or sanitary sewer facilities. Development of the proposed project would not
significantly increase stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions.
a-c) The project would not 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; c) require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities;
114
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 22
d-g) The project would d) have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources; e) have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected wastewater
treatment 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; and g) comply
with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Utilities and Service Systems.
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?
X
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)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
DISCUSSION:
This environmental document covers the impacts of the proposed development, which includes an
application for Design Review to construct three condominiums, an apartment, and a retail pottery
business.
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
PROJECT RELATED SOURCES/REFERENCES:
3. Project Plans
4. Arborist Report prepared by Kate Bear, dated January 10, 2012
5. Geotechnical Review and Clearance, dated December 9, 2010
115
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, February 22 2012 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: PDR11-0010, SUB 11-0003
OWNER: John and Sue Kang
ADDRESS/APN: 14651 Big Basin Way; Saratoga, CA 95070 / 503-25-015
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would create three (3) residential condominiums in
addition to a commercial retail and office unit with apartment above. The existing
residence/office and hardscape would be demolished. Each of the three (3) two-story
condominiums would have 2,646 square feet of floor area. The residential apartment would have
1,570 square feet of floor area. Residential common space on the second floor would constitute
195 square feet of floor area. The retail portion of the project would be 1,246 square feet in area.
Both the residential and retail portions of the building would be served by a 418 square foot
covered entry, 190 square foot trash enclosure, and basement parking garage. A homeowner’s
association would be formed to maintain both land and the buildings. Three trees protected by
City Code have been cleared for removal. The project has been the subject of a Negative
Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act which is available for review by the
public from January 23 to February 22, 2012.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the Public Hearing.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this
notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone
in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Cynthia McCormick
Assistant Planner
(408) 868-1230
116
TO: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties
SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Adopt/Notice of Availability for an Initial Study/Negative
Declaration
This serves as the City of Saratoga (City) Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/Negative
Declaration for the City of Saratoga prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and local implementation procedures.
APPLICANT: John and Sue Kang
PROJECT LOCATION: 14651 Big Basin Way; Saratoga, CA 95070
PROJECT NUMBER: PDR11-0010, SUB 11-0003
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The project would create three (3) residential
condominiums in addition to a commercial retail and office unit with apartment above. The
existing residence/office and hardscape would be demolished. Each of the three (3) two-story
condominiums would have 2,646 square feet of floor area. The residential apartment would have
1,570 square feet of floor area. Residential common space on the second floor would constitute
195 square feet of floor area. The retail portion of the project would be 1,246 square feet in area.
Both the residential and retail portions of the building would be served by a 418 square foot
covered entry, 190 square foot trash enclosure, and basement parking garage. A homeowner’s
association would be formed to maintain both land and the buildings. Three trees protected by
City Code have been cleared for removal.
COPIES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW:
The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration are available for public review at the Planning
Department at the City of Saratoga City Hall located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA,
95070 during normal business hours.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Saratoga proposes to adopt a Negative
Declaration for the above-cited project. The Negative Declaration is based on the finding that the
Project would not have any significant adverse impacts. The reasons to support such a finding are
documented by an Initial Study prepared by the City of Saratoga. Copies of the Initial Study, the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and supporting materials are available for review at the
City of Saratoga Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
117
California. For questions regarding the Negative Declaration contact:
Cynthia McCormick, Planner
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Tel.: 408-868-1230
Fax: 408-867-8555
E-Mail: cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD:
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, any comments concerning the findings of the
proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration must be submitted in writing and received by the City of
Saratoga no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 22, 2012, in order to be considered prior to the City’s
final determination on the Project. Should you decide to challenge this Project, you may be limited
to the issues raised during this public review period.
Please mail or email your written comments to Cynthia McCormick, Planner, City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070; cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us
Starting Date: January 19, 2012 Ending Date: February 22, 2012
DATE/TIME PLACE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
The Planning Commission will review the project during a public hearing tentatively scheduled for
February 22, 2012 at 7:00 P.M.
