HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-2011 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 2
September 14, 2011
Draft Minutes 4
APPLICATION 04-016 (517-22-108) Frisone, Vacant Lot on
Wildcat Road
Staff Report - Wildcat Road 6
Att. 1 - Resolution of Approval - IS/MND for 04-016 16
Att. 2 - Resolution of Approval - Design Review for 04-
016 19
Att. 3 - Bridge Elevation 36
Att. 4 - IS/MND prepared by LSA Associates dated
December 2010 37
Att. 5 - Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby
dated August 2007 127
Att. 6 - Build-it-Green - GreenPoint Checklist 152
Att. 7 - Letter from Shoor at 15177 Piedmont Road 161
Att. 8 - Neighbor Review Letters 163
Att. 9 - Noticing from City 169
Att. 10 - Color Board 172
1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners – Chair Douglas Robertson, Vice-Chair Tina K. Walia, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Pragati Grover, Joyce
Hlava, David Reis and Yan Zhao
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2011
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not
on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items.
However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 22, 2011
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and
their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public
may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. APPLICATION 04-016 (517-22-108) Frisone, Vacant Lot on Wildcat Road - The applicant requests
Design Review approval to construct a new two-story residence on a vacant lot located on Piedmont Road
at Wildcat Creek. The application includes a 5,467 square foot residence with an approximately 551 square
foot garage, plus basement. The maximum height of the proposed building would not exceed the 26-foot
height limit. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 35% of the net site area.
A bridge is proposed to access the property from Piedmont Road across Wildcat Creek. Staff has prepared
a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA regulations prior to any Public Hearings approval on
the project. The lot size is approximately 2.21 net acres and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district.
Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Michael
Fossati)
2
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
POSTING
Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the
foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 22,
2011, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for
public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
3
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners – Chair Douglas Robertson, Vice-Chair Tina K. Walia, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Pragati Grover, David
Reis and Yan Zhao
ABSENT
Commissioner Hlava
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 24, 2011 (Approved, 5:0:1 ((Grover-
abstain))
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not
on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items.
However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 7, 2011
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and
their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public
may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application MOD11-0002 12341 Saratoga Creek Drive (366-12-065) - Conditional Use Permit
application for modifications to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Community Facility (pool and
pool house) of the Saratoga Woods Community Association. The proposed modifications would include
modifying the membership requirements and expanding the hours of operation. This item is continued to a
date uncertain. (Christopher Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner) (Approved, 6:0)
2. Application PDR10-0018 (Right-of-way) Verizon Wireless c/o NSA Wireless, Highway 9, North of
Farwell Ave. - The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the installation of three wireless
telecommunication antennas and the construction of an equipment shelter to be placed on Saratoga-Los
Gatos Road, north of Farwell Avenue. The proposed three antennas would be attached to two eight foot
crossbars and be placed approximately 30 feet above natural grade on the existing 44 foot wooden utility
4
pole. The proposed equipment structure would be seven feet tall and approximately 240 sq. ft. in size and
used to screen the mechanical equipment. The equipment structure would be constructed of pressure treated
pine wood, decorative lattice, galvanized steel fence posts and painted forest green. The structure would be
surrounded with 22 “toyon shrubs” to establish visual consistency with the neighboring vegetation. The
proposed location is within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (Michael Fossati) (Continued to the October
12, 2011 meeting, 6:0)
3. Application FER11-0002 14651 Farwell Avenue (397-20-004) Jerry and Judy Oberthier - The
applicant requests approval for a fence exception. The project is a six foot tall wrought-iron fence with
seven foot tall brick columns and 10 foot tall entrance gate with eleven foot six inch tall columns. The
fence, gate, and columns would be located outside the line of sight visibility triangle along Farwell Avenue
and Wild Oak Way. The lot is 34,226 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Cynthia McCormick,
Assistant Planner, AICP) (Continued to the October 26, 2011 meeting, 6:0)
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING – ADJOURNED 10:33 PM
- Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
POSTING
Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the
foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 8,
2011, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for
public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
5
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: September 28, 2011
Application Type / No: Design Review / 04-016
Location: Vacant Lot
Owner / Applicant: Frisone
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
APN: 517-22-108
Department Head: Chris Riordan, AICP
Vacant Lot – Wildcat Road
1
6
Application No. 04-016 / Vacant Lot on Wildcat
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 01/14/04
Application complete: 08/05/11
Notice published: 09/12/11
Mailing completed: 09/09/11
Posting completed: 09/22/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story residence on a
vacant lot located on Piedmont Road at Wildcat Creek. The application includes a 5,467
square foot residence with an approximately 551 square foot garage, plus basement. The
maximum height of the proposed building would not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The
maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 35% of the net site area. A
bridge is proposed to access the property from Piedmont Road across Wildcat Creek. Staff
has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA regulations prior to any
Public Hearings approval on the project. The lot size is approximately 2.21 net acres and is
located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to
Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Design Review by adopting the attached resolutions. Staff is not
recommending any permanent conditions of approval.
2
7
Application No. 04-016 / Vacant Lot on Wildcat
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density)
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 2.61 acres (gross) and 2.20 acres (net)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 25.6%
GRADING REQUIRED: 1800 cubic yards of cut and 100 cubic yards of fill for construction of
the proposed house, driveway and bridge. This calculation does not include 700 cubic yards
of cut for construction of the basement.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal has been determined that, based on the
information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures necessary to avoid or reduce to a
less-than-significant level the project’s potentially significant effects on the environment are
detailed on the following pages. These mitigation measures are hereby incorporated and
fully made part of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project applicant has
hereby agreed to incorporate as part of the project and implement each of the identified
mitigation measures, which would be adopted as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
MATERIALS AND COLORS: The proposed exterior materials include hard stucco with stone
veneer wainscoting, exposed cedar beams and rafter tails. The proposed stucco would be
painted a light beige tone (Dunn Edwards “Quicksand”) while the proposed shutters would
be stained in gray (Cabot “Driftwood Gray”). The proposed stone veneer wainscoting is
sage in color. The proposed front entrance door would be constructed of wood and tempered
glass. The earthtone multicolor roof would be constructed with Class “A” slate tiles. Painted
wrought iron railings would be used for the basement light wells. Decorative dormers and
clay chimney pots would be added to continue a “French Country” architectural theme. A
colors and material board is available on file with the Community Development Department
and will be present at the site visit and public hearing.
Detail Colors and Materials Mfg. & Specification
Windows Medium Bronze - Metal / Wood
Clad Kolbe or equivalent
Building
Exterior
Beige Three Coat Hard Stucco
Shutters
Sage Stone Veneer
Dunn Edwards (Quicksand)
Cabot Color Stain (Driftwood
Gray)
Eldorado Stone or equivalent
3
8
Application No. 04-016 / Vacant Lot on Wildcat
Roof Multi-color Earthtone Class “A”
Slate
Black Diamond Roofing or
equivalent
PROJECT DATA
R1-40,000 Zoning District
Net Site Area: 2.21 acres
Proposed Allowed
Site Coverage
Footprint
Walkways & Landing
Terraces & Steps
Motor Court
Private Garden
Light Wells
Stair
Driveway & Bridge
Walkaround (D.G.)
Total
5,224 sq. ft.
244 sq. ft.
1,642 sq. ft.
2,329 sq. ft.
257 sq. ft.
111 sq. ft.
103 sq. ft.
7,150 sq. ft.
362 sq. ft.
20,022 sq. ft.
Maximum Coverage allowed
is 39,792 sq. ft. (35%)
Floor Area
1st Floor
2nd Floor
Garage
Covered Porch
Total
Basement
4,051 sq. ft.
1,356 sq. ft.
551 sq. ft.
60 sq. ft.
6,018 sq. ft.
1,956 sq. ft. (not included)
After slope reduction for
26%, Maximum Floor Area
is 6,220 sq. ft.
Setbacks
Front
Left Side
Right Side
Rear
1st Floor
50'
335'
91.5'
57'
2nd Floor
50'
395.5'
132'
74'
1st Floor
30'
20'
20'
50'
2nd Floor
30'
25'
25'
60'
Height
Lowest Elevation
Highest Elevation
Average Grade
Proposed Building Height
120'
133.5'
126.75'
152' (25.5')
Maximum Building Height
is 26'
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Existing Site Characteristics
The site is undeveloped and seems to be located within a well-established forest consisting
of Oak, Pine, Eucalyptus and Redwood Trees. There is a very thick growth of under story
shrubs and low ground cover. Small graded areas exist in the southern portion of the site. In
addition, undocumented fill occurs along the northern edge of the creek and in the vicinity of
the creek. A feature most similar to a “well” is located near the southern boundary of the
project site, approximately 20 feet north of Wildcat Creek.
4
9
Application No. 04-016 / Vacant Lot on Wildcat
Proposed Project and Architectural Style
The applicant’s architect has identified the style of the proposed residence as “French
Country”. That architectural style is characterized by a steep roof pitch, flared eaves,
dormers, curved arches, long rectangular windows, and shutters. Stone and stucco features
are prominently featured as façade materials. The proposed structure also includes design
elements such as stone-clad chimneys with clay chimney pots, painted wrought iron railings,
slate roofs, and copper gutters, downspouts, and leader boxes. Maximum building height
would be 25.5 feet.
The proposed residence would include several outdoor spaces adjacent to the main structure,
including a garden, flagstone terraces, and walkways. In addition, a porte-cochere entrance
passing into an enclosed courtyard would function as a transition between the driveway and
the residence. A fire truck turn-around (constructed of turf block) is also proposed to the east
of the porte-cochere to allow for emergency vehicle ingress and egress.
Landscaping would feature native and low-water use plant species such as coast live oak,
rockrose, coffee berry, native rhododendron, rosemary, manzanita, vine maple, and tristinia.
The terraces would be paved with flagstone and the motor court would be covered with
concrete pavers. The driveway would be covered with a mixture of asphalt, turf block,
concrete pavers and decomposed granite. Stone-covered walkways would wind around the
perimeter of the proposed residence. Terraced retaining walls would be constructed north of
the proposed residence and driveway. Storm water runoff from the site would be directed to
energy dissipaters to reduce over land flow to Wildcat Creek.
Access
The site does not have frontage on a street other than a 20-foot wide flag connection to Winn
Road. The site also has access easement rights from Piedmont Road via the Wildcat Road
right-of-way. Both access routes have their challenges. Staff has summarized in the
following paragraphs the key points of each access route in regards to grading, impacts to
trees and related issues.
• Piedmont/Wildcat Bridge Access – The Piedmont/Wildcat Bridge access would start
with the construction of a road west of Piedmont Road and onto the Wildcat Road
right-of-way. This road would lead to the proposed bridge crossing Wildcat Creek to
provide access to the proposed residence. The bridge would be a “prefabricated
bridge” recycled from a retired railroad flatcar. The bridge would be covered with
stone accents and railings to provide architectural continuity with the proposed
residence. An elevation of the proposed bridge is included as Attachment 3. The
Piedmont/Wildcat Bridge access route would require approximately 80 cubic yards
of cut and fill and would add approximately 7,150 square feet of impervious surfaces
to the site. Construction of the Piedmont/ Wildcat Bridge access would require the
removal of nine trees and three trees would be “severely impacted”. The total value
of trees to be removed or “severely impacted” would be approximately $15,000.
• Winn Road Access - The Winn Road access would start with constructing a
driveway in a north/south direction between 20190 and 20224 Winn Road. Because
5
10
Application No. 04-016 / Vacant Lot on Wildcat
of the existing topography, major portions of the driveway would require the
construction of tall retaining walls, extensive grading and excessive tree removal.
The Winn Road access route would require approximately 1,210 cubic yards of cut
and fill and would add approximately 10,767 square feet of impervious surfaces to
the project site. Development of the Winn Road Access would result in the removal
of 17 trees with an additional 13 trees being “severely impacted.” The total value of
trees to be removed or “severely impacted” would be approximately $80,000.
In order to clearly identify the environmental impacts of both access routes, the City required
the applicant to complete an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) as part
of the proposed project. It was determined that, based on the information contained in the
Initial Study, either access route, as mitigated, would not have a significant adverse effect on
the environment. The IS/MND has been included in the staff report as Attachment 4.
The project sponsor prefers the Piedmont/Wildcat Road access alternative because he
believes the gently winding driveway and bridge would be more aesthetically pleasing than
the Winn Road alternative. He further believes the Piedmont/Wildcat Road access would
lessen the impact on the existing protected trees on the site.
Fireplaces
The project would have one wood-burning fireplace in the family room and two gas fire
places including one in the living room (1st floor) and one in the media/game room
(Basement). SMC Section 15-48.030 establishes a limit of one wood burning fireplace per
structure.
Air Conditioning / HVAC
The project includes one A/C condensers on the northwest elevation, as shown on Sheet
A1.0 of the proposed plans. The proposed location is significantly outside the required
20 foot side setback.
Grading
Due to the topography of the site, grading will be required to construct the main residence.
The grading quantities are as follows:
• Main Residence 1,200 c.y. of cut / 0 c.y. of fill
• Driveway 520 c.y. of cut / 20 c.y. of fill
• Bridge 80 c.y. of cut / 80 c.y. of fill
Total export would be approximately 2,300 cubic yards of soil (which includes 700 cubic
yards of cut for the basement portion of the main residence). The project received clearance
from the City Geotechnical Consultant in August 2011.
Trees
The project site has well over 135 trees located on the property. 84 of those trees were sited
in the June 2009 arborist report by David L. Babby, Registered Certified Arborist. The
6
11
Application No. 04-016 / Vacant Lot on Wildcat
report determined that 26 trees will be required for removal to construct the proposed design
(main residence and driveway). Of those 26 trees, only five have a high suitability for
preservation. The addition of new trees was not required by the project architect because the
vast majority of trees being removed have a low suitability for preservation and the site has
numerous mature trees that will remain. Although not required, the project applicant has
proposed to plant up to 13 coast live oak variety and seven vine maple of tristina variety. The
Arborist Report has been included as Attachment 5.
Energy Efficiency
The applicant submitted a GreenPoint Rated Checklist (Attachment 6). SMC Article 16-
47 (Green Building Regulations) Section 16.47.040 of the City Code requires all new
residential projects to meet the minimum GreenPoint Rated requirements of 50 points.
The proposed project would earn a score of 125 points and would exceed the minimum to
be considered GreenPoint Rated. The majority of points came from the structural frame
and building envelope section. The applicant is proposing to apply optimal value
engineering, engineered lumber, solid wall systems, specially designed roof trusses, and
thermal mass walls. Additional green features include the installation of effective
ductwork, the installation of ENERGY STAR appliances and a high efficient furnace and
air conditioning unit.
Neighbor Correspondence
Prior to deeming the project complete, Staff met with Planning Commission and concerned
citizens regarding the proposed access to the project residence at a Study Session in January
2011. It was determined by the majority of residents at the Study Session that the proposed
Piedmont/Wildcat access was most appropriate for the project. After that meeting, the
applicant worked with the City’s Geotechnical Consultant in order to obtain geotechnical
clearance. Geotechnical clearance was granted in August 2011.
Between the months of February 2011 and August 2011, the City was contacted by a
neighbor that was in objection of the Piedmont / Wildcat access. The neighbor submitted a
letter to Staff regarding their objection (Attachment 8) stating a number of reasons why the
proposed project should be accessed from Winn Road. Staff has summarized their concerns
and provided responses.
Concern – Building a bridge over Wildcat Creek puts Piedmont road in Jeopardy. The creek
flows through our property directly next to our driveway and under the Piedmont Road to the
other side of the street. We are concerned that if any bridge construction or subsequent
usage adversely interferes with the flow of the creek, our driveway and Piedmont Road
could be damaged.
Response –The segment of Wildcat Creek within the project site has a channel that is
approximately five feet deep and 24 feet wide at top bank of creek. Based on site visits and
observation, the creek is seasonal and typically does not have any flow in it. The proposed
bridge would not impede or redirect flood flows from Wildcat Creek because the piers of the
bridge would be located above the top of the bank of the creek on each side and would
elevate one to three feet above the top of the channel. That proposed design would not
7
12
Application No. 04-016 / Vacant Lot on Wildcat
encroach into the existing channel and not affect the 100 year flood zone. Furthermore, a
condition of approval would require the applicant to prepare and submit a detailed bridge
design report to the City for review and approval. The report shall present details of the
bridge design, including location of the piers, and ensure the bridge does not encroach into
the channel and the final bridge configuration can pass the 100-year flood flow without
encroachment.
Concern – Environment and safety will be affected by a road along Wildcat Creek. Heritage
trees line the creek. Building a road would destroy a number of them and threaten others.
Response – The City currently does not have any Heritage Trees, therefore there are none in
line with the creek. The IS/MND and Arborist Report discuss the number of trees affected
by building a road from Piedmont Road as compared to Winn Road. As previously stated,
nine trees (Five Coast Live Oaks, two Red Gums and two Silver Wattles) would be required
for removal and three trees (Two Coast Live Oaks and one California Sycamore) would be
severely impacted. The valuation of the removed and severely impacted trees would be
approximately $15,000. The Winn Road Access would require the removal of 17 trees
(Twelve Coast Live Oaks, one Black Acacia, one Glossy Privet, one Monterey Pine, and two
Silver Wattles) and severely impact 13 additional trees (Ten Coast Live Oaks, one Black
Walnut, one Deodar Cedar, and one Silver Wattle) valued at approximately $80,000. When
the two access routes are compared, the Piedmont/Wildcat access route seems to be the most
viable at protecting the greatest number of trees while causing the least grading impact.
Concern – Adjacent property values would be adversely affected by construction of a road
along Wildcat Creek. The Winn Road access would cut through dense, redundant chaparal
which is only alive seasonally and only viewed by two neighbors rather than an entire
neighborhood. Was there any consideration given to recommending a different design for
the house that Scatona Investments plans to build? In referencing the city of Saratoga’s
Residential Design Handbook, Policy #1, “minimize perception of bulk by minimizing
changes to natural topography and following hillside contours”, we wondered if building a
split level house wouldn’t decrease the costs of grading for the house and for the Winn Road
access.
Response – The applicant is proposing a two-story, single-family residence on a 2.6 acre lot.
The proposed residence is well designed and consistent with the findings. It is assumed that
the adjacent property values will increase as the proposed residence is expected to command
a high valuation (due to its quality design, rural location, and natural surroundings).
Comment – How can “we” assess the communal cost of the proposed Wildcat Creek access?
Wouldn’t a decline in property value, fire hazard and degradation of the environment be a
cost far greater than the small additional profit gained by Scatona Investments? The public
cost of developing the Wildcat Creek access would be far greater than the Winn Road
access.
Response – In order to thoroughly evaluate all potential environmental impacts for the
proposed access routes, the City required the applicant file an Initial Study / Mitigated
8
13
Application No. 04-016 / Vacant Lot on Wildcat
Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The IS/MND is used "when the initial study has identified
potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or
proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration
and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects
to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the
project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment". It has been
determined that the project, as mitigated through the IS/MND would not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. As previously discussed, the project could potentially
raise property values and would create less of a fire hazard (as compared to the Winn Road
access which would greatly compromise fire truck access due to the narrow driveway, high
retaining walls, and significant slopes). Any negative effect to the riparian corridor would be
mitigated by the project sponsor applying for a Streambed Alteration Agreement from
California Department of Fish and Game as well as placing construction fencing around the
riparian areas that would be set aside as part of the project so that construction activities do
not inadvertently affect these areas. Further mitigation includes enhancing or creating a
riparian habitat at a replacement/enhancement-to-loss ratio of 3:1 (i.e. three acres of riparian
habitat enhanced or create for ever one acre developed). Replacement habitat shall consist of
the enhancement of riparian habitat on the site and /or the enhancement of riparian habitat
along a tributary near the project site. To ensure a successful revegetation effort, all plants
shall be monitored and maintained as necessary for 5 years.
Comment – We have the significant question of legal ownership of the proposed Wildcat
Creek access road. If Scatona Investment Company is allowed to build this road, does it
remain public property?
Response – Wildcat road is owned by the property owners that own property within the
right-of-way access. The definition of right-of-way is “the right to cross property to go to
and from another parcel.” Even if the applicant is allowed to build the proposed driveway,
the property will remain private (unless dedicated to and accepted by the City).
As of the drafting of this report, three property owners have expressed comment on the
proposed project. Two neighbors recommend the Piedmont/Wildcat Road access while one
neighbor prefers the Winn Road access.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approve the application for Design Review and Piedmont/Wildcat Road
access with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval – IS/MND for 04-016
2. Resolution of Approval – Design Review for 04-016
3. Bridge Elevation
4. IS/MND prepared by LSA Associates dated December 2010.
9
14
Application No. 04-016 / Vacant Lot on Wildcat
10
5. Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby dated August 2007.
6. Build-it-Green – GreenPoint Checklist
7. Letter from Shoor at 15177 Piedmont Road
8. Neighbor Review Letters
9. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels
for project notification.
10. Color Board
11. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A."
15
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO: 11-021
APPLICATION NUMBERS: 04-016
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS ALONG WILDCAT ROAD AND A
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT WILDCAT CREEK (APN 517-22-108)
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the
proposed Negative Declaration regarding the above-described application for approval of the
Project identified below:
I. Project Summary
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has considered a proposed Design Review approval to
construct a new two-story residence on this vacant lot located on Piedmont Road at Wildcat Creek.
The application includes 5,467 square foot residence with an approximately 551 square foot
garage, plus basement. The maximum height of the proposed building would not exceed the 26-
foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 35% of the
net site area. A bridge is proposed to access the property from Piedmont Road across Wildcat
Creek. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA regulations prior to
any Public Hearings on the project. The lot size is approximately 2.21 net acres, and is located in
the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga
Municipal Code Section 15-45.060.The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this
Resolution.
II. Environmental Review
1. An Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the
Project by the City of Saratoga, 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.
2. The IS and a notice of intent to adopt a MND were duly noticed and circulated for a 30-day
public review period from December 27, 2010 through January 28, 2011.
3. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to
submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the
close of the Public Hearing on the Project before the Planning Commission on September
28, 2011.
4. The IS and ND represents the City’s independent judgment and analysis.
5. On September 28, 2011 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the
Project, during which opportunity was given to address the adequacy of the MND. All
16
Application 04-016 / Resolution 11-021
2
comments on the IS and MND raised during the public and agency comment period and at
the Public Hearing(s) on the Project were considered by the Planning Commission.
6. The Planning Commission was presented with and/or had the opportunity to review all of
the information in the administrative record; and
7. After the conclusion of such Public Hearing, the Planning Commission considered all oral
and written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the MND and reviewed
and considered the information in the IS and MND, public and agency comments on the IS
and MND, the administrative record, and the staff report for completeness and compliance
with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and any and all other applicable requirements.
8. The Project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15070 and following of Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). The MND has been completed in compliance
with the intent and requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and any and all other
applicable requirements. The Planning Commission has considered the information
contained in the ND and the record in considering the Project and related actions.
9. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based
are located in the City of Saratoga Community Development Department and are
maintained by the Community Development Director.
10. Pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds on the basis of,
and after review of, the whole record before it (including the Initial Study, the Negative
Declaration, any and all comments received, and in light of expert and other evidence
submitted), that there is no credible, substantial evidence that the Project may have a
significant effect on the environment as to any issue raised.
III. Recommended Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration
After careful consideration of the matter, the Planning Commission hereby approves to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, which was presented to the Planning Commission
on September 28, 2011 and circulated for a 30-day public review period from December 27, 2010
through January 28, 2011 and is on file with the Community Development Department.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, this 28th
of September, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
17
Application 04-016 / Resolution 11-021
3
______________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Christopher A. Riordan, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
18
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO: 11-013 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
Application Numbers: 04-016
Robert Frisone: Property at Wildcat Road
(517-22-108)
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 approval for the
Project shown in Exhibit "A" including the Color Board denominated Exhibit “B” date
stamped August 3, 2011 and February 10, 2009 respectively, incorporated by this reference.
