Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2012 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents Agenda 2 September 26, 2012 Draft Minutes 4 Application FER12-0003; 19870 Mendelsohn Lane (510-01- 004); Peter & Rita Redford - The applicant is requesting a fence exception to construct an approximately 10’ tall, concrete wall with 10’ tall concrete pilasters along the front and side property lines. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 Staff Report 6 Attachment 1 - Resolution 11 Attachment 2 - Arborist Report 14 Attachment 3 - Site Photos 20 Attachment 4 - Neighbor Notification 21 Attachment 5 - Public Hearing Notice 25 Attachment 6 - Project Plans 27 Application SUB 12-0002; 20400 Hill Avenue (517-18-048) MTNRMT, LLC / Gregory Howell - The applicant proposes to subdivide a 6.27 acre lot located at 20400 Hill Avenue into five parcels ranging in size from 1.08 acres to 1.38 acres. The project has been the subject of a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act which became available for review by the public beginning October 1, 2012. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Staff Report 38 Resolution 45 Attachment 2 - IS-Neg Dec 53 Attachment 3 - Noticing 73 Attachment 4 - Neighbor Comments 80 Attachment 5 - Arborist 87 Attachment 6 - Bio assesement 92 Attachment 7 - tentative map 109 Application PDR09-0006 / VAR08-0006; 14660 Quito Road (407 -14-004); Dang / Rockwood Design - The applicant requests approval to replace an existing 926 sq. ft. one-story main residence with a 2,697 sq. ft. two-story residence. The design review application is due to the request to convert a single-story structure into a multi-story structure. The variance application is due to the request to allow construction within a required setback. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 Staff Memo - 14660 Quito Road 121 1 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, October 24, 2012 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 26, 2012 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. Application FER12-0003; 19870 Mendelsohn Lane (510-01-004); Peter & Rita Redford - The applicant is requesting a fence exception to construct an approximately 10’ tall, concrete wall with 10’ tall concrete pilasters along the front and side property lines. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235 Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No.12-044 approving the project subject to conditions of approval which include limiting the wall height to six feet within the front setback and eight feet along the eastern side property line for a length of 35 feet. 2. Application SUB 12-0002; 20400 Hill Avenue (517-18-048) MTNRMT, LLC / Gregory Howell - The applicant proposes to subdivide a 6.27 acre lot located at 20400 Hill Avenue into five parcels ranging in size from 1.08 acres to 1.38 acres. The project has been the subject of a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act which became available for review by the public beginning October 1, 2012. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230. Recommended action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-045 adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the Tentative Map subject to the conditions of approval 2 3. Application PDR09-0006 / VAR08-0006; 14660 Quito Road (407-14-004); Dang / Rockwood Design - The applicant requests approval to replace an existing 926 sq. ft. one-story main residence with a 2,697 sq. ft. two-story residence. The design review application is due to the request to convert a single-story structure into a multi-story structure. The variance application is due to the request to allow construction within a required setback. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212 Recommended action: Continue to November 14, 2012. NEW BUSINESS DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. 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 Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on October 18, 2012 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 3 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 26, 2012 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 12, 2012 (Approved with changes, 6:0:1(Hlava-abstained) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION MOD12-0005 / 19915 Mallory Ct. (393-16-026) Nalwa / Lazari Designs – The applicant is requesting design review approval to replace an existing 3,762 sq. ft. one-story, single-family residence destructed by involuntary damage (i.e. fire) with a new 4,048 sq. ft. one-story, single-family residence. The height of the proposed new residence is less than 22 feet. This project was continued to a date certain from the 8/22/2012 PC Meeting. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 12-038 approving the project subject to conditions of approval, as amended. New conditions included requiring front and exterior side and landscaping to either be installed or the applicant shall place a bond with the City of Saratoga in the amount of 150% of the estimated cost of the proposed landscaping prior to authorizing an occupancy permit and that the proposed roof tiles will only include tiles with earth tone shades of browns, greens and grays. (Approved, 7:0) 2. APPLICATION PDR12-0006 / 14429 Big Basin Way (503-24-054) Sprint - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to replace three existing antennas with three new antennas and associated equipment located on top of 14429 Big Basin Way (i.e. Fat Robin Gift Shop). The proposal also includes 4 extending the front parapet along the sides of the building in order to partially screen the proposed new antennas. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 12-043 approving the project subject to conditions of approval, as amended. New condition includes “the applicant shall adjust the existing cornices to match the height of the ridge of the proposed parapet, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. The existing cornices shall be painted to match the proposed parapet prior to building final.” (Approved, 7:0) NEW BUSINESS 1. Presentation of the Village Sidewalk & Pedestrian Enhancement Phase II Capital Improvement Project Action: Received presentation 2. Cancelation of the October 10, 2012 meeting as there are no planning applications scheduled for this date. Action: October 10, 2012 meeting cancelled. DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. 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 Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on September 20, 2012 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Application: Fence Exception / FER12-0003 Location/APN: 19870 Mendelsohn Lane / 510-01-004 Owner / Applicant: Peter & Rita Redford Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan 19870 Mendelsohn Lane 6 Application No. FER12-0003 / 19870 Mendelsohn Lane SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a fence exception to construct an approximately 10’ tall, concrete wall with 10’ tall concrete pilasters along the front and side property lines at 19870 Mendelsohn Lane. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No.12-044 approving the project subject to conditions of approval which include limiting the wall height to six feet within the front setback and eight feet along the eastern side property line for a length of 35 feet. PROJECT DATA: Net Site Area: 18,750 square feet General Plan Designation: RLD (Low Density Residential) Zoning: R-1-20,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a fence exception to install an approximately 180’ long, 10’ tall, concrete wall with 10’ tall concrete pilasters within the front yard setback at 19870 Mendelsohn Lane. The subject parcel has a required front setback of 30 feet. Per Article 15-29 (Fences and Hedges) of the City Code, fences and walls within front setbacks are limited to a height of three feet and fences not located within a front or exterior setback may be eight feet in height which includes six feet of solid fence and two feet of lattice. The existing eight foot tall entrance gates and columns would remain. The proposed wall would be located on the front and side property lines and would be 115 feet in length at the front property line and would be 65 feet in length along the eastern side property line. Both the wall and pilasters would be covered with integral colored stucco that would be green in color. Existing landscaping in the public right-of-way would screen the wall from views from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. A portion of the wall to be located near the existing entrance gates would be visible from Mendelsohn Lane and the project includes a condition of approval that the applicant would plant additional landscaping in this area. The existing six feet tall wood fence in the area of the proposed wall would be removed. The applicant has stated that the purpose and location of the wall is to mitigate automobile noise emanating from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The site is located on Mendelsohn Lane but located directly adjacent to the intersection of Mendelsohn Lane and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (see map). SITEMENDELSOHN LANE SITE Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-29.040 (Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets) allows the Planning Department to approve fences exceeding the height limit along specified arterial streets of which Saratoga-Los Gatos Road is one of the listed 2 7 Application No. FER12-0003 / 19870 Mendelsohn Lane streets. This code section specifies that within a front setback area abutting the arterial street (Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) the fence may be eight feet in height and located ten feet behind the front property line and may be one foot taller in height for each five foot increase in setback to a maximum height of ten feet. The ten foot tall wall as requested by the applicant would be required to be setback 20 feet from the front property line if the property abutted Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. However, because no portion of the site directly abuts Saratoga-Los Gatos Road the property owner cannot take advantage of the code section that allows an increase in fence height and therefore has applied for a fence exception. Staff is not supporting the applicants request for a ten foot wall to be constructed within the front setback or along the side property line. The subject property does not qualify for a taller fence to mitigate noise because the site does not abut Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The ten foot wall would not be consistent with the fence heights of other properties in the neighborhood. In addition, the wall would be constructed on the property line and would not be setback the required 20 feet from the front property line as would be required if the site abutted Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The wall along the side property line and outside of the front setback should only be eight feet tall to match the general height limit of fences. As mentioned in a preceding paragraph, the site does have an existing nonconforming wood fence that is approximately six feet in height located within the front setback. Staff is supporting a wall that exceeds the standard three foot height limit in the front yard with a condition of approval that the wall be no taller than six feet in height because: (1) the property is directly exposed to Saratoga- Los Gatos Road and is impacted by the traffic noise, (2) the property already has an existing six foot tall wood fence within the front setback, and (3) the wall would be screened by existing landscaping. Staff is supporting an eight foot wall along the side property line as it matches the general height limit for fences. Arborist Review The wall would be located in the vicinity of seven protected trees including three coast live oaks and one coast redwood. The City Arborist reviewed potential impacts to the trees as a result of the construction of the wall and the project has conditional clearance from the Arborist to proceed. No trees are proposed for removal. A copy of the Arborist report is included as Attachment #2. Neighborhood Compatibility Several homes in the neighborhood, including those on Mendelsohn Lane and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, have front and exterior side yard fences exceeding the three foot height limit. These include six foot tall fences made of both chainlink and wrought iron. Stucco walls between six and seven feet in height are located on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Neighborhood Notification The applicant received completed neighbor notification forms from four adjacent neighbors which are included as Attachment #4. Each of these neighbors signed the forms without providing additional written comments. The public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and is included as Attachment #5. Staff has not received any comments to date. 3 8 Application No. FER12-0003 / 19870 Mendelsohn Lane FINDINGS: The findings required for issuance of a Fence Exception pursuant to City Code Section 15-29.090 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: Finding #1: The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the neighborhood. The wall, as conditioned, would be compatible with the location and placement of existing fencing in the surrounding neighborhood. The wall would be covered in stucco which is a material that is compatible with the existing house on the site as well as other structures in the neighborhood. The proposed wall would be consistent in height as adjacent fences and would be green in color to blend in with existing landscaping which would screen the wall from views from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Mendelsohn Lane and which would not overly detract from the surrounding rural neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Finding #2: The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable. The wall would be constructed from concrete blocks and covered with green colored stucco. All of the materials will be durable and be of high quality and would be able to weather the outdoor environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Finding #3: The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which the fence is located. The proposed wall would incorporate high-quality materials that are consistent with the main residence as well as other structures in the neighborhood. The fence would be screened from both Mendelsohn Lane and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road by its green color as well as existing and proposed landscaping and would not overly detract from the character and integrity of the existing community. This finding can be in made in the affirmative. Finding #4: The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located. All the proposed materials for the fence and gate would be high quality and its appearance would be screened from views from adjacent properties as well as from Mendelsohn Lane and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The wall would be installed and located so as to provide the required sight distance for the driveway and street intersection. This finding can be in made in the affirmative. Finding #5: The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties. As previously stated, the proposed fence would provide the required sight distances for the driveway. The proposed fence would not interfere with visibility for pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicular traffic within the area. This finding can be made in the affirmative. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed Fence Exception Request is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15303) “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This 4 9 Application No. FER12-0003 / 19870 Mendelsohn Lane 5 exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption applies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Fence Exception Request with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Arborist Report 3. Site Photographs 4. Neighbor Notification 5. Mailed Notice, Address Labels, Mailing Affidavit 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". 10 Attachment 1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-034 Application FER12-0003 Peter and Rita Redford; 19870 Mendelsohn Lane The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the above-described application: I. Project Summary The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Fence Exception for the Project shown in Exhibit "A" date stamped September 27, 2012, incorporated by this reference. The applicant is proposing an approximately 180’ long, 10’ tall, concrete wall with 10’ tall concrete pilasters on a property located at 19870 Mendelsohn Lane. Both the wall and the columns would be covered with integral colored stucco that is green in color. The existing entrance gates and columns would remain. The proposed wall would be located on the property line and would be 115 feet in length at the front property line and would be 65 feet in length along the eastern property line. The existing approximately six feet tall wood fence in the area of the proposed wall would be removed and the existing wood fence elsewhere on the site would remain. City Code Section 15-29.090 allows an exception to the fence regulations with approval by the Planning Commission. II. Planning Commission Review On October 24, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument and the Planning Commission considered the Project, the staff report on the Project, correspondence from the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and evidence presented at the Public Hearing. III. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3. Article 19, Section 15303 (“State CEQA Guidelines”). Class 3 exemptions include the construction and location of a new small structure such as a fence or gate. No exception to this exemption applies. IV. Project Approval After careful consideration of the application, site plan, and other materials and exhibits submitted to the City in connection with this matter, Application No. FER12-0003 for a fence exception is approved subject to the conditions set forth below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. 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. Attachment 1 11 2. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Section 16-05-035, as applicable. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a notice, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed by the City, 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 all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by Design Review Approval. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: 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 City 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. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. Compliance with Plans and Description of Use. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans and denominated Exhibit "A" date September 27, 2012 incorporated by this reference with the following modifications: 1) the height of the concrete wall shall not exceed six feet in height along the front property line and eight feet in height along the side property line outside of the front setback area for a distance of 35 feet and, 2) landscaping must be installed between the fence and Mendelsohn Lane in the areas where there is not existing landscaping. 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 the requisite prior City approval. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 12 6. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1 above which includes revised conditions of approval. b. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. C. CITY ARBORIST 7. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Reports dated September 24, 2012 shall be followed. 8. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 9. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $115,300 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees related to the fence construction. 10. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 24th day of October 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Tina K. Walia Chair, Planning Commission 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Attachment 3 Site Photos Existing gates and columns Gate and existing wood fence Views of fence location from Mendelsohn Lane Views of fence location from Mendelsohn Lane 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Application No: SUB12-0002 Type of Application: Tentative Subdivision/Negative Declaration Location / APN: 20400 Hill Avenue / 517-18-048 Owner/Applicant: MTNRMT, LLC / Gregory Howell Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP 20400 Hill Avenue Page 1 of 7 38 SUMMARY The applicant proposes to subdivide a 6.27 acre lot located at 20400 Hill Avenue into five parcels ranging in size from 1.08 acres to 1.38 acres. The project has been the subject of a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act which became available for review by the public beginning October 1, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-045 adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the Tentative Map subject to the conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA: Site Area: 6.27 acres Average Slope: 16.4% General Plan Designation: Residential Very Low Density Zoning: R1-40,000 Proposal Standard Net Area Calculations: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 47,044 SF 47,480 SF 60,112 SF 53,143 SF 53,578 SF minimum 40,000 SF 40,000 SF 40,000 SF 40,000 SF 40,000 SF Slope Calculations: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 15.1% 13.9% 14.1% 21.1% 18.1% The average natural grade of the footprint underneath any dwelling unit, swimming pool or other structure shall not exceed 30% slope. Overall Site Coverage: Homes Street Driveways Other Structures Walks and Patios Open Landscape 7,088 SF 5,198 SF 10,452 SF 2,518 SF 5,678 SF 242,129 SF Informational per City Code Section 14-25.100(b)(1). See Table 2 for individual lots. Application No. SUB 12-0002; 20400 Hill Avenue Page 2 of 7 39 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CONCEPTUAL): Conceptual Site Coverage: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 10,739 SF (29%) 12,908 SF (33%) 11,488 SF (23%) 9,629 SF (29%) 10,839 SF (28%) 35% Maximum Building Envelope: Precise setbacks are not given. Conceptual drawings show potential locations of future homes on each lot. The conceptual placement of homes has been designed to minimize impacts to trees, as discussed in the Arborist Report. Minimum Setback 1st story 2nd story Front: 30 30 Rear : 50 60 Right Side: 20 25 Left Side: 20 25 Conceptual Height: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 22 ft. 19 ft. 6 in. 22 ft 7 in. 24 ft. 26 ft. 26ft. Maximum PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Tentative Map approval is required pursuant to City Code Section 14-20.070. The Final Map approval requires an action by the City Council prior to recordation of the map. Site Description: The site is located south of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and east of Montalvo Road. Residential uses surround the Project area to the north, east, and south. San Jose Water Company property borders the Project area to the west. Villa Montalvo Arboretum County Park is located one-half mile to the south, with residential housing occupying the area between the park and the Project site. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 6.27 parcel into five parcels ranging in size from 1.08 acres to 1.38 acres. The site has an overall slope of approximately 16.4%. Access to the subdivision will be via Hill Avenue and Montalvo Heights Drive. Approximately 0.24 acres would be dedicated to streets and driveways, including a private driveway 1 easement between parcels 1, 2, 3, & 4. 1 City Code Section 15-06.230: Driveways serving four or fewer parcels are not considered streets. Application No. SUB 12-0002; 20400 Hill Avenue Page 3 of 7 40 Site Development Plan: No development is proposed at this time. However, the City does require the applicant to provide a site development plan on any subdivision containing a hillside lot 2 . The Site Development Plan submitted for the Project shows existing and proposed streets, off-street parking and driveways, and conceptual footprints of homes within the building envelope for each lot as determined by required setbacks. The Plan also includes a table listing approximate site coverage for each proposed lot. Conceptual architectural elevations showing building height, materials, and general design have also been provided. Future Improvements: The approved final site development plan will automatically become a part of the improvement plans for the subdivision. Modification of the site development plan may be approved by the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing. The Resolution also includes a condition of approval requiring design review approval of individual homes. Design review approval will not be granted unless future development is compatible (e.g., bulk and height) with neighboring residential structures and minimizes impacts on views and privacy. Design review approval will also be contingent on preserving the natural landscape. Drainage: The property has an average slope of approximately 16%. There will be a private street installed to serve the future lots, with individual driveways installed off of this private street, as well as a fire department turnaround near the end. The proposed private street and driveway (11,000 + S.F.) will be less than the existing impervious area (24,000 + S.F.) so the net effect will be a reduction of the storm water runoff. In addition to this net reduction in the runoff, the applicant will utilize bioswales to further reduce the impact of the storm runoff to the surrounding water shed. The future lots will have average slopes varying from 14% to 21%. It is anticipated that these lots will be developed individually. Therefore each lot will need to calculate the existing runoff, and the proposed runoff, from each of the individual lots. The lots will then need to design their on-site improvements so as to reduce the proposed runoff to be at or less than the existing runoff quantity. It is anticipated that this will be done through the use of both retention facilities as well as bioswales. The use of these retention facilities and bioswales will retard the flow of storm water exiting the properties, and entering the surrounding water shed, back to preexisting levels. Traffic: A policy of the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan requires a transportation analysis for all development projects resulting in 25 or more peak-hour trips. Each single-family home is expected to generate less than five peak hour trips. The property was previously improved with a house and cottage. The net increase in peak hour trips would be less than 20, which is below the threshold for traffic review. The subdivision, as a whole, is expected to have a less than significant impact on the traffic volume of the street. Lot Access: City code requires every lot to either front on an accepted public street, a street offered for dedication, or a minimum access street 3 . One of the lots take access from Hill Avenue, one lot takes access from Montalvo Heights Drive, and three lots will take access from an interior easement driveway. The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and indicated that the existing street does not need to be widened beyond the width of the road it connects to, but the City will require appropriate curb and gutter installation. 2 City Code Section 15-06.420(e): Hillside lot means a lot having an average slope of 10% or greater. 