Date: Signature:
Name: Cynthia McCormick
Title: Planner
Telephone: 408-868-1230
118
2/13/2012 Page 1 of 4City of Saratoga
Radius Notification Parcel Report
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
50325007 14573 BIG BASIN WY BIG BASIN LLC 14573 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325008 14577 BIG BASIN WY FLANAGAN PAUL L AND FRANCES E 14577 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325012 14625 BIG BASIN WY DAVIES C H PO BOX 2039 SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325013 14639 BIG BASIN WY ZAMBETTI EUGENE L TRUSTEE 14639 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325015 14651 BIG BASIN WY KANG JONGHOON AND SUE RYUNG 14651 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325016 14669 BIG BASIN WY FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE 14611 BIG BASIN WY UNIT E SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325021 4TH ST S C V W D 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325022 20688 4TH ST PARKER THOMAS E P O BOX 756 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007
50325025 14583 BIG BASIN WY PETERSEN CATHLEEN M AND MARK J P.O. BOX 817 LOS GATOS, CA 95031
50325028 14567 BIG BASIN WY FLANAGAN PAUL L AND FRANCES E 14658 NELSON WY SAN JOSE, CA 95124
50325029 14675 BIG BASIN WY FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE 14611 BIG BASIN WY UNIT E SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325031 20655 4TH ST SARATOGA CITY OF 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325039 14645 BIG BASIN WY BAHL ANKUSH K 14645 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50326015 14471 SPRINGER AV BARBER ANN D TRUSTEE 14471 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
50326018 4TH ST S C V W D 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
50326035 14481 SPRINGER AV SHISHIDO HIROSHI AND NAZILA TR 104 HILL TOP DR LOS GATOS, CA 95032
50326048 14491 SPRINGER AV LIU SHAO-HUNG GERALD AND TAI-H 14491 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
50328134 CANYON VIEW DR SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1265 S. BASCOM AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95128
50359001 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOC
1935 DRY CREEK RD STE 203 CAMPBELL, CA 95008
50359002 SPRINGER RD S C V W D SPRINGER RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
50359003 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOC
1935 DRY CREEK RD STE 203 CAMPBELL, CA 95008
50360006 14681 SPRINGER AV NEIDER LEROY J 16285 LOS GATOS BL LOS GATOS, CA 95032
50360016 14700 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS
ASSN
1935 DRY CREEK ROAD #203 CAMPBELL, CA 95008
50361001 14630 SPRINGER CT MARKHOVSKY FELIX AND ISABELLA 14630 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361002 14632 SPRINGER CT DOYLE ELKE S PO BOX 422 OLD LYME, CT 06371
50361003 14634 SPRINGER CT SHANNON 14634 SPRINGER CT.SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361004 14636 SPRINGER CT COMISKY HANNAH S 19324 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361005 14638 SPRINGER CT DEVINE ANDREW M ET AL 14638 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361006 14640 SPRINGER CT SHOOR ENID O 14640 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361007 14642 SPRINGER CT NICKERSON 14642 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361008 14644 SPRINGER CT IWANAGA ADRIENNE R TRUSTEE 14644 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361009 14646 SPRINGER CT DESMOND 14646 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
GEO10 119
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
50361010 14648 SPRINGER CT BAGNATO PATRICIA L TRUSTEE 235 NOB HILL AV LOS GATOS, CA 95032
50361011 14662 SPRINGER AV HLAVA JOYCE A TRUSTEE 14662 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361012 14664 SPRINGER AV COAKLEY RUBY TRUSTEE P O BOX 392 SARATOGA, CA 95071
50361013 14666 SPRINGER AV SYVERTSON CLARENCE A TRUSTEE &14666 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361014 14668 SPRINGER AV GREY LEE S TRUSTEE 14668 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361015 14670 SPRINGER AV THOMPSON KAREN AND JAMES 14670 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361016 14656 SPRINGER AV WOODRUFF ROSEMARIE 14656 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361017 14654 SPRINGER AV CHAMPION DENNIS W TRUSTEE 14654 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361018 14652 SPRINGER AV COMBS ROY E AND ANN TRUSTEE PO BOX 308 SARATOGA, CA 95071
50361019 14650 SPRINGER AV HARTLEY YASUKO F TRUSTEE 14650 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361020 14636 PLACIDA CT KLEINMAN PHYLLIS AND KLEINMAN 14636 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361021 14638 PLACIDA CT FLORSHEIM MARY F 14638 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361022 14640 PLACIDA CT MAO 14640 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361023 14642 PLACIDA CT SALVADORE STEPHANIE A 14642 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361024 14644 PLACIDA CT FRANCIS HELEN G FBO FRANCIS BY 14644 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361025 14646 PLACIDA CT HARPER ERNEST T AND ROSEMARY P 14646 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361026 14648 PLACIDA CT KLEINMAN PROPERTIES LP 14648 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361027 14650 PLACIDA CT BALLARD MICHAEL AND KELLIE PO BOX 59664 POTOMAC, MD 20859