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story residence on a
vacant lot located on Piedmont Road at Wildcat Creek. The application includes a 5,467
square foot residence with an approximately 551 square foot garage, plus basement. The
maximum height of the proposed building would not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The
maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 35% of the net site area. A
bridge is proposed to access the property from Piedmont Road across Wildcat Creek via a
proposed prefabricated bridge. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant
to CEQA regulations prior to any Public Hearings approval on the project. The lot size is
approximately 2.21 net acres and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design
Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060.
II. Design Review Requirement
City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1) requires Design Review Approval for a single-family
main structure project by the Planning Commission for any new multi-story main structure
or multi-story accessory structure. This Design Review Approval requirement implements
the Saratoga General Plan, including, but not limited to: (1) Land Use Goal 13 which
provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new
construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; (2) 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; (3) 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; (4) Land Use
Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of development proposals in hillside areas by
requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to prevent or reduce significant
visual impacts; and (5) Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall
protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact
of new development.
19
2
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
III. Planning Commission Review
On September 28, 2011 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. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the Staff
Report on the Project, CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentations from the
Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public
Hearing.
IV. Environmental Review
An Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the
Project by the City of Saratoga, 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.
V. Design Review Findings
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof
to support making all of those required findings:
(a) The project avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project
meets this finding in that the proposed residence is set low on an existing vacant lot
within a dense, rural area. The proposed residence is surrounded by native, mature,
vegetation and would be physically unseen from the majority of adjacent property
owners. This building placement has been oriented to maximize privacy and
preserve views of all neighbors. The project will be placed on an base elevation that
is substantially lower than residences nearby, allowing unreasonable interference
with views and privacy of adjacent properties. The proposed structure exceeds the
setback requirement from all sides in order to further alleviate concerns with views.
This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(b) The project preserves the natural landscape. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the proposed project would not compromise the fundamental rural
qualities of the project site and would not adversely affect public open space. The
project would allow the retention of the majority of existing vegetation, including
mature trees, within the corridor or Wildcat Creek. Tree removal on the site would
be confined to that needed to construct the residence and driveway, allowing for the
retention of trees near the creek and around the interior of the site. The proposed
bridge would be low profile and would utilize stone accents and materials in earth
tones and colors and would not be highly visible from viewpoints around the site.
As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to enhance or create
riparian habitat at a replacement/enhancement-to-loss ratio of 3:1 (i.e. three acres of
riparian habitat enhanced or created for every one acre developed). Replacement
20
3
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
habitat shall consist of the enhancement of riparian habitat on the site and/or the
enhancement of riparian habitat along the tributary near the project site.
(c) The project preserves native and heritage trees. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the project would not remove any heritage trees. As previously
discussed, tree removal would be confined to that needed to construct the building
and driveway. By utilizing the Wildcat Road access, the applicant is preserving 21
native trees from being removed or “severely impacted” during the construction
process. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to plant up to 20 new trees around
the proposed residence.
(d) The project minimizes the perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made
in the affirmative in that the design of the main structure sits low on the existing site.
All facades of the main residence are broken up by one-story elements, including a
porte-cochere, wrought iron railings, stone features and proposed trellises. The
bulkiness of the second story has been mitigated by the proposed steep pitch roof
and decorative dormers. The proposed residence and garage will be not be visible
from the streetscape and the driveway will be designed in a manner compatible with
existing residences. The project further minimizes the perception of excessive bulk
through use of natural materials and colors to integrate itself into the natural
environment.
(e) The project is of compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the proposed main structure will be compatible in terms of bulk
and height with existing residential structures due to the predominant two-story
character of the neighboring area. The lots nearby are similar sized with stately
well-designed, two-story residences. The proposed project is no exception in that it
will be two-story in height with the incorporation of natural materials for the façade.
The residences on neighboring lots are all on sites in excess of one acre and are
similar in terms of bulk and predominately fine architectural character. The proposal
is compatible with the natural environment as to bulk and height and does not
unreasonably impair access to light and air or the solar potential of adjacent
properties.
(f) The project uses current grading and erosion control methods. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the proposed grading plan incorporates current
grading and erosion control standards used by the City. Prior to the issuance of any
site-specific grading or building permits, the project applicant shall submit a revised
Geotechnical Investigation. The City shall review that Geotechnical Report and
verify that the recommendations of the investigation are consistent with current
grading methods. Furthermore, the project applicant will be required to prepare a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential
impacts to surface water quality through the construction of the proposed project.
The SWPPP shall specify properly-designed centralized storage areas that keep
21
4
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
hazardous materials out of the rain and away from Wildcat Creek. The applicant
will also be required to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the
project design to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality. This may
include, but not limited to, the installation of storm water energy dissipaters and silt
fencing throughout the site.
(g) The project follows appropriate design policies and techniques. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence will conform to each of the
applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design
Handbook as required by Section 15-45.055. The proposed Project has been
reviewed by staff and determined to conform to all of the applicable design policies
and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook, including the utilization of
materials and colors to reduce bulk, orienting balconies away from neighboring
properties, varying the heights of the roof elements, integrating building materials
that blend with the natural environment, and locating the structure to increase visual
distance between buildings.
VI. Project Approval
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans, CEQA
documentation, and other materials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in
connection with this matter, the required findings are made, and Application No. 04-016 for
Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative
period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the
landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or
demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a
certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent of other term-specified
conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s
office in form and content to the Community Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in
effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its
equivalent.
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is
expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-
80.120 and/or 16-05.035, as applicable.
22
5
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
4. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice
in writing, 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 the Community
Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for
deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from
the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire
unless extended in accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State,
County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without
limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by
this reference.
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this
Design Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance”
from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested
permit to the Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance
with the requirements of this Resolution.
8. 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 Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director,
Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this
23
6
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject
to prior approval as to form and content by the Community Development Director.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include
those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated
Exhibit "A" and the Color Board denominated Exhibit “B, dated March 8, 2010
respectively. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing
with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition A.3,
above.
10. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g.,
main house or guest house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning.
11. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29.
12. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment shall comply with City Code
Section 15-80.030(l).
13. All building exterior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the
lights do not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. Prior to
building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that
complies with Section 15-35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall
indicate that no exterior lighting fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project
site, or allow direct light sources (incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric
illumination) to be directly visible from off-site locations. The plan shall also show that
light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts anywhere on the property. The plan shall
be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department prior to building permit issuance
14. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final
inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Director for 150% of
the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City.
15. Landscape installation and replacement for screening or ornamentation. A landscaped
area required as a condition of any Design Review Approval shall be planted with
materials suitable for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is appropriate, and
plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site. Landscaping
shall be installed to provide erosion control on all graded areas. Final landscaping
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
24
7
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
16. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized,
sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community
Development Director;
17. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and
otherwise comply with City Code Section 16-75.030.
18. Construction truck routes. Construction trucks shall only use designated truck routes.
19. Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet
from the source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and
residential construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid
City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only
between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the
hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be
prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the exception of that construction,
alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit and which do
not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure may be conducted
between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. A
notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site
at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit.
20. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review
Approval authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more
than two thousand five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to
provide to the Building Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan
prior to the issuance of any Demolition, Grading or Building Permit.
21. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code
Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
22. Stormwater. 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 Detention Plan shall be
submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval
demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and in compliance with the
NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site due to
topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise
required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site
the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess
25
8
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
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.
23. Landscape and Irrigation Plan. The Landscape and Irrigation Plan required by City
Code Section 15-45.070(a)(9) shall be designed to the maximum extent reasonably
feasible to:
a. utilize efficient irrigation (where irrigation is necessary), to eliminate or reduce
runoff, to promote surface infiltration, and to minimize use of fertilizers and
pesticides that have the potential to contribute to water pollution;
b. treat stormwater and irrigation runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain
and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant
of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified in the
Plan, installed and maintained;
c. be comprised of pest resistant landscaping plants throughout the landscaped area,
especially along any hardscape area;
d. be comprised of plant materials selected to be appropriate to site specific
characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight,
prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency
and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment;
e. protect the roots of Ordinance-protected trees from any proposed or required
undergrounding of utilities;
f. retain and incorporate existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover into the Plan;
and
g. comply with Section 16-75.030 of the City Code to the extent applicable.
24. 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;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or
private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone (five feet beyond the
dripline (the area under the canopy) or a greater distance as determined by the City
Arborist) of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site;
c. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which
note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance
with this Design Review Approval;
d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
26
9
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
e. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or
Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a
current license for the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled
“Boundary Survey,” and the document shall not contain any disclaimers;
f. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
25. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved
residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural
detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any
exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an
additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a
modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans,
which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require approval in compliance with
condition A.3 above.
26. Project shall comply with the State of California “Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance” pursuant to State Law AB 1881, including, but not limited to a landscape
documentation package and certificate of completion.
27. GreenPoint Requirement. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit verification by a certified green building rater that the dwelling design qualifies
for a minimum score of fifty points under the GreenPoint rating system. This includes
meeting the minimum points required in each specific category.
C. PUBLIC WORKS
28. Geotechnical Clearance.
a. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the
plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants’ recommendations.
The Project Geotechnical should evaluate foundation plans and verify that piers
adjacent to basement walls extend a sufficient depth past the basement floor. The
results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance
of permits for project construction.
b. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but
not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and
subsurface drainage improvements, basement excavation, and foundation
construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The consultant shall
verify that temporary basement and pool excavations are established at a stable
orientation, or recommend appropriate temporary shoring measures as needed. The
27
10
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
consultant should also inspect the pool excavation to verify that subsurface
conditions are consistent with those characterized during the site investigation and
provide supplemental recommendations as needed. The results of these inspections
and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review
and approval prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval.
c. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City
Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
d. 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.
D. FIRE DEPARTMENT
29. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency conditions as
specified per Santa Clara County Fire Department.
E. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
30. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Article 15.50, Tree
regulations, of the City Code. For the purpose of reducing environmental impacts
associated with tree removal to a less-than-significant level, the following provisions
shall apply: obtainment of required tree removal permits; preparation and
implementation of a Tree Preservation Plan; and payment of fees to the Tree
Preservation Fund and/or the planting of on-site replacement trees, in accordance with a
plan approved by the Community Development Director or the Community
Development Director’s designee.
31. The applicant shall implement the Tree Protection Measures listed in Section 6.0 of A
Tree Inventory and Review of the Development proposed along the Wildcat Road
Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California, published on February 20, 2009 by Arbor
Resources.
32. The applicant shall prepare a lighting plan and photometric study and submit them to the
City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. City staff shall
review the lighting plan and photometric study to ensure that any outdoor lighting for
the project is oriented downwards and would minimize lighting off-site. Light levels at
residential properties adjacent to the project site shall not exceed 0.05 foot candles (fc).
33. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures at the project site:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
28
11
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
• All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping shall be prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall
be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
34. The applicant shall conduct focused surveys for western leatherwood, Loma Prieta hoita,
and robust monardella within the project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing
activities and during the appropriate blooming period for these species (western
leatherwood: January-March; Loma Prieta hoita: May-July; and robust monardella:
June-July). (Surveys conducted in February and June would likely be sufficient to
confirm the presence or absence of these species on the site.) If such surveys determine
that these species are absent from the area that would be affected by the project, the
effect would be considered less than significant and no additional mitigation would be
required. A written summary of the outcome of the surveys shall be provided to the
Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a grading or building
permit.
If one or more populations of these species are detected within the area affected by the
project, the applicant shall develop a mitigation and monitoring plan in consultation with
a restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify measures allowing for the restoration of
the affected plant communities as a minimum of a 1:1 replacement-to-loss ratio (one
29
12
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
individual replanted for each individual lost). The plan, which shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for approval, shall include:
• Protection of areas within the project site from indirect impacts (e.g., intrusion
by motorized vehicles).
• Measures to be implemented by the applicant to minimize impacts of protected
populations during and after construction. These measures shall include the
installation of construction fencing to ensure that identified populations are not
disturbed during the construction period, and similar protection measures.
• Measures that would result in the restoration of adversely affected populations,
including the location of mitigation areas and propagation techniques.
• A monitoring schedule and funding sources to ensure that the restored plants
survive for at least 5 years.
• Success criteria for all proposed restoration sites.
35. The applicant shall conduct a pre-construction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat nests no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. The
pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 50 feet of all zones of ground
disturbance on the site. Individual nests shall be avoided by construction activities, if
feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, identified nest(s) shall be manually deconstructed
when young woodrats are not present, typically during the breeding season (October
through January). If it is determined that young woodrats are present during the pre-
construction survey, a suitable buffer shall be established around each nest until the
young are independent enough to successfully move from the deconstructed nest. A
written summary of the outcome of the survey shall be provided to the Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
36. The applicant shall apply for a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. The
following actions shall be implemented as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement (in
addition to other measures imposed by CDFG as part of the agreement):
• Place construction fencing around the riparian areas that would be set aside as part
of the project so that construction activities do not inadvertently affect these areas.
• Work within the stream/riparian corridor shall be confined to the period June 15 to
October 15. Revegetation may occur at any time. The period for completing work
within the riparian zone shall be restricted to periods of low or no stream flow and
dry weather.
• No equipment shall be operated in the creek channel.
30
13
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
• Large woody debris or trees within the creek channel or on the lower banks of the
creek shall not be removed.
• Pruning of trees in the riparian corridor shall be restricted to branches on the lower
1/3 of any tree that are less than 4 inches in diameter. Understory vegetation shall be
pruned only as needed to accommodate construction activities. All pruned material
shall be removed from the riparian area and properly disposed.
• The applicant shall enhance or create riparian habitat at a replacement/enhancement
to-loss ratio of 3:1 (i.e., 3 acres of riparian habitat enhanced or created for every 1
acre developed). Replacement habitat shall consist of the enhancement of riparian
habitat on the site and/or the enhancement of riparian habitat along a tributary near
the project site. To ensure a successful revegetation effort, all plants shall be
monitored and maintained as necessary for 5 years. All planting shall have a
minimum of 80 percent survival at the end of 5 years. If this goal is not achieved, the
applicant shall be responsible for replacement planting, additional watering,
weeding, invasive exotic eradication, or any other practice, to achieve these
requirements. An annual report documenting compliance with this measure shall be
submitted to CDFG and the Community Development
Department.
• Disturbed areas shall be reseeded with native riparian plants, at a density sufficient
to prevent soil erosion.
37. If previously unknown contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered at any time
during construction activities (e.g., identified by odor or visual staining, or if any
underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials or wastes are
encountered), the contractor(s) shall ensure that all appropriate response measures are
taken to protect human health and the environment. A contingency plan for
identification, sampling, and analysis of previously unknown hazardous substances shall
be prepared by the contractor(s), with the approval of the City, prior to grading and
earthwork activities.
As part of this pre-approved contingency plan, soil and/or groundwater samples shall be
collected by a qualified environmental professional (e.g., Professional Geologist,
Professional Engineer) prior to further work in the area, as appropriate, in case of
discovery of unknown contamination. The samples shall be submitted for laboratory
analysis by a State-certified laboratory under chain-of-custody procedures. The
analytical results of the sampling shall be reviewed by a qualified environmental
professional and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency. The professional shall
provide recommendations, as applicable, regarding soil/waste management, worker
health and safety training, and regulatory agency notifications, in accordance with local,
State, and federal requirements. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected until these
31
14
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
recommendations have been implemented under the oversight of the City or regulatory
agency, as appropriate. Contaminated areas shall be remediated to RWQCB
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential areas underlain by potential
drinking water. Such standards are highly protective and would ensure less-than-
significant impacts beyond the protection of drinking water.
38. The project plans shall incorporate the following wildfire protection measures:
• Dead limbs shall be removed from all existing and planted trees within the project
setback line.
• Tree limbs shall be pruned to within 10 feet of chimneys and shall not touch any
portion of the structure.
• A vertical separation of at least three times the height of the lower fuel layer (shrub)
shall be maintained within the project setback line.
• An irrigation system shall be installed around all vegetation planted within the
project setback line.
• The roofs/roof assemblies, gutters, vents, desks, exterior walls, and exterior
windows of the residence shall be resistant to ignition.
• All chimney outlets shall be covered with a non-flammable mesh screen of ½-inch
or smaller mesh.
• If balconies or above-ground decks are included in the project design, the undersides
of these features shall be enclosed with fire-resistant materials.
• Sprinkler systems shall be installed in the residence.
39. The applicant shall implement the following measures:
• The applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the
construction of the proposed project. It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted
to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), but it must be
maintained on-site and made available to Water Board or City staff upon request.
The SWPPP shall include specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs)
designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At a minimum, BMPs shall
include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and
maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and adhesives) with
storm water. The SWPPP shall specify properly-designed centralized storage areas
that keep these materials out of the rain and away from Wildcat Creek. BMPs
32
15
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to: soil
stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, fiber rolls, and
sediment basins. End-of-pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) shall
be used only as secondary measures. Ingress and egress from construction sites shall
be carefully controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and
equipment wash-down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional
during both dry and wet conditions. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program
to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and shall include both dry and
wet weather inspections.
• The applicant shall incorporate BMPs into the project design to reduce potential
impacts to surface water quality. These features shall be included in the drainage
plan and final development drawings for the proposed project. Specifically, the final
design shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality
degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development, and to
minimize adverse impacts to the water quality of Wildcat Creek.
• The proposed storm water energy dissipater shall be designed in accordance with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams (particularly Design Guide 10 and Design Guide 27). A vegetated swale
shall be developed between the proposed drainage outlet and the top of the bank of
Wildcat Creek.
40. As a condition of approval of the final grading plan, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a detailed bridge design report to the City for review and approval. The report
shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer. The report shall present details of
the bridge design, including locations of piers, and ensure that the bridge does not
encroach into the channel of Wildcat Creek. The report shall also include supporting
calculations that confirm that the channel and the final bridge configuration can pass the
100-year flood flow of 570 cubic feet per second (this flow rate may be amended by the
Santa Clara Valley Water District, as appropriate) without encroachment. Reasonable,
expected deviations from the assumed flow rate would not result in additional significant
environmental impacts beyond those identified in this Initial Study. In addition, the
bridge shall be designed to cross the creek as close to a 90 degree angle as feasible.
41. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures:
• In accordance with Article 7-30-060(a) of the Saratoga Noise Ordinance,
construction activities (including earthmoving and grading) within the project site
shall be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.
Construction shall not occur on Sundays or weekday holidays.
33
16
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
• A notice of these construction hour restrictions shall be conspicuously posted at the
entrance to the work site prior to commencement of the work, informing all
contractors and subcontractors, their employees, agents, material men and all other
persons at the project site of the basic limitations upon noise and construction
activities provided in the City Code.
• During construction, all construction equipment powered by internal combustion
engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.
• All stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors, shall be located
as far as practical from residences in the vicinity of the project site. Such equipment
shall be acoustically shielded using standard plywood barriers, noise control
blankets, or other appropriate equipment.
• Whenever feasible, quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, shall
be utilized.
42. The applicant shall implement the following measures:
• The applicant shall submit final plans for the Piedmont/Wildcat Road access to the
Santa Clara County Fire Department for approval. Changes to these plans requested
by the District shall be incorporated by the applicant and re-submitted to the District
for final approval.
43. The applicant shall submit detailed plans for the bridge over Wildcat Creek to the Santa
Clara Valley Water District. Modifications to the bridge requested by the District to
ensure future access to the bridge shall be incorporated into the bridge plans. The
modifications shall not affect the 100-year flood zone or the riparian corridor beyond the
impacts already identified in this Initial Study.
34
17
Application Numbers: 04-016 / Wildcat
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 28th day of
September 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Christopher A. Riordan, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND OWNER
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have
no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant and Property
Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms
and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions
within the time required in this Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission.
__________________________________ ____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
35
36
December 2010
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
FRISONE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
37
Submitted to:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
510.540.7331
FRISONE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
December 2010
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
38
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.........................................................................1
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION.....................................................................................................2
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................5
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.............................................................................................19
I. AESTHETICS.................................................................................................................20
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES..................................................................................25
III. AIR QUALITY...............................................................................................................27
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................................................................33
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ..........................................................................................41
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................................45
VII. HAZARDS ......................................................................................................................50
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY....................................................................55
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING......................................................................................63
X. MINERAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................64
XI. NOISE.............................................................................................................................65
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING...................................................................................69
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.......................................................................................................70
XIV. RECREATION ...............................................................................................................73
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC....................................................................................73
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS........................................................................76
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................79
D. REPORT PREPARERS .............................................................................................................81
E. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................81
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Stormwater Best Management Practices
39
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ii
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Regional Location............................................................................3
Figure 2: Site Plan ............................................................................................................................4
Figure 3: Basement Plan...................................................................................................................6
Figure 4: Main Level Plan................................................................................................................7
Figure 5: Upper Level Plan...............................................................................................................8
Figure 6: Representative Elevations.................................................................................................9
Figure 7: Representative Sections...................................................................................................10
Figure 8: Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................11
Figure 9: Piedmont/Wildcat Road Access Alternative...................................................................12
Figure 10: Winn Road Access Alternative.......................................................................................13
Figure 11: Bridge Over Wildcat Creek.............................................................................................14
TABLES
Table 1: Project Consistency With Applicable Visual Resources Policies.....................................23
Table 2: Residential Ambient Noise Standards ..............................................................................66
40
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Name. Frisone Project
Project Location. The proposed project would be located on an approximately 2.6-acre site in the
City of Saratoga. The site, which comprises Assessor’s Parcel Number 517-22-108, is located
northwest of the intersection of (undeveloped) Wildcat Road and Piedmont Road, both of which are
public roads. The site has an irregular shape and is bordered by single-family uses and currently
undeveloped land on all sides. A segment of Wildcat Creek runs in an east/west direction in the
southern portion of the site.
Summary Description of Project. The project, which is proposed by Scatona Investments, LLC,
would involve the construction of a new single-family residence and access road on an undeveloped
site in the City of Saratoga. The proposed residence would be located in the central portion of the site
and would be two stories above-ground and a maximum of 26 feet in height. The building would
comprise 7,976 square feet of interior space, including the main floor (4,053 square feet), upper floor
(1,356 square feet), garage (551 square feet), covered porch (60 square feet), and basement (1,956
square feet). The project includes two alternative access routes: 1) a driveway extending from
Piedmont Road (a public road located south of the site) and the Wildcat Road right-of-way along a
generally east/west alignment that would require the construction of a bridge over Wildcat Creek or
2) a driveway extending from Winn Road (a private road located north of the site) along a north/south
alignment.
Findings. It is hereby determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial
Study, the project, as mitigated, would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Mitigation measures necessary to avoid or reduce to a less-than-significant level the project’s
potentially significant effects on the environment are detailed on the following pages. These
mitigation measures are hereby incorporated and fully made part of this Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The project applicant has hereby agreed to incorporate as part of the project and
implement each of the identified mitigation measures, which would be adopted as part of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Date: ______________ ______________________________________________________
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
City of Saratoga
41
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION
1. Project Title:
Frisone Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner
(408) 868-1212
4. Project Location:
The proposed project would be located on an approximately 2.6-acre site in the City of Saratoga. The
site, which comprises Assessor’s Parcel Number 517-22-108, is located northwest of the intersection
of (undeveloped) Wildcat Road and Piedmont Road, both of which are public roads. The site has an
irregular shape and is bordered by single-family uses and undeveloped land on all sides. A segment of
Wildcat Creek runs in an east/west direction in the southern portion of the site. Refer to Figure 1.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Scatona Investments, LLC
409 Washington Street, Suite 201
Monterey, CA 93940
6. General Plan Designation:
Very Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-1-40,000, Single Family Residential
8. Description of Project:
The project would involve the construction of a new single-family residence and access road on an
undeveloped site in the City of Saratoga. The proposed residence would be located in the central
portion of the site and would be two stories above-ground and a maximum of 26 feet in height. The
building would comprise 7,976 square feet of interior space, including the main floor (4,053 square
feet), upper floor (1,356 square feet), garage (551 square feet), covered porch (60 square feet), and
basement (1,956 square feet) (see Figure 2). The project includes two alternative access routes: 1) a
driveway extending from Piedmont Road (a public road located south of the site) and the Wildcat
Road right-of-way along a generally east/west alignment that would require the construction of a
bridge over Wildcat Creek, or 2) a driveway extending from Winn Road (a private road located north
of the site) along a north/south alignment. Refer to Section B, Project Description, for more detail.
