Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-2019 Planninng Commission PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTMEBER 11, 2019 7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 14, 2019. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of August 14, 2019 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This 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. REPORT ON 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. 1. NEW BUSINESS 2. PUBLIC HEARING Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court, members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. 2.1. Application SUB19-0001, VAR19-0001, and ENV19-0002; 13939 Quito Road (397-43-017); Howell Development & Investments, Incorporated. This item was continued from the August 14, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately 25,698 square foot parcel located at 13939 Quito Road into two lots. Parcel One would be 13,193 square feet and have frontage on Loquat Court and Parcel Two would be 12,505 square feet and have Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3 frontage on Quito Road. The project includes a request for a Variance because the proposed 43-foot length of site frontage of Parcel One along Loquat Court would be less than the minimum required site frontage length of 60 feet. The project would also include the relocation and rehabilitation of an existing single-family home constructed in 1890 known as the Harry Brandenburg house from its current location to the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Quito Road. The house is classified as a Heritage Resource on the City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. No other development is proposed at this time. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 19-019 adopting the Negative Declaration ENV19-0002, included as Attachment 1; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-020 approving Tentative Map SUB19-000 and Variance VAR19- 0001 subject to conditions included in Attachment 2. 2.2 Application PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024; 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive (517-18-067); Lands of Yu / South Coast Architects – The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new 5,611 square foot two-story new residence with a 3,660 square foot basement, and a 902 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit. Three (3) protected trees are requested for removal. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of Residential Very Low Density. Staff Contact: Nicole Johnson (408) 868-1209 or njohnson@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-026 approving the proposed residence with a basement and detached ADU subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 2.3. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Regulations Update ZOA19-0003 Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-025 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Article 15-44 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) of the Saratoga City Code. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA I, Frances Reed, Administrative Assistant for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on September 5, 2019 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 5th day of September 2019 at Saratoga, California. Frances Reed, Administrative Assistant In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 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] Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3 You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: September 11, 2019 (continued from August 14, 2019) Application: SUB19-0001 / VAR19-0001 / ENV19-0002 Address/APN: 13939 Quito Road/ 397-43-017 Owner/Applicant: James Schibler / Howell Development & Investments, Inc. From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner 13939 Quito Road Report to the Planning Commission 13939 Quito Road – Application #’s SUB19-0001 / VAR19-0001 / ENV19-0002 September 11, 2019 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately 25,698 square foot parcel located at 13939 Quito Road into two lots. Parcel One would be 13,193 square feet and have frontage on Loquat Court and Parcel Two would be 12,505 square feet and have frontage on Quito Road. The project includes a request for a Variance because the proposed 43-foot length of site frontage of Parcel One along Loquat Court would be less than the minimum required site frontage length of 60 feet. The project would also include the relocation and rehabilitation of an existing single-family home constructed in 1890 known as the Harry Brandenburg house from its current location to the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Quito Road. The house is classified as a Heritage Resource on the City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. No other development is proposed at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution No. 19-019 adopting the Negative Declaration ENV19-0002, included as Attachment 1; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-020 approving Tentative Map SUB19-000 and Variance VAR19-0001 subject to conditions included in Attachment 2. PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: M-10 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning: R-1-10,000 Parcel Size: 25,698 square feet Average Slope: 1.5% PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Parcel 1 Net Parcel Size 13,193 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Frontage 42.93 ft. 60 ft. Width 109.38 ft. 85 ft. Depth 118.81 ft. 115 ft. Front Setback 25 ft. 25 ft. Left Setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Right Setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Rear Setback 25 ft 25 ft. Parcel 2 Net Parcel Size 12,505 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Frontage 103.91 ft. 60 ft. Width 103.67 ft. 85 ft. Depth 118.47 115 ft. Front Setback 25 ft 25 ft. Left Setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Right Setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Rear Setback 25 ft. 25 ft. Report to the Planning Commission 13939 Quito Road – Application #’s SUB19-0001 / VAR19-0001 / ENV19-0002 September 11, 2019 Page | 3 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed this project at their meeting of August 14, 2019. The Commission opened the public hearing and heard testimony from the applicant and members of the public. The Commission expressed concern that some of the neighbors on Loquat Court had not been contacted by the property owner or applicant prior to the meeting so that they could have gained a better understanding about the project and expressed their concerns. The Commission continued the project to the meeting of September 11, 2019 to provide an opportunity for the owner/applicant to outreach to the neighbors regarding the details of the subdivision. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at 13939 Quito Road. The site is bounded by Quito Road to the east, Loquat Court to the west, and single-family homes to the north and south. The intersection of Allendale Avenue and Quito Road is located approximately 250 feet to the north and San Tomas Aquino Creek is located approximately 700 feet to the east. Harry Brandenburg House Located on site is a two-story, single-family home constructed in 1890. The building is listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory. A copy of the Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record (DPR) is included as Attachment #3 which identifies the design of the house as being in the National architectural style. Known locally as the Harry Brandenburg House (The House), after its original owner and builder, an orchardist who grew prunes, apricots, peaches, and cherries on the site which was originally part of a larger ten-acre parcel. The side-gabled house is a redwood-frame design and clad with horizontal channel-rustic wood siding with a steep pitched roof with overhanging eaves and a gabled pediment that is centered along the front façade and is clad with decorative shingles. The roof is composed of dark brown clay tiles. A full-width, hipped roof front porch spans the length of the front façade. The house is located on a mudsill foundation. The house was altered in the 1940’s when a one-story addition was added to the rear of the house which included a new kitchen, two bedrooms, a bathroom, a laundry room, workshop, and utility room. Additional buildings on site include a carport and greenhouse. The house has been owned by the Schibler family since 1958 and is presently vacant. As discussed later in this report, the project includes a tentative map to subdivide the lot into two parcels. The location of the proposed new lot line would bisect the footprint of the House and the applicant is proposing to relocate it to the eastern portion of the site parallel to Quito Road. The relocation of the House would provide the property owner the opportunity to subdivide an area behind it into a separate parcel with access from Loquat Court. The House would occupy a parcel with frontage on Quito Road. The 1940’s addition and the accessory buildings will be removed as these were not part of the original structure and lack historic integrity. The relocated structure will be placed on a standard concrete foundation and will be again used as a single-family residence once it is rehabilitated. A new detached garage would be constructed. A current condition assessment, evaluation, and Secretary of Interior Standards review of the House was prepared by Evans and De Shazo, Inc. A copy of this report is included as Attachment #4. The report states that the house retains a substantial degree of integrity. All the original materials, design elements, and details associated with the original construction of the house in 1890 are proposed to be restored. It was determined that the removal of the rear addition would not impact the original Report to the Planning Commission 13939 Quito Road – Application #’s SUB19-0001 / VAR19-0001 / ENV19-0002 September 11, 2019 Page | 4 historic features or materials that characterize the original house. Since the House is being relocated within the parcel where it was constructed, its relocation and restoration reduce the impacts to a historic structure to less than significant as the “new” location is compatible with the original character of setting. This relocation should will allow the resource to remain locally listed. Heritage Preservation Commission At their meeting of November 14, 2018, the City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered the application to relocate and rehabilitate the Harry Brandenburg house. A copy of the meeting minutes is included as Attachment 5. The HPC Commission determined that preserving the house onsite would not be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The HPC’s recommendation of approval included the following four conditions that have been incorporated into the project: 1) The current elevation shall be retained, 2) Any damage to the structure will be replaced with matching materials, 3) The existing roofing material shall be removed and replaced with a material which has a more traditional appearance such as wood or composition shingles, and 4) Non-wood windows shall be removed and replaced with wood windows. Subdivision The proposed Tentative Parcel Map (Attachment 8) would subdivide the approximately .60 acres into two residential parcels. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a minimum net lot size of 10,000 square feet. The existing parcel has street frontage on both Quito Road and Loquat Court. The proposed project would subdivide the parcel so that Parcel One would have frontage on Loquat Court and Parcel Two would have frontage on Quito Road. Parcel One would be 13,193 net square feet and Parcel Two would be 12,505 net square feet. The City’s Subdivision and Zoning regulations are the implementation tools of the Saratoga General Plan and the State Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning Regulations establishes minimum standards for lot sizes, depths, widths, and frontages. It also regulates building placement, modifications to natural topography and protected tree removal. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map complies with all minimum zoning standards regarding parcel size, configuration, and setbacks, apart from the site frontage of Parcel One. A site frontage of 60 feet is required and the existing frontage on Loquat Court is 42.93 feet. The applicant has applied for a variance to create a new parcel with a nonconforming frontage as discussed in the following paragraphs. Variance Pursuant to City Code Section 15-70.060, the Planning Commission is authorized to grant variances to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships which would result from a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of certain zoning regulations. Such practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships may result from the size, shape or dimensions of a site. The proposed project would subdivide the parcel with one parcel having frontage on Loquat Court and the other on Quito Road, both public streets. The Loquat Court parcel would retain the existing frontage width of 42.93 feet. The minimum site frontage is 60 feet so the Loquat Court parcel would have a nonconforming site frontage. Seven parcels currently have frontage on Loquat Court with three of the seven parcels having nonconforming frontage (including the subject parcel). Staff determined that at least 12 sites located on cul-de-sacs on other sites within half a mile from the project Report to the Planning Commission 13939 Quito Road – Application #’s SUB19-0001 / VAR19-0001 / ENV19-0002 September 11, 2019 Page | 5 site have nonconforming site frontages. Because other parcels on Loquat Court and within half mile of the project site have nonconforming frontages, and that Parcel One will maintain the existing street frontage, staff can make the following variance findings per City Code Section 15-70.060. (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The existing site at 13939 Quito Road has site frontage on both Loquat Court and Quito Road. The existing Loquat Court site frontage is 42.93 feet. The proposed Tentative Map would subdivide the site into two parcels. Parcel One would have site frontage on Loquat Court and Parcel Two would have site frontage on Quito Road. The existing site frontage width for both parcels will remain unchanged. The project applicant is requesting a variance to maintain the existing nonconforming site frontage width on Loquat Court when the site is divided into two parcels. Sites located on cul-de-sacs with site frontage widths of less than 60 feet, such as the subject site, are not uncommon for other sites in the vicinity that are within the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Two other sites on Loquat Court have cul-de-sac site frontage widths of less than 60 feet. Ravenwood Drive, Montpere Way, Perego Way, Raven Court, and Espada Court are in the R-1-10,000 zoning district and are located within a half mile of the project site and a total of 12 sites located on cul-de-sacs on these streets have site frontages of less than 60 feet (three sites on Montpere Way have frontages less than 41 feet). The special circumstances applicable to the property is that the subject site has an existing frontage on Loquat Court of 42.93 feet which cannot be widened because Loquat Court is an existing public street with neighboring parcels on both sides. In addition, because not less than 12 cul-de-sac sites on adjacent sites within half a mile from the subject site and within the same zoning district have site frontage widths of less than 60 feet; strict enforcement of the site frontage regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege as the Loquat Court site frontage of 42.93 feet is already existing and the proposed tentative map will make no change to the width of this frontage. In addition, as stated in the preceding paragraph, 14 sites on adjacent streets in the R-1-10,000 zoning district, within a half mile radius, are lots located on cul-de-sacs with less than the required width of 60 feet. Three of these sites have existing frontages less that of the proposed Parcel One. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The requested site frontage variance will not create any health or safety impacts. The proposed tentative map will maintain the existing street frontage on Loquat Court and the improvements in this area will be limited to the construction of a new curb which will be consistent with those on other lots on Loquat Court. Construction of the new curb and gutter will require the issuance of an Report to the Planning Commission 13939 Quito Road – Application #’s SUB19-0001 / VAR19-0001 / ENV19-0002 September 11, 2019 Page | 6 encroachment permit from the City of Saratoga Public Works Department to ensure that all construction is per City of Saratoga standards. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Tentative Map Findings The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any of the following nine findings (City Code Section 14-20.070(b)). Staff has provided evidence, which does not support any of the findings. (1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10) defined as 4.3 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the city code for the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the city code except for the site frontage width of Parcel One. The applicant has applied for variance and staff has determined that the findings can be made to support this variance. (2) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan in that the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. The proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the zoning regulations and are compatible with the existing densities in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate a single-family residence. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate that required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. The existing single-family home will be relocated on site and all setbacks and floor area requirements will be conforming. All accessory structures on site will be removed. The house relocation and demolition of other structures would be required prior to Final Map approval. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the city code, for a new single- family residence on Parcel One. At the time an application to construct a single-family residence is filed with the planning department the mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences shall be examined. (3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed building envelopes and surrounding areas are level. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that they do not include physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the site currently has one existing single-family home located on site – this home will be located to a conforming location on site prior to approval of the final map. The subdivision application would result in the addition of one additional Report to the Planning Commission 13939 Quito Road – Application #’s SUB19-0001 / VAR19-0001 / ENV19-0002 September 11, 2019 Page | 7 single-family residence. Approximately two dwelling units are permitted consistent with the general plan maximum dwelling unit per acre designation of 2.9 dwelling units per net acre. The potential for the construction of a new single-family home on Parcel Two is consistent with the surrounding uses and densities in the area. Densities in the immediate surrounding area are predominantly characterized by low-density single-family residential uses. (5) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project would include the relocation and rehabilitation on site of an existing single-family home constructed in 1890 known as the Harry Brandenburg house from its current location to the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Quito Road. The house is classified as a Heritage Resource on the City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. A current condition assessment, evaluation, and Secretary of Interior Standards review of the House was prepared by Evans and De Shazo, Inc. The report states that the house retains a substantial degree of integrity. All the original materials, design elements, and details associated with the original construction of the house in 1890 are proposed to be restored. It was determined that the removal of the rear addition would not impact the original historic features or materials that characterize the original house. The relocation of a historical resource could constitute an adverse impact to the resource. However, since the House is being relocated within the parcel where it was constructed, its relocation and restoration reduce the impacts to a historic structure to less than significant as the “new” location is compatible with the original character of setting. This relocation should will allow the resource to remain locally listed. (6) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems in that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the City Code and General Plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by West Valley Sanitary District, Saratoga Fire Department, Pacific Gas & Electric, School Districts, Planning Department and Public Works Engineers. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department. The project site is in Zone X on the Flood Insurance Maps by FEMA. This designation incorporates most of the properties within the City. Floodway areas of Zone AE are located along the City’s major creeks and require certain construction techniques; however, the project site is designated as Zone X. (7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access or use. (7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access or use. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access or use. The primary frontage for Parcel One is Loquat Court and the primary frontage for Parcel Two is Quito Road. An existing 10-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle easement runs parallel to the Quito Road site frontage. This easement is depicted on the Tentative Map and will be included on the Final Map. (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. The proposed subdivision of land is not subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act in that the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The discharge of waste from the Report to the Planning Commission 13939 Quito Road – Application #’s SUB19-0001 / VAR19-0001 / ENV19-0002 September 11, 2019 Page | 8 proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements in that the West Valley Sanitary District operates a sewer line in this area of Brookwood Lane. The West Valley Sanitation District has provided a ‘will serve’ letter – the existing sewer line will provide adequate service to the parcels. Trees The site does have some protected sized trees with the potential of being impacted by future construction. The applicant will be required to submit for arborist review and clearance as part of a future design review application if it includes removals of any ordinance sized trees. City Department/Outside Agency Review This Tentative Parcel Map was forwarded for review to the Saratoga Public Works Department, the City Arborist, and the following agencies. No concerns or objections have been received. • Saratoga Fire District • West Valley Sanitary District • Pacific Gas and Electric • San Jose Water Company • Saratoga Union School District Neighbor Notification A public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. In addition, the public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. The Community Development Department received a letter from the property owner dated September 4, 2019. This letter, a copy of which is included as Attachment 6, lists the owner’s salient justifications why the Planning Commission should approve the application. The letter also provides responses to concerns raised at the hearing by adjacent property owners. In addition, an additional letter dated September 12, 2018 was received from the residents of 13940 Loquat Court - adjacent neighbor to the west of the project site. Their concerns include the possible effects the subdivision could have on traffic, congestion, noise, dust, and parking. A copy of the letter is included as Attachment 7. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. It has been determined that, based on the information contained in the Initial Study (Attachment 7) the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 19-019 2. Resolution No. 19-020 3. Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record (DPR) – Harry Brandenburg House 4. Historic Resources Evaluation Report by Evans & De Shazo, Inc. dated May 31, 2019 5. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes dated November 14, 2017. Report to the Planning Commission 13939 Quito Road – Application #’s SUB19-0001 / VAR19-0001 / ENV19-0002 September 11, 2019 Page | 9 6. Letter from the property owner dated September 4, 2019 7. Letter from the property owners at 13940 Loquat Court dated September 12, 2018. 8. Initial Study / Negative Declaration 9. August 14, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Minutes 10. Tentative Map RESOLUTION NO: 19-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, APPLICATION NUMBER: ENV19-0002 13939 QUITO ROAD (APN# 397-43-017) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has considered a proposed Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an approximately 25,698 square foot parcel located at 13939 Quito Road into two lots. Parcel One would be 13,193 square feet and have frontage on Loquat Court and Parcel Two would be 12,505 square feet and have frontage on Quito Road. The project includes a request for a Variance because the proposed 43-foot length of site frontage of Parcel One along Loquat Court would be less than the minimum required site frontage length of 60 feet. The project would also include the relocation on site of an existing single-family home constructed in 1890 known as the Harry Brandenburg house from its current location to the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Quito Road. The house is classified as a Heritage Resource on the City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA regulations prior to any Public Hearings on the project. No other development is proposed at this time. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. WHEREAS, an Initial Study (IS) and Negative Declaration (ND) 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. WHEREAS, the IS and a notice of intent to adopt an ND were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from July 26, 2019 through August 14, 2019. WHEREAS, all Interested Parties desiring to comment on the ND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the ND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on the Project before the Planning Commission on August 14, 2019. WHEREAS, on September 11, 2019 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the Project, during which opportunity was given to address the adequacy of the ND. All comments on the IS and ND raised during the public and agency comment period and at the Public Hearing(s) on the Project were considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was presented with and/or had the opportunity to review all the information in the administrative record. NOW THEREFORE, after the conclusion of such Public Hearing, the Planning Commission considered all oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the ND and reviewed and considered the information in the IS and ND, public and agency comments on the IS and ND, the administrative record, and the staff report for completeness and compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and all other applicable requirements. 2 Section 1: the Project has been the subject of a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15070 and following of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). The ND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines 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. Section 2: the documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are kept in the City of Saratoga Community Development Department and are maintained by the Community Development Director. Section 3: 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. Section 4: after careful consideration of the matter, the Planning Commission hereby approves to adopt the Negative Declaration for the Project, which was presented to the Planning Commission on August 14, 2019 and circulated for a 20-day public review period from July 26, 2019 through August 14, 2019 and is on file with the Community Development Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, this 11th day of September 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _________________________ Sunil Ahuja Chair, Planning Commission Resolution No. 19-020 RESOLUTION NO: 19-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION SUB19-0001 AND VARIANCE VAR 19-0001 13939 QUITO ROAD (APN# 397-43-017) WHEREAS, on February 25, 2019, an application was submitted by Howell Development & Investments, Incorporated requesting Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately 25,698 square foot parcel located at 13939 Quito Road into two lots. Parcel 1 would be 13,193 square feet and have frontage on Loquat Court and Parcel 2 would be 12,505 square feet and have frontage on Quito Road. The project includes a request for a Variance because the proposed 43-foot length of site frontage of Parcel One along Loquat Court would be less than the minimum required site frontage length of 60 feet. The project would also include