50361028 14652 PLACIDA CT SANDER THOMAS B AND GERDA M 14652 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361029 14654 PLACIDA CT POKHARNA 14654 PLACIDA CT.SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361030 14656 PLACIDA CT BINKLEY, ODE 14656 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361031 14658 PLACIDA CT GUNDERSON PHYLLIS A AND GALEN 14658 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361032 14660 WILD BERRY LN SMITH CHARLES A AND KAREN A TR 14660 WILD BERRY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361033 14662 WILD BERRY LN BRUBAKER ADA M TRUSTEE 14662 WILD BERRY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361034 14664 WILD BERRY LN GOLDSTEIN JANET TRUSTEE 14664 WILD BERRY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
50361035 14666 WILD BERRY LN TAYLOR RAYMOND M JR 14666 WILD BERRY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
50367001 14605 BIG BASIN WY FITZSIMMONS KATHLEEN A 14605 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50367002 14611 A BIG BASIN WY FITZSIMMONS KATHLEEN A 14605 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50367003 14611 B BIG BASIN WY FITZSIMMONS MICHAEL D 165 SUMMERFIELD ST DANVILLE, CA 94506
50367004 14611 C BIG BASIN WY FITZSIMMONS KATHLEEN A 14605 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50367005 14611 D BIG BASIN WY BOSCOE MARY B PO BOX 2423 SARATOGA, CA 95070
50367006 BIG BASIN WAY AT&T 3475B North First Street San Jose, CA 95134
50376001 14585 BIG BASIN WY LIN FENG-YING CHEN ET AL 603 FOREST AV PALO ALTO, CA 94301
50376002 14587 BIG BASIN WY CHOW EUGENE AND CHI TELLY T TR 1125 HUMBOLDT RD BRISBANE, CA 94005
50376003 14589 BIG BASIN WY KWEI CATHERINE Y TRUSTEE & ET 1125 HUMBOLDT RD BRISBANE, CA 94005
GEO10 120
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
50376004 14591 BIG BASIN WY HSU DORA HUI-I 14591 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50376005 14593 BIG BASIN WY RUBENSTEIN MICHAEL J TRUSTEE 14593 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50376006 14595 BIG BASIN WY CALVO OVIDIO R JR AND WENDY 14595 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50376007 14597 BIG BASIN WY HIRTH MARK W 14597 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50376008 14599 BIG BASIN WY STEPANCHENKO VADIM D ET AL 14599 BIG BASIN WY UNIT H SARATOGA, CA 95070
50376009 14601 BIG BASIN WY CHEN JUNE F PO BOX 2963 SARATOGA, CA 95070
51707007 20820 BIG BASIN WY DUTRO MARY L TRUSTEE & ET AL 20825 PAMELA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
51707010 20761 PAMELA WY WHEATLEY SANDRA AND SMERDON
GA
20761 PAMELA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
51707011 20777 PAMELA WY UENAKA ROBERT T AND KATHLYNN T 20777 PAMELA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
51707012 20793 PAMELA WY MALLARD JOHN H AND JULIE E TRU 20793 PAMELA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
51707013 20801 PAMELA WY NOBLES DON W JR AND TRACY G 20801 PAMELA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
51707014 20825 PAMELA WY DUTRO MARY L TRUSTEE 20825 PAMELA WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708001 20701 ST CHARLES ST MARCHETTI WALTER S AND MARILYN 20701 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708002 14662 6TH ST PALLA LOUISE 8350 RAINTREE AV RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
51708003 14656 6TH ST PALLA LOUISE 8350 RAINTREE AV RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
51708004 14650 6TH ST MAULDIN MICHAEL AND CAROL 15345 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708005 14630 BIG BASIN WY LONG RUTH M TRUSTEE PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708010 14590 BIG BASIN WY BEHNKE FRANK 14510 BIG BASIN WY UNIT 161 SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708011 14584 BIG BASIN WY STAUSS CHARLES J AND ELSBETH R P.O. BOX 1848 LOS GATOS, CA 95031
51708018 14701 OAK ST ALEXANDER JEANNE TRUSTEE 14701 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708023 14706 6TH ST RINGSRUD RON AND LINDA A 14706 6TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708024 14700 ST CHARLES ST GINOUVES PAUL T AND FRANCIS GW 14700 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708025 20731 ST CHARLES ST ESTAHBANATY MOHAMMAD 14240 ELVA AENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708048 14626 BIG BASIN WY HERNANDEZ GLADYS P ET AL 19641 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708053 20713 ST CHARLES ST PADWEKAR KETAN A AND SHILPA K 20713 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708054 20723 ST CHARLES ST HOFFMAN MARC 20723 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708055 20729 ST CHARLES ST HARDISTY OSCAR AND ELAINE 20729 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708056 20719 ST CHARLES ST GOPAL NANDA ET AL 20719 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708058 ST CHARLES ST BEHNKE CHARLES A SR AND DORIS 13691 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708065 14602 BIG BASIN WY KNIGHT DELOS L III AND DAY PEG 14602 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708066 14608 BIG BASIN WY WANG TSAOYU AND TENG FUJU 14608 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708067 14610 BIG BASIN WY BLOXHAM ALDEN T AND MARCELLE T P O BOX 333 SARATOGA, CA 95071