42
PROJECT
SITE
project site
not to scale
BERKELEY
HAYWARD
AlamedaCounty
Marin
County 24
17
1
9
9
280
880
680
101
580
REGIONAL LOCATION
SAN FRANCISCO
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
AN
SAN JOSE
LOS GATOS
PALO ALTO
SAN MATEO
Santa ClaraCounty
Contra CostaCounty
San MateoCounty
PROJECT LOCATION
SARATOGA
FIGURE 1
Frisone Project IS/MND
Project Vicinity and
Regional LocationSOURCES: USGS; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_1.ai (1/19/10)43
not to scaleFIGURE 2SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL DESIGN GROUP, 3/24/09.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_2.ai (1/19/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDSite Plan44
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located in a lower-density residential neighborhood in the City of Saratoga, near
the southern boundary of the City. The project site contains undeveloped land, including a segment of
Wildcat Creek. The creek is located in the southern portion of the site. The project site, which has an
irregular shape, is not located on a usable roadway and is currently accessed on-foot via Winn Road
or Piedmont Road and the Wildcat Road right-of-way.
The project site is bordered by single-family residential uses to the north and east; (undeveloped)
Wildcat Road and single-family residential uses to the south; and a mixture of open space and single-
family residential uses to the west. County-managed open space (Villa Montalvo Arboretum County
Park) is located approximately 2,000 feet to the southwest of the site.
10. In addition to the Lead Agency, other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.,
permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• California Department of Fish and Game
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
• Saratoga Fire Department
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section includes a discussion of the project site and the project background, a detailed descrip-
tion of the proposed project, and a summary of requested approvals. Figure 1 shows the regional
location of the project. Figure 2 shows the site plan. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the project floor plans.
Figure 6 shows representative project sections. Figure 7 shows representative project elevations.
Figure 8 shows the landscape plan. Figure 9 shows the Piedmont/Wildcat Road access alternative and
Figure 10 shows the Winn Road access alternative. Figure 11 shows an elevation, section, and plan
view of the proposed bridge over Wildcat Creek.
1. Project Location
The project site is located on an approximately 2.6-acre site in the City of Saratoga, in Santa Clara
County. The site, which comprises Assessor’s Parcel Number 517-22-108, is located northwest of the
intersection of (undeveloped) Wildcat Road and Piedmont Road. The site has an irregular shape and
is bordered by single-family uses and undeveloped land on all sides. A segment of Wildcat Creek
runs in an east/west direction in the southern portion of the site. The site is designated Very Low
Density Residential in the City of Saratoga General Plan and is zoned R-1-40,000, Single Family
Residential.
2. Environmental Setting
The project site, which is located in the foothills on the eastern side of the Santa Cruz Mountains,
encompasses an east-west trending segment of Wildcat Creek. The slopes in the northern and
45
not to scaleFIGURE 3SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL DESIGN GROUP, 2/20/09.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_3.ai (1/19/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDBasement Plan46
not to scaleFIGURE 4SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL DESIGN GROUP, 2/20/09.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_4.ai (1/19/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDMain Level Plan47
not to scaleFIGURE 5SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL DESIGN GROUP, 2/20/09.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_5.ai (1/19/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDUpper Level Plan48
not to scaleFIGURE 6SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL DESIGN GROUP, 2/20/09.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_6.ai (1/19/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDRepresentative Elevations49
not to scaleFIGURE 7SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL DESIGN GROUP, 2/20/09.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_7.ai (1/19/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDRepresentative Sections50
not to scaleFIGURE 8SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL DESIGN GROUP, 3/24/09.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_8.ai (1/19/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDConceptual Landscape Plan51
not to scaleFIGURE 9SOURCE: MISSION ENGINEERS, INC., 05/09; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_9.ai (9/13/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDPiedmont/Wildcat Road Access Alternative52
not to scaleFIGURE 10SOURCES: MISSION ENGINEERS, INC., 05/09; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_10.ai (1/21/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDWinn Road Access Alternative53
not to scaleFIGURE 11SOURCES: INTERNATIONAL DESIGN GROUP, 11/30/10; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.I:\CIS0902 Frisone\figures\Fig_11.ai (12/20/10)Frisone Project IS/MNDBridge Over Wildcat Creek54
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 15
southern portions of the site are moderate in topography. The central portion of the site is moderately
to gently inclined, and the terrain is generally flat in the middle of the site adjacent to Wildcat Creek.
Terraces are present along both sides of Wildcat Creek. Two unnamed faults traverse the project site,
according to mapping by the California Department of Water Resources. However, these faults,
which are concealed beneath alluvial deposits (i.e., sediment deposited by running water), are not
considered active and do not cross the proposed building footprint (they are located along the extreme
southern boundary of the site, an estimated 20 to 30 feet south of the building footprint).1
The site is undeveloped and contains no structures or roadways. According to the Geologic Evalua-
tion, the site has not been subject to significant development activities in the past: “The site is located
within a well-established forest consisting of Oak, Pine, Eucalyptus and Redwood as well as a variety
of Riparian species. There is a very thick growth of under story shrubs and low ground cover. Some
of the trees (the Oak in particular) at and adjacent to the site are very large in diameter indicating the
forest has been in an established, stable state for a very long period of time, perhaps up to at least a
few hundred years.”2
There are 84 trees of a size that are protected by the City Code3 in the project site. These trees consist
of the following species: California bay (Umbellularia californica); California black walnut (Juglans
californica); California buckeye (Aesculus californica); California sycamore (Platanus racemosa);
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia); coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens); blue elderberry (Sambucus
caerulea); Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii); poplar (Populus sp.); red gum eucalyptus (Eucalyp-
tus camaldulensis); Silver wattle (Acacia dealbata); and Valley oak (Quercus lobata).4
Grading and the placement of fill have occurred on portions of the site. Small graded areas exist in the
southern portion of the site. In addition, undocumented fill occurs along the northern edge of the
creek and in the vicinity of the creek. A feature that appears to have been a well is located near the
southern boundary of the project site, approximately 20 feet north of Wildcat Creek.
3. Proposed Project
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of protected trees and other vege-
tation from the project site, grading activities, the construction of a single-family residence containing
7,976 square feet of interior space, and the development of an access route to the site. The project
sponsor is currently considering two access alternatives: 1) a driveway extending from Piedmont
Road (a public road located south of the site) and the Wildcat Road right-of-way along a generally
east/west alignment that would require the construction of a bridge over Wildcat Creek or 2) a drive-
1 Craig S. Harwood, 2009. Updated Geologic Evaluation, Residence Bridge and Driveway, APN 517-22-108,
Piedmont Road at Wildcat Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California. June 18.
2 Craig S. Harwood, 2009. Updated Geologic Evaluation, Residence Bridge and Driveway, APN 517-22-108,
Piedmont Road at Wildcat Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California. June 18.
3 Section 15-50.050 of the City Code considers trees with the following characteristics to be Ordinance-sized trees:
1) any tree defined as native per Section 15-50.020(n), with a trunk diameter of 6 inches of greater measured 54 inches
above grade and 2) any other tree with a trunk diameter of 10 inches or greater measured 54 inches above grade. (For multi-
trunk trees, the diameter at 54 inches above grade is the full diameter of the largest trunk plus 50 percent of the diameters of
all the other trunks.)
4 Arbor Resources, 2009. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Development Proposed Along the Wildcat Road Right-
of-Way, Saratoga, California (APN 517-22-108). June 3.
55
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 16
way extending from Winn Road (a private road located north of the site) along a north/south align-
ment. This Initial Study includes an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of both access
alternatives. Mitigation measures that are required for only one of the access alternatives are indicated
as such (with a label following the mitigation measure heading).
a. Single-Family Residence. The proposed 7,976-square-foot residence would be constructed in
the central portion of the site, south of the steep topography in the northern part of the project site.
The residence would be oriented along a roughly east-west axis (with a slight orientation to the
northwest/southeast).
The building would consist of a total of two stories above grade and a basement. The main floor of
the residence (i.e., the first floor above grade), which would include the family room, kitchen, dining
room, living room, study, foyer, study, master bedroom, two car garage (comprising approximately
551 square feet), and accessory space, would comprise most of the interior square footage of the
structure (a total of 4,664 square feet). The basement would include an au pair’s quarters, pub,
media/game room, wine cellar, and accessory space. The upper level (i.e., the second story above
grade) would include three bedrooms and accessory space.
The proposed residence would include several outdoor spaces adjacent to the main structure, includ-
ing a garden, flagstone terraces, and walkways. In addition, a porte-cochere (an entrance passing into
an enclosed courtyard) would function as a transition between the driveway and the residence. A fire
truck turn-around is also proposed to the east of the porte-cochere to allow for emergency vehicle
ingress and egress.
b. Architecture and Design. The proposed residence was designed by International Design
Group, an architecture and interior design firm based in Pacific Grove, CA. The architectural style is
characterized by a steep roof pitch, flared eaves, dormers, curved arches, long rectangular windows,
and shutters. Stone and stucco feature prominently as façade materials. The proposed structure also
includes design elements such as stone-clad chimneys with clay chimney pots, painted wrought iron
railings, slate roofs, and copper gutters, downspouts, and leader boxes. Maximum building height
would be 26 feet.
c. Landscaping. Usable open space would be clustered around the proposed residence and would
feature native and low-water use plant species such as coast live oak, rockrose, coffee berry, native
rhododendron, rosemary, manzanita, vine maple, and tristinia (Brisbane box). Figure 8 shows the
conceptual landscape plan. The terraces would be paved with flagstone and the motor court would be
covered with concrete pavers. The driveway would be covered with concrete pavers and decomposed
granite. Stone-covered walkways would wind around the perimeter of the proposed residence. No
large areas of turf are proposed. Terraced retaining walls would be constructed north of the proposed
residence and driveway. After project implementation, approximately 20,022 square feet of the site
would be covered with impervious surfaces, including the building footprint (5,224 square feet of
impervious surfaces), motor court (2,329 square feet of impervious surfaces), and driveway (up to
approximately 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces depending on which access alternative is
selected). The site currently contains no impervious surfaces. Storm water runoff from the site would
be directed to energy dissipaters to reduce overland flow to Wildcat Creek.5
5 Mission Engineers, Inc., 2009. Memo to Heather Bradley Re. Proposed Residence on Wildcat Right of Way (APN
517-22-108). March 20.
56
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 17
d. Access. The project sponsor is currently considering two access alternatives: 1) a driveway
extending from Piedmont Road (a public road located south of the site) and the (public) Wildcat Road
right-of-way along a generally east/west alignment that would require the construction of a bridge
over Wildcat Creek, or 2) a driveway extending from Winn Road (a private road located north of the
site) along a north/south alignment. Each driveway would be approximately 16 feet wide.
The first access alternative (a driveway extending from
Piedmont Road and the Wildcat Road right-of-way)
would require approximately 80 cubic yards of cut and
fill and would add approximately 6,700 square feet of
impervious surfaces to the project site. The bridge over
Wildcat Creek that would be required as part of this
alternative would be located in close proximity to an
existing footbridge over the creek, in the southeastern
portion of the project site (see Photo 1).6 The project
sponsor is currently anticipating the use of a prefabricated
steel clear span bridge. The bridge would have a span of
approximately 84 feet. Figure 11 shows an elevation,
section, and plan view of the proposed bridge. The bridge
would be 84 feet long and 17.5 feet wide, and the bottom
would be elevated approximately 1 to 3 feet above the top of the creek banks.
The second access alternative, which would result in the extension of a driveway south through the
project site from Winn Road, would require approximately 970 cubic yards of cut and 240 cubic
yards of fill. Winn Road currently terminates north of the project site in a cul-de-sac. This alternative
would add approximately 10,767 square feet of impervious surfaces to the project site.
The project sponsor prefers the Piedmont/Wildcat Road access alternative because he believes the
gently winding driveway and bridge would be more aesthetically pleasing than the Winn Road
alternative, which would require substantial grading and would cut directly across the steep topography
in the northern portion of the project site. In addition, the City Fire Department has expressed concern
that the steep grades associated with the Winn Road access alternative may not allow for adequate
emergency access. According to the District, expanding the driveway to 14 feet in width with
appropriate shoulders may meet District requirements. Other provisions would also need to be
implemented to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access, including the installation of a sprinkler
system and development of a minimum 40-foot by 48-foot turnaround area.7
e. Utilities and Construction. Utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, energy, and telecom-
munications infrastructure would be extended into the project site as part of the project. Water,
energy, and telecommunications lines would be extended from Winn Road; sanitary sewer
connections would be extended from Piedmont Road.
6 Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2008. Discussion of access route alternatives for the Frisone property in Saratoga,
California (PN 1109-01). Letter from Davinna Ohlson, M.S. to Heather Bradley, City of Saratoga. March 21.
7 Saratoga Fire District, 2007. Plan Check Review Transmittal for Planning Department. May 22.
Photo 1: An existing foot bridge in the project site.
57
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 18
Grading of the site would be required as part of the project to create the building/motor court pad and
to construct the driveway. Construction of the proposed project with the Piedmont/Wildcat Road
access alternative would require approximately 2,330 cubic yards of cut and approximately 400 cubic
yards of fill (total). Construction of the project with the Winn Road access alternative would require
approximately 2,970 cubic yards of cut and approximately 250 cubic yards of fill (total).
As discussed at the beginning of this Project Description, there are 84 trees of a size that are protected
by the City Code in the project site. These trees are worth approximately $244,510 according to an
appraisal undertaken by Arbor Resources. 8 Development of the building pad would require the
removal of two of these trees (appraised at approximately $6,400). Development of the Piedmont/
Wildcat Road driveway would require the removal of nine additional trees ($4,430). In addition, three
trees ($10,515) would be “severely impacted” by construction of the Piedmont/Wildcat Road
alternative.9 Development of the Winn Road driveway would result in the removal of 17 additional
trees ($43,080). An additional 13 trees ($36,790) would be “severely impacted.”10
According to the construction plans for the project, the construction contractor would implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as specified in the “Management Practice for the Construction
Industry” issued by the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program to protect
water quality during the construction period (see Appendix A). In addition, the construction plans
specify that: “All known water well locations on site shall be maintained or abandoned according to
current regulations administered by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.” This requirement would
apply to the pit near the southern boundary of the site, which is thought to be an abandoned well. The
regulations of the Santa Clara Valley Water District would effectively require the well to be
backfilled with impervious fill material.11 The Santa Clara Valley Water District functions as the
water wholesaler and flood protection agency for the County and also manages County streams,
creeks, underground aquifers, and reservoirs built by the District.
Construction of the project is expected to extend over 12 to 24 months.
4. Project Approvals Required
The following approvals would be required as part of the project:
• Stream Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game
• Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
• Design Review for single-family dwelling and bridge design from the City
• City Geologist and City Arborist review
8 Arbor Resources, 2009. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Development Proposed Along the Wildcat Road Right-
of-Way, Saratoga, California (APN 517-22-108). June 3.
9 Ibid..
10 Arbor Resources, 2007. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Proposed Development Along the Wildcat and Winn
Road Rights-of-Ways, Saratoga, California (APN 517-22-108). August 8.
11 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2010. Well Permits and Inspections. Website: www.valleywater.org/Programs/
WellPermitsInspections.aspx (accessed February 3).
58
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . F R I S O N E P R O J E C T
D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 19
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” even after mitigation, as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities/Service Systems
Agricultural Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality
Geology/Soils
Land Use/Planning
Population/Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Determination. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be pre-
pared.
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
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
City of Saratoga
59
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 20
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The visual resources analysis in this section is based on a reconnaissance of the project site and
surrounding roadways, and review of plans and architectural elevations of the proposed project
prepared by International Design Group, Inc. The project site plan and representative elevations are
included in this Initial Study as Figures 2 and 6, respectively.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No scenic views or viewsheds in the vicinity of the project site are explicitly identified in the City of
Saratoga General Plan or other local planning documents. However, views of the Santa Cruz
Mountains from publicly-accessible viewpoints are generally considered scenic views. In general,
scenic views from private property are not considered protected scenic vistas.
The project site is located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains in a lower-density residential
neighborhood in the southern portion of the City. Residences are predominantly single-family and are
on lots that range in size from approximately 0.5-acre to 1 acre or more. Because the topography is
steep around some of the roadways in the neighborhood around the project site, scenic views are
limited. Views are also limited by the woody vegetation in the area. However, views of the Santa
Cruz Mountains are available from Winn Road north of the project site.
The project site does not currently front onto a usable roadway. Therefore, views of the site from
public roadways around the project site are substantially limited. As discussed in the Project Descrip-
tion, as part of the project, a new driveway and bridge over Wildcat Creek would be constructed from
either Piedmont Road and the Wildcat Road right-of-way (extending northwest through the site from
the southern boundary of the site) or Winn Road (extending south from the northern boundary of the
site). Figure 11 shows an elevation, section, and plan view of the proposed bridge. The southern
portion of the site, including the riparian corridor surrounding Wildcat Creek, is intermittently visible
as a driver or pedestrian approaches the intersection of Piedmont Road and the Wildcat Road right-of-
way. However, the interior of the site, including the area where the proposed residence would be
developed, is obscured by vegetation.
60
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 21
Similarly, only a portion of the thin strip of land that extends south of Winn Road (a private road) and
constitutes the northern portion of the site is visible from Winn Road. The hillside slopes sharply
downhill from this visible area towards the interior of the site, where the proposed residence would be
located. Therefore, the location of the residence and bridge over Wildcat Creek would be obscured
from viewpoints along Winn Road.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of a residence with two
stories that would be a maximum of 26 feet in height, and a new driveway to the residence. Due to the
steep topography of the site, dense vegetation (much of which would be preserved as part of the
project), and the location of the residence in the interior of the site, the residence is not expected to be
highly visible from Piedmont Road or Winn Road and would not block scenic views of the Santa
Cruz Mountains. The proposed road (and associated bridge over Wildcat Creek, if the Piedmont/
Wildcat Road right-of-way alternative is selected) would not change scenic views of the mountains
from public viewpoints. Due to the angle of view, the road and bridge would be only intermittently
visible as a driver or pedestrian approaches the intersection of Piedmont Road and the Wildcat Road
right-of-way.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
The project site does not include any portions of a State Scenic Highway. State Route 9, from the
Santa Cruz County line to the Los Gatos city limits, is considered an officially-designated State
Scenic Highway by the California Department of Transportation.12 State Route 9 is located approxi-
mately 2,000 feet northeast of the project site. However, due to the steep topography of the area, and
the wooded landscape, the project site is not visible from State Route 9. Because of its relatively low
scale (a maximum of 26 feet in height) and location in the interior of the site (at the bottom of a steep
downslope), the proposed residence would also not be visible from State Route 9. The potential
bridge over Wildcat Creek would also be of a scale such that it would not be seen from State Route 9.
No visible rock outcroppings or historic buildings are located on the project site. Therefore imple-
mentation of the proposed project would not result in the removal of these scenic resources. The
project site contains 84 trees (appraised at approximately $244,510) of a size that are protected by the
City Code.13 Development of the building pad for the proposed residence would require the removal
of two of these trees (a Valley oak and a coast live oak appraised at approximately $6,400). The two
access alternatives would have different impacts on protected trees, as summarized below:
Piedmont/Wildcat Road Alternative. Development of the Piedmont/Wildcat Road driveway would
require the removal of nine trees (five coast live oaks; two red gums; and two silver wattles appraised
at approximately $4,430). In addition, three trees (two coast live oaks and one California sycamore
appraised at approximately $10,515) would be “severely impacted” by construction of the Piedmont/
Wildcat Road alternative (meaning that the trees would probably need to be removed due to indirect
impacts resulting from construction of the driveway). Tree removal associated with this alternative
12 California Department of Transportation, 2010. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed January 18).
13 Arbor Resources, 2009. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Development Proposed Along the Wildcat Road
Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California (APN 517-22-108). June 3.
61
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 22
would be more visible from Piedmont Road and the Wildcat Road right-of-way and less visible from
Winn Road. Although fewer trees would require removal as part of this alternative compared to the
Winn Road alternative, the tree removal associated with the Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative
would have a greater effect on the riparian corridor of Wildcat Creek, which contributes to the scenic
character of the site. As noted above, the proposed driveway and bridge would be only intermittently
visible as a driver or pedestrian approaches the intersection of Piedmont Road and the Wildcat Road
right-of-way.
Winn Road Alternative. Development of the Winn Road driveway would result in the removal of 17
trees (three silver wattles; 11 coast live oaks; one black acacia; one glossy privet; and one Monterey
pine appraised at approximately $43,080). An additional 13 trees (10 coast live oaks; one Deodar
cedar; one California black walnut; and one silver wattle appraised at $36,790) would be “severely
impacted.”14 Therefore, the Winn Road alternative would require the removal of more trees than the
Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative, but these trees would be located in the northern reaches of the
project site, away from the Wildcat Creek riparian zone.
Impacts. Although the two access alternatives would require the removal of different numbers of
trees, both alternatives would be considered to result in a significant impact to protected trees (which
are considered scenic resources). While this impact would be considered significant, the impact
would be reduced by the limited views of the project site available from roadways around the site and
the preservation of most of the ordinance-sized trees on the site. Implementation of the following
mitigation measures would reduce the significance of the impacts associated with both access alterna-
tives to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure AES-1: The project sponsor shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Article 15.50, Tree Regulations, of the City Code. For the purpose of reducing environmental
impacts associated with tree removal to a less-than-significant level, the following provisions
shall apply: obtainment of required tree removal permits; preparation and implementation of a
Tree Preservation Plan; and payment of fees to the Tree Preservation Fund and/or the planting
of on-site replacement trees, in accordance with a plan approved by the Community
Development Director or the Community Development Director’s designee.
Mitigation Measure AES-2: The project sponsor shall implement the Tree Protection Measures
listed in Section 6.0 of A Tree Inventory and Review of the Development Proposed Along the
Wildcat Road Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California, published on February 20, 2009 by Arbor
Resources.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Implementation of the proposed project would change the visual character of the site through the
removal of vegetation, construction of a two-story residence, construction of a new driveway
(including the access alternative of a bridge over Wildcat Creek), and associated grading activities.
The following discussion summarizes: 1) the existing visual character of the project site; 2) applicable
14 Arbor Resources, 2007. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Proposed Development Along the Wildcat and Winn
Road Rights-of-Ways, Saratoga, California (APN 517-22-108). August 8.
62
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 23
City of Saratoga policies that relate to visual quality, and the consistency of the project with these
policies; and 3) the potential effects of the project on visual character.
Existing Visual Character. The visual character of the project site is established primarily by the
Wildcat Creek riparian corridor, which is located near the southern boundary of the site; the
numerous mature trees on the project site, and the topography of the site, which rises up gently from
Wildcat Creek, and then steeply in the northern portion of the site.
Based on site observations, the segment of Wildcat Creek within the project site infrequently contains
running water. However, the meandering creek channel and its associated riparian vegetation are an
important contributor to the visual quality of the project site.
The site also contains 84 trees of a size and type protected by the City’s Tree Regulations (in addition
to numerous smaller trees and ground cover). Many of these trees are mature trees that are native to
the area, including coast live oak, Valley oak, California sycamore, Pacific madrone, and California
bay. This relatively intact native woodland contributes substantially to the visual character of the site.
The topography of the site, which becomes steeper as one progresses north into the site, contributes to
the area’s visual character primarily by obstructing views into the southern portion of the site from
the north. The steep topography also confines the viewshed from within the site: views to the south
are obstructed by the hill which rises to the south of the site; views to the north are obstructed by the
hill that leads up to Winn Road.
Applicable Policies. Table 1 lists policies from the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City
of Saratoga General Plan that are applicable to visual resources on the project site, and the
consistency of the project with these policies.
Table 1: Project Consistency with Applicable Visual Resources Policies
General Plan Policy Consistent with Project?