the relocation on site of an existing single-family home constructed in 1890 known as the Harry Brandenburg house from its current location to the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Quito Road. The house is classified as a Heritage Resource on the City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an Initial Study for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it 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 and recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration (Resolution No. 19-019). WHEREAS, on August 14, 2019, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and continued the project to their meeting of September 11, 2019. WHEREAS, on September 11, 2019 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study/ Negative Declaration were prepared for the project and it has been determined that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use LU 1.1 which provide that the city shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-family detached residences; Land Use Policy LU 1.3 which provides that the city shall ensure that existing undeveloped sites zoned single-family detached residential remain so designated; Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural Resolution No. 19-020 atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development; Policy LU2.1 which states that non-residential development shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan Map for non-residential uses; and Goal LU 12.1 which states the importance of protecting the City’s historic and cultural resources. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any of the following nine findings (Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b)). Staff has provided evidence, which does not support the findings. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves SUB19-0001 and VAR19-0001 located at 13939 Quito Road, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 11th day of September 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Sunil Ahuja Chair, Planning Commission Resolution No. 19-020 1 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUB19-0001 & VAR19-0001 13939 QUITO ROAD (APN 397-43-017) 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 or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the 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. 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. 6. 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 Resolution No. 19-020 2 b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7. An application for Design Review shall be submitted for any new single-family home to be constructed on Parcel One. 8. The applicant shall submit for Arborist Review for any future Design Review application that includes proposed removals of any ordinance sized trees per Saratoga Municipal Section 15-50. 9. The Harry Brandenburg House shall be relocated as shown on the Tentative Map and all accessory structures and hardscape areas identified to be demolished shall be demolished prior to the recordation of the final map. 10. The tentative map shall expire 24 months from the date on which it was approved unless a final map is approved by the City Council prior to the date of expiration. An extension of the expiration date may be granted by the Planning Commission for a period not exceeding 36 months. The application for extension with the payment of a fee shall be filed prior to the expiration date. Extension of tentative map approval is not a matter of right and the Planning Commission may deny the application. C. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION (Relocation of the Brandenburg House) 11. The current front elevation of the structure shall be retained. 12. Any damage to the structure will be replaced with matching materials. 13. The existing roofing material shall be removed and replaced with a material which has a more traditional appearance such as wood or composition shingles. 14. Non-wood windows shall be removed and replaced with wood windows. D. WEST VALLEY SANTITATION DISTRICT 15. The developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fees will be determined upon submittal of the improvement plan. District approval will be in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees. Resolution No. 19-020 3 E. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 16. The developer is to submit a completed application for service, approved site, utility and elevation plans, appropriate engineering, and pay all fees prior to gas and electric service being provided. All necessary Public Utilities Easements or Rights of Way must be secured by the applicant prior to the installation of service. The gas and electric service facilities will be installed under the applicable rules and tariffs in effect at the time of application. F. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 17. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 18. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Two copies of map checking calculations. b. Two copies of the Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. Two copies of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. Two copies of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. Two copies of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. f. Two copies of the approved Tentative Map. 19. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 20. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. Resolution No. 19-020 4 21. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication, if required, for all easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map and conditions of approval, prior to Final Map approval. 22. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. Improvement requirements shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a. Remove existing asphalt pathway in front of Parcel 2 and replace with 5-foot-wide P.C.C. sidewalk for property’s full Quito Road frontage. Match to existing. 23. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 24. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 25. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 26. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 27. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park Development fee prior to Final Map approval. 28. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. On-site drainage system(s) shall include of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. Drainage plan shall be required at the time of parcels’ development or re-development. 29. An Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department is required for all new improvements in any portion of the public right-of-way or of a public easement prior to commencement of the work in the public right-of-way or public easement. Mount Diablo State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD NRHP Status Code 4of Harry Brandenburg House*Resource Name or # HP-91-01 P1. Other identifier: *P2. Location: Santa Clara County*a. County San Jose West*b. USGS 7.5' Quad 1980 Photorevised .8 S.T .1 W.R Quito Rd. c. Address:SaratogaCity 95070Zip 10S d. UTM:(give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone mE/mN west side of Quito Road north of Ravenwood Avenue. e.Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) (Assigned by recorder): and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a location map as necessary.) ;; ; This two-story house represents a National-style design of the late-nineteenth century. This vernacular building type dates from as early as the pre-railroad American era, from the 1850s to the 1870s, although National-style houses continued to be built as late as 1880s and 1890s in the form of Victorian farm houses such as this one. This wood-frame design is clad in horizontal channel-rustic wood siding. As of the last recordation, it was on original redwood mudsills. The side-gabled roof is accented by a central gabled pediment that features two attic ventilators and a center window. The hipped-roof porch is barely visible from the public right-of-way. It extends across the center two-thirds of the front and is supported by four turned columns. The front facade is symmetrical, with three individual 2/2 double-hung windows on the second floor and a pair of 1948 nine-light picture windows flanking the front door. A rear one-story addition was built at the same time. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements, include design, material, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)*P4. Resources Present: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): *Attachments: Archives & Architecture: City of Saratoga Statement of Historic Context, 2009. *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none".) View facing southwest, July 2009. P5b.Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) Historic Prehistoric Both *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Martin E Schibler Trust 13939 Quito Rd. Saratoga CA 95070 *P7. Owner and Address: Archives & Architecture, LLC PO Box 1332 San Jose, CA 95109 *P8. Recorded By: (Name, affiliation, and address) 10/26/09*P9. Date Recorded: Reconnaissance *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) 1890, 119 years old. * Required InformationDPR 523A (1/95) Not for Publication Unrestricted 1 397-43-017APN# B.M. F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz Date Primary # HRI # Trinomial Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 13939 State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD 5S3*NRHP/CRHR Status Code Harry Brandenburg HouseResource Name (Assigned by recorder) 4of Harry Brandenburg House B1. Historic Name: 13939 Quito Rd. B2. Common Name: Ranch B3. Original Use:Single family residentialB4. Present Use: National*B5. Architectural Style: constructed 1890. Picture windows in front, addition in rear. *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) No Yes Unknown*B7. Moved?n/aDate:n/aOriginal Location: None known. *B8. Related Features: Unknown B9a. Architect:Unknownb. Builder: Architecture*B10. Significance: Theme Fruitvale / Sobey RoadArea: 1890Period of Significance:ResidentialProperty Type:NoneApplicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The Brandenburg House is listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory, included as a part of HP-91-01. It qualified under Criteria a and c: a) the property exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, aesthetic, and architectural history of Saratoga; and c) the property embodies distinctive characteristics of the National style, type and period; The Harry Brandenburg House does not appear eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, as the house lacks appears to sufficient integrity to its original detailing to qualify. (Continued on page 4, DPR523L) DPR 523B (1/95)*Required Information B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission, Historic Resources Inventory form, 1989. *B12. References: Listed Heritage ResourceB13. Remarks: Franklin Maggi*B14. Evaluator: October 26, 2009*Date of Evaluation: (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) (This space reserved for official comments.) 2 None Primary # HRI # Page State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION LOCATION MAP 4of DPR 523J (1/95)*Required Information * Map Name:Multiple n.t.s.* Scale:Varies* Date of Map: Harry Brandenburg House*Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder)3 Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET 4of DPR 523L (1/95)*Required Information (Continued from page 2, DPR523b, B10) Historical Background This residence was built by Harry E. Brandenburg in 1890. Harry Brandenburg was from Iowa and in 1861 came to California with his family, Charles and Seria Brandenburg as a small child. The family first lived in Butte County, then moved to Santa Clara County in 1865 or 1866. Brandenburg married Sarah J. Hartwick, a native of Santa Clara in 1886. He purchased the subject property, then 10 acres, in 1890; it is unclear if the orchard predated his purchase. Under the Brandenburg ownership, the orchard contained prunes, apricots, peaches and cherries. Brandenburg owned the property and lived here with his wife and their four children until 1933. It appears there were five subsequent owners until 1958, when Martin Schibler purchased the residence. The Schibler family lived at the residence until at least 1999. Oral history as told by one of the Brandenburg children, Juanita Avenal Brandenburg Withrow, to the Schiblers after their purchase confirms the ownership record by the Brandenburgs. Integrity Although altered with replacement window sash and an enclosed second-floor porch area, the house retains adequate character-defining architectural design, workmanship and materials, as well as a historic location and setting, and the property continues to represent the historical associations and feelings of this residence. * Recorded By F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz Harry Brandenburg House*Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder) Continuation Update10/26/2009* Date Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 4 2 2 City of Saratoga H ERITAGE P RESERVATION C OMMISSION FINAL MINUTES Page 1 of 2 Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 / 8:30 A.M. Type: Regular Meeting Place: City Hall /Administrative Conference Room - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue 1. Site Visit: a. 13939 Quito Road 2. Routine Organization: a. Roll Call Present: Stransky, Cappello, Rodgers, Nugent, Marchetti, Shah Absent: Schuck Staff: Kwon b. Review of minutes from October 10, 2017 meeting. Shah/Nugent moved to approve the October 10, 2017 minutes. Ayes: Marchetti, Cappello, Nugent, Rodgers, Stransky, Shah Noes: None Absent: Schuck c. Posting of Agenda – Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956, the agenda was properly posted on November 9, 2017. Kwon reported the posting of the agenda. d. Non-Agendized Communications - Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. None e. HPC direction to staff regarding non-agendized communications - Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. Commission asked staff to agendize planting trees and tree map. Commissioner Schuck arrived Page 2 of 2 3. New Business: a. 13939 Quito Road The Commission recommended approval of moving the house with conditions: 1) The current elevation shall be maintained. 2) Any damage will be replaced with matching material. 3) Roof shall be replaced with a traditional style. 4) Non-wood windows shall be restored with wood windows. Schuck/Cappello moved to recommend approval. Ayes: Stransky, Cappello, Nugent, Rodgers, Schuck, Shah Noes: None Abstain: Marchetti 4. Staff Comments: a. None 5. Commissioner Comments: a. DPR research status by Commission and other tasks (Workplan). Annual Workplan Each Commissioner provided a status update. The Annual Workplan was discussed. Commissioner Schuck left the meeting. Commissioner Shah left the meeting. b. Events/Calendar: State of the City, Arbor Day, Preservation Month, Blossom Festival, Funding. Commission discussed topics. This item will be further discussed next month. c. Ranking of POI markers. (Cappello) Commissioner Cappello suggested ranking future POI markers. d. HPC consider collaborating with the Public Arts Committee. (Cappello) Commissioner Cappello suggested collaborating with the Public Arts Committee. e. Status of FAQs. Mills Act FAQ Feb/March The Commission did not have any question about the Mill’s Act FAQ. 6. Other Business: None 7. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned Jim Schibler 3496 Cooper Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051-1519 jim.schibler@comcast.net (408) 391-8892 September 4, 2019 Attention: Saratoga Planning Commission This letter is to follow up on the discussion of Agenda Item 3 of the 14 August Planning Commission meeting (request for curb frontage variance for property 13939 Quito Road), which is to be further discussed at your 11 September meeting. As the co-applicant who is attempting to sell the property to Mr. Howell, I would like to: • summarize the City’s interest in approving the application; • respond to the concerns raised by residents of Loquat Court ; and • raise questions of fairness. Thank you for your consideration of these points. Jim Schibler Trustee, The Laura Mary Schibler Estate (408) 391-8892 jim.schibler@comcast.net 1. City’s Interest in Approving the Application : • Both the City of Saratoga and the State of California have designated the house as a Historic Structure and want it to be preserved. This designation puts significant limitations on the property owner; the structure cannot be demolished and replaced with a modern house, and there are also restrictions on what can be modified. One such restriction is that the historic house must remain facing Quito Road. • The house is 130 years old, and sits on mudsills that have been undermined by gophers and skunks, threatening the stability of the structure. Floors and walls already show distress. Unless the structure is renovated and set on a proper foundation, it is unlikely to survive more than another decade or two. • The family of the last owner (my sister, who died in May 2017) cannot afford to renovate the house, and no funds for restoration are available from the City or State. Furthermore, loss of Prop 13 protection has caused the annual property taxes to increase from approximately $1900 to $26,000. No family members can afford to pay the taxes, so I need to sell the house on behalf of t he estate. • We have marketed the property since June 2018, and have been unable to find any buyers interested in renovating the house for their own residency. Residential buyers want houses in move-in ready condition. • The only viable way we have identified to raise the funds needed to renovate the historic structure is to sell the house to a buyer who can generate a profit by undertaking a project that moves and renovates the historic house, splits the lot, and builds a new house on the resulting second lot. The City’s Historical Preservation Commission visited the property on 14 Nov 2017, and agreed at their subsequent meeting that restoration was needed and that the proposed plan was appropriate. They documented their decisions in their letter dated 16 Nov 2017. • The property has existing frontage on Loquat Court that is comparable to the frontages of neighbors on Loquat Court, and of properties on other neighborhood courts that were defined prior to the establishment of the current 60’ frontage requirement. In order for the proposed restoration project to be viable, a variance will be needed to allow a new house to be built on the back of the lot with the existing 45’ frontage. • If the proposal is approved, the city would gain an additional dwelling, and the corresponding tax revenue, without significantly changing density. Renovation of the historic house and construction of a new house will increase the value of the property, and can be expected to increase the value of neighboring properties 5-15%. In addition, the project will mitigate hazards on the property such as asbestos and lead -based paint. • A new home fronting onto Loquat Court would improve the character of the court, by replacing a blank fence and overgrown Hollywood junipers with a residence that fits in with the other residences and completes the original Loquat Court subdivision. The consequences of NOT approving this project should also be considered: • The desirability of the 13939 Quito parcel will fall significantly, and the likelihood of finding a buyer willing to purchase and improve it will also go down significantly. • There will be no way to ensure the preservation of the historic house that is valued by the city, so it will decay further and be lost in a decade or two. • With no resources available to improve the parcel, it will likely become a blighted property that lowers values of other properties in the neighborhood. 