51708068 14598 BIG BASIN WY SRINIVASAN S AND MALINI TRUSTE 14598 BIG BASIN WY UNIT C SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708069 14598 BIG BASIN WY #A SRINIVASAN S AND MALINI TRUSTE 14598 BIG BASIN WY UNIT C SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708070 14598 BIG BASIN WY SRINIVASAN S AND MALINI TRUSTE 14598 BIG BASIN WY UNIT C SARATOGA, CA 95070
GEO10 121
Parcel Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
51708077 20711 SAINT CHARLES ST MORIARTY JOSEPH 20711 SAINT CHARLES ST UNIT 5 SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708078 20705 ST. CHARLES ST QUESNEL GREGORY L TRUSTEE PO BOX 555 SARATOGA, CA 95071
51708079 14612 BIG BASIN WY NAZARI HORMOZ AND ROUSSANA 15492 MONTE VISTA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070
51708080 14618 BIG BASIN WY TRAFALGAR INC 247 N THIRD ST SAN JOSE, CA 95112
51708081 14620 BIG BASIN WY SERMONE RICHARD 14620 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325007 14573 BIG BASIN WY B BIG BASIN LLC 14573 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
50325008 14577 BIG BASIN WY D FLANAGAN PAUL L AND FRANCES E 14577 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070
Affected Parcels 109
GEO10 122
LIST OF AGENCIES RECEIVING COPIES OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP
West Valley Sanitation District
100 E. Sunnyoaks Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Pacific Gas & Electric
San Jose Land Rights Office
111 Almaden Blvd. Rm. 814
San Jose, CA 95115
California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 23600
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
San Jose Water Company
1221 South Bascom Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
P.O. Box 26070
San Jose, CA 95159-6070
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Community Project Review
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Santa Clara County Health Department
2220 Moorpark Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128
Los Gatos - Saratoga Joint Union High School District
17421 Farley Road West
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Saratoga Union School District
20460 Forrest Hills Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
Page 1 of 8
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the
information in this report and implement the required conditions.
Application #: ARB10-0050
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 14651 Big Basin Way
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: John and Sue Kang
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 503-23-015
Email: mindfool@gmail.com
Report History: #1 Date: August 23, 2011
#2 – This report replaces report #1 Revised drawings received by the
City October 19, 2011
December 7, 2011
#3 – This report replaces report #2 December 20, 2011
#4 – This report reviews plans provided Dec. 22, 2011.
There are no major changes required. Report completed January 10, 2012
PROJECT SCOPE
The applicant has submitted plans to remove the existing house and build three new two-story
condominiums and one two story condominium with first floor retail. Each condominium will have
basement parking.
On December 20, 2011 I met with the architect and owner on site to inspect the trees and their
locations to the proposed project. We discussed special construction methods which will be used
near the trees to adequately protect them.
Three trees (#2, 7 and 10) protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the project.
They meet the criteria for removal, and may be removed and replaced once Building Division
permits have been issued for the project. See the Findings section below for details.
CLEARANCE – with conditions
This project has clearance to proceed from the arborist, with the conditions noted below in the
requirements section.
PLAN REVIEW
Plans Reviewed:
Architectural plans submitted for this project were prepared by Metro Design Group and revised
December 22, 2011. A Boundary Survey (Sheet T-1) was prepared by JLK Associates and dated August
5, 2007. Civil plans were prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. and dated December 2011.
Architectural plan sheets reviewed for this report include Sheet A-1, Cover Sheet; Sheet A-2, Site Plan;
Sheet A-2.1, Arborist Report; Sheet A-3, Proposed Basement/Parking Plan; Sheet A-3.1, Proposed First
131
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 2 of 8
Floor Plan; Sheet A-3.2, Proposed Second Floor Plan; Sheets 5, 5.1, and 5.2, Exterior Elevations; and
Sheets 6 and 6.1, Sections.
Civil plans reviewed for this report include Sheet C-1, Tentative Map; and Sheet C-2, Preliminary
Grading and Drainage Plan.
A dissipater structure is indicated in the lower part of the property. To best protect the surrounding trees,
it should be placed so that it is outside of the canopy of any protected tree. Excavation should occur by
hand around the edges of the dissipater pit to a depth of two feet. Roots that measure two inches or greater
should be left intact and worked around. Smaller roots may be cut using a sharp pruning tool.