Policy OSC 2.1: Ensure that all development
proposals, public and private, are sensitive to the
natural environment and the community’s open
space resources.
Yes. Although the project includes grading and tree removal, it
would not compromise the fundamental open space visual qualities
of the project site and would not adversely affect public open space
resources, including scenic viewsheds. The project – including both
access alternatives – would retain most of the vegetation, including
mature trees, within the corridor around Wildcat Creek. Tree
removal on the site would be confined to that needed to construct
the building and driveway, allowing for the retention of trees near
the creek and around the interior of the site. The proposed bridge
would be low profile (the railing would be 3.5 feet in height as
shown in Figure 11), would utilize stone and redwood materials,
and would not be highly visible from viewpoints around the site.
Policy OSC 6.1: Through the Land Use Element
and Zoning Ordinance, designate lands in the
hillier portions of the Saratoga Planning Area for
open space-managed resource production, which
allows very low density residential uses while
maintaining a significant amount of open space.
Yes. The project would be a low density residential project that
retains most of the site as open space.
63
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 24
General Plan Policy Consistent with Project?
Policy OSC 9.1: Retain surface watercourses in
their natural condition to the greatest extent
possible.
Yes. The proposed project would not alter Wildcat Creek (although
a bridge could be built over the creek). In addition, as part of the
project, the project sponsor would maintain a buffer around Wildcat
Creek such that the proposed residence would be at least 30 feet
away from the creek. Therefore, Wildcat Creek would be preserved
in its natural state.
Policy OSC 12.1: Development projects should
include the preservation of protected trees and
other significant trees. Any adverse affect on the
health and longevity of native oak trees, protected
or other significant trees should be avoided
through appropriate design measures and
construction practices. When tree preservation is
not feasible, individual development projects shall
include appropriate tree replacement as approved
by the City.
Yes With Mitigation. The proposed project would remove or
severely impact a total of 14 protected trees, appraised at
approximately $21,345 (with the Piedmont/Wildcat Road access
alternative) or 32 trees, appraised at $86,270 (with the Winn Road
access alternative). Many of these trees are oak trees or other native
species. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1
and AES-2 would ensure the protection of trees on the project site
and implementation of appropriate tree replacement measures.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2010.
Effects on Visual Character. Construction of the proposed residence would change the visual
character of the project site by converting an undeveloped site to a developed land use. However, the
proposed two-story residence would be largely hidden from viewpoints along Piedmont Road or
Winn Road. Therefore, the construction of the residence would not compromise the visual character
of the site. The following discussion summarizes effects to visual character associated with each of
the access alternatives.
Piedmont/Wildcat Road Alternative. Development of the Piedmont/Wildcat Road driveway would
require the construction of a bridge over Wildcat Creek and a driveway to connect the proposed
residence to the bridge and Piedmont/Wildcat Road. The segment of Wildcat Creek within the project
site currently contains two footbridges (see Photo 1 in the Project Description), but is largely
undisturbed and has a high degree of visual quality. The construction of a bridge and associated
driveway would degrade this visual quality. However, this impact would not be considered significant
because the bridge is expected to be low-profile and would replace an already-existent foot bridge.
Figure 11 shows an elevation, section, and plan view of the proposed bridge. The bridge would be 84
feet long and 17.5 feet wide, and the bottom would be elevated approximately 1 to 3 feet above the
top of the creek banks. This level of elevation would ensure the bridge would not be highly visible. In
addition, similar vehicular bridges over Wildcat Creek have been installed throughout the
neighborhood surrounding the project site and have not substantially compromised the visual integrity
of the area. The Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative would also result in the removal of nine trees
(appraised at approximately $4,430) and would severely impact three trees (appraised at $10,515).
These trees make a substantial contribution to the visual character of the site. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure AES-3 (see below) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Winn Road Alternative. While the Winn Road alternative would avoid impacts to the scenic Wildcat
Creek riparian corridor that would result from the Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative, it would
change the steep topography in the northern portion of the site. The alternative would require 970
cubic yards of cut and 240 yards of fill (compared to a combined 80 cubic yards of cut and fill associ-
ated with Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative). This amount of grading would change the visual char-
acter of the hillsides in the north of the site. However, because this grading would be only intermit-
64
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 25
tently visible from Winn Road (which is a private, low-traffic roadway), this change to the visual
quality of the site would not be considered significant. The Winn Road alternative would result in the
removal of more trees than the Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative (17 trees, appraised at approxi-
mately $43,080 would be removed and an additional 13 trees, appraised at approximately $36,790,
would be severely impacted). Like the Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative, the impacts of this tree
removal would be considered significant. However, implementation of the following mitigation
measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure AES-3: Implement Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
The project architectural drawings indicate that the proposed residence would not include large
amounts of glazing that would introduce substantial glare to the area. However, new lights would
likely be installed on the site to illuminate the driveway and areas around the house. This new lighting
could compromise nighttime views. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure AES-4: The project sponsor shall prepare a lighting plan and photometric
study and submit them to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building
permit. City staff shall review the lighting plan and photometric study to ensure that any
outdoor lighting for the project is oriented downwards and would minimize lighting off-site.
Light levels at residential properties adjacent to the project site shall not exceed 0.05
footcandles (fc).15
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL 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. Would
the project:
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 a non-agricultural use?
15 This standard derives from: Dark Sky Society, 2009. Guidelines for Good Exterior Lighting Plans.
http://www.darkskysociety.org/handouts/LightingPlanGuidelines.pdf.
65
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 26
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farm-
land), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use?
The 2.6-acre project site has not been used for grazing or farming in recent years, and is currently
located within a wooded residential neighborhood that is unsuitable for farming. The Santa Clara
County Important Farmland Map (2008), prepared by the State Department of Conservation, indicates
that the site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land.”16 Urban and Built-up Land is defined as land
“occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6
structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institu-
tional facilities, cemeteries, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and waste control
structures.” Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not convert agricultural land to
non-agricultural uses.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The project site is zoned R-1-40,000, Single Family Residential, and is not zoned for agricultural
uses. In addition, the site is not operated under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of residential uses on a site
surrounded by single-family residential uses. The project would require the extension of infrastructure
into the site. However, because the site is not contiguous with other parcels likely to be developed in
the near future, and no surrounding parcels are currently used for agriculture, the project would not
indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
16 California Department of Conservation, 2008. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/scl08.pdf.
66
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 27
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attain-
ment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
The development of the proposed project could affect air quality in the following two ways: 1) release
dust and exhaust during the project construction period (construction impacts) and 2) release exhaust
associated with persons driving to and from the new residence (operational impacts). As discussed
below, the project would not result in a significant adverse effect to air quality or conflict with the
latest Clean Air Plan.
This introduction provides background air quality information that is referenced in the responses to
the Initial Study checklist questions below. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the
project’s potential contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change.
Existing Air Quality. The City of Saratoga is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Man-
agement District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality
conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was
created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the
region exceeds air quality standards have fallen substantially. In Saratoga and the rest of the air basin,
exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological conditions conducive to
high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.
Ozone levels, as measured by peak concentrations and the number of days over the State one-hour
standard, have declined substantially as a result of aggressive programs by the BAAQMD and other
regional, State and federal agencies. The reduction of peak concentrations represents progress in
improving public health; however the Bay Area still exceeds the State standard for 1-hour and 8-hour
ozone levels. In addition, in June 2004, the Bay Area was designated as a marginal nonattainment
67
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 28
area for the federal 8-hour ozone level. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered
the national 8-hour ozone standard from 0.80 to 0.75 parts per million (ppm) on May 27, 2008. The
U.S. EPA has not yet issued final attainment designations based on the new 0.75 ppm ozone standard.
Therefore, the Bay Area is still designated as a marginal nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour
ozone level. The Los Gatos air monitoring station (the closest monitoring station to the project site)
recorded 2 days in 2008 on which the State 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded; 6 days on which the
State 8-hour standard was exceeded; and 2 days on which the federal 8-hour ozone standard was
exceeded. The Los Gatos station measures only ozone levels.
Twenty-four hour levels of particulate matter (PM10) in the Bay Area have exceeded State standards
from four to 15 times per year from 2006 to 2008 (the latest year for which data are available).17 The
area is considered a nonattainment area for this pollutant relative to the State standards. The Bay Area
is an unclassified area for the federal PM10 standard. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data
does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. No exceedances of the State or federal
carbon monoxide (CO) standards have been recorded at any of the region’s monitoring stations since
1991. The Bay Area is currently considered an attainment area for State and federal CO standards.
National and State standards have also been established for fine particulate matter (diameter 2.5
microns or less, PM2.5), over 24-hour and yearly averaging periods. Fine particulate matter, because
of the small size of individual particles, can be especially harmful to human health. Fine particulate
matter is emitted by common combustion sources such as cars, trucks, buses and power plants, in
addition to ground disturbing activities. The Bay Area is considered a nonattainment area for PM2.5 at
the federal level and an attainment area for PM2.5 at the State level.18
Clean Air Plan. The most recent BAAQMD plan for attaining California Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards, the 2010 Clean Air Plan, was adopted on September 15, 2010. The Clean Air Plan demonstrates
how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the State 1-hour air quality standard
for ozone and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air
basins. The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to:
1. Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California
Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone. The Bay Area 2005 Ozone
Strategy was developed in order to bring the region into compliance with State and federal air
quality standards and was adopted by the BAAQMD Board of Directors in January 2006;
2. Consider the impacts of ozone control measures on particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse
gases in a single, integrated plan;
3. Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and
4. Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2009 to 2012 time-
frame.
17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Ten Year Bay Area Air Quality Summary.
Website: www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Annual%20Bay%20Area%20Air
%20Quality%20Summaries/pollsum08.ashx.
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Ambient Air Quality and Bay Area Attainment
Status. Website: hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm.
68
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 29
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Global climate change is the observed increase in the average tempera-
ture of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other significant changes in climate (such as
precipitation or wind) that last for an extended period of time. The term “global climate change” is
often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred
to “global warming” because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to globally rising
temperatures. Global surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C over the last 100 years
(1906 to 2005). The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100
years.19 The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed
over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component
of warming. GHGs are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other
activities, and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.20
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from
secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal
contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
Over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released
into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and
enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While
manmade GHGs include naturally-occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like
HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, are completely new to the atmosphere.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of
federal and State air quality standards. Such plans describe air pollution control strategies to be
implemented by a city, county or region. The City of Saratoga and the project site are located in the
San Francisco Bay air basin and are within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. The latest adopted air
quality plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan, is intended to bring the region into compliance with State and
federal air quality standards. The City of Saratoga General Plan is consistent with this plan. No
19 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
20 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the “greenhouse effect.” Just as the glass
in a greenhouse generates heat from sunlight coming in and reduces the amount of heat that escapes, greenhouse gases like
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the
greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, although an excess of greenhouse gas results in global warming,
the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a temperature that supports life.
69
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 30
General Plan amendment would be required to implement the proposed project. Therefore, the project
is generally consistent with the intent of the General Plan, and therefore would not conflict with the
Clean Air Plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 CEQA Guidelines, which replace the ones dating
from 1999. The screening criteria in the 2010 Guidelines (used to determine whether a project could
result in potentially significant air quality impacts) are generally more protective of the environment
than the screening criteria identified in the 1999 Guidelines. The Guidelines state: “If all of the
screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to
perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s air pollutant emissions.” Separate criteria
have been identified for construction period impacts and operation period impacts (i.e., emissions
associated with project vehicle trips), which are discussed below.
Construction Period Impacts. According to the 2010 Guidelines, development of single-family
residences would be considered to result in potentially significant construction-related air quality
impacts if the development exceeds the screening threshold of 114 dwelling units and: 1) Basic
Construction Measures, as identified by the BAAQMD, are not incorporated into the project plans
and 2) the project includes demolition activities; the simultaneous occurrence of more than two
construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously); the project
includes simultaneous construction of more than one land use type; extensive site preparation would
occur; or extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export)
would occur.
Although the proposed project, which consists of the development of one single-family residence, is
well below the screening threshold for construction period impacts, it could exceed two of the other
screening criteria: 1) Basic Control Measures are not currently incorporated into the project (although
some of the storm water control measures that are listed in the project plans would reduce construc-
tion-period air pollution) and 2) more than two construction phases could occur simultaneously (i.e.,
construction of the access road could occur simultaneously with construction of the residence).
Therefore, project grading and construction activities could result in significant emissions of air
pollutants, including a significant contribution to the Bay Area’s exceedance of the State particulate
matter standard and the State/federal ozone standards.
Although the two access alternatives would each contribute to the release of significant amounts of
construction-period air pollution, the contribution of each alternative to the impact would be slightly
different. The Piedmont/Wildcat Road access alternative, which would require approximately 80
cubic yards of cut and fill and would add approximately 6,700 square feet of impervious surfaces to
the site, would be expected to generate less dust than the Winn Road access alternative, which would
require more ground disturbance and grading (approximately 970 cubic yards of cut and 240 cubic
yards of fill) and result in 10,767 square feet of new impervious surfaces.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact (for the entire project,
including either access alternative) to a less-than-significant level:
70
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 31
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following
measures at the project site:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall
be prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Operation Period Impacts. According to the 2010 Guidelines, development of single-family
residences would be considered to result in potentially significant operation period air quality impacts
if the development exceeds the screening threshold of 325 dwelling units. Because the proposed
project would result in the development of one residence, it would not come close to exceeding
BAAQMD’s operation period screening criterion, and would not result in significant emissions of air
pollutants or otherwise contribute to the Bay Area’s air quality violations.
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)?
As discussed in Section III.b, construction of the proposed project could result in the emission of
significant levels of pollutants, including those for which the Bay Area is under nonattainment status
(such as ozone and particulate matter). These project-specific emissions could cumulatively contrib-
ute to pollutant concentrations in the Bay Area. Please refer to Section III.b for a discussion of the
relative differences in pollutant emissions associated with each of the proposed access alternatives.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1.
71
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 32
Based on the BAAQMD screening criteria, operation of the proposed project would not be expected
to result in significant levels of air pollutants or pollutant precursors. Therefore, operation of the
project would not be considered to result in a significant cumulative contribution to pollution levels in
the air basin.
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with implementation of the proposed project would occur over
the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust.
There would also be long-term regional emissions associated with project-related vehicle trips, energy
consumption, water conveyance and area sources (e.g., fireplace, landscape equipment) within the
project site. These greenhouse gas emissions would contribute to the cumulative impact of global
climate change.
The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines establish a screening threshold for global climate change of 56
dwelling units (the number of dwelling units expected to result in more than 1,100 metric tons per
year of carbon dioxide). Projects that exceed this threshold would be considered to make a significant
contribution to global climate change. Because the project would not come close to exceeding this
threshold, the project would be considered to result in a less-than-significant contribution to the
cumulative impact of global climate change.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The project site is surrounded by single-family residential uses on all sides. These residential uses
would be considered to contain sensitive receptors: individuals that may be particularly sensitive to
the adverse effects of air pollution. No schools or hospitals are located with ¼-mile of the project site.
Residents in the vicinity of the project site would be temporarily exposed to diesel engine exhaust
during the construction period due to the operation of construction equipment. It is anticipated that
one or more construction vehicles, including graders and bulldozers, would be located within the
project site at any given time (some or all of which would be active). The construction period would
be expected to last approximately 12 to 24 months. Refer to the project description for more informa-
tion about construction activities.
Therefore, construction period diesel emissions would be released in the project site for only a limited
time. Additional diesel-specific mitigation would not be required due to the short duration of the
construction period. The concentration of diesel emissions on the site and the duration of exposure to
these emissions by sensitive receptors near the project site would not result in significant adverse
health effects.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the removal or disturbance of large
quantities of saturated or hydric soils with high proportions of organic matter that would cause
objectionable odors when the soil dries. Other components of the proposed project, including the
development of a roadway and new residence, would not create long-term objectionable odors. In
addition, the minor sewer work (and other utility work) that would take place as part of the project
would not result in the long-term release of objectionable odors. The project site is not located in
72
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 33
close proximity to a wastewater treatment plant, landfill, or other high odor-generating facility.
Therefore, residential occupants of the project site would not be exposed to significant odor sources.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conser-
vation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
The following section is based on the following biological resources reports and follow-up
memoranda prepared for the project site:
• Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2007. Frisone Property Biotic Evaluation, City of Saratoga,
California. August 22.
• Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2008. Discussion of access route alternatives for the Frisone property
in Saratoga, California (PN-1109-01). March 21.
• Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2009. Response to the City of Saratoga’s request for additional
information regarding the Frisone property in Saratoga, California (PN 1109-01). July 15.
73
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 34
In addition, Matt Ricketts, Senior Wildlife Biologist at LSA Associates, Inc., visited the project site
on January 27, 2010 to verify conditions on the site as described in the reports listed above, and to
confirm that the recommended impact reduction measures in the reports are adequate to meet CEQA
requirements for reducing potential impacts to biological resources.
Two plant and animal communities were identified in the project site: Riparian Woodland/Wildcat
Creek and Mixed Woodland. These communities are described below, as an introduction to this
Biological Resources section.
Riparian Woodland/Wildcat Creek. Most of the site consists of riparian woodland associated with
Wildcat Creek. Wildcat Creek has a defined bed and bank and averages approximately 6 feet in width
at the ordinary high water level. The creek is largely devoid of vegetation, but its banks contain
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and mugwort (Artemisia
douglasiana). The over-story of the riparian woodland on the site is dominated by coast live oak
(Quercis agrifolia), Valley oak (Quercus lobata), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and
California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica). Other trees or large shrubs that are present in the
riparian woodland community include California buckeye (Aesculus californicus), blue elderberry
(Sambucus Mexicana), and red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). The understory, which is densely
vegetated, is dominated by non-native species such as periwinkle (Vinca major) and native shrubs
including toyon (Rubus discolor) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum).
Because of the diversity of vegetation layers in riparian communities, such communities tend to
support a wide array of native wildlife and provide wildlife movement corridors. Leaf litter and
decaying logs on the site likely provide habitat for a range of amphibians, including the ensatina
(Ensatina eschscholtzii) and arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris). In addition, several species of
reptile may occur in the riparian woodland community, including western fence lizard (Eumeces
skiltonianus) and gopher snake (Pituophis torquata).
In addition, many resident and migratory birds would be expected to breed and forage in the riparian
woodland community on the site, including raptors such as the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). A large stick nest typical of those used by raptors was
observed in an oak tree on the site, but there was no sign of activity around the nest. Other birds
observed include Stellar’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens),
and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis).
A variety of mammals is also expected to occur in the riparian woodland community on the site due
to the abundance of food sources on the site. Mammals expected to occur on the site include the
parasitic mouse (Peromycus californicus), which feeds heavily on the seeds of the California bay
laurel, and the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), which feeds on soil-dwelling larvae and a
variety of seeds and leaves. Other mammals that may occur on the site include the brush rabbit
(Sylvilagus bachmani), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Mixed Woodland. The riparian woodland community on the site transitions to a mixed woodland
community as one moves away from Wildcat Creek. This community is dominated by coast live oak,
coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), and red gum closer to Wildcat
74
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 35
Creek. Understory vegetation consists of a dense stand of French broom (Genista monspessulana)
near the proposed building pad and English Ivy (Hedera helix) near Winn Road.
Reptile, bird, and mammal species expected to occur in the riparian woodland on the site would also
be expected to occur in the mixed woodland community due to the proximity of the two communities
and similar structural diversity. A stick nest characteristic of dusky-footed woodrat was observed at
the base of a silver wattle tree along the northern boundary of the site.
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?
The following discussion describes the potential of the project site to contain protected plant and
animal species, and identifies potential impacts of the proposed project on these species. In summary,
the site contains potentially suitable habitat for three special-status plant species (western leatherwood
(Dirca occidentalis), Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina), and robust monardella (Monardella villosa
ssp. globosa)) none of which are on the federal or State lists of threatened or endangered species. The
site also contains habitat for two special-status animal species: San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
(Neotoma fuscipes annectens), and ringtail (Bassariscus astutus).
Plants. Numerous special status plants occur in the vicinity of the site, based on a review of the Cali-
fornia Natural Diversity Database and other sources. However, most of these species would not be
expected to occur on the project site because certain physical conditions or habitat types necessary to
sustain these species are not present on the site. For instance, because hydric, serpentine, and alkaline
soils do not occur on the site, species such as Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.) and Santa
Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya setchellii) would not be likely to occur on the site. Similarly, plant
species associated with marshes, coniferous forests, chapparal, and coastal scrub would also not occur
on the site because these habitat types are not present on the site (which is characterized by riparian
and mixed woodland vegetation). Species associated with habitat types that do not occur on the site
include Bonny Doon manzanita (Arctostaphyls silvicola), Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha
macradenia), and pine rose (Rosa pinetorum).
However, the project site contains suitable habitat for three special-status plant species, as
summarized below:
• Western leatherwood. Western leatherwood occupies mesic (intermediately moist) areas in lower-
elevation riparian woodland (which occurs on the project site) and other communities, such as
chaparral. The plant has been documented more than 6.5 miles northwest of the project site
• Loma Prieta hoita. Loma Prieta hoita is found in lower-elevation riparian woodland communities
and other communities. The species has been documented within 3 miles of the project site, as
recently as 2006. The nearest documented occurrence is approximately 1 mile north of the site.
• Robust monardella. Robust monardella occurs in lower-elevation broadleafed upland forest
habitats resembling the mixed woodland community on the project site. The species has been
documented 4 miles southeast of the site.
75
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 36
In addition, one Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), which is a special-status species if part of a naturally
occurring stand, occurs on the project site. However, this individual was likely planted as a landscape
tree and is not thought to be naturally occurring.
Even though western leatherwood, Loma Prieta hoita, and robust monardella have not been docu-
mented within the project site, these special-status species could occur on the site. Development
activities on the site (including activities associated with both access alternatives) could adversely
affect these species, if such species occur on the site. Implementation of the following mitigation
measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The project sponsor shall conduct focused surveys for western
leatherwood, Loma Prieta hoita, and robust monardella within the project site prior to the
initiation of ground-disturbing activities and during the appropriate blooming period for these
species (western leatherwood: January-March; Loma Prieta hoita: May-July; and robust
monardella: June-July). (Surveys conducted in February and June would likely be sufficient to
confirm the presence or absence of these species on the site.) If such surveys determine that
these species are absent from the area that would be affected by the project, the effect would be
considered less than significant and no additional mitigation would be required. A written
summary of the outcome of the surveys shall be provided to the Community Development
Department prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
If one or more populations of these species are detected within the area affected by the project,
the project sponsor shall develop a mitigation and monitoring plan in consultation with a
restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify measures allowing for the restoration of the
affected plant communities as a minimum of a 1:1 replacement-to-loss ratio (one individual
replanted for each individual lost). The plan, which shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for approval, shall include:
• Protection of areas within the project site from indirect impacts (e.g., intrusion by
motorized vehicles).
• Measures to be implemented by the project sponsor to minimize impacts of protected popu-
lations during and after construction. These measures shall include the installation of
construction fencing to ensure that identified populations are not disturbed during the
construction period, and similar protection measures.
• Measures that would result in the restoration of adversely affected populations, including
the location of mitigation areas and propagation techniques.
• A monitoring schedule and funding sources to ensure that the restored plants survive for at
least 5 years.
• Success criteria for all proposed restoration sites.
Animals. Based on a review of the California Natural Diversity Database and other sources, numer-
ous special status animal species are known to occur (or once occurred) in the vicinity of the project
site. However, most of these species would be absent from or unlikely to occur in the site due to
unsuitable habitat conditions. For instance, steelhead trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss) occurs in creeks in
the vicinity of the project site (such as Saratoga Creek). However, it would not be expected to occur
in the stretch of Wildcat Creek within the project site because barriers to the migration of the species
76
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 37
are present downstream of the site. Likewise, no habitat on the site is available for California tiger
salamander (Ambystoma californiense), which breeds in vernal pools and stock ponds of central
California, or California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), which lives in and around creeks,
but favors creeks and rivers that provide a perennial water source or dense, emergent vegetation and
deep pools (characteristics that are not present in the segment of Wildcat Creek within the project
site).