3 Section 14-25.030)g)(1):The minimum access street constitutes the means of access for not more than four lots. Application No. SUB 12-0002; 20400 Hill Avenue Page 4 of 7 41 Arborist Review: Subdivision of the property does not require construction, and therefore no trees will be impacted until the individual lots are developed. However, future development will require removal of some trees. The City Arborist has inventoried the site for potential future conflict and/or removal of trees (attachment 5). Design of the homes, driveway footprints, and road access to the lot will need to be considerate of trees. Individual lots will be reviewed for relevant impacts to trees and protective measures or special mitigating design before each lot is developed. The applicant / future owners will be required to obtain approval to remove protected trees and replace those trees in accordance with their value. Biological Review: A biological assessment and reconnaissance-level surveys were performed for the property. No biological impacts were considered to be significant under CEQA. While three (3) dusky-footed woodrat 4 nests were observed during the survey, the assessment concluded that future development would affect few dusky-footed woodrats. Geotechnical Clearance: The project has been reviewed by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. Future development will be reviewed for relevant impacts. In-depth site specific geotechnical investigations must be prepared for each lot (including design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls, basements, swimming pools, etc.). Geotechnical Clearance must be granted for each individual lot prior to the issuance of building permits for individual residences. Neighbor Correspondence: The applicant mailed notification of the proposed subdivision to 19 adjacent neighbors. Four comments were returned, as described below. Staff also 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 on October 9th, 2012. The City received four comments from adjacent neighbors (attachment 4). These concerns included down-slope drainage onto adjacent properties; traffic on adjacent roadways; entrance to the subdivision; and tree removal, grading, driveways and fence location. A discussion of drainage, trees, and vehicle traffic has been provided earlier in this Staff Report. Future improvements will be reviewed for impacts to trees. With regard to drainage, the project has been conditioned to retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site that is created by future construction and grading, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. With regard to traffic, no construction is proposed at this time; however future construction vehicles will be required to comply with City regulations including hours of construction (7:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday), and parking of vehicles on streets. The net increase of four (there is one home on the site currently) single-family homes is expected to have an insignificant increase in traffic to the neighborhood. Future improvements, including driveways and fences, will be required to comply with City Code. Any complaints of violation of City standards will be investigated and addressed. No other comments have been received at the time of the preparation of this Staff Report. 4 The dusky-footed woodrat is a Special-status wildlife species. Application No. SUB 12-0002; 20400 Hill Avenue Page 5 of 7 42 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 subdivision is consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density, which allows up to 1.09 dwelling units per acre. The maximum number of units allowed on the existing lot is five (5) which is consistent with the proposal. The proposed parcels meet and exceed the minimum lot size required of 40,000 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. No development or improvements are proposed at this time. Future improvements, including but not limited to new homes and grading and paving of driveways and private streets, will require Design Review and/or building permits. Future development of residential homes will be reviewed for impacts on views and privacy. Likewise, design review approval will not be granted unless future development is compatible with neighboring residential structures. Design review approval will also be contingent on preserving the natural landscape. 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. A Preliminary Soils Report satisfactorily addresses the recommendations of the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. An in-depth site specific geotechnical investigation will be prepared for each lot (including design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls, basements, swimming pools, etc.) prior to the issuance of building permits for individual residences. 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 five (5) primary dwelling units. The development meets or exceeds the zoning district standards for the development of single family homes as proposed by this subdivision. The project is compatible with the surrounding density of development which includes residential uses to the north, east, and south, and a Water Company property to the west. 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 to Section 15070 and following of Title 14, Division 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 Application No. SUB 12-0002; 20400 Hill Avenue Page 6 of 7 43 Application No. SUB 12-0002; 20400 Hill Avenue Page 7 of 7 to adopt a Negative Declaration was properly circulated for public review and available for review beginning October 1, 2012. Finding #6: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The project meets this finding. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by the Planning Department and circulated to the following agencies: West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, 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 local School Districts. The applicant will be required to comply with all conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site requested by all 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 site includes an ingress and egress easement for the San Jose Water Company, a sanitary sewer easement for the West Valley Sanitary District, and a road easement, as provided in the Preliminary Title Report for the property. The subdivision, as proposed, will not conflict with these easements. Future improvements will be reviewed to ensure that they do not conflict with easements for access or use. 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 applicant will be required to conform to all standards, requirements, and conditions of the Sanitary Sewer District. The applicant will be required to submit a sewer improvement plan and an on-site privately maintained sewer system designed in accordance with Sanitary Sewer District standards. 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 beginning October 1, 2012. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Negative Declaration and Tentative Map 2. Initial Study and Negative Declaration, dated October 1, 2012 3. Public Hearing Notice, Notification Mailing Addresses, Subdivision Distribution List 4. Neighbor Notification forms 5. Arborist Report, dated October 2, 2012 6. Biological Assessment, dated July 18, 2012 7. Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plan (Exhibit "A") 44 RESOLUTION NO. 12-045   A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (SUB12-0002) LOCATED AT 20400 HILL AVENUE WHEREAS, on May 31 2012, an application and tentative subdivision map was submitted by Gregory Howell on behalf of the owners MTNRMT, LLC, requesting approval to subdivide a 6.27 acre site into five parcels, located at 20400 Hill Avenue. The property is located within the R1-40,000 Zoning District (APN 517-18-048); 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 20-day public review period beginning October 1, 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 October 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 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: 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 Policy LU 1.1 which affirms that the city shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached residences; 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: (1) That the proposed map or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; (3) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (4) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of 45 Resolution No. 12-045  Page 2    development; (5) That the design of the subdivision or building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (6) That the design of the subdivision or building site or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems; (7) That the design of the subdivision or building site or type or improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. In this connection, the advisory agency may grant tentative approval if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the advisory agency to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site; (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act") will not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4; and (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision or building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. Section 4: 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 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and approves application # SUB 12-0002, for the project located at 20400 Hill Avenue, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 24th day of October 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Tina K. Walia        Chair, Planning Commission  46 Resolution No. 12-045  Page 3    EXHIBIT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DESIGN REVIEW & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. SUB 12-0002 LOCATED AT 20400 HILL AVENUE 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 47 Resolution No. 12-045  Page 4    6. Tentative Subdivision Map. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map denominated Exhibit "A". A final map shall be prepared substantially in accord with the tentative map as approved. Any substantial change to the tentative map may require additional review by the Planning Commission. All proposed changes to the Tentative Subdivision Map must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. 7. Stormwater. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by future construction and grading, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. The project will be reviewed in accordance with the most recent and up to date NPDES Standards which are jointly administered by CDD and DPW. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be retained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete retention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to retain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. 8. 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. 48 Resolution No. 12-045  Page 5    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. 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. 9. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Report. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated October 2, 2012 and as specified by the City Arborist, are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. 10. Compliance with Fire Department. All requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. Future development shall be reviewed for compliance with Fire Department requirements. 11. 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. 12. 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: 49 Resolution No. 12-045  Page 6    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. 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. 13. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. Widen Hill Avenue and extend curb and gutter along north property line of proposed Parcel 1 to match existing Hill Avenue improvements to the east. b. Provide fire truck turn-around where required by Fire Department. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 50 Resolution No. 12-045  Page 7    approval. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park Development fee prior to Final Map approval. 23. The owner/applicant shall provide the Director of Public Works with a plan describing how owner/applicant will implement all BMPs and other measures required to reduce the stormwater runoff impacts of the project, as described in and required by the City’s NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2009-0074. The measures included in this plan shall include, but are not limited to, construction site control measures, plans for storm drain stenciling, and landscaping measures. This plan must be approved by the Director of Public Works. Prior to final map approval, the owner/applicant shall implement the plan, including paying City any fees for reviewing the plan, inspection and reporting. 24. The owner/applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, waiving the owner/applicant’s right, and the right of owner/applicant’s successor(s) in interest, to protest the annexation of the property or any portion thereof into the Saratoga Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 for the purpose of providing for the maintenance of any landscaped stormwater treatment systems or hydromodification controls developed on the property. 25. Prior to beginning of construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if required, to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City prior to beginning of construction and maintained on site at all times during construction. 26. 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. 27. Geotechnical Clearance. All requirements in the Geotechnical Clearance memorandum dated August 21, 2012, and as specified by the City Engineer are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. 51 Resolution No. 12-045  Page 8    28. In-depth site specific geotechnical investigations must be prepared for each lot (including design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls, basements, swimming pools, etc.) at the time of development application for each individual residence and Geotechnical Clearance must be granted for each individual lot prior to development of each lot. 29. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 30. 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. 31. 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. 52 Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration SUB12-0002; Five Lot Subdivision For: Subdivision Owner: MTNRMT, LLC Public Review Period: October 1, 2012 to October 22, 2012 53 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 2 1. Project title Initial Study and Negative Declaration : SUB12-0002; Five Lot Subdivision; 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 : 20400 Hill Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 / 517-18-048 5. Project sponsor name and address: MTNRMT, 410 N. Santa Cruz Avenue; Los Gatos, California 95030 LLC 6. General plan designation : Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) 7. Zoning : R1-40,000 8. Description of project : The applicant proposes to develop the 6.27 acre site into a residential subdivision consisting of five parcels ranging in size from 1.08 acres to 1.38 acres. Access to the subdivision will be via Hill Avenue and Montalvo Heights Drive. Approximately 0.24 acres would be dedicated to streets and driveways. The site has an overall slope of approximately 16.4%. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project is located at 20400 Hill Avenue in Saratoga, California (Figure 1). Residential uses surround the Project area to the north, east, and south, and San Jose Water Company property borders the Project area to the west. Villa Montalvo Arboretum County Park is located one-half mile to the south, with residential housing occupying the area between the park and the Project site. 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) 54 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 3 Figure 1: Project Location 55 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 4 Figure 2 Tentative Parcel Map 56 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue 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: 57 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue 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. 58 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue 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-d) No development is proposed at this time. There are no scenic resources or historic buildings on the site. No development is proposed at this time and no trees are currently proposed for removal. Subdivision of the property does not require construction, and therefore no trees will be impacted until the individual lots are developed. The City Arborist has inventoried the site for potential future conflict and/or removal of trees. Future development will require removal of some trees. Future development of each individual lot will be reviewed for relevant impacts and protective measures or special mitigating design to construct the individual parcels will be required at that time. Design of the homes, driveway footprints, and road access to the lot will need to be considerate of trees. The applicant will be required to obtain approval to remove protected trees and replace those trees in accordance with their value. Future development will be reviewed for impacts on views, scenic vistas, and compatibility with the surroundings, as appropriate. Design review approval will not be granted unless future development is compatible with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district and the natural environment. Design review approval will also be contingent on preserving the natural landscape insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site, minimizing tree and soil removal, and minimizing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. Standard conditions of approval for future development will restrict light and/or glare impacts in the area. (Sources: Arborist Report prepared by City of Saratoga Arborist, dated September 10, 2012 Review of the project, City of Saratoga Municipal Code §15-13) Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Aesthetics. 59 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue 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) 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 60 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 9 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X DISCUSSION: a-e) The project will not have a significant impact on air quality. The project does not include construction or development at this time. Future development will be reviewed for relevant impacts. Therefore no mitigation is necessary or required at this time 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) A biological assessment was performed for the property by H. T. Harvey & Associates. The assessment involved a review of relevant background information combined with reconnaissance- level surveys conducted on July 11, 2012. Information concerning threatened, endangered, or other special-status species that could occur in the Project region was reviewed including the presence and distribution of biotic habitats, potentially regulated habitats, and special-status species. A report dated July 18, 2012 describes the findings. One special-status wildlife species, described below, is known or expected to occur within the habitats present in the Project area. All other known special status animal species were determined to be absent from the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat or to evidence that a species does not occur in the Project vicinity. Per the Bio-Assessment: 61 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 10 Three (3) dusky-footed woodrat nests were observed within the eucalyptus woodland (known habitat) during the survey of the Project site. Although no development is currently proposed, it is possible that future clearing of the eucalyptus woodland vegetation may occur. While such activities could result in the injury or mortality of dusky-footed woodrats, this species is abundant in the region and Project impacts would affect very few individuals and only a very small proportion of the regional population. Therefore, Project-related impacts would not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA. e) No development is proposed at this time and no trees are currently proposed for removal. Subdivision of the property does not require construction, and therefore no trees will be impacted until the individual lots are developed. The City Arborist has inventoried the site for potential future conflict and/or removal of trees. Future development will require removal of some trees. Future development of each individual lot will be reviewed for relevant impacts and protective measures or special mitigating design to construct the individual parcels will be required at that time. Design of the homes, driveway footprints, and road access to the lot will need to be considerate of trees. The applicant will be required to obtain approval to remove protected trees and replace those trees in accordance with their value. f) There is no known 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 September 10, 2012 Biological Assessment by H. T. Harvey & Associates dated July 18, 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: 62 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 11 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. 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, Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc., completed a geotechnical peer review of the subject permit application on August 16, 2012. The documents reviewed included a Preliminary Soils Report, prepared by JF Consulting, dated July 3, 2012; the Tentative Map prepared by Westfall Engineers, dated May 21, 2012; and a Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Report prepared by JF Consulting, dated February 15, 2012. The referenced Preliminary Soils Report included advancement of 10 exploratory borings at the subject property. Bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation were generally encountered at approximately 2 to 7 feet in depth. Surficial deposits were identified as artificial fill, colluvium and alluvium. The consultant has concluded all proposed lots are buildable. Either conventional spread footing or pier and grade beam foundations are indicated to be appropriate (depending on final building design). The consultant also indicated that basements might be feasible for future residences. Parcels 1 and 2 were found to contain relatively thick accumulations of potentially expansive soil. While the proposed subdivision is potentially constrained by strong seismic ground shaking, 63 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 12 expansive earth materials, and shallow slope movement, the referenced Preliminary Soils Report satisfactorily addresses the recommendations of the previous geotechnical peer review. No development is proposed at this time. Future development will be reviewed for relevant impacts. In-depth site specific geotechnical investigations must be prepared for each lot (including design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls, basements, swimming pools, etc.). Geotechnical Clearance must be granted for each individual lot prior to the issuance of building permits for individual residences. Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on geology and soils. (Sources: Geotechnical Review, by Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc dated August 16, 2012) 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) No development is proposed at this time. Future development will be reviewed for relevant impacts. Therefore no mitigation is necessary or required at this time in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. 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 64 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 13 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 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) No development is proposed at this time. Future development will be reviewed for relevant impacts. The site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. The site is not located within two miles of a public airport, nor is there a relevant airport land use plan. There are no known private airstrips in the vicinity. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, nor expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. 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 65 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 14 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 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) No development is proposed at this time. Future development will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring conformance with applicable water quality, hydrology standards, and waste discharge requirements. Future development will be reviewed for relevant impacts, including the availability of and impacts to groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, erosion or siltation that might increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, and impacts on stormwater drainage systems. Future development will be subject to standard construction best management practices (BMPs) to treat and minimize runoff. Construction BMPs and Project features will be reviewed with the City to ensure that the Project meets standards for water quality protection and will be consistent with the Project storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Stormwater Pollution Prevention inspections will be required at appropriate intervals. Impervious surface treatment measures may include bioswales, filters, and/or detention ponds. Future development will be reviewed for impacts related to any relevant flood zone areas. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is not expected in the site area. 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 66 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 15 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 DISCUSSION: a-c) No development is proposed at this time. The site is zoned for residential uses. The subdivision would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any known 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 subdivsion does not conflict with any goals or policies of the City’s General Plan, Subdivision ordinance or Zoning ordinance. Future development will be reviewed for relevant impacts. 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) 67 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 16 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 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. 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 68 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 17 DISCUSSION: a-c) No development is proposed at this time. The neighborhood includes a mix of single-family homes. 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 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. No development is proposed at this time. Future development of the project shall 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 future development of the site would not affect their ability to provide services. The project site is located in the Los Gatos Union School District (high school) and the Saratoga Union School District (elementary). Development of the site 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. 69 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 18 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) 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. Park in-lieu fees will be paid, as appropriate, for future development. 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 70 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 19 DISCUSSION: a-f) No development is proposed at this time. Future development would 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: a-g) Water supply to the project site is served by San Jose Water Company and sewer services are provided by West Valley Sanitation District. No development is proposed at this time. Future development of the site would not significantly increase the demand for water or sanitary sewer facilities. Future development of the site would be reviewed for any increase in stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions. Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Utilities and Service Systems. 71 City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration 20400 Hill Avenue Page 20 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 subdivision, which includes an application for subdivision of one lot into five lots. No development is proposed at this time. Future development will be reviewed for relevant impacts. 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. Tentative Map 4. Arborist Report prepared by Richard Gessner, dated August 12, 2012 5. Arborist Report prepared by Kate Bear, dated September 10, 2012 6. Geotechnical Review and Clearance, dated August 21, 2012. 7. Biological Assessment by H. T. Harvey & Associates dated July 18, 2012 72 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, October 24 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: SUB 12-0002 OWNER/APPLICANT: MTNRMT, LLC / Gregory Howell ADDRESS/APN: 20400 Hill Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 / 517-18-048 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to develop a 6.27 acre site into a residential subdivision consisting of five parcels ranging in size from 1.08 acres to 1.38 acres. No trees protected by City Code are requested for removal. No development is proposed at this time. Future development will be reviewed for relevant impacts. 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 October 2, 2012 to October 29, 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, Planner (408) 868-1230 73 Subject APN: 517-18-048 Address: 20400 Hill Avenue 500’ Radius Saratoga, CA 95070 Advanced Listing Services Ownership Listings & Radius Maps P.O. Box 2593 •Dana Point, CA •92624 Office: (949) 361-3921 •Fax: (949) 361-3923 www.Advancedlisting.com 74 Parcel Number Owner Name #5237 500' OWNERSHIP LISTING 517-12-020 MURAT M & SANIYE B ALAYBEYI 517-15-013 MONTALVO ASSOCIATION 517-18-004 WATER WORKS SAN JOSE 517-18-007 MONTGOMERY J JR AND ANITA M 517-18-014 CLAIRE E MARINO 517-18-018 THOMSON E JOYCE 517-18-021 JOHN D COUCH 517-18-022 ROBERT H PETERSON 517-18-023 ABDI & LEILY ALTAFI 517-18-024 BAOCI C MO 517-18-025 MAJID & SHADI JALALIAN 517-18-026 ALFRED CHARLES MURABITO 517-18-028 GEOFF & HOLMES CHERYL PERFECT 517-18-029 JAISHANKAR & SATHI MENON 517-18-030 WILLIAM T & KATHY M CLEARY 517-18-040 LAURENCE B & ANNA M BOUCHER 517-18-041 WILLIAM T & KATHY M CLEARY 517-18-046 GARY & JANICE VALENZUELA 517-18-047 PAUL L & HELGA A HULME 517-18-048 MTNRMT LLC 517-18-049 RICHARD H & RUTH MATTERN 517-18-050 JOSEPH & BARBARA GUGLIELMI 517-18-051 PAUL I & AUDREY V SUCIU 517-18-052 MICHAEL D & DONNA J BUTCHER 517-18-053 PAUL H & JUDY A MAGNUSON 517-18-054 WATER WORKS SAN JOSE 517-18-055 WATER WORKS SAN JOSE 517-18-056 SARATOGA CITY OF 517-18-060 MIKE G OLAVARRI 517-18-061 MIKE G OLAVARRI 517-18-062 ROBERT B & KATHLEEN M FREDERICKSON 517-19-001 MONTGOMERY J JR AND ANITA M 517-19-027 KEITH D & JANET M MILLER 517-19-042 AMAR A CHOKHAWALA 517-19-043 NANCY NGUYEN 517-19-060 MARK E & MARGARET C TOLLIVER 517-19-062 OLLE & CATHERINE HALLENGREN 517-19-066 PAUL J MASON 517-19-067 JITENDRA & NEEPA J MAHESHWARI 517-19-071 LEOPOLD PIVK 517-19-072 MARK E & MARGARET C TOLLIVER 517-19-076 DAVID F & MARGARET S ELGART 517-19-078 WILLIAM H & BARBARA S AVERY 517-19-079 LEOPOLD PIVK 517-19-080 ALLEN, CHRISTOPHER & CYNTHIA 1988 FMLY TR 517-19-081 CURRY W R 517-19-082 TOM C & DIANE H JEW 75 517-19-083 RAJIV & RITU BATRA 517-22-103 WALTER J & CATHERINE D FULDE 517-22-104 METZ TRUST 517-22-105 DONALD R & SHEILA S CALL 517-22-116 JOANNE L GEARHEARD 517-22-117 JOANNE L GEARHEARD 76 Owner Address Owner City, State Zip Prepared for: 20400 Hill Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 20500 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 P O BOX 158 SARATOGA CA 95071 110 W TAYLOR ST SAN JOSE CA 95110 PO BOX 401 SARATOGA CA 95071 20553 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 14931 VICKERY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 15001 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 15055 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 11367 N VIA VENTANA WAY FRESNO CA 93730 15159 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 15201 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 15253 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 14941 VICKERY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 14921 VICKERY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 20645 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 20605 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 20645 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 15244 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 15222 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 22 S SANTA CRUZ AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 20460 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 6225 N 42ND ST PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253 20420 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 20433 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 20445 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 110 W TAYLOR ST SAN JOSE CA 95110 110 W TAYLOR ST SAN JOSE CA 95110 13777 Fruitvale Avenue SARATOGA CA 95070 PO BOX 591 SARATOGA CA 95070 PO BOX 591 SARATOGA CA 95070 20470 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 PO BOX 401 SARATOGA CA 95071 14900 VICKERY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 14920 VICKERY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 14910 VICKERY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 20410 MONTALVO OAKS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 20420 MONTALVO OAKS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 20416 MONTALVO OAKS SARATOGA CA 95070 14891 VINE ST SARATOGA CA 95070 20411 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 20410 MONTALVO OAKS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 20301 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 14917 VINE ST SARATOGA CA 95070 20411 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 20415 MONTALVO OAKS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 28000 AUDREY SMITH LN SARATOGA CA 95070 28010 AUDREY SMITH LN SARATOGA CA 95070 77 28020 AUDREY SMITH LN SARATOGA CA 95070 15164 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 15102 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 14930 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 15252 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 15252 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 78 LIST OF AGENCIES RECEIVING COPIES OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP West Valley Sanitation District 100 E. Sunnyoaks Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Pacific Gas & Electric Land Services 111 Almaden Blvd. Rm. 814 San Jose, CA 95126 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 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Page 1 of 4 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. Application #: ARB12-0045 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 20400 Hill Avenue Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: MTNRMT, LLC Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 517-18-048 Email: ron@tatedevelopment.com Report History: #1 Date: Tentative map received August 8, 2012 Arborist report received August 16, 2012 Proposed housing layout received August 21, 2012 Report done September 10, 2012 #2 – This report replaces report #1 Revised grading plan received October 1, 2012 Report completed October 2, 2012 PROJECT SCOPE The applicant has submitted plans to the City to subdivide a parcel into five lots for new homes. The existing buildings have been demolished. No trees protected by City Code are requested for removal to subdivide the property. 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: A Tentative Map was prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. and dated May 21, 2012. A Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan was prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. and dated August 2, 2012. The conceptual grading plan showed potential house foot prints on each subdivided lot. The Conceptual Grading Plan was revised to better protect and preserve trees on site during construction of new homes. The revised plans were dated September 28, 2012. Also submitted for review was an arborist report by Monarch Consulting Arborists, LLC, prepared by Richard Gessner and dated August 12, 2012. 87 20400 Hill Avenue Page 2 of 4 TREE INFORMATION Tree Inventory The arborist report prepared by Monarch Consulting included an inventory of 94 trees on site. Each tree was marked with a numbered aluminum tag indicating the reference number for that tree in the report. The submitted report made general observations about the condition of trees, provided critical root zone protection distances for construction and assessed values for each tree. Tree Removals: No trees are requested or approved for removal to subdivide the property. However, to construct driveways and houses on each lot, some trees will require removal. The house footprints, driveway paths and grading have been revised to allow the retention and preservation of some trees that initially would have required removal. A summary of trees that are potentially in conflict with the project is included in the table below. Recommendations are provided in the following paragraphs. The revised grading plan dated September 28, 2012, accommodates the trees in the right column that should be preserved. Lot # Trees potentially in conflict Trees that would qualify for removal Trees that should be preserved 1 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 814, 815 808, 809, 810, 811, 812 804, 805, 806, 807, 814, 815 2 829, 872, 873, 877, 878, 879, 881 872, 873, 877, 878, 879 829, 881 3 838, 841, 852 None 838, 841, 852 4 813, 844,845, 846 813 844, 845, 856 5 801, 802, 803, a black oak (no no.) on adjacent property 802, 803 801, black oak Recommendations for design modifications to protect trees: Lot #1: No changes in grade for construction of the new road to the other lots (between lot #1 and lots #4 and 5) will be permitted any closer to trees 804, 805, 806 or 807 than the edge of the existing road. It should be designed so that if widened, the newer portion of the road is on the side towards Lot #5 and away from the trees on Lot #1. Trees 808, 809, 810, 811 and 812 are acacias and a bay tree in fair to poor condition, and these trees meet the criteria in the City Code to be removed to construct the new road. These findings will be needed in arborist report for the design review process. The new semicircular driveway for this property requires modification so that it does not encroach within the critical root protection zone (CRZ) for trees 804 – 807. In addition, any portion of the driveway that extends under the canopy of one of these trees (even if it is outside of the critical root protection zone) must be constructed on top of grade and of pervious materials. Oaks 814 and 815 are potentially impacted by the proposed fire truck turn around. This should be designed so that it remains outside of the CRZ of these two trees, and will require construction requirements so that it remains on top of grade where it is under their canopies. 88 20400 Hill Avenue Page 3 of 4 Lot #2: The grassy swale along the property line should be rerouted or modified so that excavation is not required under the canopy of oak tree 881, and the swale does not direct water towards this tree. Grading activities for the pad for the new home must remain outside the canopy of oak tree 829. Lot #3: The design has been modified so that the house and grading do not encroach within the critical root (24.17 feet) zone at tree #838. Oak tree 841 may be impacted by drain lines to the dissipater pit. Excavation for these lines must either be located outside of its canopy or the trench should be hand dug, leaving all roots measuring 2 inches or more in diameter intact. Pipes can be placed under the roots. The design for the proposed new driveway around oak tree 852 requires modification of the design so that it adheres to the current driveway footprint to the extent possible, while remaining on the newly created lot. No portion of the new driveway may extend any closer to the tree’s trunk than 21 feet. It also requires mitigating special design to lessen the impact of surrounding the entire tree, such as being constructed on top of grade and of pervious materials. Lot #4: Larch tree 813 is in conflict with the proposed driveway. It is in poor condition and would qualify for removal to construct the project. Findings to this effect will be required as part of design review for the project. The footprint for the proposed driveway and house has been modified so that the existing grade can be preserved within 15 feet of the trunks of oak trees 844, 845 and 846. Lot #5: The proposed driveway has been modified so that it remains 12 feet from the trunks of two large black oaks (801 and another tree not in the inventory) that grow at the edge of the property. The driveway should also be constructed entirely on top of grade, and of pervious materials, such as pavers on sand. Silk oak trees 802 and 803 may be in conflict with the proposed private drive to the other parcels, especially if the road is to remain farther from the oaks and redwoods (trees 804 – 807) on the other side. The silk trees would qualify for removal and replacement as part of the project if necessary. Security Deposit for the Projection of Trees: No security deposit is required to subdivide the property. FINDINGS Tree Removal No trees are requested or approved for removal to subdivide the property. However, some trees will require removal or special mitigating design as part of the design review to construct the individual parcels. The following trees meet the criteria allowing their removal and replacement as part of the projects to construct houses on the lots: 802, 803, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 872, 873, 877, 878 and 879. These findings will be needed in detail as each project is submitted for design review. 