TREE INFORMATION
Tree Inventory:
Ten trees protected by City Code were inventoried for this report. Inventoried trees include three
coast live oaks (#1, 8 and 9), two Chinese tallow trees (#2 and 3), three coast redwoods (#4, 5 and
6), one Japanese maple (#7) and one European olive (#10). Data for each tree is included in the Tree
Inventory Table at the end of this report. Their locations are shown on the attached site map.
Tree Removals:
Three trees, Chinese tallow #2, Japanese maple #7 and European olive #10, are requested for
removal to construct the project. Whenever a tree is requested for removal to construct a project,
certain findings must be met. A list of criteria permitting the removal of trees is attached to the end
of this report. See the Findings section below for a detailed discussion of trees #2, 7 and 10.
Tree Protection:
Tree #1 is a coast live oak in good condition in the front of the property. This tree significantly
enhances the aesthetic appeal of the street. The architect has marked the location for the proposed
driveway ramp to the underground parking. It is nearly 11 feet from the trunk of the tree and at the
edge of the tree’s canopy. This is sufficient to adequately protect the tree if the following measures
are taken. A trench along the line of excavation should be dug by hand to a depth of 3 feet, and roots
from the oak tree cut prior to performing any excavation for the ramp. After they have been cut, jute
netting or burlap must be placed over the cut roots and kept wet until the area is backfilled. In
addition, to mitigate the loss of roots, this tree should be watered along the area of the driveway cut
within a week of performing the cut if the work will be done between mid-summer and fall.
Walkways under this tree should remain on top of grade and be created of pervious materials, such
as decomposed granite or pavers on sand.
Trees #2 and 3 are Chinese tallow trees in fair condition that grow in the park strip between the
sidewalk and the curb and are protected by City Code. Tree #2 is in conflict with the ramp to the
parking garage. It meets the criteria for removal and replacement as part of the project (see the
Findings section below). Tree #3 can be adequately protected with chain link fencing during
construction.
Trees #4, 5 and 6 are redwood trees in very good condition. In order to best protect them special
measures must be implemented. The architect has indicated that the project will implement
techniques for excavating the basement that do not require any excavation beyond the line of the
basement wall. A field inspection of measurements indicated that the buildings are located farther
from the trees than initially believed, which is better for them and can provide them adequate
132
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 3 of 8
protection. A trench should be hand dug to a depth of three feet along the line of the wall for the
basement, exposing roots without cutting them. Roots should be cut using a sharp pruning tool,
covered with burlap or jute netting (as for the driveway), and kept moist until the wall is completed.
Tree #7 is a multi-trunked Japanese maple in good condition. It is also in conflict with the project. It
is not possible to keep this tree and still build the project. It meets the criteria (see Findings below)
for removal, and may be removed to construct the project.
Tree #8 is a coast live oak in good condition on the neighbor’s property. The civil plans show
drainage for the proposed building under the dripline of this tree. To best protect this tree the
following conditions should be met. Excavation for drainage around the building should remain
outside of the dripline for this tree or utilize special measures such as boring, or excavation by hand
or an Air Spade (a pneumatic device that blows soil away from roots using compressed air and
water). This roots intact, so that roots measuring 2 inches or greater can be retained and preserved.
Drain pipes can be installed underneath exposed, intact roots after excavation or boring.
Tree #9 is a coast live oak in good condition. It can be adequately protected with tree protection
fencing during construction.
Tree #10 is an olive tree in fair condition sandwiched between the existing house and the property
line. It cannot be adequately protected with fencing for the project, and does not serve the site
sufficiently to be retained. The site would be better served with new trees equal to its appraised value
following construction. It meets the criteria for removal (see Findings below).
Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees:
Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a Tree Protection security deposit equal to 100% of the appraised
value of trees impacted by the project is required. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community
Development Director, the required security deposit prior to the receipt of building permits. The
security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond.
The required security deposit for this project is $78,890 and is the total appraised value of trees #1,
3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. This deposit will be held until completion of the project and acceptance by the City.
Appraisals:
Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for
Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by
the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
FINDINGS
Tree Removal
Per Article 15-50.080 of the City Code, the project was reviewed for the removal of trees #2, 7 and
10. Tree #2 is a Chinese tallow tree that is a City maintained street tree, tree #7 is a multi-trunked
Japanese maple, and tree #10 is an olive tree. The table below summarizes the criteria met allowing
the removal of each tree. Tree removal criteria that must be met to allow the removal of a tree are
attached to the end of this report for reference. Trees #2, 7 and 10 meet the criteria overall for
removal and may be removed and replaced as part of this project.
133
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 4 of 8
Summary of tree removal met by each tree requested for removal.