Other special status species such as golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and pallid bat (Antrozous
pallidus) may occasionally occur in the site as transient or winter migratory species. However, the site
does not contain regionally-important foraging habitat for these species. In addition, considerable
habitat for these species would remain on the site after implementation of the project. Therefore, the
project would not adversely affect these special status species.
Two special status species may occur in the project site, as summarized below:
• Ringtail. Ringtail occurs in riparian areas, similar to those that occur on the project site.
• San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is found in oak
riparian forest, which occurs on the project site. A stick nest characteristic of the woodrat was
observed at the base of an acacia tree along the northern boundary of the project site.
Even though ringtail may occur within the mixed woodland community near Wildcat Creek, ringtail
individuals are reclusive, nocturnal animals that reside in high canopies of trees in riparian zones. If
ringtail is present in the site, it is expected that construction activities associated with the project
would flush the animals from the site unharmed. Therefore, the project would not result in a substan-
tial adverse impact on this species.
However, implementation of the proposed project (including both access alternatives) could adversely
affect woodrat nests (and associated animals), if they occur in the site. Implementation of the follow-
ing mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The project sponsor shall conduct a pre-construction survey for San
Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of con-
struction activities. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 50 feet of all zones of
ground disturbance on the site. Individual nests shall be avoided by construction activities, if
feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, identified nest(s) shall be manually deconstructed when
young woodrats are not present, typically during the breeding season (October through January).
If it is determined that young woodrats are present during the pre-construction survey, a suitable
buffer shall be established around each nest until the young are independent enough to
successfully move from the deconstructed nest. A written summary of the outcome of the survey
shall be provided to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a grading
or building permit.
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
77
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 38
Please refer to the introduction to this Biological Resources section for a discussion of riparian habitat
located within the project site. No formal wetland delineation has been prepared for the project site.
However, Wildcat Creek is considered to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corp of Engi-
neers (Corps) because it has a defined bed and bank and is connected to other drainages considered
“Waters of the U.S.” by the Corps, including San Tomas Aquinas Creek, Guadalupe Slough, and San
Francisco Bay. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) may also claim jurisdiction over the creek. Impacts to the Wildcat Creek
riparian area within the project site would be different for the two access alternatives, as described
below. Construction of the proposed residence itself would affect approximately 0.045 acre (1,963
square feet) of riparian area, and 12 trees would be removed within the riparian corridor.
Piedmont/Wildcat Road Alternative. Detailed design drawings of the proposed bridge have not yet
been developed, but preliminary diagrams indicate that the bridge would be freespan (i.e., a bridge
constructed with no support structures within the creek channel). This bridge, which would be
approximately 84 feet long and 17.5 feet wide, would be anchored to concrete piers on either side of
the creek and include no piers or anchors within the creek channel itself. The piers would be above
the top of bank of the creek on each side and would elevate the bottom of the bridge approximately 1
to 3 feet above the top of the creek banks. The freespan design would avoid sensitive aquatic habitat
and areas under Corps and RWQCB jurisdiction. No concrete would be poured into the creek channel
to construct the bridge. However, the bridge and driveway required by the Piedmont/Wildcat Road
alternative would result in the loss of up to approximately 0.068-acre (2,968 square feet) of riparian
habitat and 14 trees in the riparian corridor (including trees not protected by the City Code).21
Complete avoidance of the riparian zone and designation of a 100-feet buffer around the creek22
would require a substantial reconfiguration of the project, and additional grading, and would likely be
infeasible without substantial impacts to the topography of the site.
Winn Road Alternative. The Winn Road driveway would be constructed entirely outside the riparian
zone within the project site. Therefore, this access alternative would not directly affect riparian
resources, although grading and the removal of mature trees could contribute sediment to the creek.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to the riparian zone to a
less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure BIO-3:23 The project sponsor shall apply for a Streambed Alteration
Agreement from CDFG. The following actions shall be implemented as part of a Streambed
Alteration Agreement (in addition to other measures imposed by CDFG as part of the agree-
ment):
• Place construction fencing around the riparian areas that would be set aside as part of the
project so that construction activities do not inadvertently affect these areas.
21 Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2009. Response to the City of Saratoga’s request for additional information regarding
the Frisone property in Saratoga, California (PN 1109-01). July 15.
22 A 100-foot creek buffer is not a requirement of any natural resources agency with potential jurisdiction over the
project site, but is recommended by many municipalities in the Santa Clara Valley, according to Live Oak Associates.
23 Mitigation Measure BIO-3 includes applicable provisions from the draft Streambed Alteration Agreement for the
project dated October 20, 2003.
78
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 39
• Work within the stream/riparian corridor shall be confined to the period June 15 to October
15. Revegetation may occur at any time. The period for completing work within the
riparian zone shall be restricted to periods of low or no stream flow and dry weather.
• No equipment shall be operated in the creek channel.
• Large woody debris or trees within the creek channel or on the lower banks of the creek
shall not be removed.
• Pruning of trees in the riparian corridor shall be restricted to branches on the lower 1/3 of
any tree that are less than 4 inches in diameter. Understory vegetation shall be pruned only
as needed to accommodate construction activities. All pruned material shall be removed
from the riparian area and properly disposed.
• Implement Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 (to protect trees that would not be
removed during the construction period).
• Implement Mitigation Measure AES-4 (to reduce light spillover).
• Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1 (to reduce erosion).
• The project sponsor shall enhance or create riparian habitat at a replacement/enhancement-
to-loss ratio of 3:1 (i.e., 3 acres of riparian habitat enhanced or created for every 1 acre
developed). Replacement habitat shall consist of the enhancement of riparian habitat on the
site and/or the enhancement of riparian habitat along a tributary near the project site. To
ensure a successful revegetation effort, all plants shall be monitored and maintained as
necessary for 5 years. All planting shall have a minimum of 80 percent survival at the end
of 5 years. If this goal is not achieved, the project sponsor shall be responsible for
replacement planting, additional watering, weeding, invasive exotic eradication, or any
other practice, to achieve these requirements. An annual report documenting compliance
with this measure shall be submitted to CDFG and the Community Development
Department.
• Disturbed areas shall be reseeded with native riparian plants, at a density sufficient to
prevent soil erosion.
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?
Please refer to Section IV.c for a discussion of potential impacts to the riparian zone along Wildcat
Creek. No other wetlands have been identified within the project site. Progressing north of the creek,
the site transitions into mixed woodland vegetation and steep terrain unlikely to contain wetlands.
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?
Wildcat Creek may function as a movement corridor for native wildlife. The main change to this
corridor would occur due to construction activities associated with installation of the bridge over
Wildcat Creek (if the Piedmont/Wildcat Road access alternative is selected). Disruption to the
corridor associated with project construction activities would occur on a temporary basis (i.e., only
79
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 40
during construction of the bridge) during daylight hours. Because the bridge would be constructed
outside the creek channel and would be elevated approximately 1 to 3 feet above the top of the creek
banks, it is not expected to result in a permanent change to the use of Wildcat Creek as a movement
corridor. Wildlife species that currently use the project site (including the creek corridor) would be
expected to continue doing so after construction of the project. Therefore, temporary impacts to the
use of the creek as a wildlife migration corridor would be considered less than significant.
However, the project could adversely affect native raptors and other native birds. Native birds are
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. A stick nest was
observed on the site that could be used by raptors, and mature trees on the site provide potential raptor
nesting habitat. Native birds, such as Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), chestnut-backed chickadee
(Poecile refuscens), and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) were observed on the project site. Imple-
mentation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to native birds to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Any trees, shrubs, or other woody vegetation (including debris
piles) that require removal prior to construction shall be removed during the non-breeding
season (September 1 through January 31). If it is not possible to avoid vegetation clearing
and/or tree removals during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified
ornithologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds within and adjacent to
the development footprint (i.e., within 250 feet of the development footprint) no more than 15
days prior to the initiation of such activities. A written summary of the outcome of the survey
shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. If nesting
birds are detected on the site during the survey, the ornithologist shall determine an
appropriately-sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young
have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer would be determined by the ornithologist
in consultation with CDFG, and would be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to
disturbance. For example, raptors in the egg-laying or incubation phases of their nesting cycle
would likely require a buffer of at least 250 feet, while smaller birds such as spotted towhees or
American robins would likely require a 50-foot buffer. Nest buffers may be increased or
reduced, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated
near the nest.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
The project site contains 84 trees of a size that are protected by the City Code.24 Development of the
building pad would require the removal of two of these trees (a Valley oak and a coast live oak
appraised at approximately $6,400). The two access alternatives would have different impacts on
protected trees, as follows:
• Development of the Piedmont/Wildcat Road driveway would require the removal of nine trees
(five coast live oaks; two red gums; and two silver wattles appraised at approximately $4,430). In
addition, three trees (two coast live oaks and one California sycamore appraised at approximately
$10,515) would be “severely impacted” by construction of the Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative
24 Arbor Resources, 2009. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Development Proposed Along the Wildcat Road
Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California (APN 517-22-108). June 3.
80
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 41
(meaning that they would probably need to be removed due to indirect impacts resulting from
construction of the driveway).
• Development of the Winn Road driveway would result in the removal of 17 trees (three silver
wattles; 11 coast live oaks; one black acacia; one glossy privet; and one Monterey pine appraised
at $43,080). An additional 13 trees (10 coast live oaks; one Deodar cedar; one California black
walnut; and one silver wattle appraised at $36,790) would be “severely impacted.”25
Please refer to Section I.b of this Initial Study for additional information on tree removal associated
with the project. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to
protected trees to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Implement Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2.
The proposed project would not conflict with other local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources.
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?
The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan does not
include land in the City of Saratoga.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
25 Arbor Resources, 2007. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Proposed Development Along the Wildcat and Winn
Road Rights-of-Ways, Saratoga, California (APN 517-22-108). August 8.
81
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 42
The following section is based on: 1) a cultural resources records search conducted at the Northwest
Information Center; 2) review of a soil investigation conducted of the project site;26 and 3) a site
reconnaissance conducted by LSA staff on January 14, 2010. The results are summarized below:
Record Search. A records search of the California Historical Resources Information System was
conducted for the project site at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University on
January 25, 2010. The records search included a review of base maps that reference cultural resources
reports, historic maps, and historic literature for Santa Clara County. No cultural resources (including
significant buildings/structures) have been identified in the project site. In addition, historic United
State Geological Survey (USGS) maps from 1897 and 1955 do not show any structures within the
site. The records search identified Villa Montalvo as the only building in the vicinity of the project
site that is listed in the National Register of Historic Resources. Villa Montalvo, a large Italianate villa
constructed in 1915, is located approximately 0.4 miles southwest of the site and is not visible from
the site. The Northwest Information Center concluded that there is a low possibility of identifying
historic-period archaeological resources in the project site and a moderate possibility of identifying
Native American resources in the site (namely because of the presence of a segment of Wildcat Creek
in the site).
Soils Research. Based on a geologic reconnaissance of the site on May 29, 2009, the soils underlying
the project site consist mainly of colluvial deposits (i.e., sediment and debris associated with steep
slopes) and alluvial deposits (i.e., sediment and debris associated with rivers or running water) and
undocumented fill. Colluvium occurs on sloping portions of the site and is generally less than 2 feet
thick. Where colluvial materials are exposed, they consist of dark brown fine silty sand with varying
proportions of clay and gravel. Alluvial deposits (Qal) underlie the terraced areas adjacent to Wildcat
Creek and the creek channel itself. Where exposed, the alluvial deposits consist of semi-consolidated
sands and gravel with varying proportions of each component. Older alluvial deposits (Qoal) underlie
the sloping portions of the site and the younger alluvium. The Quaternary Period deposits on the site
may contain fossils. Undocumented fill occurs in the southern portion of the site, including along the
northern edge of the creek in the vicinity of the proposed bridge crossing and along the path of the
Piedmont/Wildcat Road driveway. The fill near the creek contains a mixture of alluvial deposits and
large pieces of concrete. In addition, the remains of an old, crushed car were identified near the creek.
The fill elsewhere in the site consists of metal, milled lumber, bricks, and large concrete pieces. The
fill on the site ranges from depths of 2.5 feet to 6 feet below the surface. No evidence of Native
American archaeological materials was identified during the soil investigation.
Site Reconnaissance. LSA staff conducted a site reconnaissance on January 14, 2010 to identify
obvious archaeological features that could require additional evaluation. The focus of the reconnais-
sance was on portions of the site where ground disturbance would occur (i.e., the footprint of the
proposed residence and alternative driveway alignments). One potential resource was found: an
abandoned well located in close proximity (approximately 20 feet) north of the Wildcat Creek
channel. The well is in poor condition and consists of an opening approximately 7 feet in diameter;
the bottom of the well is located approximately 10 to 15 feet below the surface. Wooden boards and
other debris (broken pipes) fill the opening. Wells were frequently used to dispose household waste
and other debris and can have archaeological value if the debris is well-preserved and/or stratified
26 Soil Surveys, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed Single Family Home and Garage at
Wildcat Creek Road off Piedmont Road, APN 517-22-108, Saratoga, California. June 10.
82
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 43
according to age. However, no additional archaeological investigation of the well was pursued
because the well is located in a portion of the site that would be preserved as a buffer along Wildcat
Creek and because the well would be either maintained or abandoned in accordance with the regula-
tions of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Therefore, any archaeological materials that occur in
the well would not be removed as part of the project.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No historic above-ground structures are located on the project site. However, as noted above, the
project site contains an abandoned well that could contain archaeological materials. The well is
located within an open space buffer that would be preserved along Wildcat Creek, away from the
proposed development footprint of the residence and driveway. Therefore, demolition and removal of
the well would not occur as part of the project. The construction plans for the project specify that the
well would be maintained or abandoned according to Santa Clara Valley Water District regulations.
These regulations would effectively require the well to be backfilled with fill material, and any debris
in the well (including potential archaeological materials) would remain in-situ. Because archaeologi-
cal materials would remain in place, abandonment of the well would not be considered to result in a
substantial adverse effect to archaeological resources.
Other potential prehistoric or historic resources are not anticipated to be discovered during construc-
tion of the proposed project. However, it is always possible that such resources could be identified
during the project construction period. Impacts to unidentified resources could be significant. If
resources are discovered, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented, which would
reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If deposits of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are
encountered during project construction activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall
be stopped and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the finds and make
recommendations. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for California
Register of Historical Resources eligibility. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not
necessary. If the deposits are eligible, they shall be avoided by project construction activities, or
such effects shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Upon completion of the archaeo-
logical assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting methods and results of
the assessment, and shall provide recommendations for the treatment of archaeological materi-
als discovered. The report shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga and the Northwest
Information Center at Sonoma State University.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No significant (unique) archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Section 21083.2, have been
identified in the project site. Please refer to Section V.a, above, for a discussion regarding the
treatment of the existing abandoned well on the site, which may contain archaeological resources.
Due to the implementation of appropriate well abandonment activities in conformance with the
policies of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the project would not adversely affect potential
archaeological resources associated with the well. As noted in Section V.a, other archaeological
83
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 44
resources are not anticipated to be discovered during project construction activities. However, it is
always possible that such resources could be identified during the construction period. Impacts to
unidentified resources could be significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
As discussed above, the project site contains colluvial and alluvial deposits, and areas of recently-
deposited fill. The fill would be unlikely to contain fossils. However, the colluvial and alluvial
deposits dating from the Quaternary Period may contain fossils. It is unlikely that fossils considered
to be significant would be encountered on the site because fill underlies much of the development
footprint, including the vicinity of the northern abutment of the proposed bridge over Wildcat Creek.
However, damage to fossils could be considered a significant environmental impact. Implementation
of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If paleontological resources are discovered during project con-
struction activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a paleon-
tological monitor has assessed the situation and made recommendations regarding their
treatment. It is recommended that adverse effects to paleontological resources be avoided by
project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated
for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the
resources are significant, they shall be avoided, or such effects shall be mitigated. Mitigation
shall consist of data recovery, report preparation, fossil curation, and public outreach. The
report documenting the methods and results of monitoring shall be submitted both to the City of
Saratoga and to the paleontological repository to which the fossils would be offered for
curation, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology, upon project
completion.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recog-
nition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined
whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. No human remains, including Native
American remains, are anticipated to exist within the project site. However, it is always possible that
such human remains could be identified during the project construction period. Impacts to human
remains could be significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure CULT-4: If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the
discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time,
an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. Project personnel shall not collect or
84
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 45
move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American
origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of
this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely
Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of
the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist
shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the assessment, and provide
recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials,
as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be
submitted to the City of Saratoga and the Northwest Information Center.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in and on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
The following section is based on the soil and geotechnical investigations prepared for the project
site, including:
85
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 46
• Soil Surveys, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed Single Family Home
and Garage at Wildcat Creek Road off Piedmont Road, APN 517-22-108, Saratoga, California.
June 10.
• Craig S. Harwood, 2009. Updated Geologic Evaluation, Residence Bridge and Driveway, APN
517-22-108, Piedmont Road at Wildcat Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California. June 18.
• Cotton, Shires and Associates, 2009. Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review. August 21.
The project site is located on an undeveloped site in the foothills east of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
The site encompasses the east-west trending Wildcat Creek channel. Slopes along the north and south
boundaries of the site are moderate to steep (in the extreme northeast corner of the site, the slope is
approximately 36 percent); slopes in the interior of the site are more moderate (up to approximately
12 percent). The area proposed for the residence is generally flat.
Undocumented fill occurs along the northern edge of Wildcat Creek and in certain portions of the site
interior (including along the path of the proposed Piedmont/Wildcat Road access route). The fill is a
mixture of alluvial deposits (i.e., deposits associated with rivers or running water) and contains large
pieces of concrete. The depth of fill may be up to 6 feet below the surface. Colluvium (sediment and
debris associated with steep slopes), which is generally less than 2 feet thick at the site, occurs on
sloping portions of the site. Alluvium underlies the terraced areas adjacent to Wildcat Creek and
occurs within the creek channel itself.
Two possible faults have been mapped as traversing the project site. These faults, which are
concealed beneath alluvium deposits, are not considered to be active based on a review of aerial
photographs and a site reconnaissance by Craig S. Harwood, the consulting engineering geologist.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction; iv)Landslides?
i) Fault Rupture. The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone designated by
the State. The only Special Studies Zone near Saratoga is the zone surrounding the San Andreas Fault,
which is located approximately 3 miles to the southwest of the project site.27 As noted above, the two
faults that have been mapped as traversing the project site are not considered to be active, and are not
considered susceptible to rupture. Therefore, the risk of fault rupture at the project site is less than
significant.
ii) Groundshaking. Because it affects a much broader area, ground shaking, rather than surface fault
rupture, is the cause of most damage during earthquakes. Three major factors affect the severity
(intensity) of ground shaking at a site in an earthquake: the size (magnitude) of the earthquake; the
distance to the fault that generated the earthquake; and the geologic materials that underlie the site.
Thick, loose soils, such as bay mud, tend to amplify and prolong ground shaking.
27 Saratoga, City of, 1987. Safety Element, City of Saratoga General Plan. October 7.
86
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 47
The project site is located close to several active fault complexes in the region, including: the San
Andreas Fault Zone (3 miles to the southwest of the site); the southeast extension of the Hayward
Fault (16.5 miles east of the site); the northern portion of the Hayward Fault Zone (20 miles northeast
of the site); and the Calaveras Fault (21 miles northeast of the site). In addition, the site is located in
proximity to two potentially active faults: the Sargent-Berrocal Fault and the Monte Vista Fault Zone.
Based on the Seismic Hazards Zone map series published by the California Geological Survey, the
site is located in a zone in which local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water
conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement due to an earthquake. Therefore,
the proposed project is expected to be subject to groundshaking while it is occupied. This ground-
shaking could damage the proposed residence, access route, and occupants of the site. Implementa-
tion of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building
permits, the project applicant shall submit a revised Geotechnical Investigation that addresses
follow-up items raised in the Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review completed by Cotton,
Shires and Associates on August 21, 2009. The revised Geotechnical Investigation shall
consolidate the geotechnical recommendations found in the following two reports, as revised in
response to the follow-up items listed in the Cotton, Shires and Associates peer review.28
• Soil Surveys, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed Single Family
Home and Garage at Wildcat Creek Road off Piedmont Road, APN 517-22-108, Saratoga,
California. June 10.
• Craig S. Harwood, 2009. Updated Geologic Evaluation, Residence Bridge and Driveway,
APN 517-22-108, Piedmont Road at Wildcat Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California. June 18.
The City shall review a complete set of project plans to verify that the recommendations of
the revised Geotechnical Investigation have been incorporated into the project plans, and that
the plans are consistent with the applicable California Building Code.
No detailed geotechnical investigation has been completed for the Winn Road access alternative,
which may also be susceptible to groundshaking and other geologic hazards. None of the geotechnical
investigations prepared for the site include detailed recommendations for mitigating geotechnical
hazards associated with development of the Winn Road access route. Mission Engineers, in a March
20, 2009 letter to Heather Bradley, City Contract Planner, notes that access to the project site “is not
proposed off Winn Road due to a 36 percent +/- grade in the northeast portion of the parcel adjacent
to the pan handle. Access using this pan handle would require large cuts along the property line in
order to provide access with a minimum 18 percent grade for fire truck access.” (The Saratoga Fire
District Plan Check Review Submittal for the Planning Department on May 22, 2007 indicated that
the Winn Road alternative would be acceptable to the Fire District if the access route would have a
grade no greater than 18 percent.29) The design constraints associated with the Winn Road alternative
28 This peer review indicates that Cotton, Shires and Associates “do not object to the basic geotechnical feasibility of
the proposed driveway, bridge, and residence layout provided appropriate geotechnical design criteria are utilized in the
design and preparation of final construction plans.”
29 Saratoga Fire District, 2007. Plan Check Review Transmittal for Planning Department. May 22.
87
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 48
were confirmed by Hal Netter, Fire Prevention Inspector, Saratoga Fire District, in a May 1, 2009 e-
mail to Heather Bradley and Mission Engineers.
If the Winn Road access alternative is pursued, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented to reduce impacts associated with groundshaking and other geologic hazards to a less-
than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (Applies to Winn Road Alternative only): A geotechnical
investigation shall be prepared for the Winn Road access alternative and peer-reviewed by a
qualified geotechnical consultant under contract to the City. The final recommendations in the
geotechnical investigation, which shall comply with the amended Uniform Building Code
(California Building Code, as adopted in California) and all applicable City engineering
requirements, shall be incorporated into the final plans for the Winn Road alternative. The City
shall review the Winn Road plans to verify that the recommendations in the geotechnical
investigation have been incorporated.
iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Ground failure hazards of potential concern at the site include
earthquake-induced liquefaction and settlement. All of these hazards involve a displacement of the
ground surface resulting from a loss of strength or failure of the underlying materials due to ground
shaking.
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the
ground surface. These soils lose strength during ground shaking. Due to the loss of strength, the soil
acquires a “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most
susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie
relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines
(silt and clay fraction) may also liquefy. Although groundwater was encountered at relatively shallow
depths on the project site, the sediments in the saturated zone are dense to very dense. Therefore,
there is a low potential for liquefaction (or lateral spreading, the displacement of gently sloping
ground, which is often associated with liquefaction) on the project site.
Seismically-induced settlement substantial enough to cause structural damage is typically associated
with poorly consolidated, predominantly sandy soils, or soils with variable consolidation characteris-
tics. The non-engineered fill that occurs throughout the project site is considered moderately suscepti-
ble to seismically-induced settlement. In addition, some of the native near-surface soils may also be
susceptible to settlement. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts
associated with potential settlement to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
If the Winn Road access alternative is selected as the preferred access alternative, the following
mitigation measure would also be required to evaluate and address potential settlement:
Mitigation Measure GEO-4 (Applies to Winn Road Alternative only): Implement Mitigation
Measure GEO-2.