2. Responses to Concerns Raised by Residents of Loquat Court Several residents of Loquat Court who live close to the Quito property voiced concerns at the 14 August Planning Commission meeting. Several of the concerns were about the period and mechanisms of the notification process, which are potentially topics for the City to review. I will focus the majority of my remarks on concerns voiced by the Loquat Court residents that relate directly to the Quito property, the application, and the proposed project. Terry Schack told a story of a proposed project at a different property in the city that had been successfully blocked by neighbors, but “had a happy ending”: a revised proposal acceptable to the neighbors was approved. He asked for a continuance, because he felt that neighbors had not been given sufficient advanced notice of the Commission’s review meeting. He also claimed that there was no communication about the project by the applicants. My response: At the meeting, Mr. Schack did not raise any specific points about the actual property under consideration by the Commission. The two letters he had submitted to the City (dated 12 Sep 2018 and 9 Aug 2019) listed concerns about “traffic, parking issues, congestion, noise, dust, pollution, etc.”, and expressed his opinion that another house on Loquat Court would “greatly diminish desirability of our home life here in Saratoga”. He asserted (without evidence) that Loquat Court was designed from inception for 6 houses only. However, the property in question has a frontage on the court, comparable to his own frontage, which was established at the time the court was created. Two gates have provided access to the court since the time the fence was erected. Mr. Schack’s arguments about additional traffic and parking seem to be overstated. 5 houses currently have driveways fronting onto the court, and a 6th has curb frontage but no driveway. Adding one driveway at the end of the court can be expected to add 1-3 cars to the total number using the court regularly – a rather modest increase over the estimated 10-12 cars of current residents that already use the court, and those incremental cars would be parked on the new lot, not on the court. The new driveway would make unavailable part of a 40’ stretch of curb space at which people now sometimes park, but that section of curb has a tight 43’ radius and was never intended for parking (just as Mr. Schack’s own property was not intended to have on-street parking). In fact, when cars are parked at the Quito lot’s Loquat frontage, they reduce the available width in the bulb of the cul-de-sac well below what was originally designed for the street, such that any vehicle with a fairly large turning radius (such as a garbage truck or fire truck) cannot turn around without backing up. Mr. Schack has known about the proposed lot split since at least Tuesday, 19 Jun 2018, because I visited him at his house that day and told him that it would be the only way we could see to finance the restoration of the historic house. He was also visited by my realtor Paul Raja, who left a brochure that clearly indicated the possibility of a lot split , with the possibility that the new lot could have access from Loquat Court. His awareness of the proposed project is clearly evident in the letter he submitted to the city dated 12 September 2018. The Planning staff confirmed that notices of the Planning Commission meeting were sent in compliance with city policies. Commissioners suggested that they may want to consider, in a separate meeting, if the notification period is sufficient. Debra Shack said that the project would have a lot of impact to the existing residents. She said when she moved into the neighborhood, she liked the cohesive design – all 1-story ranch houses of similar size, with similar setbacks. She contrasted this against other cities, where a big house might be next to a little house, and criticized Cupertino specifically. She asserted that splitting the lot would put a new house contiguous to a 2-story farm house, and “open the door to the new house being a 2-story house at some point”. She mentioned the loss of “2 to 3 extremely valuable parking places”. She also mentioned impacts of construction – noise, dirt flying around, and parking places taken by construction vehicles. She asked the Commission “not to focus on preserving the historic house, but rather to focus on preserving Loquat Court, and if you have to divide the lot, build a common driveway” (fronting onto Quito Road). My response: The preliminary plan submitted with the application for the subdivision is for a 1- story house, in keeping with the character of the existing houses on Loquat Court. There is no proposal to construct a new 2-story house. Before a new house can be built, a complete plan for that house must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, so there will be ample opportunity for the neighbors to voice their opinions about the proposed design. Ms. Shack’s comments suggest that she believes the curb frontage in question should be left as is for the benefit of residents of Loquat Court who want to park there, and that such parking convenience supersedes any property rights of the estate with the curb frontage. As I noted above, that frontage was never intended to serve as a parking area, and when it is used as such, it impacts traffic flow in the cul-de-sac. All residences on Loquat Court have 2-car garages and room for at least 2 additional cars in their own driveways, so on -street parking is more of a convenience than a necessity for Loquat Court residents. The proposed new residence would provide its own off-street parking. Ms. Shack’s concerns about the impacts during construction are valid and understandable. However, if a project can be rejected on this basis, no construction will be allowed anywh ere in the city, because every construction project has these impacts. I have had to endure construction projects much greater than this in my own neighborhood, and though it’s no fun, it is a temporary issue. Mr. and Ms. Schack both urged the city to consider a flag lot configuration, with both houses served by a common driveway off of Quito Road. Paul Raja and I had investigated this possibility in August 2018, and upon meeting with planning staff and calculat ing lot area, we learned that the available lot area was far short of what would be required to allow a flag lot. The Schacks also did not mention any traffic or safety concerns that would be associated with a shared driveway fronting onto a very busy section of Quito Road, nor did they propose any solutions for preserving the historic house. The points they raised focused entirely on impacts to them, and did not address some important issues affecting what might be best for the city as a whole. Ken Lee spoke emotionally about a family member who is wheelchair-bound, and expressed concern about parking issues, increased traffic, overall alteration of the neighborhood, and “replacing sounds of birds with the sights and sounds of a construction site”. He questioned why the city should allow another house to be squeezed into an already busy cul-de-sac, saying “That’s not why we chose to live in this neighborhood. Let’s keep our lives the way they are.” My response: It is easy to understand why Mr. Lee would p refer to have things to stay as they are; people are often uncomfortable with change. What is not so easy to understand is why Mr. Lee chose to buy a house just 3 years ago at such a busy location, or how the proposed project will have a major impact on his family. Mr. Lee lives at the corner of Allendale Avenue, which bears heavy traffic that certainly presents a safety hazard, and must certainly drown out sounds of nature. His driveway fronts onto the open end of Loquat Court, and his property is separated from the Quito property by another house that has about 90’ of curb frontage, so the impacts to his family of construction noise and traffic will attenuated. If the existing traffic on Loquat Court is as bad as some neighbors have claimed, the court would certainly already be an unsafe place for anyone to roam in a wheelchair, and additional 1-3 cars corresponding to a new house at the end of the court would not make a significant difference. Tracy Chan pointed out differences between Loquat Court and other cul-de-sacs with sub- standard frontages in the neighborhood. She said that Loquat Court has only 6 houses, versus “33 for Ravenwood and 25 for Montpere”; she did not explain the significance of this difference. (Apparently she was counting total houses on the street; the courts on Ravenwood and Montpere that were cited in the comparison have 6 houses apiece.) She mentioned unique traffic patterns of Loquat Court, which exits onto a major road (Allendale), unlike Perego Way and Raven Court, and is only “1 house away” from a busy major intersection. Because of these factors, she concluded that the comparison was not “like to like”. Ms. Chan elaborated on the existing traffic issues. She said that VTA Paratransit vehicles and parents of patients of the Corinthian Care Center at the corner of Quito and Allendale frequently use Loquat Court for pickup and dropoff. She also cited idle ve hicles, including utility vehicles (water,cable, and power) and “rideshare vehicles” (Uber, Lyft), as well as students and staff from West Valley College taking breaks in Loquat Court. She mentioned no-parking zones marked with signs and red curbs along Allendale Avenue, which lead to overflow parking from there being funneled to Loquat Court. Finally, she mentioned that drivers coming to the end of Allendale sometimes use Loquat Court to perform a U-turn to go back down Allendale. My response: The cul-de-sacs mentioned in the comparison were built around the same time as Loquat Court, and thus do provide some historical context despite the differences cited. There is, however, another nearby