Tree # Criteria met Criteria not met Criteria not pertinent
2 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 2, 6 3, 8
7 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 5 3, 8
10 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 5 3, 8
Tree #2 – Chinese tallow tree: This tree is a young street tree growing in the park strip between the
curb and the sidewalk and is maintained by the City. It has fair structure, and a new tree in this
location would do more to enhance the appearance of the street and the property than retention of
this tree.
Tree #2 is a young tree in fair condition which is in conflict with the proposed driveway to the
underground parking for the project, so it meets criterion #1. It does not threaten damage to any
structures, so it does not meet criterion #2. Criterion #3 is not a consideration in this situation, in that
erosion and drainage are not issues. Removal of this tree would improve the aesthetic appearance of
the site and would have an insignificant impact on the shade and privacy of the property, so it meets
criterion #4. Criterion #5 is met in that this tree is close to the oak (tree #1) and will be shaded by it.
The alternative to removing this tree is to redesign the project with the ramp to the parking on the
other side of the lot using the existing driveway, so it does not meet criterion #6. Removal and
replacement of tree #2 is consistent with the intent of this article, which is to replace trees if it is not
practical to retain and preserve them (criterion #7). There is no public health or safety issue with
respect to this tree so criterion #8 does not pertain to this situation. Removal of this tree provides
economic enjoyment to the property owners so it does meet criterion #9.
Tree #7 - Japanese maple: This is a multi-trunked tree in good condition that is in conflict with the
proposed buildings and parking garage. Construction of the basement garage and new buildings
cannot occur without removal of this tree, so it meets criterion #1. The tree does not threaten damage
to the property so it criterion #2 is not met. Erosion and drainage for the property will be addressed
in conjunction with construction of the new garage and buildings, so criterion #3 does not pertain to
the situation. Removal of this tree will have an insignificant impact on the site overall, and there are
other trees, of native species, that are a good size and condition and can be preserved, so removal of
this tree does satisfy criterion #4. This tree is not crowded by other trees so it does not meet criterion
#5. There is no feasible alternative to removing this tree that would allow the construction of the
project. The hillside is too steep to allow a tree spade in to transplant the tree, and there is no room
on the property to plant it, so it meets criterion #6. Removal of this tree meets the intent of the tree
regulations which is to replace trees that cannot be retained and preserved, so it does meet criterion
#7. There are no public health and safety issues with respect to this tree, so this criterion is not met.
Removal of this tree and replacement with new trees does satisfy criterion #9, in that it is necessary
to remove this tree for the owners to realize economic and other enjoyment of the property.
Tree #10 – European olive: Tree #10 is an olive tree in fair condition that grows right next to the
existing building between it and the property line. This tree is in conflict with the proposed new
building so it meets criterion #1. It threatens damage to the existing building if no project is built, so
it meets criterion #2. Erosion control will be address by drainage around the building, so criterion #3
does not pertain to this situation. Removal of this tree will have an insignificant impact on the site
overall, and there are other trees of native species in good condition that can be preserved, so
removal of this tree does satisfy criterion #4. This tree is not crowded by other trees so it does not
meet criterion #5. There are no feasible alternatives to removing the tree, in that, although this
134
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 5 of 8
species transplants well, it is not in good enough condition to warrant its preservation, so it meets
criterion #6. Removal of this tree and replacement with new trees meets the intent of the tree
regulations so it does meet criterion #7. This tree does not present a public health and safety issue, so
criterion #8 does not pertain to the situation. Removal of this tree meets criterion #9, in that its
removal is necessary for economic and other enjoyment of the property and there is no feasible
alternative.
Replacement Trees:
Trees #2, 7 and 10 have a total appraised value of $13,820. It is acceptable to remove these trees and
plant new trees equal to their appraised value as part of the project. No trees may be removed until
all applicable permits have been obtained. Replacement values for new trees can be found at the
bottom of the Tree Inventory Table. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property. If
there is insufficient room to plant the required number of trees, some or all of the replacement value
may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund in lieu of new trees.
New Construction
Per Section 15-50.120 of the City Code, the project complies with the requirements for the setback
of new construction from existing trees. Special methods will be implemented to minimize
excavation near trees and the impact of construction by trees.
REQUIREMENTS
1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of trees
and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of plans and titled “Tree
Preservation”. The previous reports do not need to be included in the final plan set.
2. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $78,890
a. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree
Protection security deposit for trees #1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, prior to obtaining Building
Division permits.
b. The tree protection security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction
of the project to ensure the protection of the trees.
c. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City, the bond will
be released.
3. 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, 1 7/8-
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 REMOVE
WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”.
e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division
permits.
f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City
Arborist to arrange a field meeting.
135
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 6 of 8
4. 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.
5. Applicant is responsible for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction
work. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his
responsibilities under this Code.
6. Utilities shall be shown on the plans. Utilities include, but are not limited to, electrical,
drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping.