88
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 49
iv) Landslides. Although landslides were triggered in the central Santa Cruz Mountains during the
large earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault in 1906 and 1989, the project site is not located within a
State-designated earthquake-induced landslide zone (although a moderately steep slope beyond the
southwestern boundary of the project site is considered to be within a landslide zone). The Updated
Geologic Evaluation for the site prepared by Craig S. Harwood states that his review of geologic data
for the site “indicates no evidence of gross instability of the natural slopes at and immediately adja-
cent to the site,” even though “the natural slopes have been subject to innumerable moderate and
many large-scale earthquakes throughout the Holocene Epoch (within the last 11,000 years).”
However, the Updated Geologic Evaluation states that compliance with the recommendations in the
report would be required to ensure that the risk of seismically-induced landslides is reduced. Imple-
mentation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-5: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
Because the Winn Road access alternative would require a high level of engineering to stabilize the
steep slopes in the northern portion of the project site, landslide risks may be increased with this
access alternative. If the Winn Road access alternative is selected as the preferred alternative, the
following mitigation measure would be required to reduce landslide hazards to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-6 (Applies to Winn Road Alternative only): Implement Mitigation
Measure GEO-2.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil is greatest during the period of earthwork activities
and between the time when earthwork is completed and new vegetation is established. This potential
impact would rise in significance due to the presence of Wildcat Creek within the project site. Soil
erosion associated with construction activities on the site could adversely affect water quality in the
creek. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which would require the preparation and
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), would reduce soil erosion
associated with project implementation to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-7: Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1.
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 an on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Please refer to Section VI.a.iii and Section VI.a.iv. According to the Updated Geologic Evaluation,
“the natural slopes [in the site] have attained a relatively stable configuration in the present environ-
mental (climatic) conditions and have a low potential for gross instability or debris flow activity in
their natural undeveloped state.” According to the report, the banks of Wildcat Creek “have been
subjected to localized instability in the form of minor sloughing where the creek banks are near
vertical and at least 3 feet high,” but associated risks to the project would be less than significant
because the proposed bridge piers would be set back from the edge of the creek banks.
89
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 50
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?
The native soils within the project site that occur both near the subsurface and in sub-surface areas are
considered non-expansive to moderately expansive. The expansion and contraction of these soils
could damage the proposed residence and driveway. Implementation of the following mitigation
measure (which would apply to both access alternatives) would reduce adverse effects associated with
expansive soils to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-8: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
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?
Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be installed on the project site.
Proposed water sources would be connected to the existing sanitary sewer system; wastewater would
be treated in a wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would
not result in impacts to soils associated with the use of alternative wastewater treatment systems.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. HAZARDS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govern-
ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment?
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?
90
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 51
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The following section utilizes information from a site reconnaissance undertaken on January 14, 2010
and review of the following reports, which discuss soil conditions on the project site:
• Soil Surveys, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed Single Family Home
and Garage at Wildcat Creek Road off Piedmont Road, APN 517-22-108, Saratoga, California.
June 10.
• Craig S. Harwood, 2009. Updated Geologic Evaluation, Residence Bridge and Driveway, APN
517-22-108, Piedmont Road at Wildcat Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California. June 18.
No additional investigation of hazardous materials on the site (e.g., a Phase I or Phase II Site
Investigation) is deemed necessary for the purpose of identifying environmental impacts associated
with the project because the site is undeveloped and has been undeveloped in recent history. No
historic land uses have occupied the site that would be expected to have resulted in soil or
groundwater contamination.
Undocumented fill occurs along the northern edge of Wildcat Creek and in certain portions of the site
interior (including along the path of the proposed Piedmont/Wildcat Road access route). The fill is a
mixture of alluvial deposits (i.e., deposits associated with rivers or running water) and contains large
pieces of concrete. The depth of fill may be up to 6 feet below the surface. Although garbage (e.g.,
junked cars, old pipes, concrete debris) has been deposited on the site, the age and type of the debris
does not indicate a significant safety risk to construction workers or site occupants such that
supplemental investigation of the site would be required (i.e., the debris is not expected to contain
large amounts of commercially-available materials, such as oil, gas, and coolant that would require
special treatment). Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, describes below, provides for a contingency plan in
the unexpected event that contaminated soil or groundwater is found on the site during the
construction period.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
91
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 52
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials, although hazardous materials would be involved on a temporary
basis in both construction and operation of the proposed project. During the construction period,
hazardous materials would be used for equipment operation and maintenance. These materials could
include lubricants, solvents, paint, and fuels. Improper storage or foreseeable spills of these chemicals
could contaminate soil on the site and/or Wildcat Creek.
When the residence is occupied, residents are likely to undertake landscaping activities that could
involve small amounts of commercially-available pesticides or herbicides. In addition, small
quantities of hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, oil) may leak from the vehicle of residential occupants
of the project site and
Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which would require preparation and imple-
mentation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the incorporation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design, would ensure that the use of hazardous
materials during the project construction and operation periods would not create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment (it would also reduce potential water contamination associated with
the removal of debris from the site to a less-than-significant level):
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1.
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 environ-
ment?
Please refer to Section VII.a, above, regarding impacts associated with potential upset of
commercially-available hazardous materials used during the construction and operation periods of the
project.
According to the Updated Geologic Evaluation prepared for the site, the site contains undocumented
fill extending to depths of 2.5 feet to 6 feet below the surface. This documented fill contains large
pieces of concrete and alluvial deposits and is not anticipated to contain hazardous materials.
However, debris (including an old automobile) has been identified on the site. Although no materials
considered to contain large quantities of toxic substances (such as tanks or drums) were observed on
the project site, such materials could be encountered on the site during the construction period. In
addition, because the fill on the site is undocumented, it has the potential to contain hazardous
materials. Both access alternatives would have a similar potential to encounter previously-unidenti-
fied hazardous materials because such materials could be encountered throughout the site at various
depths (i.e., the installation of bridge piers associated with the Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative –
or other activities associated with only one of the alternatives – would not substantially increase the
risk of encountering potentially hazardous materials on the site).
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce adverse effects associated with the
release of unidentified hazardous materials on the project site that could occur during the construction
period:
92
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 53
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: If previously unknown contaminated soil and/or groundwater is
encountered at any time during construction activities (e.g., identified by odor or visual
staining, or if any underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials or
wastes are encountered), the contractor(s) shall ensure that all appropriate response measures
are taken to protect human health and the environment. A contingency plan for identification,
sampling, and analysis of previously unknown hazardous substances shall be prepared by the
contractor(s), with the approval of the City, prior to grading and earthwork activities.
As part of this pre-approved contingency plan, soil and/or groundwater samples shall be
collected by a qualified environmental professional (e.g., Professional Geologist, Professional
Engineer) prior to further work in the area, as appropriate, in case of discovery of unknown
contamination. The samples shall be submitted for laboratory analysis by a State-certified
laboratory under chain-of-custody procedures. The analytical results of the sampling shall be
reviewed by a qualified environmental professional and submitted to the appropriate regulatory
agency. The professional shall provide recommendations, as applicable, regarding soil/waste
management, worker health and safety training, and regulatory agency notifications, in accord-
ance with local, State, and federal requirements. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected
until these recommendations have been implemented under the oversight of the City or
regulatory agency, as appropriate. Contaminated areas shall be remediated to RWQCB
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential areas underlain by potential drinking
water. Such standards are highly protective and would ensure less-than-significant impacts
beyond the protection of drinking water.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The project site is not located within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, the project
would not release hazardous materials in close proximity to a school.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
The project site, which is undeveloped and in a residential area, does not contain known hazards, and
is not identified on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5.30
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?
The Santa Clara County Airports Administration operates and maintains three general aviation
airports – Reid-Hillview Airport, Palo Alto Airport, and South County Airport – within the cities of
San Jose and Palo Alto, and the town of San Martin, respectively. Mineta San Jose International
30 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website:
www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed February 4).
93
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 54
Airport is in the City of San Jose. Moffett Field is in the City of Mountain View. Each of these
Airports is a minimum of 10 miles from the project site. The project site is not located within the
safety zones for any of these public airports, according to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission.31
f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The project site is not located in the vicinity of an existing private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a private airstrip-related safety hazard for occupants of the proposed
residence.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would not alter access on any of the public streets surrounding the project site,
including Winn Road (north of the site) or Piedmont Road (south of the site). As part of the project, a
driveway would extend from one of these roads. The driveway would provide access into the site,
including access for emergency vehicles, and would not change emergency access on public roads in
the vicinity of the site or otherwise interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. Please
refer to Section XIII, Public Services, for a discussion of constraints to emergency vehicle access that
could occur with construction of the Winn Road driveway.
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?
Based on the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Threat Map prepared by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), the project site is located within a community at risk for wildfire hazards.
This high risk community comprises much of the predominantly residential neighborhoods immedi-
ately adjacent to the Santa Cruz Mountains, including much of Saratoga.32 The risk in this area is
increased due to the proximity of regional open space, much of which is forested and susceptible to
wildfires.
The Santa Clara County Firesafe Council recommends that residences in areas prone to wildfire
hazards be surrounded by a 30-foot buffer that contains a small amount of flammable vegetation,
contains no dead vegetation or other flammable debris, and contains plants that are healthy and green
during the fire season.33 Due to the presence of numerous protected trees on the project site and the
presence of the riparian corridor adjacent to Wildcat Creek, maintaining a 30-foot buffer free of
flammable vegetation around the proposed residence would result in significant impacts to biological
31 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 1992. Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara
County Airports. Amended 2005.
32 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Threat. Website:
www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/wildfire/ (accessed February 5).
33 Santa Clara County Firesafe Council, 2007. Living With Fire in Santa Clara County: A Guide for Homeowners.
July.
94
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 55
resources and is not recommended. However, other design changes and maintenance features can be
incorporated into the design of the project to reduce fire hazards. Implementation of the following
mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with local wildfire hazards to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: The project plans shall incorporate the following wildfire
protection measures:
• Dead limbs shall be removed from all existing and planted trees within the project setback
line.
• Tree limbs shall be pruned to within 10 feet of chimneys and shall not touch any portion of
the structure.
• A vertical separation of at least three times the height of the lower fuel layer (shrub) shall
be maintained within the project setback line.
• An irrigation system shall be installed around all vegetation planted within the project
setback line.
• The roofs/roof assemblies, gutters, vents, desks, exterior walls, and exterior windows of the
residence shall be resistant to ignition.
• All chimney outlets shall be covered with a non-flammable mesh screen of ½-inch or
smaller mesh.
• If balconies or above-ground decks are included in the project design, the undersides of
these features shall be enclosed with fire-resistant materials.
• Sprinkler systems shall be installed in the residence.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
95
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 56
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a single-family residence and an
associated driveway. Impacts to the quality of surface water would occur both during the construction
phase (which would require disturbance of soils on the site) and the operation phase (when the
residence is occupied), as described below.
Construction Phase. The proposed project would result in ground disturbance throughout the approxi-
mately 2.6-acre site, particularly in the interior of the site (where the residence is proposed) and along
one of the two proposed access routes. Ground disturbance, if not managed properly, can generate
polluted runoff and contribute to the sedimentation of waterways. Ground-disturbing activities on the
site would include vegetation removal, grading, soil import/export, and construction. The proposed
project, with the Piedmont/Wildcat Road access alternative, would require approximately 2,330 cubic
yards of cut and approximately 400 cubic yards of fill; the project with the Winn Road alternative
would require approximately 2,970 cubic yards of cut and 250 cubic yards of fill. The differences in
earthmoving and ground disturbance associated with the two alternatives are further discussed below:
Piedmont/Wildcat Road Alternative. The Piedmont/Wildcat Road access alternative would require
less earthwork than the Winn Road alternative. However, much of this soil movement would occur in
close proximity to Wildcat Creek and in an area of undocumented and unregulated fill and debris, and
96
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 57
would thus have a greater potential to contribute sediment and other forms of pollution to the creek.
The Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative would require approximately 80 yards of cut and fill,
including ground disturbance adjacent to Wildcat Creek to construct the proposed bridge. This bridge,
which would be approximately 84 feet long and 17.5 feet wide, would be anchored to concrete piers
on either side of the creek and include no piers or anchors within the creek. The piers would be above
the top of bank of the creek on each side and would elevate the bottom of the bridge approximately 1
to 3 feet above the top of the creek banks. The piers would likely be constructed within or near an
area of undocumented fill.
Winn Road Alternative. The Winn Road access alternative would extend from Winn Road, in the
northern portion of the site, and so would avoid ground disturbance in close proximity to Wildcat
Creek. However, the alternative would require a relatively large amount of earthmoving (2,970 cubic
yards of cut and 250 cubic yards of fill) and thus would also be likely to contribute sediment to
Wildcat Creek if grading activities are not managed properly. Development of the Winn Road
alternative would also require the removal of 17 protected trees (compared to the nine trees that
would require removal as part of the Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative). The removal of mature
vegetation could also contribute sediment to Wildcat Creek.
The construction of both access alternatives, including the proposed residence (and accessory spaces)
would also result in the potential for chemical releases at the site. These chemicals, which include
substances in the fuels, oils, paints, and solvents commonly used at construction sites, could be
transported to Wildcat Creek and could adversely affect water quality.
In addition, as part of the project, the existing well on the site would be abandoned or maintained in
accordance with the regulations of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Effectively, because the
well is in poor condition, the regulations would require the pit to be backfilled with impervious
material to prevent groundwater contamination. Therefore, abandonment of the well would not be
expected to adversely affect groundwater quality.
Operation Phase. The development of the proposed residence and associated driveway would result in
the regular use of motor vehicles on the project site, with attendant vehicle use and the potential
discharge of associated pollutants. Leaks of fuel or lubricants, tire wear, break dust, and fallout from
exhaust could contribute petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and sediment to the pollutant load
being transported to Wildcat Creek. These chemicals would largely be deposited on impervious or
low-pervious surfaces (e.g., asphalt, decomposed granite). After project implementation, approxi-
mately 20,022 square feet of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces that could generate
polluted storm water runoff and adversely affected the water quality of Wildcat Creek. The Piedmont/
Wildcat Road access alternative would account for approximately 6,700 square feet of impervious
surfaces; the Winn Road alternative would account for approximately 10,767 square feet of
impervious surfaces. In addition, landscaping chemicals (e.g., herbicides, fertilizers) would likely be
used on the site during the life of the project, and could adversely affect water quality. However, the
native and low-water use plant species that are shown on the project landscape plans are well-suited
to the project site and would not be expected to require substantial chemical inputs. In addition, no
large areas of turf are proposed. With the possible exception of a bridge over Wildcat Creek (if the
Piedmont/Wildcat Road access alternative is selected), the buffer around the creek would remain free
of development, and would retain sediment and other pollutants released from developed portions of
the site.
97
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 58
Applicable Regulations. Any project in the State of California that disturbs more than 1 acre of land
during construction is required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to be covered under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction
Activity, commonly referred to as the Construction General Permit (CGP). The permit covers dis-
charges of storm water associated with construction activity. A developer must implement control
measures that are consistent with the CGP. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must
be developed and implemented for each site covered by the CGP. The SWPPP must contain a site
map which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways,
storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction,
and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices
(BMPs) the discharger will use to protect the quality of storm water runoff, and the placement of
those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain: a visual monitoring program; a chemical moni-
toring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a
sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the Water Board’s
303(d) list for sediment (Wildcat Creek is not on this list34). The project sponsor would be required to
file an NOI and all associated materials because it is expected that project construction activities
would disturb more than 1 acre of land (taking into account bridge installation, development of the
access road and residence, and development of associated accessory structures/parking areas and
landscaping).
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB issued to an association of thirteen cities and towns in Santa Clara
Valley (including the City of Saratoga), the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District a Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) maintains compliance with
the NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit and promotes storm water pollution prevention within that
context. Compliance with the NPDES permit is mandated by State and federal statutes and
regulations. Participating agencies (including the City of Saratoga) must comply with the provisions
of the NPDES permit and its amendments by ensuring that new development and redevelopment
mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, water quality impacts to storm water runoff during both
the construction and operation period of projects.
The City of Saratoga requires that single-family residential projects resulting in the development of
more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface incorporate “appropriate pollutant source control
and design measures,” and use “landscaping to treat runoff from house-associated impervious
surfaces such as from roofs, patios, driveways, sidewalks and similar surfaces.”
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project
(including both construction and operation phases) would not result in a substantial degradation of the
quality of Wildcat Creek or other receiving waters, and that water quality standards would not be
violated:
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: The project sponsor shall implement the following measures
34 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2009. Evaluation of Water Quality Conditions for the
San Francisco Bay Region. February.
98
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 59
• The project sponsor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction of
the proposed project. It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Water Board), but it must be maintained on-site and made available
to Water Board or City staff upon request. The SWPPP shall include specific and detailed
Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants.
At a minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction
materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and
adhesives) with storm water. The SWPPP shall specify properly-designed centralized
storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain and away from Wildcat Creek. BMPs
designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to: soil stabili-
zation controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, fiber rolls, and sediment
basins. End-of-pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) shall be used only as
secondary measures. Ingress and egress from construction sites shall be carefully controlled
to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down facilities
shall be designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions. The
SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site
supervisor, and shall include both dry and wet weather inspections.
• The project sponsor shall incorporate BMPs into the project design to reduce potential
impacts to surface water quality. These features shall be included in the drainage plan and
final development drawings for the proposed project. Specifically, the final design shall
include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation of runoff from all
portions of the completed development, and to minimize adverse impacts to the water
quality of Wildcat Creek.
• The proposed storm water energy dissipater shall be designed in accordance with the Santa
Clara Valley Water District Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (particu-
larly Design Guide 10 and Design Guide 27). A vegetated swale shall be developed
between the proposed drainage outlet and the top of the bank of Wildcat Creek.35
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)?
The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 20,022 square
feet. Runoff from proposed impervious surfaces would flow to unpaved areas (including the buffer
maintained around Wildcat Creek) and percolate into the groundwater table. The project would not
involve the use of local groundwater supplies (e.g. through installation and pumping of water supply
wells), and therefore would not cause any lowering of the groundwater table as a result of
groundwater extraction. The existing abandoned well on the project site, which is in poor condition,
would be treated in compliance with the regulations of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Therefore, the project would not adversely affect groundwater supplies.
35 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2009. Development of Assessor Parcel Number 517-22-108, Located North of
Piedmont Road in the City of Saratoga. April 30.
99
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 60
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?
The proposed project would not alter the course of Wildcat Creek. However, if the Piedmont/Wildcat
Road access alternative is pursued, construction activity would occur near the top of the creek banks
due to the installation of a new bridge over the creek.
Although detailed design drawings of the bridge have not yet been developed, preliminary diagrams
show that the bridge would be a freespan bridge (i.e., a bridge constructed with no support structures
within the creek channel) approximately 84 feet long and 17.5 feet wide. The bridge would be
anchored to concrete piers on either side of the creek and include no piers or anchors within the creek.
The piers of the bridge would be located approximately 1 to 3 feet above the top of the creek banks.
The process of installing the bridge, which would include drilling and the placement of piers, could
result in the release of sediment and or construction materials (e.g., concrete, fuel, lubricants) to the
channel of Wildcat Creek. Because the bridge bottom would be elevated at least 1 to 3 feet above the
top of the creek bank, the proposed bridge would not be expected to cause hydromodification impacts
to Wildcat Creek by increasing the rate and volume of runoff, and reducing the capacity of the creek
channel. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the project would not
result in substantial erosion or siltation, including siltation in Wildcat Creek:
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1 and Mitigation Measure
HAZ-2.
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?
Substantial alteration of the course of Wildcat Creek is not proposed as part of the project. As
described in Section VIII.c, above, the project would require the construction of bridge piers.
However, these piers would not change the creek channel or otherwise alter the course of Wildcat
Creek.
The project would increase impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 20,022 square feet. This
increase in impervious surfaces would increase storm water runoff from the project site, but this
runoff would generally flow to unpaved areas (including an undeveloped buffer around Wildcat
Creek), and would not increase flood hazards. Potential impacts of the project on flood zones are
discussed in more detail in Section VIII.h, below.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the site by approxi-
mately 20,022 square feet. Runoff would generally drain to pervious surfaces that surround the hard
surfaces that would be developed on the site. After project implementation, approximately 2 acres of
the 2.6-acre project site would remain pervious. Therefore, runoff would be expected to infiltrate into
100
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 61
the groundwater table, as occurs currently on the site, and the capacity of local storm drain
infrastructure would not be exceeded.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Please refer to Section VIII.a.. No other elements of the project would cause substantial degradation
of water quality.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
The project site (and most of the southern portion of the City) is mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) as within Zone X, which indicates areas of 0.2 percent annual chance
of flood, areas of 1 percent annual chance of flood with average depths less than 1 foot, or with
drainage areas less than 1 square mile.36 However, FEMA has not published detailed mapping or
floodplain studies for Wildcat Creek upstream (to the south) of Highway 9, and has not evaluated
specific flooding hazards related to Wildcat Creek at the project site. The Santa Clara Valley Water
District has indicated that the 100-year flow in Wildcat Creek about 650 feet downstream of the
proposed bridge crossing is approximately 570 cubic feet per second (cfs).37 Based on this discharge
rate and the size, configuration, slope, and roughness of the creek channel, the existing creek channel
would be expected to convey the 100-year flow within its banks. Therefore, the proposed residence
(which would be located at least 30 feet north of the top of the creek bank) would not be located
within a 100-year flood hazard area.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? As described above, two new bridges are proposed at the creek crossings within the
project site. Preliminary site plans and bridge specifications do not indicate exact locations or
engineering designs for the bridges.
The following discussion is based on an assessment of Wildcat Creek and the proposed bridge
undertaken by Baseline Environmental Consulting in January 2010.
The segment of Wildcat Creek within the project site has a channel that is approximately 5 feet deep
and 24 feet wide at the top of bank. Based on observations by neighbors of the site, the creek is
seasonal and typically does not have any flow in it. Detailed design drawings of the proposed bridge
have not yet been developed, but preliminary diagrams indicate that the bridge would be freespan
(i.e., a bridge constructed with no support structures within the creek channel) and be constructed
such that it would not encroach on 100-year flood flows in Wildcat Creek. This bridge, which would
be approximately 84 feet long and 17.5 feet wide, would be anchored to concrete piers on either side
of the creek and include no piers or anchors within the creek. The piers would be above the top of
bank of the creek on each side and would elevate the bottom of the bridge approximately 1 to 3 feet
above the top of the creek banks.
36 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Numbers 06085C0219H and
06085C0360H. May 18.
37 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2003. Letter from Wendy Allison, Assistant Engineer, Santa Clara Valley
Water District to Daniel Nunes, Mission Engineers Inc. October 6.
101
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 62
Based on the results of open channel flow hydraulic calculations completed by both the project
sponsor and Baseline Environmental Consulting that consider the 100-year discharge rate (570 cfs, as
specified by the Santa Clara Valley Water District), and the size, configuration, slope, and roughness
of the creek channel, the existing creek channel would convey the 100-year flow within its banks.
Therefore, provided the bridge freespans the creek, does not encroach into the existing channel, and
does not modify the existing channel, the proposed bridge would have no effect on 100-year flood
flow conveyance. The preliminary bridge diagrams and engineering drawings indicate that these
conditions would be met. The following mitigation measure would require review of the final bridge
plans to verify that the bridge would not affect the 100-year flood zone:
Mitigation Measure HYD-3: As a condition of approval of the final grading plan, the applicant
shall prepare and submit a detailed bridge design report to the City for review and approval.
The report shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer. The report shall present
details of the bridge design, including locations of piers, and ensure that the bridge does not
encroach into the channel of Wildcat Creek. The report shall also include supporting calcula-
tions that confirm that the channel and the final bridge configuration can pass the 100-year
flood flow of 570 cubic feet per second (this flow rate may be amended by the Santa Clara
Valley Water District, as appropriate) without encroachment. Reasonable, expected deviations
from the assumed flow rate would not result in additional significant environmental impacts
beyond those identified in this Initial Study. In addition, the bridge shall be designed to cross
the creek as close to a 90 degree angle as feasible.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
The proposed project is not located within any mapped dam or levee failure inundation hazard areas.38
Therefore the project would not expose people or structures to these risks.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The project site is not located near a coastal area or within the vicinity of an enclosed body of water.