89 20400 Hill Avenue Page 4 of 4 The following trees should be retained, protected and preserved during construction of the proposed houses: 801, another black oak, 804, 805, 806, 807, 814, 815, 829, 838, 841, 844, 845, 846, 852 and 881. New Construction Subdivision of the property does not require construction, so trees are not impacted by the subdivision of the property until the individual lots are developed. The projects for each lot have been designed to provide adequate setback from trees during construction of the new houses. REQUIREMENTS 1. This arborist report shall be incorporated into the resolution approving subdivision. 2. Tree Protection Security Deposit – not required 3. Tree Protection Fencing – not required 4. No protected trees are authorized or requested for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project. 5. No construction activities are approved for this project. 6. A black oak on the property line for lot #5, and near to the proposed house and driveway, shall be inventoried and included in future arborist reports. 7. The following conditions will apply to future submitted projects on these properties: a. The house on lot #3 shall remain at least 25 feet from redwood 838. b. No grading or construction shall occur within 15 feet of trees 844, 845, and 846 on lot #4. c. The driveway on lot #5 shall remain at least 12 feet from oak 801 and another black oak not in the inventory. d. The fire truck turn around shall be designed so that it remains at least 15 feet from oaks 814, 815 and 21 feet from oak 852. e. Designs shall retain the existing grade for the specified critical root zone (CRZ) on all trees during design development and construction. f. The fire truck turn around shall be constructed on top of grade where it is under a tree’s canopy. g. Where under tree canopies, driveways shall be built on top of grade and of pervious materials. h. Utility connections shall remain outside of tree canopies, or shall be hand dug to a depth of 3 feet, preserving all roots measuring 2 inches or more in diameter. Utility pipes can be placed under intact roots. 90 20400 Hill Avenue Numbered map provided by Monarch Consulting Arborists, LLC 91 983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210 18 July 2012 Mr. Gregory Howell Howell Development & Investments, Inc. 410 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 Subject: 20400 Hill Avenue Project Biological Resources Report (HTH #3408-01) Dear Mr. Howell: Per your request, this biological resources report provides H. T. Harvey & Associates’ assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed 20400 Hill Avenue Project (Project) on sensitive biological resources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The following project description is based upon the engineering plans (dated 21 May 2012) provided to H. T. Harvey & Associates by Howell Development & Investments, Inc. on 10 July 2012. The 6.6-acre (ac) proposed Project area is composed of the privately owned and maintained parcel located at 20400 Hill Avenue in Saratoga, California (Figure 1). Low-density residential housing surrounds the Project area to the north, east, and south, and San Jose Water Company property borders the Project area to the west. Villa Montalvo Arboretum County Park is located 0.5 mile (mi) to the south, with residential housing occupying the area between the park and the Project site. It is our understanding that Howell Development & Investments, Inc. proposes to develop the 6.6-ac parcel into a residential subdivision consisting of five lots. Access to these lots will be via Hill Avenue and Montalvo Heights Drive. METHODS H. T. Harvey & Associates wildlife ecologist Matthew Timmer, M.S. and plant ecologist Élan Alford, Ph.D., characterized the existing biotic conditions within the Project area including the presence and distribution of biotic habitats, potentially regulated habitats, and special-status species. This assessment involved a review of relevant background information combined with reconnaissance-level surveys conducted on 11 July 2012. Information concerning threatened, endangered, or other special-status species that could occur in the Project region was reviewed, including information from the following sources: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and its associated species accounts (CNDDB 2012) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) web site: (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm) 92 !. 0.6 0 0.60.3 Miles± PACIFICOCEAN Project Location Detail California 0 20 Miles ± Figure 1: Vicinity Map July 2012N:\Projects3400\3408-01\Misc\Vicinity Map.mxdProject Vicinity 20400 Hill Ave (3408-01) 93 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 3 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2012) Jepson Manual Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) Calflora (2012) Consortium of California Herbaria (2012) Cornell Lab of Ornithology eBird Database (eBird 2012) Relevant scientific literature, technical databases, and resource agency reports A search of CNDDB Rarefind published accounts (CNDDB 2012) was conducted for special- status plant and wildlife species occurring in the Castle Rock Ridge, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Mindego Hill, Cupertino, San José West, Los Gatos, Laurel, Felton, Davenport, and Big Basin). In addition, for plants, we reviewed all species on current CNPS Lists 1A, 1B, 2, or 3 occurring in any of the nine USGS quadrangles listed above. We also considered the CNPS plant list for Santa Clara County, as the CNPS does not maintain quadrangle-level records for List 4 species. EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS General Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Vegetation. The Project area is composed of a mixture of vineyard, eucalyptus woodland, mixed woodland, and developed areas situated on and around a hill that dominates the center of the Project area. The majority of the Project area supports vineyard habitat (Photograph 1) that is dominated by rows of cultivated grapes (Vitis vinifera). The grape plants on the eastern portion of the Project site are bigger and better established than those in the western portion of the site, and weedy, disturbance loving species such as wild oats (Avena fatua), curly dock (Rumex crispus), small flowered lotus (Acmispon parviflorus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), hedgehog dogtail grass (Cynosurus echinatus), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), and French broom (Genista monspessulana) are present between the rows. Within the vineyard on the western portion of the site, several small trees, including plum (Prunus sp.) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), have become established. Photograph 1. View of the vineyard in the southeastern part of the Project site. 94 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 4 Mixed woodland borders much of the vineyard habitat within the Project area (Photograph 2). Native species including coast live oak, valley oak (Quercus lobata), larch (Larix sp.), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) constitute a large component of this habitat. However, a remnant orchard that includes edible fig (Ficus carica), pear (Pyrus sp.), and varied citrus trees (Citrus sp.), is also present. The mixed woodland habitat has an open to intermittent canopy with the tallest trees reaching approximately 40 feet (ft) in height. The understory is dominated by wild oats, red brome (Bromus madritensis), ivy (Hedera helix), and soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus). Eucalyptus woodland is present along the westernmost Project boundary (Photograph 3). This habitat is composed primarily of blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) trees that reach 40 ft in height and form a closed to intermittent canopy. However, other trees such as coast live oak, valley oak, Monterey pine, English walnut (Juglans regia), and black oak (Quercus kelloggii) are found in limited quantities within this community. Understory species within the woodland include young coast live oak trees, poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), French broom, and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). The eucalyptus woodland borders a small, intermittent drainage that runs adjacent to, but just beyond, the westernmost Project boundary (i.e., the channel is not within the Project boundary). The channel has a natural substrate in the portion that runs from Montalvo Heights Drive north to approximately the midpoint of the Project’s western boundary, at which point it changes to a concrete-lined channel (Photograph 4). At the time of the survey, the concrete-lined portion of the channel was dry. Photograph 3. The eucalyptus woodland that occurs along the sloped western border of the Project area. Photograph 2. Developed habitat with mixed woodland in the background. 95 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 5 Developed habitat is found in the central, high, flat portions of the Project area. This area is characterized by paved roads, old building sites that have been graded, and a small lawn with attendant landscape plantings (Photograph 2). The graded areas were mostly bare at the time of the survey. The lawn is composed of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) with a large 40-ft tall coast live oak at its center, and a mulched landscape feature with southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), tiger lily (Lilium sp.), lily of the Nile (Agapanthus praecox), and other planted ornamentals is present adjacent to the lawn. Periwinkle (Vinca major) and ivy are also present in the developed habitat. Wildlife. The habitats in the Project area are isolated from large open space areas in the vicinity, including Villa Montalvo Arboretum County Park, El Sereno Open Space Preserve, Sanborn- Skyline County Park, and Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, by residential housing, roads, fences, and other development. Thus, many terrestrial wildlife species that occupy these undeveloped habitats are prevented from dispersing into the Project area. Nevertheless, the Project area provides suitable habitat for many wildlife species, especially those that are adapted to high levels of human disturbance. The vineyard offers little in the way of habitat because there is little cover for wildlife. However, bird species that nest in the adjacent mixed woodland and developed areas will forage here, including black phoebes (Sayornis nigricans), Anna’s hummingbirds (Calypte anna), dark- eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis), and western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica). In addition, reptiles such as the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) may sun themselves on the warm soils during the day in these relatively open areas. The mixed woodland habitat in the Project area supports many common species of reptiles, birds, and mammals. Western scrub-jays, oak titmice (Baeolophus inornatus), Nuttall’s woodpeckers (Picoides nuttallii), bushtits (Psaltriparus minimus), and chestnut-backed chickadees (Poecile rufescens) are year-round residents in Santa Clara County in mixed woodland habitats that have an oak component. In addition, American robins (Turdus migratorius) and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), among other bird species, will opportunistically feed on the fruit of trees in the remnant orchard. The deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), California mouse (Peromyscus californicus), and introduced eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) nest and forage in this habitat, and reptiles found in adjacent vineyard and developed habitats also occur regularly in mixed woodland habitat. Photograph 4. The small, off-site drainage channel that runs along, and just outside of, the western property boundary. 