7. The storm water dissipation structure and pipes leading to it shall be placed outside of the
canopies of protected trees. Excavation for the pipes to this structure shall be dug by hand to
a depth of two feet where under the canopy of a protected tree (e.g. #9), leaving roots intact.
Pipes shall be placed under roots.
8. No excavation is permitted under the canopy of any protected tree on site for the installation
of utilities without prior approval from the City Arborist. Approval shall be obtained before
any work takes place. Failure to do so may lead to a hold on the Tree Protection Security
Deposit put in place by the property owner for a period of up to five years after the
completion of construction.
9. Excavation for the building, driveway, drainage dissipater or other aspects of the project that
are near to trees shall be done in the following manner:
a. If work is being done between July 1 and October 1, one week prior to digging a trench
(see ‘b’ below), trees shall be watered thoroughly along the area where the digging will
occur. Water with 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter. Watering may be done
with a soaker hose.
b. A trench shall be dug by hand to a depth of three feet, leaving all roots measuring 1 inch
or more in diameter intact.
c. Roots shall be cut using a sharp pruning tool.
d. After cutting roots, they shall be covered with jute netting or burlap and kept moist until
walls of driveway or building are completed.
e. Work shall be supervised by an ISA Certified arborist and a letter provided to the City
documenting that this procedure was followed.
10. Trees #2, 7 and 10 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed once Building Division
permits have been obtained.
11. New trees equal to $13,820 shall be planted as part of the project. Replacement values for
new trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table attached to the end of this
report.
12. If there is insufficient room on the property to plant the required number of new trees, some
or all of the replacement value may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund.
136
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 7 of 8
13. Unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist, all construction activities must be conducted
outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). 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.
14. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards.
15. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under
tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies.
Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies.
16. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing, call
City Arborist for a final inspection.
ATTACHMENTS:
Tree Removal Criteria
Tree Inventory Table
Map showing tree locations and protective fencing
137
14651 Big Basin Way
Page 8 of 8
TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article
15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If
findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and
replacement during construction.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to
existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services;
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property;
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and
the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes;
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal
would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the
general welfare of residents in the area;
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry
practices;
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on
the protected tree;
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose
and intent of this Article;
(8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes
of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is
no other feasible alternative to the removal.
138
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueCoast live oak
1 Quercus agrifolia 18.9 25 80 70 Good High 2 $12,000
Chinese tallow
2 Sapium sebiferum 7.1 10 60 50 Fair Moderate 1 X $1,330
Chinese tallow
3 Sapium sebiferum 6.7 15 60 60 Fair High 2 $1,290
Coast redwood
4 Sequoia sempervirens 21.7 25 80 80 Good High 2 $15,500
Coast redwood
5 Sequoia sempervirens 23.8 25 80 80 Good High 2 $18,600
Coast redwood
6 Sequoia sempervirens 23 25 90 90 Good High 2 $21,200
Japanese maple 5.8, 3.5, 2.7,
7 Acer palmatum 5, 5.3, 5.7 20 80 60 Good Moderate 1 X $10,200
Coast live oak
8 Quercus agrifolia 17.9 30 80 70 Good High 2 X $10,300
Coast live oakCoast live oak
9 Quercus agrifolia 30.7 50 80 70 Good High 4 $13,700
European olive 8.8,
10 Olea europaea 8.3 15 60 50 Fair Low 1 X $2,290
Total appraised value $106,410
Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal to its appraised value.
Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
14651 Big Basin Way
December 20, 2011
139
14651 Big Basin Way
Legend
Tree Protective
Fencing
Tree Canopy
4
3 2
1
6
5
8
7
9
10
140
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cynthia McCormick, Project Planner, Community Development Department
CC: John Kang, Owner and Tom Sloan, Agent
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO10-0019 at 14651 Big Basin Way
DATE: December 9, 2010
1. Prior to submittal of detailed plans for the building permit application, the selected
foundation design alternative shall be clarified. If pier foundations are to be utilized for
buildings near the steep northern slope, then RGE shall clarify minimal lateral cover
requirements for piers prior to application of passive resistance.
If mat slab foundations are to extend to the northern edges of proposed buildings, then a
grading plan shall be prepared illustrating where existing fill materials will be removed and
replaced along with necessary keyways and benching into in-place material. This plan shall
also indicate final proposed fill slope configurations to the north of proposed buildings. RGE
shall evaluate any revised grading plan prior to submittal to the City.
Appropriate documentation to address the above shall be submitted to the City for review by
the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to acceptance of detailed plans for
building permit plan-check.