Therefore, the project site is not susceptible to inundation by tsunami or seiche. In addition, the
project site is not adjacent to steep slopes, and so is not subject to mudflow hazards. The Updated
Geologic Evaluation for the site prepared by Craig S. Harwood states that his review of geologic data
for the site “indicates no evidence of gross instability of the natural slopes at and immediately
adjacent to the site,” even though “the natural slopes have been subject to innumerable moderate and
many large-scale earthquakes throughout the Holocene Epoch (within the last 11,000 years).”
Therefore, the project site would not be susceptible to mudflow.
38 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010. Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure Inundation.
Website: www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/damfail.html.
102
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 63
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regu-
lation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
a) Physically divide an established community?
The physical division of an established community would typically involve the construction of large
features (such as freeways) that then function as physical or psychological barriers between
communities, or the removal of roadways (e.g., through the assembly of numerous parcels and the
creation of “superblocks”) such that access from one neighborhood to another is diminished.
The proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence within the project
site and an associated driveway. The project would not obstruct access on any roads around the
project site, including Winn Road and Piedmont Road. Therefore, the proposed project would not
physically divide the residential neighborhood around the site.
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?
The project site is designated Very Low Density Residential in the City of Saratoga General Plan.
This land use designation permits the development of single-family residences, and horticulture and
agricultural uses by right, and establishes a maximum density of 1.09 dwelling units per acre (or 3.38
people per acre), and requires that buildings and other impervious surfaces cover no more than 35
percent of the net site area. The proposed project would not exceed these standards. The density of the
project would be one dwelling unit per 2.6 acres; impervious surfaces would cover less than 25
percent of the site, regardless of which driveway alternative is implemented. Therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with the land use designation for the site. The project would maintain a
buffer around Wildcat Creek such that the proposed residence would be at least 30 feet away from the
creek. In addition, the creek would be maintained in its existing state (the proposed bridge over
Wildcat Creek would not alter the channel of the creek or create other significant physical changes to
the creek). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan policies requiring
the preservation of waterways in Saratoga.
103
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 64
The project site is zoned R-1-40,000, Single Family Residential. This zone permits the development
of single-family residential uses and other compatible uses (such as the raising of fruit and nut trees
and stables/corrals for one horse per 40,000 square feet of lot area). The R-1-40,000 zone establishes
a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet (the project site has a lot area of 2.6 acres, or 113,691
square feet) and a maximum natural grade under structures of 30 percent (the average slope of the site
is 24 percent). The project would meet the various site coverage and setback requirements listed in
the City Code.
The bridge over Wildcat Creek that would be constructed as part of the Piedmont/Wildcat Road
alternative would be considered an “accessory structure” per Section 5.06.022 of the City Code. An
accessory structure is defined as “a structure which is: (a) detached from any other structure such that
the distance between any part of the two structures is thirty-six inches or more; and (b) incidental and
subordinate to, and customarily associated with, the main structure or principal use on the lot.” Under
Section 15-45.045(c) of the City Code, an accessory structure may be permitted within a required 30-
foot creek protection setback only if it complies with special rules set forth in Section 15-80.030.
However, there are no special rules in Section 15-80.030 for bridges. Therefore, the bridge would be
permitted within the creek protection setback if it is consistent with the purpose of Section 15-45.045,
which is the “future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat.” As noted above,
the proposed bridge would not alter the channel of the creek or create other significant physical
changes to the creek. In addition, the mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would ensure
protection of the riparian zone around the creek and the quality of water in the creek, meeting the
substantive requirements of Section 15-45.045. These mitigation measures include: Mitigation
Measures AES-1 (tree protection); BIO-3 (streambed protection); HAZ-2 (reduction of potential for
contamination); HYD-1 (water quality protection); and HYD-3 (reduction of flooding potential).
Therefore, the project would be generally compliant with the zoning regulations for the project site.
Please refer to Section I, Aesthetics, for a discussion of the project’s consistency with Article 15.50,
Tree Regulations, of the City Code. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require compliance with
Article 15.50.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan does not
include land in the City of Saratoga.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
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?
104
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 65
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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?
Mineral resources in and around Saratoga are limited primarily to sandstone and shale. No active
mines are located in Saratoga, and the project site does not contain known mineral resources. No
historic mining activities are evident on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
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?
This site is not indicated as containing mineral resources in any local land use or regional plan.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
105
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 66
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation
Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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?
Table 2 lists noise standards for residential uses in
the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance (Article 7-30
of the City Code). The indoor standards apply to
noise produced by exterior noise sources.
Because the site is undeveloped and is not located in close proximity to high-traffic roadways,
ambient noise levels on the site are low, and are expected to be in the range of 50 A-weighted
decibels (dBA) or lower. Noise sources around the project site include light traffic volumes on
Piedmont Road and Winn Road and landscaping activities.
Implementation of the proposed project could increase noise levels in the vicinity of the site during
the project construction period. In addition, use of the site as a residence would incrementally
increase local noise levels (noise levels would also increase incrementally on local roadways used to
access the site); however, these long-term noise increases in ambient noise would not be considered
significant.
Construction of the proposed project would involve earthwork and grading, including the use of
tractors, dump trucks, and graders. In addition, chainsaws could be used to remove vegetation. Con-
struction of the proposed project is scheduled to extend over a period of 12 to 24 months. Construc-
tion-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project
site vicinity but would end once construction is completed. The site preparation phase, which would
include excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the
noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Typical operating cycles for these types of
construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4
minutes at lower power settings.
The two access alternatives would result in similar types and levels of noise, although the Winn Road
alternative would result in relatively higher short-term noise levels north of the site; the Piedmont/
Wildcat Road alternative would result in higher noise levels south of the site. The Winn Road
alternative would require more grading than the Piedmont/Wildcat Road alternative, but ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of construction operations would likely be similar for both alternatives
(because both alternatives would use similar types of equipment).
The closest noise-sensitive receptors would be the residences bordering the site to the north and the
south. These residences would be located over 100 feet away from the portion of the site where the
Table 2: Residential Ambient Noise Standards
Land Use Daytime Evening Nighttime
Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA
Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA 30 dBA
Source: Saratoga, City of, March, 2007. City Code, Article 7-30.
106
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 67
residence would be constructed. The construction of the Piedmont/Wildcat Road driveway would
occur up to approximately 100 feet from the nearest residence; the construction of the Winn Road
driveway would occur up to 50 feet from the nearest residence. At a distance of 50 feet from grading
activities, the residences nearest the site would be exposed to construction noise levels of up to a
maximum of 87 dBA Lmax. Residences located approximately 100 feet from sites where grading
would occur, would be exposed to construction noise levels of up to 81 dBA Lmax.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which incorporates the requirements in the
City’s Noise Ordinance and is intended to address construction noise in residential districts, would
reduce temporary construction-period noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation
measure would apply to construction activities associated with both access alternatives.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following
measures:
• In accordance with Article 7-30-060(a) of the Saratoga Noise Ordinance, construction
activities (including earthmoving and grading) within the project site shall be conducted
only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between
the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not occur on Sundays
or weekday holidays.
• A notice of these construction hour restrictions shall be conspicuously posted at the
entrance to the work site prior to commencement of the work, informing all contractors and
subcontractors, their employees, agents, material men and all other persons at the project
site of the basic limitations upon noise and construction activities provided in the City
Code.
• During construction, all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines
shall be properly muffled and maintained.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.
• All stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors, shall be located as far
as practical from residences in the vicinity of the project site. Such equipment shall be
acoustically shielded using standard plywood barriers, noise control blankets, or other
appropriate equipment.
• Whenever feasible, quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, shall be
utilized.
Long-term use of the project site as a residence would marginally increase ambient noise levels on the
project site. Conversations of site occupants, the use of motor vehicles, and the use of landscaping
equipment would marginally increase noise levels on the site. However, these increases would be
minor; changes in ambient noise levels over the long-term at residences adjacent to the site would
likely be imperceptible.
The project would be expected to generate less than 10 vehicle trips per day. These trips would be
distributed on local roadways and would contribute to ambient noise levels. However, this relatively
small number of daily trips would not result in a perceptible change in long-term ambient noise
levels.
107
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 68
Lastly, the project site currently experiences low ambient noise levels, and is therefore an appropriate
place for residential uses. Residential occupants of the site would not be exposed to high noise levels.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
Refer to Section XI.a. Residents adjacent to the project site could be exposed to temporary increased
levels of ground borne vibration and ground borne noise during the construction period. These
increases are expected to occur infrequently, and for only short durations during the project construc-
tion period, which is expected to extend over 12 to 24 months. Implementation of the following
mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Refer to Section XI.a. The project would incrementally increase noise levels around the site through
noise generated on the site (from motor vehicles, residential occupants) and on roadways around the
site. However, these increases in ambient noise would be minor and not likely perceptible. The
project does not include stationary mechanical uses (e.g., a generator) that would substantially
increase ambient noise levels around the site.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Refer to Section XI.a. Construction activities on the site could increase short-term ambient noise
levels. Construction of the proposed project is scheduled to extend over 12 to 24 months. Construc-
tion-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project
site vicinity but would cease once construction is completed. Implementation of the following
mitigation measure would reduce the expected short-term increase in ambient noise to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. There-
fore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to high
levels of airport-related noise.
108
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 69
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation
of the proposed project would not expose site visitors to high levels of airstrip-related noise.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and busi-
nesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, neces-
sitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
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 infra-
structure)?
Implementation of the proposed project would directly increase the population of the City by expand-
ing the City’s housing supply by one single-family unit. According to the California Department of
Finance, the average household size in the City is 2.877 persons. Therefore, the project would be
expected to add approximately three persons to the City’s population. This direct population increase
would not be substantial in the context of the City’s population (as of January 1, 2009, the City had a
population of 31,679).39
The project would not be expected to indirectly increase the City’s population. Although utilities
would be extended into the site (which is currently undeveloped), these utilities are intended to serve
only the proposed residence. Future development of additional residences on the project site or nearby
properties is unlikely in the future.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No permanent housing is located within the project site. Implementation of the proposed project
would not remove existing housing.
39 State of California, Department of Finance, 2009. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California. May.
109
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 70
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Implementation of the proposed project would not displace people.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
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 govern-
mental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services: Fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public
facilities?
The following discussion addresses the potential impacts of the project on fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities.
Fire Protection. The Saratoga Fire District (District) would provide fire fighting services to the project
site. The District maintains a fire station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue (approximately 1.3 roadway miles
northwest of the project site) and operates two “on-line” firefighting vehicles, one reserve vehicle,
one command vehicle, a multipurpose truck which performs rescue and serves as an additional source
of oxygen and light, and two administrative cars. The District administers an Early Warning Alarm
System (EWAS), which requires a fire detection system in newly constructed homes over 5,000
square feet, remodeled homes expanded over 50 percent of the original square footage, any new
construction in the Hazardous Hillside Area, and new commercial construction. The EWAS is
intended to detect fires in the incipient stage and immediately notify the District through a combina-
tion telephone dialer and radio frequency transmitter.40 Because the proposed residence would contain
40 Saratoga Fire District, 2010. Website: www.saratogafire.org/about_overview.html (accessed February 10).
110
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 71
over 5,000 square feet of interior space, it would be required to contain a fire detection system.
Based on the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Threat Map prepared by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), the project site is located within a community at risk for wildfire hazards.
This high risk community comprises much of the predominantly residential neighborhoods immedi-
ately adjacent to the Santa Cruz Mountains, including much of Saratoga.41 The risk in this area is
increased due to the proximity of regional open space, much of which is forested and susceptible to
wildfires. Therefore, emergency vehicle access to the project site is a critical public services issue.
The District requires that driveways not exceed an average of 15 percent slope (including a limit of 18
percent slope for any 50-foot segment) and be at least 14 feet wide with a 1-foot shoulder on each
side (i.e., sufficiently wide to allow a 10-foot wide fire truck, with doors that open to 38 to 45 inches,
to maneuver). Based on a review of plans for the access routes, the Piedmont/Wildcat Road driveway
would satisfy the slope and width requirements (although incorporation of access modifications by
the District may still be required).
However, development of the Winn Road driveway is substantially constrained by the steep topography
in the northern portion of the site. According to correspondence from Hal Netter, Fire Prevention
Inspector, Saratoga Fire District, “a retaining wall approx. 7.5 feet high in some places and a width of
12 feet driving surface would be used on the Winn Road access. . .[would be] too narrow for the fire
engines to maneuver and the height of the wall would prevent the doors [of the engine] to be opened for
the safe exit of the engine.” According to the District, expanding the driveway to 14 feet in width with
appropriate shoulders may meet District requirements, but substantial additional grading and tree
removal may be required; however, this additional grading and tree removal would not result in
additional impacts beyond those already identified in this Initial Study, or require additional mitigation
measures. Other provisions would also need to be implemented to allow for adequate emergency
vehicle access, including the installation of a sprinkler system and development of a minimum 40-foot
by 48-foot turnaround area.42
Although the proposed project would not require the construction of new fire fighting facilities, the
project could substantially interfere with emergency access, depending on the design of the proposed
driveway, as described above. Implementation of the following mitigation measure (which would
apply to both driveway alternatives) would reduce impacts to fire fighting services to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure PUB-1: The following measures shall be implemented:
• Implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 (to reduce wildfire risks on the site)
• The project sponsor shall submit final plans for the preferred access alternative to the
Saratoga Fire District for approval. Changes to these plans requested by the District shall be
incorporated by the project sponsor and re-submitted to the District for final approval.
41 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Threat. Website:
www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/wildfire/ (accessed February 5).
42 Saratoga Fire District, 2007. Plan Check Review Transmittal for Planning Department. May 22.
111
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 72
Police Protection. The proposed project would receive crime enforcement services from the West
Valley Division of the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff, which is located approximately 4
miles north of the project site at 1601 South De Anza Boulevard in the City of Cupertino. The West
Valley Division provides uniformed law enforcement patrol services for the cities of Saratoga,
Cupertino and Los Altos Hills, as well as nearby unincorporated areas. The proposed project would
result in the construction of a single-family residence on the project site. Although this new residence
could be the target of crime (e.g., theft), an increase in demand for Sheriff services would not be
expected to require the construction of new facilities.
Schools. Students generated by the proposed project would be permitted to attend an elementary
school and middle school administered by the Saratoga Union School District (the Saratoga Union
District has an open enrollment policy that allows guardians to choose any elementary school in the
District; all students attend Redwood Middle School) and either Los Gatos High School or Saratoga
High School, which are both administered by the Los-Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union District. Imple-
mentation of the proposed project would directly increase the population of the City by expanding the
City’s housing supply by one single-family unit. According to the California Department of Finance,
the average household size in the City is 2.877 persons. Therefore, the project would be expected to
add approximately three persons to the City’s population. Because the proposed residence could
accommodate a family, it is expected that the project would generate up to three students (during
foreseeable occupation of the site by residents) who would attend schools in the Saratoga Union
School District and Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union District. Because of the flexible enrollment
policies of the two districts, the relatively small number of students that would be generated by the
project would not be expected to exceed the capacity of the districts such that new schools would be
required.
Parks. Parks in the vicinity of the site that would be used by residents associated with the project
include Villa Montalvo Arboretum County Park, and the regional open space in the vicinity of
Saratoga, including El Sereno Regional Open Space, and Sanborn-Skyline County Park. Implementa-
tion of the proposed project would likely increase the use of these parks. However, this increase in
use is not expected to adversely affect the physical conditions of local and regional open space areas,
or require the provision of new park facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in adverse
impacts to parks.
Other Public Facilities. Implementation of the proposed project could also increase demand for other
public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. The small
increase in residential population associated with the project is not expected to result in substantially
increased usage of these facilities, such that new facilities would be needed to maintain service
standards.
112
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 73
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
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?
As discussed in Section XIII, residents of the project site would be expected to use parks and open
space facilities such as Villa Montalvo Arboretum County Park, El Sereno Regional Open Space, and
Sanborn-Skyline County Park. Although the project would incrementally increase use of these
facilities, this increase in use is not expected to result in substantial deterioration of park space. Use of
local and regional parks would likely be intermittent and distributed over several locations, and would
be commensurate with the low number of residents that would occupy the project site (approximately
three persons). In addition, use of public facilities by occupants of the project site would be
marginally reduced due to the provision of private open space on the site, including terraces and
walkways.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project does not include formal recreational facilities. The private, landscaped open
space (e.g., terraces and walkways) that would be developed on the site would not result in physical
environmental impacts beyond those already identified in this Initial Study (e.g., storm water runoff).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
113
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 74
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency on designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic. Based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition (2008), one
single-family residence would be expected to generate approximately 9.57 vehicle trips per day,
including 0.75 trips per residence during the AM peak hour (i.e., the morning commute hour with the
highest traffic volumes) and 1.10 trips per residence during the PM peak hour (i.e., the afternoon
commute hour with the highest traffic volumes). The roadways around the project site generally
operate at a high level of service, and vehicle trips generated by the project would likely be within the
margin of error of a traffic analysis model. In other words, the vehicle trips generated by the project
would not be expected to result in a noticeable change to level of service on local and regional roads
in the vicinity of the project site. These trips would not be considered substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways?
Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a designated roadway to exceed a level of
service standard established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (Level of
Service (LOS) E). The project is not expected to substantially increase vehicle trips on any roads or
highways in the vicinity of the project site.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
114
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 75
The project site is not located near an airport and would have no effect on air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter-
sections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The proposed project would not change public roads in the vicinity of the project site, although a new
driveway would be developed from Piedmont/Wildcat Road or Winn Road. The driveway would
roughly meet either road at a roughly right angle. Adequate sight lines would be available from either
driveway. The project does not contain other design features that would be dangerous from a
roadway/traffic perspective.
The project would develop new residential uses in a predominantly residential neighborhood.
Therefore, the project would not create hazards through the development of incompatible uses.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Saratoga Fire District requires that driveways not exceed an average of 15 percent slope
(including a limit of 18 percent slope for any 50-foot segment) and be at least 14 feet wide with a 1-
foot shoulder on each side (i.e., sufficiently wide to allow a 10-foot wide fire truck, with doors that
open to 38 to 45 inches, to maneuver). Based on a review of plans for the access routes, the Piedmont/
Wildcat Road driveway would satisfy the slope and width requirements (although incorporation of
access modifications by the District may still be required). According to the District, expanding the
driveway off Winn Road to 14 feet in width with appropriate shoulders may meet District
requirements for that alternative, but substantial additional grading and tree removal may be required
(however, this additional grading and tree removal would not result in additional impacts beyond
those already identified in this Initial Study, or require additional mitigation measures). Other
provisions would also need to be implemented to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access,
including the installation of a sprinkler system and development of a minimum 40-foot by 48-foot
turnaround area.43 Please refer to Section XIII.a. for a more detailed discussion of potential impacts to
emergency access.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to emergency access to a
less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Implement Mitigation Measure PUB-1.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
The proposed project would include parking spaces for several vehicles. Therefore, all parking would
be accommodated on-site and no parking shortage would be expected.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
43 Saratoga Fire District, 2007. Plan Check Review Transmittal for Planning Department. May 22.
115
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 76
The project would not conflict with adopted plans, policies, or programs supporting alternative
transportation. City of Saratoga policies do not require the installation of pedestrian facilities or bike
facilities, or provision for transit access as part of single-family residential developments.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste-
water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant envi-
ronmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the con-
struction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment pro-
vider which serves or may serve the project that it has ade-
quate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
The vicinity of the project site is served by utility infrastructure, including sanitary sewer and water
lines. However, extensions of these lines would need to be made to provide service to the project site.
Water, energy, and telecommunications lines would be extended from Winn Road; sanitary sewer
connections would be extended from Piedmont Road. The new residents on the project site would
incrementally increase the amount of wastewater generated on the site.
For the purposes of this analysis, wastewater generation is assumed to be approximately 90 percent of
water usage (the 10 percent differential includes consumed water and water used for irrigation).
According to the Public Policy Institute of California, per capita water use in California is 232 gallons
per day. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the local population by approxi-
mately three residents. Therefore, a rough estimate of the project’s anticipated water demand is 696
116
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 77
gallons per day (three persons x 232 gallons per day); expected daily wastewater generation would be
approximately 626 gallons per day (90 percent of 696 gallons).
This increase in demand for wastewater treatment would comprise a small portion of the wastewater
treated by the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. The Plant has a capacity of 167
million gallons per day. In 2008, the Average Dry Weather Effluent Flow was 92 million gallons
per day – the lowest flow since 1978. Therefore, the Plant is operating well under capacity and
the wastewater generated by the project would not cause an exceedance of the RWQCB’s treatment
standards. According to the Plant, the reduction in flows is attributable to three major factors: water
conservation, slightly slower economy activity in the region, and increased use of effluent as recycled
water.44
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?
Water supply and treatment is provided by the San Jose Water Company. Approximately 90 percent
of the SJWC’s water is supplied by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District). The District
operates three water treatment plants that clean and disinfect imported water and water captured
in local reservoirs. The water treatment plants can produce as much as 220 million gallons of treated
water a day. Combined, these water treatment plants operate well below capacity. For instance, in
November 2009, the water treatment plans produced an average of approximately 103.5 million
gallons of treated water a day.45 Based on per capita water demand rates, the proposed project would
increase demand by 696 gallons per day. Therefore, the additional demand for treated water generated
by the project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities.
Wastewater treatment is provided by the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. As
discussed in Section XVI.a., the Water Pollution Control Plant is operating well under capacity. The
proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 626 gallons of wastewater per day,
which could be treated by the Water Pollution Control Plant. Therefore, the proposed project would
not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities.
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?
The project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. Storm water
generated by new impervious surfaces on the project site would be expected to percolate into the
pervious area surrounding the proposed residence and associated driveway, and to ultimately be
conveyed to Wildcat Creek.
However, if the Piedmont/Wildcat Road driveway is selected as the preferred alternative, the
associated bridge over Wildcat Creek could interfere with maintenance by the District of Wildcat
44 San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, 2009. Clean Bay Strategy. February.
45 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2010. Water Tracker Report. January.
117
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 78
Creek (which has value as a biological resource and is also used to convey storm water).46
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the Piedmont/Wildcat Road
alternative would not adversely affect District operations at Wildcat Creek:
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 (Applies to Piedmont/Wildcat Road Alternative only): The project
sponsor shall submit detailed plans for the bridge over Wildcat Creek to the Santa Clara Valley
Water District. Modifications to the bridge requested by the District to ensure future access to
the bridge shall be incorporated into the bridge plans. The modifications shall not affect the
100-year flood zone or the riparian corridor beyond the impacts already identified in this Initial
Study.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The City of Saratoga buys its water from local water retailer San Jose Water Company (SJWC).
SJWC provides the City with surface water from Saratoga Creek, and with water it buys from the
District. The District imports water from the Sierra Nevada via the State Water Project, the federal
Central Valley Project, and San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy system. It also draws from local
groundwater aquifers and rainwater captured in ten District reservoirs. The SJWC receives
approximately 90 percent of its water supply from the District.
Based on per capita water demand rates, the proposed project would increase demand by 696 gallons
of water per day and would generate approximately 626 gallons of wastewater per day. Usable open
space on the project site would be clustered around the proposed residence and would feature native
and low-water use plant species such as coast live oak, rockrose, coffee berry, native rhododendron,
rosemary, manzanita, vine maple, and tristinia (Brisbane box). No large areas of turf are proposed.
Therefore, water demand generated by new landscaping on the site is expected to be modest.