96 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 6 While the eucalyptus woodland is not composed of a large diversity of plants, its structural complexity offers habitat to a variety of species. Spotted towhees (Pipilo maculatus) and Bewick’s wrens (Thryomanes bewickii) occur in the dense understory vegetation, and the flowers and nectar of eucalyptus trees attract ruby-crowned kinglets (Regulus calendula), Anna’s hummingbirds, and yellow-rumped warblers (Setophaga coronata) during the winter. Although the eucalyptus trees within the Project area provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors such as the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), no raptor nests were found during reconnaissance surveys of the Project site. However, three large nests of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a California species of special concern, were observed in the eucalyptus woodlands of the Project site during reconnaissance-level surveys. The small drainage channel that runs adjacent to the western Project boundary is not expected to support any special-status aquatic, amphibious, or other wetland-specialist wildlife species due to its extremely small size and disturbed nature. Further, the eucalyptus woodland bordering this channel, including the eucalyptus woodland within the Project boundary, is not expected to support riparian-associated wildlife species as the vegetation within this community is not typical of riparian communities (i.e., the vegetation does not rely on the presence of water in the channel for its survival and is not dependent on the presence of abundant water supplies throughout their growing season) and the scarcity of water in the channel limits the abundance of aquatic invertebrates that often provide prey for riparian-associated vertebrates. Thus, the eucalyptus woodland does not provide the functions and values for wildlife typically associated with riparian habitat. The developed portion of the Project area provides relatively few resources for wildlife species. However, some remnant landscaped flowering plants at the site of the demolished dwellings provides food for common invertebrate species, such as the western tiger swallowtail (Papilio rutulus) and common buckeye (Junonia coenia), were observed on surveys of the Project site. Animal species that occur in adjacent vineyard and mixed woodland habitats will also forage within this area. Special-status Plant and Animal Species As described in Methods above, information concerning threatened, endangered, or other special- status species that could occur in the Project area was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists. The specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each special-status species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species potentially occurring in the Project area. Figures 2a and 2b provide maps of the CNDDB’s special-status plant and animal species records in the general vicinity of the Project site, defined for the purposes of this report as areas within a 5-mile radius of the Project area. These generalized maps are valuable on a historic basis, but do not necessarily represent current conditions. While these records are not definitive, they show areas where special-status species occur or have occurred previously. Special-status Plants. The CNPS identifies 98 special-status plant species that occur in Santa Clara County (for List 4 species) or in at least one of the nine quadrangles that contain or 97 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 7 surround the Project area (for List 1A, 1B, 2, or 3 species). All of these special-status species were determined to be absent from the Project area due to one or more of the following reasons: A lack of specific habitat and/or or edaphic requirements for the species in question The species is known to be extirpated from the area The Project area is outside the highly endemic range of the species in question The elevation range of the species is outside of the range in the Project area Degraded habitat conditions in the Project area are not likely to support the species in question The CNDDB identifies eight special-status plant species as historically occurring within the Project vicinity (Figure 2a). These are the woodland woolythreads (Monolopia gracilens), Santa Clara red ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa), Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina), Indian Valley bushmallow (Malacothamnus aboriginum), robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta), hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber), most beautiful jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus), and Anderson’s manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii). According to CNDDB records, these occurrences are generally in undeveloped areas that are underlain with serpentine soils, which are absent from the Project area, or the species have other edaphic requirements that are not present in the Project area. Therefore, these eight species were determined to be absent from the Project area. Special-status Animals. Based on current CNDDB (2012) records (Figure 2b), several special- status animal species are known to occur in the Project region. However, all but one of these species are determined to be absent from the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat or to evidence that the species does not occur in the Project vicinity. Species considered for occurrence but rejected, as well as the reasons for their rejection, include the following (among others): The lack of aquatic habitats such as streams, ponds, or pools within the Project boundary precludes the presence of aquatic habitat for the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata). Potential aquatic habitat for this species occurs in Lake Ranch Reservoir 2.3 mi to the southwest and Vasona Reservoir 3.3 mi to the east; however, the Project area is isolated from these areas by roads and residential development , and the drainage immediately west of the site does not provide suitable aquatic habitat for the species due to the lack of pools and very shallow conditions. Thus, western pond turtles are not expected to occur on the site. The Project area lacks serpentine soils and associated plants that serve as host plants for the Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), and lies outside of the current known range of this species. The Project area lacks Zayante sand hill habitat, with which the Zayante band-winged grasshopper (Trimerotropis infantilis) is closely associated, and lies outside of the current range of this species. 98 !. Congdon's tarplantCongdon's tarplant robust spineflowerrobust spineflower Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita robust spineflowerrobust spineflower Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons hairless popcorn-flowerhairless popcorn-flower Ben Lomond buckwheatBen Lomond buckwheat woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Bonny Doon manzanitaBonny Doon manzanita Indian Valley bush-mallowIndian Valley bush-mallow woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Dudley's lousewortDudley's lousewort Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanita saline cloversaline clover San Francisco collinsiaSan Francisco collinsia Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow long-beard lichenlong-beard lichen slender silver mossslender silver moss Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Franciscan onionFranciscan onion Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads most beautiful jewel-flowermost beautiful jewel-flower Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons most beautiful jewel-flowermost beautiful jewel-flower hairless popcorn-flowerhairless popcorn-flower Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia smooth lessingiasmooth lessingiaAnderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita fragrant fritillaryfragrant fritillary Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya most beautiful jewel-flowermost beautiful jewel-flower Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya most beautiful jewel-flowermost beautiful jewel-flower Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle most beautiful jewel-flowermost beautiful jewel-flower Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita most beautiful jewel-flowermost beautiful jewel-flower Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita most beautiful jewel-flowermost beautiful jewel-flower Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanita ·|}þ85 ·|}þ9 ·|}þ87 ·|}þ236 ·|}þ35 ·|}þ17 ·|}þ82 ·|}þ236 !"#$880 !"#$280 Figure 2a: CNDDB Plants Records July 2012N:\Projects3400\3408-01\Misc\Fig 2a CNDDB Plants.mxd20400 Hill Ave (3408-01) 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles± LEGEND Project Location 5-Mile Radius CNDDB Records Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Plants !. 99 !.hoary bathoary bat hoary bathoary bat long-eared owllong-eared owl Santa Cruz kangaroo ratSanta Cruz kangaroo rat pallid batpallid bat Zayante band-winged grasshopperZayante band-winged grasshopper western pond turtlewestern pond turtle steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPScoho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPScoho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPScoho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU white-tailed kitewhite-tailed kite steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog An isopodAn isopod coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog western pond turtlewestern pond turtle Cooper's hawkCooper's hawk Yuma myotisYuma myotis unsilvered fritillaryunsilvered fritillary unsilvered fritillaryunsilvered fritillary pallid batpallid bat western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle burrowing owlburrowing owl burrowing owlburrowing owl Cooper's hawkCooper's hawk western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River N. Central Coast Calif. Roach/Stickleback/Steelhead StreamN. Central Coast Calif. Roach/Stickleback/Steelhead Stream North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CRLFCRLF North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River ·|}þ85 ·|}þ9 ·|}þ87 ·|}þ236 ·|}þ35 ·|}þ17 ·|}þ82 ·|}þ9 ·|}þ236 !"#$880 !"#$280 Figure 2b: CNDDB Animal Records July 2012N:\Projects3400\3408-01\Misc\Fig 2b CNDDB Animals.mxd20400 Hill Ave (3408-01) 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles± LEGEND Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Pr oject Location Animals General Area Aquatic 5-Mile Radius CNDDB Records !. 100 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 10 The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) occurs on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains where aquatic habitat is present, but suitable breeding habitat for this species is absent from the Project area and immediately adjacent parcels. In addition, residential development and roads completely surround the Project site, preventing red- legged frogs from dispersing onto the site from breeding habitat. Thus, the California red-legged frog is not expected to occur on the Project site. The Project area lacks suitable habitat (e.g., riparian, large open expanses of grassland for special-status bird species that may occur at other locations in the Project vicinity, including the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Thus, the Project will not impact any special- status birds. Based on focused surveys of the entire Project area, it was determined that suitable roosting habitat for the Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) is not present. Thus, none of these bat species is expected to occur on the site. One special-status wildlife species, the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, is known or expected to occur within the habitats present in the Project area. San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is a small mammal native to the mountain ranges of the San Francisco Bay area. This species occurs in a variety of woodland, forest, and scrub habitats that afford good cover from aerial and ground predators. Typical dominant plants within woodrat habitat include oaks, poison oak, willows (Salix spp.), and coyote brush. Within these habitats they forage on a variety of food items (e.g., berries, fungi, leaves, flowers, nuts) (Bryiski et al. 1990). The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat constructs large houses, up to 3 ft or more in diameter, made of piled sticks and occasionally leaves. Nests are often placed on the ground among trees, roots, and fallen branches, but they are also occasionally constructed in the tree canopy. Woodrats tend to live in semi-colonial groups. Woodrats designate one chamber of their house for bathroom use or push fecal pellets outside of the house. Due to these habits, active woodrat nest can easily be detected by the presence of fecal/urine stations. Woodrats also add fresh cuttings to their stick house indicating occupancy. Suitable habitat for woodrats was carefully searched during the reconnaissance survey of the Project area, and three woodrat nests were detected in the eucalyptus woodland within the Project boundary. Woodrats may occasionally disperse through other portions of the site, but they are expected to confine their activities primarily to this eucalyptus woodland, which is the only part of the site offering suitable cover for the species. Regulated Habitats Regulated habitats are habitat types that are protected by federal, state, regional, and/or local laws. Such habitats require permits from governing agencies if they are to be disturbed, altered, or lost. The most commonly regulated habitats are wetland and aquatic habitats including rivers, 101 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 11 streams, ponds, and seasonal wetlands, which fall under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or the CDFG, as well as regional and local governments in some circumstances. The city of Saratoga maintains a list of protected creeks for which creek protection setbacks are required. Riparian habitats may fall under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the city of Saratoga. Based on results of the reconnaissance-level field survey, the shallow drainage channel adjacent to the fence along the west side of the Project area is outside of the property boundary; therefore, there are no potentially regulated wetlands or “other waters” on the site. Furthermore, this feature is not listed as a protected creek by the city of Saratoga, and further assessment of the history and source of hydrology of this feature (e.g., to determine whether the channel and its hydrology source are entirely anthropogenic), it is possible that this channel may not be considered jurisdictional by any agenc y. As discussed above, the eucalyptus woodland adjacent to the channel does not function as a true riparian corridor. Thus, no regulated habitats are present on the Project site, and the proposed Project will not result in an impact on regulated habitats. BIOTIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Overview The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating Project impacts and determining which impacts will be significant (Remy et al. 1999). Under CEQA Guidelines section 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), a Project’s effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the Project would: 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 reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, threatened, or rare species In addition to the section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts on consider when analyzing the significance of Project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the Project would: 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 CDFG or USFWS 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 CDFG or USFWS 102 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 12 c) have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means d) interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites e) conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance f) conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan Less-than-significant Impacts Impacts on Upland Habitats (Vineyard, Mixed Woodland, Eucalyptus Woodland, and Developed) and Associated Common Wildlife Species. Construction activities related to the proposed Project may result in the loss or conversion of up to approximately 6.6 ac of vineyard, mixed woodland, eucalyptus woodland, and developed habitat. Impacts on these habitats during construction will reduce their extent in the Project area and will result in a reduction in abundance of some of the common plant and wildlife species that use the site. However, these habitat types are relatively abundant and widespread regionally, and none of the three undeveloped habitats listed in this section represent particularly sensitive, valuable (from the perspective of providing important plant or wildlife habitat), or exemplary occurrences of these habitat types. Therefore, impacts on these habitats, and the loss of potential nesting and foraging opportunities associated with such habitats, are not considered significant. Because the number of individuals of any species that could be disturbed is very small, the Project’s impacts would not substantially reduce regional populations of these species. Thus, these impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA. Impacts on the San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat. The eucalyptus woodland on the Project site provides suitable habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and three dusky-footed woodrat nests were observed within this habitat during the survey of the Project site. Although the proposed Project does not include any development within the eucalyptus woodland, it is possible that future subdivision property owners might clear vegetation within the eucalyptus woodland to further develop individual parcels. Such activities could result in the injury or mortality of dusky-footed woodrats. However, dusky-footed woodrats are abundant in suitable habitat in the region and Project impacts would affect very few individuals and only a very small proportion of the regional population. Therefore, Project-related impacts would not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA. Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Impacts on Water Quality. There is potential for construction activities to result in effects on water quality in and near the Project area. For example, in the absence of measures to prevent 103 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 13 erosion and sedimentation, sediment may wash from construction areas into the drainage channel immediately west of the Project boundary, or soil loosened by grading could slide downslope into this channel. Although this channel may not constitute regulated habitat, and it does not support sensitive aquatic species, it apparently drains to Wildcat Creek, where degradation of water quality could adversely affect fish or other aquatic species. Due to the value of aquatic habitats to a variety of fish, benthic organisms, and other species, degradation of water quality in downstream areas would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following measures will mitigate such impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 1. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. During construction the Project proponent will employ standard construction best management practices (BMPs) to treat and minimize runoff. Construction BMPs and Project features will be reviewed with the City to ensure that the Project meets standards for water quality protection and will be consistent with the Project storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Placement of straw wattles (fiber rolls) or silt fencing along the boundary of the Project site will be implemented according to an erosion control plan that will be prepared to avoid excess discharge during staging and construction. Catch basin inlet protection and installation of straw wattles will be implemented throughout the site during construction. Other construction BMPs that will be reviewed and coordinated with the City, as necessary, for implementation during work include: No litter, debris, or sediment shall be dumped into storm drains. Daily trash and debris removal shall occur at the site. Vehicles and equipment may only be driven within established roads and crossings. Routes and boundaries will be clearly marked and will be located outside of driplines of preserved trees. Equipment staging and parking of vehicles shall occur on established access roads and flat surfaces, avoiding driplines of preserved trees. The integrity and effectiveness of construction fencing and erosion control measures shall be inspected on a daily basis. Corrective actions and repairs shall be carried out immediately for fence breaches and ineffective BMPs. Fueling, washing, and maintenance of vehicles should occur 100 ft away from drainage structures. Equipment shall be regularly maintained to avoid fluid leaks. Any leaks should be captured in containers until equipment is moved to a repair location. Hazardous materials shall be stored more than 100 ft away from drainage structures. Containment and cleanup plans will be prepared and put in place for immediate cleanup of fluid or hazardous materials spills. Stormwater Pollution Prevention inspections shall occur at appropriate intervals. Additional impervious surface treatment measures shall be implemented and may include bioswales, filters, and/or detention ponds. 104 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 14 Impacts from Tree Removal. It is our understanding that the Project will require the removal of approximately six trees as part of Project implementation. The majority of the trees that are to be removed are ordinance sized, planted Monterey pines that range from 12 to 40 ft tall. This impact is potentially significant as the City of Saratoga restricts the removal of any protected tree, defined as follows: (1) any native tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 6-inches or greater when measured at 4.5 ft above the ground, (2) any other tree with a DBH of 10 inches or greater, (3) any tree planted within a public street or right-of-way, (4) any heritage tree (i.e., any tree of historic significance designated by the City Council), (5) any tree that has been planted as a requirement of a development permit, and (6) any tree required to be planted as a replacement. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 2. Tree Removal Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall seek a Tree Removal Permit from the City. The Tree Removal Permit will likely require replacement of any protected trees removed. Impacts from Invasive Weeds. A number of non-native and invasive plant species were observed during the reconnaissance-level botanical survey of the Project site in July 2012 (Table 1). These species are typically opportunistic and will particularly colonize areas of disturbance. Because implementation of the Project would include grading and tree removal there is potential for the Project to cause the spread of non-native, invasive plant species across the site. Invasive weeds occur in all habitat types and can be difficult to eradicate, and many non-native, invasive plant species produce seeds that germinate readily following disturbance. Thus, areas of temporary ground disturbance associated with Project activities could facilitate invasion by these non-native species. In addition, the movement of construction vehicles off-site also would provide an opportunity for the spread of invasive weeds from the Project to other areas at much greater distances. Infestations of the species found on the site, if spread to other areas, could produce monotypic stands that degrade habitat values for, and threaten special-status species and sensitive habitats, a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce impacts resulting from the spread of invasive weeds to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3. Prevent spread of weeds and invasive species. The project proponent will employ the following BMPs for weed control to avoid and minimize the spread of invasive plant species: Heavy equipment used in the project site shall be washed prior to and following work at the site, before the equipment is used in other ground disturbing activities, to prevent spread of weed seeds. Any seed mix used to stabilize bare ground following grading will be certified free of invasive weeds. 105 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 15 Table 1. Invasive Plant Species Observed at the Project Site. Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Where the Species Was Observed in the Project Site Ecological Impact* Invasive Potential* wild oat Avena fatua Vineyard, Mixed Woodland, B B soft chess brome Bromus hordeaceus Vineyard, Mixed Woodland B C red brome Bromus madritensis Mixed Woodland A B hedgehog dogtail grass Cynosurus echinatus Vineyard, Mixed Woodland B B blue gum Eucalyptus globulus Riparian Eucalyptus Woodland B B edible fig Ficus carica Mixed Woodland B A French broom Genista monspessulana Vineyard, Riparian Eucalyptus Woodland A A English ivy Hedera helix Developed, Mixed Woodland A A English holly Ilex aquifolium Developed B B California burclover Medicago polymorpha Vineyard C C olive Olea europaea Mixed Woodland C B Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis Developed C B firethorn Pyracantha angstifolia Mixed woodland C B curly dock Rumex crispus Vineyard C C hedge parsley Torilis arvensis Vineyard C B periwinkle Vinca major Developed B B * A = Severe; B = Moderate; C = Limited. These ratings were derived from the California Invasive Plant Council Website: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/weedlist.php COMPLIANCE WITH ADDITIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO BIOTIC RESOURCES OF THE PROJECT SITE Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds Construction disturbance during the breeding season (1 February through 31 August, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests. This type of impact would not be significant under CEQA for the species that could potentially nest in the Project area due to the local and regional abundances of these species and/or the low magnitude of the potential impact of the Project to these species (i.e., the Project is only expected to impact one or two individual pairs of these species, which is not a significant impact to their regional populations). However, we recommend that the following measures be implemented to ensure that Project activities comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code: 106 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 16 Measure 1. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors, in the Project Area extends from 1 February through 31 August. Measure 2. Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between 1 September and 31 January, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 250 ft for raptors and 50-100 ft for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during Project implementation. Measure 3. Inhibition of Nesting. If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, we recommend that all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the Project be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to 1 February). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and prevent the potential delay of the Project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates. Please contact me by email at gbolen@harveyecology.com or by phone at (408) 458-3246 if you have any questions regarding this report. Thank you very much for contacting H. T. Harvey & Associates regarding this Project. Sincerely, Ginger M. Bolen, Ph.D. Project Manager, Senior Wildlife Ecologist 107 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 17 Baldwin, et al. (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. 2nd Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bryiski, P., R. Duke, and H. Shellhammer. 1990. Dusky-footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes). Pp. 246-247 In: D. Zeiner, W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). California’s Wildlife, Vol. 3. Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game. [Calflora] 2012. Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database. Available: http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed July 2012. California Invasive Plant Council. 2012. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/weedlist.php Consortium of California Herbaria. 2012. Available from: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/ consortium/. Accessed May 2012. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2012. Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Game. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (7th edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. eBird. 2012. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. Version 2. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: 10 July 2012). Remy, M., T. Thomas, J. Moose, and W. Manley. 1999. Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act. Appendix V. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Application: PDR09-0006 / VAR08-0003 Location / APN 14660 Quito Road / 407-14-004 Applicant/Owner: Rockwood Design / Dang Staff Planner: Michael Fossati PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval to replace an existing 926 sq. ft. one-story main residence with a 2,697 sq. ft. two-story residence. The design review application is due to the request to convert a single-story structure into a multi-story structure. The variance application is due to the request to allow construction within a required setback. The applicant and staff have agreed more time is needed to ensure the project is in compliance with the recommendations of the project hydrologist. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue the item to the November 14, 2012 meeting. Page 1 of 1 121