2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details
accurately reflect the consultant’s recommendations. The consultant shall specifically
evaluate all geotechnical aspects of proposed project drainage design. Percolation or
discharge of collected storm drainage shall be avoided near the top of site fill slopes.
Drainage discharge shall be designed to minimize potential erosion or adverse slope
instability impacts. Geotechnical aspects of sharing design plans shall be evaluate.
141
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 2 of 2
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a
letter(s) and submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
permits.
3. 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 fill keyways (if applicable), and foundation construction
prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The consultant shall complete an inspection of
completed 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 Registered Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval.
4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
5. 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.
142
Memorandum
Date: July 27, 2011
To: Jonghoon John Kang
From: Trisha Dudala, At Van Den Hout
Subject:: 14651 Big Basin Way
The purpose of this memo is to evaluate the need for a traffic impact analysis for the proposed project at
14651 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, Callifornia. Presently this property is mainly a residential property with
two thirds of the property being used as a home and one third being used as a studio. The current plan is
to demolish the existing structure and build three residential condominiums and one building with 1,296
square feet of retail, studio and an apartment on the second floor as shown on Figure 1. The project will
receive credit for the existing studio. Currently there are seven ground parking spaces available and with
the redevelopment of this site, there will be ten parking stalls, six of which will be dedicated garages.
According to the City of Saratoga, for any project that would generate 25 or more net new trips, a
transportation analysis is required to identify potential impacts to intersection and roadway operations.
Trips generated by the proposed project can be estimated based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition as shown in the Table below.
Proposed Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Condominiums (ITE 230) 3 Dwelling Units 0.44 0 1 1 0.52 1 1 2
Apartment (ITE 220) 1 Dwelling Unit 0.51 0 1 1 0.62 1 0 1
Retail (ITE 820) 1.296 ksf 1.00 1 0 1 3.73 2 3 5
Net Project Trips: 1 2 3 4 4 8
Size
As shown in the above table, the proposed project is expected to generate a total of three trips during the
AM peak hour and eight trips during the PM peak hour. The AM and PM peak hour generation of the
project is well below the threshold of 25 trips. Therefore a transportation analysis is not required for this
project as trips generated by the project are not likely to cause any significant impacts on the surrounding
transportation network.
143
144
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 2011
To: Kristin Borel, Public Works, City of Saratoga
From: Kevin Chen/Sohrab Rashid
Subject: 14651 Big Basin Way Peer Review, Saratoga, California
1025-446-1
This memorandum presents the results of the peer review conducted for the 14651 Big Basin
Way trip generation study in the City of Saratoga, California. We generally concur with the
findings in the analysis with a few additional comments. Below describes our evaluation.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared a trip generation memorandum dated July 27,
2011 for the proposed project at 14651 Big Basin Way in the City of Saratoga, California. The
development project consists of redeveloping an existing residential property with three
residential condominiums and a building with 1,296 square feet (s.f.) of retail (including a dance
studio) and an apartment on the second floor. The project is located in a Commercial – Historic 2
(CH-2) zoning district.
The memorandum was reviewed for adequacy and appropriateness of the project trip generation
assumptions. The following key items summarize our findings:
1. Fehr & Peers agrees with the trip generation rates associated with residential
condominiums and apartment land uses.
2. While Fehr & Peers agrees with the trip generation rates associated with the retail land
use in the absence of identified occupants, these rates may underestimate the number of
new vehicle trips depending on the ultimate tenant that occupies the space. For example,
the number of customers and subsequently trips would be higher if the space were
occupied by a small, quick-serve restaurant. However, it is not expected that any retailer
or other tenant, in addition to the proposed residential uses, will generate 25 or more net
new vehicle trips to warrant a traffic impact analysis.
The memorandum identified the number of new parking spaces without further explanation. We
addressed this comment by providing our parking evaluation below.
Based on City of Saratoga Ordinance Code 15-35.030: one covered space within a garage, plus
one and one-half additional spaces on the site are needed for each multi-family dwelling unit, or a
supply rate of 2.5 spaces per unit. As addressed in the memorandum, the development will meet
the requirement by providing 10 parking stalls, six (6) of which will be dedicated garage spaces,
for 4 residential units (3 Condo and 1 Apartment).
Based on the City Ordinance Code, retail developments are required to provide one space for
each 200 s.f. of intensive retail establishment or one space for each 500 s.f. of extensive retail
establishment. However, net new developments located in a Commercial – Historic (CH) district
are not required to add new parking spaces if approved between March 1, 2006 and February 28,
2012 and do not exceed 41,850 s.f. New development in the CH district has not exceeded this
threshold, thus, the project is not required to provide new parking spaces for the proposed retail
use.
In conclusion, we concur with the findings described in the memorandum prepared for 14651 Big
Basin Way.
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176