Using ABAG population projections, the District expects that it will require a water supply of
approximately 450,000 acre feet by the year 2030 (with conservation programs in place). The
proposed project is consistent with ABAG’s population projections for the City of Saratoga and is
thus included in the District’s assessment of future water demand. According to the District’s 2009
Annual Report on the Protection and Augmentation of Water Supply: “The district manages and
addresses risks and uncertainties by building a diversified portfolio of water supply alternatives. This
portfolio of existing dry year supplies and new water supply investments is intended to meet at least
95% of future water demands. This portfolio will be reviewed and updated in a Water Supply and
Infrastructure Master Plan scheduled for completion in 2011. To secure long term water supply
reliability and regulatory certainty, the district also needs to continue to engage in statewide, regional
and local collaboration and partnerships.” The District also maintains periodically-updated contin-
gency plans to reduce water use during prolonged periods of drought. These measures have histori-
cally been successful in reducing demand.47 Therefore, the District would have an adequate water
supply to meet the demand for water generated by the proposed project.
46 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2008. Memorandum to Heather Bradley, City of Saratoga, Re. Alternatives for
the Development of Assessor Parcel Number 517-22-108, Located North of Piedmont Road in the City of Saratoga. April
22.
47 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2009. Annual Report on the Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies.
March.
118
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 79
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?
Wastewater treatment is provided by the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. As
discussed in Section XVI.a., the Water Pollution Control Plant is operating well under capacity. The
proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 626 gallons of wastewater per day,
which could be treated by the Water Pollution Control Plant. Therefore, the proposed project would
not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of relatively small quantities of
solid waste associated with residential uses. Existing landfills would have sufficient capacity to
accommodate this minor increase in solid waste.
g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Recycling receptacles would be provided within the project site, as required, in accordance with all
statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Miti-
gation Incor-
porated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
119
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 80
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, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of a site that contains riparian
woodland and mixed woodland plant communities that combined have a high level of ecological
value. The proposed project could adversely affect the following protected plants and animals that may
occur on the project site: western leatherwood, Loma Prieta hoita, robust monardella, and San
Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. However, adverse effects to these species would be reduced through
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Construction of the
project would also affect the riparian zone around Wildcat Creek, native birds, and protected trees.
However, impacts to these resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5. After implementation of these
mitigation measures, the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of an animal species, cause
the population of animal species to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal
community, or otherwise degrade the quality of the natural environment. The project site does not
contain rare or endangered species (although the species listed above are considered special status
species).
The project site contains no identified prehistoric or historic resources, although an abandoned well is
located on the site that may contain debris that could have archaeological value. As part of the
project, this well would be formally abandoned per the regulations of the Santa Clara Valley Water
District and any archaeological materials present would not be removed or destroyed. The well would
be located in the buffer zone around Wildcat Creek that would be preserved as open space. Mitigation
Measure CULT-1 through Mitigation Measure CULT-4 would protect archaeological materials and
fossils that could be found on the project site during the project construction period. Therefore, the
proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
Other planned and anticipated projects in Saratoga include small-scale residential developments
similar to the proposed project, modifications to existing roadways, and the redevelopment of
Saratoga Village. The foreseeable projects in Saratoga would be expected to result in minimal adverse
environmental impacts, similar to the proposed project. These impacts could include incremental
increases in storm water runoff, minor disturbances to plants and wildlife, removal of protected trees,
and other effects typical of projects undertaken in suburban areas with a mixture of developed and
less-developed environments. With the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study, the
impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the
context of impacts associated with other pending or planned projects. The proposed project would
result in the development of a single-family residence in an existing residential neighborhood in a
way that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning regulations. All environmental impacts
120
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 81
that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level
through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Because the project site has historically been undeveloped, it is unlikely that contaminated soil or
groundwater occurs on the site. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would be
implemented if hazardous materials are unexpectedly identified on the site. The site is also located in
a high wildfire risk area. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure would reduce risks
associated with wildfires around the site to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed
project would not have substantial adverse effects on human beings.
D. REPORT PREPARERS
LSA Associates, Inc., Prime Consultant: Project Management and Report Production; Project
Description; Initial Study Preparation
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Judith Malamut, Principal-in-Charge
Adam Weinstein, Project Manager
Patty Linder, Graphics and Production
Charis Cronan, Word Processing
LSA Associates, Inc.: Biological Reconnaissance
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, CA 94801
Matt Ricketts, Biologist
Baseline Environmental Consulting: Flood/Creek Analysis
5900 Hollis Street, Suite D
Emeryville, CA 94608
Bruce Abelli-Amen, Hydrologist
E. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arbor Resources, 2007. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Proposed Development Along the
Wildcat and Winn Road Rights-of-Ways, Saratoga, California (APN 517-22-108). August 8.
Arbor Resources, 2009. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Development Proposed Along the
Wildcat Road Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California (APN 517-22-108). June 3.
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010. Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure
Inundation. Website: www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/damfail.html.
121
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 82
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Threat. Website:
www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/wildfire/ (accessed February 5).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Ambient Air Quality and Bay Area
Attainment Status. Website: hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Ten Year Bay Area Air Quality
Summary. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/
Annual%20Bay%20Area%20Air%20Quality%20Summaries/pollsum08.ashx.
California Department of Conservation, 2008. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/scl08.pdf.
California Department of Transportation, 2010. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed January 18).
California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site
List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed February 4).
Craig S. Harwood, 2009. Updated Geologic Evaluation, Residence Bridge and Driveway, APN 517-
22-108, Piedmont Road at Wildcat Right-of-Way, Saratoga, California. June 18.
Dark Sky Society, 2009. Guidelines for Good Exterior Lighting Plans.
http://www.darkskysociety.org/handouts/LightingPlanGuidelines.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Numbers
06085C0219H and 06085C0360H. May 18.
Frisone, Robert, 2010. Personal communication with City staff and LSA Associates, Inc. January 14.
Hokanson, Wayne A., 2010. Deputy Fire Marshal II, Santa Clara County Fire Department. E-mail to
Michael Fossati, City of Saratoga. March 22.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2008. Discussion of access route alternatives for the Frisone property in
Saratoga, California (PN 1109-01). Letter from Davinna Ohlson, M.S. to Heather Bradley, City
of Saratoga. March 21.
Live Oak Associates, Inc., 2009. Response to the City of Saratoga’s request for additional
information regarding the Frisone property in Saratoga, California (PN 1109-01). July 15.
Mission Engineers, Inc., 2009. Memo to Heather Bradley Re. Proposed Residence on Wildcat Right
of Way (APN 517-22-108). March 20.
Netter, Hal, 2009. Fire Prevention Inspector, Saratoga Fire District. E-mail to Heather Bradley, City
of Saratoga. May 1.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2009. Evaluation of Water Quality
Conditions for the San Francisco Bay Region. February.
San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, 2009. Clean Bay Strategy. February.
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 1992. Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding
Santa Clara County Airports. Amended 2005.
122
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FRISONE PROJECT
DECEMBER 2010 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CIS0902 Frisone\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study Public-1.doc (12/23/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 83
Santa Clara County Firesafe Council, 2007. Living With Fire in Santa Clara County: A Guide for
Homeowners. July.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2003. Letter from Wendy Allison, Assistant Engineer, Santa Clara
Valley Water District to Daniel Nunes, Mission Engineers Inc. October 6.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2008. Memorandum to Heather Bradley, City of Saratoga, Re.
Alternatives for the Development of Assessor Parcel Number 517-22-108, Located North of
Piedmont Road in the City of Saratoga. April 22.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2009. Annual Report on the Protection and Augmentation of Water
Supplies. March.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2009. Development of Assessor Parcel Number 517-22-108,
Located North of Piedmont Road in the City of Saratoga. April 30.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2010. Water Tracker Report. January.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2010. Well Permits and Inspections. Website:
www.valleywater.org/Programs/WellPermitsInspections.aspx (accessed February 3).
Saratoga, City of, 1987. Safety Element, City of Saratoga General Plan. October 7.
Saratoga, City of, 2009. Notes from Santa Clara Valley Water District meeting regarding Frisone
Property. August 27.
Saratoga Fire District, 2010. Website: www.saratogafire.org/about_overview.html (accessed February
10).
Saratoga Fire District, 2007. Plan Check Review Transmittal for Planning Department. May 22.
Soil Surveys, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed Single Family Home and
Garage at Wildcat Creek Road off Piedmont Road, APN 517-22-108, Saratoga, California.
June 10.
State of California, Department of Finance, 2009. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California. May.
123
APPENDIX A
STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
124
General
Construction
and Site
Supervision
Best Management Practices
for Construction
Who should use this brochure?
· General contractors
· Site supervisors
· Inspectors
· Home builders
· Developers
Preventing Pollution:
It’s Up to Us
In the Santa Clara Valley, storm drains transport
water directly to local creeks and San Francisco
Bay without treatment. Stormwater pollution is a
serious problem for wildlife dependent on our
waterways and for the people who live near polluted
streams or baylands. Some common sources of
this pollution include spilled oil, fuel, and fluids from
vehicles and heavy equipment; construction debris;
sediment created by erosion; landscaping runoff
containing pesticides or weed killers; and materials
such as used motor oil, antifreeze, and paint
products that people pour or spill into a street or
storm drain.
Thirteen valley municipalities have joined together
with Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley
Water District to educate local residents and
businesses and fight stormwater pollution. Join us,
by following the practices described in this
pamphlet.
Doing the Job Right
General Principles
q Keep an orderly site and ensure good
housekeeping practices are used.
q Maintain equipment properly.
q Cover materials when they are not in use.
q Keep materials away from streets, storm drains
and drainage channels.
q Ensure dust control water doesn’t leave site or
discharge to storm drains.
Advance Planning To Prevent Pollution
q Schedule excavation and grading activities for dry
weather periods. To reduce soil erosion, plant
temporary vegetation or place other erosion
controls before rain begins. Use the Erosion and
Sediment Control Manual, available form the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, as a
reference.
q Control the amount of runoff crossing your site
(especially during excavation!) by using berms or
temporary or permanent drainage ditches to divert
water flow around the site. Reduce
stormwater runoff velocities by constructing
temporary check dams or berms where
appropriate.
q Train your employees and subcontractors. Make
these brochures available to everyone who works
on the construction site. Inform subcontractors
about the stormwater requirements and their own
responsibilities. Use Blueprint for a Clean Bay, a
construction best management practices guide
available from the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program, as a reference.
Good Housekeeping Practices
q Designate one area of the site for auto parking,
vehicle refueling, and routine equipment
maintenance. The designated area should be well
away from streams or storm drain inlets, bermed if
necessary. Make major repairs off site.
q Keep materials out of the rain – prevent runoff
contamination at the source. Cover exposed piles
of soil or construction materials with plastic
sheeting or temporary roofs. Before it rains, sweep
and remove materials from surfaces that drain to
storm drains, creeks, or channels.
q Keep pollutants off exposed surfaces. Place trash
cans and recycling receptacles around the site to
minimize litter.
Storm Drain Pollution from
Construction Activities
Construction sites are common sources of
storm water pollution. Materials and wastes
that blow or wash into a storm drain, gutter, or
street have a direct impact on local creeks and
the Bay.
As a contractor, or site supervisor, owner
or operator of a site, you may be
responsible for any environmental damage
caused by your subcontractors or
employees.
125
June 2001
q Clean up leaks, drips and other spills immediately
so they do not contaminate soil or groundwater or
leave residue on paved surfaces. Use dry cleanup
methods whenever possible. If you must use water,
use just enough to keep the dust down.
q Cover and maintain dumpsters. Check frequently
for leaks. Place dumpsters under roofs or cover
with tarps or plastic sheeting secured around the
outside of the dumpster. Never clean out a
dumpster by hosing it down on the construction
site.
q Place portable toilets away from storm drains.
Make sure portable toilets are in good working
order. Check frequently for leaks.
Materials/Waste Handling
q Practice Source Reduction -- minimize waste
when you order materials. Order only the amount
you need to finish the job.
q Use recyclable materials whenever possible.
Arrange for pick-up of recyclable materials such as
concrete, asphalt, scrap metal, solvents,
degreasers, cleared vegetation, paper, rock, and
vehicle maintenance materials such as used oil,
antifreeze, batteries, and tires.
q Dispose of all wastes properly. Many construction
materials and wastes, including solvents, water-
based paints, vehicle fluids, broken asphalt and
concrete, wood, and cleared vegetation can be
recycled. (See the reference list of recyclers in
Blueprint for a Clean Bay.) Materials that cannot be
recycled must be taken to an appropriate landfill or
disposed of as hazardous waste. Never bury waste
materials or leave them in the street or near a
creek or stream bed.
Permits
q In addition to local grading and building permits,
you will need to obtain coverage under the State's
General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit if
your construction site's disturbed area totals 5
acres or more. Information on the General Permit
can be obtained from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
Small Business Hazardous Waste
Disposal Program
Businesses that generate less than 27 gallons or
220 pounds of hazardous waste per month are
eligible to use Santa Clara County’s Small Business
Hazardous Waste Disposal Program. Call (408)
299-7300 for a quote, more information or guidance
on disposal.
Palo Alto operates a similar program, with monthly
collection, for small businesses. Call the City of
Palo Alto, (650) 496-6980, or Greenfield Services
Corporation, 1-800-433-5060 for information or to
schedule an appointment.
This brochure is one in a series of pamphlets
describing storm drain pollution prevention
measures for specific types of construction industry
activities. Other pamphlets include:
General Construction and Site Supervision
Landscaping, Gardening, and Pool
Maintenance
Painting and Application of Solvents and
Adhesives
Roadwork and Paving
Earth-Moving Activities and Dewatering
Activities
Heavy Equipment Operation
Home Repair and Remodeling
For additional brochures, call 1-800-794-2482
Spill Response Agencies:
1. In the City of Santa Clara, call (408) 984-3080.
2. In the City of Palo Alto, call (650) 329-2413.
3. In the City of San Jose, dial 9-1-1 if hazardous
materials enter the storm drain system. For
non-hazardous spills, call (408) 945-3000.
4. In other cities, DIAL 9-1-1
5. State Office of Emergency Services Warning
Center (24 hours). . . . . . . . . . 1-800-852-7550
6. Santa Clara County Environmental Health
Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(408) 299-6930
Local Pollution Control Agencies
County of Santa Clara
Pollution Prevention Program. . (408) 441-1195
County of Santa Clara Integrated Waste
Management Program. . . . . . . . (408) 441-1198
County of Santa Clara District Attorney
Environmental Crimes Hotline. . (408) 299-TIPS
Santa Clara County
Recycling Hotline. . . . . . . . . . . 1-800-533-8414
Santa Clara Valley Water
District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (408) 265-2600
Santa Clara Valley Water
District Pollution Hotline . . . . . . 1-888-510-5151
San Jose/Santa Clara Water
Pollution Control Plant. . . . . . . . (408) 945-3000
Serving Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos,
Milpitas, Monte Sereno, San Jose, Santa
Clara, Saratoga
Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant
Serving Sunnyvale. . . . . . . (408) 730-7270
Regional Water Quality
Control Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (650) 329-2598
Serving East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo
Alto, Stanford
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region. . . . . . (510) 622-2300
Santa Clara V alley
Urban Runof f
Pollution Prevention Program
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner March 30, 2011
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, CA
RE: Piedmont Road at Wildcat Right-of-Way
Application # #04-016 (APN 517-22-108)
Scatona Investments property
Dear Mr. Fossati,
When I met with you at the city offices on March 21, 2011, we agreed to schedule a walk
around the proposed access sites to the above property with my husband, myself, you and
the engineer for Scatona Investments. Since then the weather has hampered our progress
but I expect in the next couple weeks we will have such an opportunity.
Until then we wanted to express several significant concerns about the proposed Wildcat
Creek Right-of-Way access to the property.
1. Building a bridge over Wildcat Creek puts Piedmont Road in jeopardy. The creek
flows through our property directly next to our driveway and under Piedmont
Road to the other side of the street. We are concerned that if any bridge
construction or subsequent usage adversely interferes with the flow of the creek,
our driveway and Piedmont Road could be damaged. As Piedmont Road is private
and provides access to Villa Montalvo, Peach Hill and Madrone Hill Roads, a
number of homeowners, including Villa Montalvo, depend on its integrity and are
financially responsible for its maintenance. This issue was not addressed in the
study session memorandum of January 25, 2011.
2. Environment and safety and will be affected by a road along Wildcat Creek.
Heritage trees line the creek. Building a road would destroy a number of them and
threaten others. Losing these old oaks would be irreplaceable. Alternatively, Winn
Road access could cut down predominately eucalyptus trees, whose density in the
area increases fire hazard and whose removal would reduce it. Heritage trees are
irreplaceable and fire is potentially disastrous to homeowners and the
environment. The study session did not define the type of trees affected by Winn
Road or Wildcat access and thus did not consider the environment and public
safety.
3. Adjacent property values would be adversely affected by construction of a road
along Wildcat Creek. Currently the land along Wildcat Creek is a pristine
environment. Numerous homeowners view the protected area and it gives both
privacy and serenity to all land that surrounds it. It is a unique feature to the
neighborhood and as a natural environment increasingly at a premium in Santa
Clara County, it confers a special value on all property in its environs. The Winn
Road access would cut through dense, redundant chaparral which is alive only
seasonally and is viewed only by two neighbors rather than an entire
161
neighborhood. It might be important for the City to consider this issue. Was there
any consideration given to recommending a different design for the house that
Scatona Investments plans to build? In referencing the City of Saratoga’s
Residential Design Handbook, Policy #1, “minimize perception of bulk by
minimizing changes to natural topography and following hillside contours”, we
wondered if building a split level home wouldn’t decrease the costs of grading for
the house and for the Winn Road access.
4. The study report notes that the cost to Scatona Investments would be greater to
develop the Winn Road access than the Piedmont Road access based on the
number of trees destroyed. Shouldn’t consideration be given to affect of a
Wildcat Creek road on the entire neighborhood? What if we compare the numbers
of people who would be affected by each of two access plans by tallying the
number of homeowners impacted by each plan. There are many neighbors who
pass by Wildcat Creek on their way to and from Madrone Hill Road, Peach Hill
Road, and countless visitors exiting Villa Montalvo every day. However, since
Winn Road is a small cul-de-sac, that there are 6 owners with homes on Bonnie
Brae and Winn Roads who would be affected by sharing their private road. How
can we assess this communal cost for the proposed Wildcat Creek access?
Wouldn’t a decline in property value, fire hazard, and degradation of the
environment be a cost far greater than the small additional profit gained by
Scatona Investments? Aren’t the rights of a community of property owners as
much of a consideration? Allow Scatona Investments a profit, but allow
preservation of the community as well. We will live with the effects of the
proposed Wildcat Creek access of this daily, the business will see it only on their
balance sheet. The public cost of developing the Wildcat Creek access would be
far greater than the Winn Road access.
5. We have the significant question of legal ownership of the proposed Wildcat
Creek access road. If Scatona Investment Co. is allowed to build this road, does
it remain public property? Could this access road be treated as private property
with a gate or other restriction to public access? Do we have the right to use this
road to access our property, thereby decreasing the amount of impervious
coverage that our current driveway uses? What would happen if Villa Montalvo
decided to create a fire access road as was considered years ago through this same
right-of-way? Hopefully, this issue will be resolved for now and for future
owners of our property and for the Scatona Investment property.
Thank you, Mr. Fossati for your help when we met at the City offices and for answering
our questions regarding this access road issue. We look forward to hearing from you.
Stanford and Laurie Shoor
15177 Piedmont Road
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on:
Wednesday, the 28th day of September 2011, at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The
public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga
Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please
consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures.
APPLICATION/ADDRESS: 04-016 – Piedmont Road @ Wildcat Creek
APPLICANT/OWNER: Friscone
APN: 517-22-108
DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story
residence on this vacant lot located on Piedmont Road at Wildcat Creek. The application
includes 5,467 square foot residence with an approximately 551 square foot garage, plus
basement. The maximum height of the proposed building would not exceed the 26-foot height
limit. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 35% of the net site
area. A bridge is proposed to access to property from Piedmont Road across Wildcat Creek. Staff
has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA regulations prior to any Public
Hearings on the project. The lot size is approximately 2.61 gross acres, and is located in the R-1-
40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code
Section 15-45.060.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information
to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should
be filed on or before Tuesday, September 20th 2011.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this
notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone
in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Michael Fossati
Planner
(408) 868-1212
169
Parcel Number Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
51052012 MATHUR RAKESH AND DIPTI 15168 PIEDMONT DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
51715013 MONTALVO ASSOCIATION P O BOX 158 SARATOGA, CA 95071
51718022 PETERSON ROBERT H TRUSTEE & ET 15055 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51718023 ALTAFI ABDI AND LEILY 15107 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51718024 MO BAOCI C 15159 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51718025 JALALIAN MAJID 15201 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51718026 MURABITO KATHLEEN AND ALFRED C 15253 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51720014 ARING FAMILY 1986 TR AGREEMENT 20080 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
51720015 KLINE NORMAN C AND ALLISON A 20121 HILL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
51720016 WEISLER MARK R TRUSTEE 20161 HILL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
51720017 MOYLES DAVID P AND DENISE B TR P O BOX 3525 SARATOGA, CA 95070
51720018 LITLE GENE TRUSTEE 20261 HILL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722004 COYOTE PROPERTIES LLC 385 WOODVIEW AV STE #100 MORGAN HILL, CA 95037
51722008 LIU TA HSIN AND PYNG ING 20125 WINN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722009 ALBRECHT HILBERT K AND ROSEMAR 20190 WINN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722011 Barry Ford 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane Saratoga, CA 95070
51722012 CHANG HENRY S AND LISA S 15050 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722016 WINOVICH WARREN TRUSTEE & ET A 15091 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722035 GIANSIRACUSA BERNICE K AND FRA P O BOX 2430 SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722036 STUTZMAN FRANCIS L AND EDYTHMA 15195 PARK DR SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722047 SHOOR STANFORD M AND DUCKHAM-S 15177 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722048 WU SHEAU-DONG AND SEN WEI 20150 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722055 HORINE S CHRIS AND CAROLE J TR 15250 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722060 BERQUIST HERBERT C AND HELEN M 15240 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722065 GARDNER SCOTT L TRUSTEE PO BOX 36290 SAN JOSE, CA 95158
51722070 JOHNSON SARITA K 15277 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722073 MASSIE TONY 15301 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722079 ANDRES FREDERICK S AND SHARON 15255 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722083 WALKER WM WAYNE AND SARAH J TR 15315 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722084 RINEHART ROBERT M AND JULIE M 15230 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722091 MCGUIRE-CHAIDES KATHLEEN 15305 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722092 CHIDLOW CHRISTINE A TRUSTEE PO BOX 3096 SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722093 SOOZANI ALI AND CARRIER LIDA D 15180 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722094 NEGIN HARLEY B AND JUDITH M 15172 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722103 FULDE WALTER J AND CATHERINE D 15164 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722104 METZ SYLVIA R AND LEONARD J 7280 BLUE HILL DR UNIT 1 SAN JOSE, CA 95129
51722105 CALL DONALD R SR AND SHEILA S 14930 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722108 Robert Frisone SCATONA INVESTMENTS LLC MONTEREY, CA 93940
51722109 MEYER CARL AND MARINA 20252 HILL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722110 BILLAWALA NOORUDIN A TRUSTEE P O BOX 187 SARATOGA, CA 95071
51722113 COOGAN EMMONS W AND MARGARET J 20120 HILL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722114 ROHRER RONALD A AND JONES CATH 20100 HILL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722117 SHORTINO LEO M TRUSTEE & ET AL 15252 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722118 SMITH MARK S TRUSTEE & ET AL 15195 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722119 COCHRAN WILSON O II AND LEE ES 15221 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722120 MONTGOMERY TIMOTHY K AND HUGIL 15000 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722125 HARARI ELIYAHOU AND BRITT M TR 20238 HILL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070
51722126 COYOTE PROPERTIES LLC 55 LAS COLINAS LN SAN JOSE, CA 95119
Total 48
170
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
I, Michael Fossati , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the
United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Community
Development Director on the 9th day of September , 2011, that I
deposited 48 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy
of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following
persons at the addresses shown, to-wit:
(See list attached hereto and made part hereof)
that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing
pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that
said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the
Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 250 feet of the
property described as:
Address: Vacant Lot at Wildcat Road /
Piedmont Road
APN: 517-22-108
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the
addresses shown above.
______________________________
Michael Fossati
City of Saratoga
171
172