cul-de-sac (Espada Court) that is very similar to Loquat Court: it has six houses, several sub-standard frontages, an opening onto a very busy street (Quito Road) only 1 house away from the busy intersection of Quito and Allendale. Because of these similarities, Espada Court is an appropriate reference if comparisons are to be made. Regarding the traffic issues, utility and rideshare vehicles are not unique to Loquat Court, and probably contribute only marginally. It’s not clear how visitors are being identified as West Valley students and staff, or why they would be motivated to take their breaks in Loquat Court; again, it seems likely that their impact on Loquat Court is small. Ms. Chan did seem to bring to light a real traffic issue: Corinthian visitors. The Corinthian Care Center fronts onto Allendale Avenue just before its intersection with Quito Road, and though it has several parking places in its driveway, some visitors evidently choose to use Loquat Court instead for pickup and dropoff (perhaps to avoid having to back onto Allendale Avenue.) I certainly appreciate the impact this is having on the Loquat residents, and regardless of any discussion of the 13939 Quito property, it seems that the Corinthian traffic issue should be addressed. I am wondering why traffic concerns were not raised and addressed before that single-family residence was allowed to be repurposed as a care facility that would clearly have many people coming and going daily. It seems that some mitigation should be considered (perhaps a ‘No Corinthian Parking or Drop-Off’ sign at Loquat Court, or instructions from Corinthian to their clients that pickups and drop-offs must be done in their driveway). In any case, it seems unreasonable that the applicants for the Quito property subdivision should be penalized for a problem created by Corinthian. Pat Singer acknowledged that Paul Raja had notified her that the house was going to be sold, but said she had no idea that “this was going to go on”. She asserted that there are only 3 parking spots on the entire block that don’t block mailbo xes or something else, and reiterated the issues with the Corinthian traffic. My response: Street parking is definitely limited on the court, but there is certainly legal, non - blocking space for more than 3 cars; my estimate for the number of mid -size cars that can be parked on the court without blocking mailboxes is over 10. Currently, a construction trailer for a renovation project at Ms. Chan’s house is occupying much of the space in front of her house. And again, the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project are greatly outweighed by the current Corinthian traffic problems, so focus should be placed on mitigating those. Regarding mailbox access problems that have been mentioned (mail not delivered if someone parked in front of a mailbox), those might be addressed by installation of a centralized mailbox set that would require only one stop by the postal carrier, with a red curb in front of it. Neighbors might want to consider this idea, and if it is favored, try to achieve a consensus on where such a group mailbox would best be located. Questions of Fairness: Clearly, the Loquat Court frontage of the 13939 Quito property was established such that the oversized lot could ultimately be subdivided. As with the other houses on the court and in the greater neighborhood, the frontage was established in 1958, four years before the City established its 60’ frontage requirement. The proposed project would construct a one-story house with off-street garage parking, in keeping with the style of the existing houses on the court. Incremental traffic from that new house would not make a major difference in the total amount of traffic in the court, contrary to what some of the neighbors have claimed. By attempting to prevent the approval of this application in order to maintain the status quo, several residents on Loquat Court are in effect seeking to deny the owner of a neighboring property of the same benefits they now enjoy. In addition, those residents have not offered any feasible solutions that would preserve the historic house and keep the property from falling into decay. Thus, they are not representing the interests of the city as a whole. In the interest of fairness, I hereby request that the Commissioners grant the requested variance and approve the subdivision, and take other actions as appropriate to address issues of traffic and parking that reportedly have developed in Loquat Court. Initial Study & Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision 13939 Quito Road Owner: James Andrew Schibler Public Review Period July 26, 2019 to August 14, 2019 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 2 The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study for a two-lot subdivision at 13939 Quito Road which includes the relocation on site of an existing residence listed on the city’s heritage resources inventory. In accordance with the policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, this document, combined with the attached supporting data, constitutes the initial study on the subject project. This initial study provides the basis for the determination of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. PUBLIC REVIEW In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a 20‐day public review period for this IS commenced on July 26, 2019 and will conclude on August 14, 2019. During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. All written comments must be received prior to 5:00 P.M. on August 14, 2019. Please submit written comments to: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Following the conclusion of the public review period, the Planning Commission will consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND) for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting. The Planning Commission shall consider the Initial Study/ND together with any comments received during the public review process. Upon adoption of the ND, the Planning Commission may proceed with project approval actions. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 3 A. PROJECT OVERVIEW 1. Project title: Two lot subdivision at 13939 Quito Road 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Christopher Riordan criordan@saratoga.ca.us / (408) 868-1235 4. Project location/APN: 13939 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 397-43-017 5. Project sponsor name and address: Howell Development & Investments, Incorporated 410 North Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 6. Property Owner name and address: James Andrew Schibler, Successor Trustee of the Laura Mary Schibler Trust 3496 Cooper Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95051 7. General plan designation: Medium Density Residential (M-10) 8. Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1-10,000) 9. Description of project: The project applicant, Howell Development & Investments, Incorporated, is proposing to subdivide an existing 25,698 square foot parcel located at 13939 Quito Road into two lots. Parcel One would be 13,193 square feet and Parcel Two would be 12,505 square feet. The location of the site is shown on Figure 1. The project would require the relocation on site of an existing single-family home constructed in 1890 known as the Harry Brandenburg house from its current location to the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Quito Road. The Harry Brandenburg house is classified as a Heritage Resource on the City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site is located at 13939 Quito Road. The site is bounded by Quito Road to the east, Loquat Court to the west, and single-family homes to the north and south. The intersection of Allendale Avenue and Quito Road is located approximately 250 feet to the north and San Tomas Aquino Creek is located approximately 700 feet to the east. The existing primary building on site is a two-story, single-family home constructed in 1890 in the National architectural style which is considered part of the Folk architectural style. It is known locally as the Harry Brandenburg House, after its original owner and builder, an orchardist who grew prunes, apricots, peaches, and cherries on site. The original ten-acre site was reduced in size to develop the adjacent residential subdivision. The side-gabled house is a redwood-frame design that is clad in horizontal channel-rustic wood siding. The roof is steep pitched with overhanging eaves, and a gabled pediment that is centered along the front façade and is clad with decorative shingles. The roof is composed of dark brown clay tiles. A full-width, hipped roof Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 4 front porch spans the length of the front façade. The house is located on a mudsill foundation. The house was altered in the 1940’s when a one-story addition was added to the rear of the house which added a new kitchen, two additional bedrooms, and additional bathroom, a laundry room, workshop, and utility room. The Schibler family has owned the house since 1958. The house is presently vacant. 10. Other public agencies whose review is required San Jose Water Company; West Valley Sanitation District; Pacific Gas & Electric, and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Figure 1: Project Location Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 5 Figure 2: Tentative Map B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 10 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required Signature: Christopher A. Riordan Date: July 25, 2019 Printed Name: Christopher Alan Riordan Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 7 1. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: a-d) No scenic views or view sheds are near the project area. There are no scenic views or view sheds explicitly identified in the City of Saratoga’s General Plan or other planning documents. The proposed Tentative Map would subdivide an existing 25,698 square foot parcel located at 13939 Quito Road into two lots. Parcel 1 fronts on Loquat Court and Parcel Two fronts on Quito Road. The project would include the relocation of an existing single-family home from its current location in the western portion of the site to the eastern part (Parcel 2) of the site adjacent to Quito Road. A new single-family home could be developed on Parcel 1 with frontage on Loquat Court. Development on Parcel 1 would be subject to the City Code and the Design Review process thereby ensuring the compatibility of the aesthetic appearance of new development with existing development in the area. As such, no scenic vistas will be affected. The project area does not include any portions of a State Scenic Highway identified by the California Department of Transportation. There are no identified scenic resources or historic buildings as listed in the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory dated November 2009 located within the project area. The existing visual character of the area is characterized by both one- and two-story homes and related site improvements. Parcel 1 would have access from Loquat Court, a public road, and future development would be subject to zoning regulations which include limits on building height, setbacks, grading and tree removal and the City’s Design Review process, which includes substantial conformance with the Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook, to ensure visual compatibility within the project area. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 8 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION: a-e) The project site has been developed with a residential home for many decades. There is no agricultural land or productive forest land on or adjacent to the site, which is in an area fully developed with urbanized uses. The project site and all surroundings are designated “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the Department of Conservation (DOC), a department of California Resources Agency. The DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) publishes Farmland maps and the most recent map was prepared in Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 9 2016. There is no farmland on or near the project site; there therefore no potential to convert Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. The Land Use Element of the General Plan notes that there are no timber production areas within the City. There is no potential for the project to adversely affect timber resources. Therefore, the project would have no impact on agriculture and forest resources. 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-e) The City of Saratoga, including the project site, is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District). Regional Air Districts prepare air quality plans specifying how state air quality standards would be met. The Air District’s most recent adopted plan is the Bay area 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 CAP). The 2017 Air District CEQA guidelines specify Clean Air Plan Consistency methods for plan level evaluation only. Guidance for project-level analysis focuses on attainment of criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds and health risk standards. Development projects, such as the proposed project, are consistent with the 2017 CAP if emissions are within the screening thresholds presented in the 2017 Air District CEQA guidelines. The project includes the relocation on site of an existing single-family home. Construction will be limited to minimal grading to prepare a level building pad and the construction of a foundation for the relocated structure – the project would not include the construction of a basement. No development is currently proposed for Parcel 1. Development of Parcel 1 would be limited to the construction of a single-family home and related site improvements. The development of a single-family home would be subject to the City’s design review process and would include Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 10 conditions of approval requiring best management practices during construction to minimize project related effects on air quality to a less than significant level. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-f) The project would subdivide an existing 25,698 square foot parcel located at 13939 Quito Road into two lots. Parcel 1 fronts on Loquat Court and Parcel 2 fronts on Quito Road. The project would include the relocation of an existing single-family home from its current location in the western portion of the site to the eastern part (Parcel 2) of the site adjacent to Quito Road. A new single- family home on Parcel 1would be developed later and any impact this project may have on existing ordinance sized trees would be subject to review by the City Arborist. No protected trees are in or near the proposed footprint of the relocated single-family home. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 11 City arborist review and approval of any impacts on protected trees on Parcel 1 would be required prior to design review approval of any single-family home. City arborist recommendations would be included as a condition of project approval and would reduce any adverse impacts associated with biological resources to be less than significant. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including that interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a) The Harry Brandenburg House is located on site. The Harry Brandenburg House is listed on the Saratoga Resources Inventory but is not a designated City Landmark, located on a heritage lane, or in a heritage district. Per the DPR Record, the Harry Brandenburg House is in the vernacular National architectural style. The house was constructed in 1890 of locally milled redwood. The house rests on a mudsill. The side-gabled house is a redwood-frame design that is clad in horizontal channel-rustic wood siding. The roof is steep pitched with overhanging eaves, and a gabled pediment that is centered along the primary façade and is clad with decorative shingles. The roof is clad in dark brown clay roof tiles. There is a wood-framed fixed window that is flanked in each side by attic vents. There is a full-width, hipped roof front porch and an enclosed sleeping porch along the second story northeast corner of the house. The house is raised above grade and covered with a horizontal channel-rustic skirt. The house was altered in the 1940’s when a one-story addition was added to the rear of the house which included a new kitchen, two additional bedrooms, an additional bathroom, a laundry room, workshop, and utility room. Later additions to the house include a carport constructed in 1950 and a greenhouse and shed with a carport constructed in 1955. The project includes the relocation of the Harry Brandenburg House to the eastern portion of the site parallel to Quito Road. The relocation of the structure would provide the property owner the opportunity to subdivide an area behind the house into a separate parcel with access from Loquat Court. The Harry Brandenburg House would occupy a parcel with frontage on Quito Road. The carports and greenhouse were not part of the original structure and lack historic integrity – these structures will be removed. The relocated structure will be moved to a standard concrete foundation and will be again used as a single-family residence. A current condition assessment, evaluation, and Secretary of Interior Standards review, dated May 31, 2019, was prepared by Evans and De Shazo, Inc. The report states that the house retains a good Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 12 degree of integrity. All the original materials, design elements, and details associated with the original construction of the house in 1890 are proposed to be restored. In addition, the proposed removal of the rear additions that were added in the 1940’s would not impact the original historic features or materials that characterize the original house. The relocation of a historical resource could constitute an adverse impact to the resource. However, since the Harry Brandenburg House is being relocated within the parcel where it was constructed, its relocation and restoration reduce the impacts to a historic structure to less than significant as the “new” location is compatible with the original character of setting. This relocation should allow the resource to remain local listed. This adheres to the public policy of the City of Saratoga to recognize and preserve the heritage of the city as set forth under Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code. The report by Evans & De Shazo assessed, evaluated, and addressed Standards compliance for the proposed project at the recommendation of the City of Saratoga to ensure compliance with CEQA, and local ordinances, and address potential impacts to historical resources. Although the house retains integrity of location and design, based on a field survey, research, and thorough analysis, it was determined that due to lack of integrity it does not meet the significance for listing on the California Register of Historic Place (CRHR) under any criterion. At their meeting of November 14, 2017, the City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered the application to preserve the Harry Brandenburg House by relocating it on the existing site to provide space to subdivide the lot into two parcels. The HPC Commission determined that preserving the Harry Brandenburg House onsite would not be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The HPC’s recommendation of approval included the following four conditions that have been incorporated into the project: 1) The current elevation shall be retained, 2) Any damage to the structure will be replaced with matching material, 3) The existing roofing material shall be removed and replaced with a material which has a more traditional appearance such as wood or composition shingles, and 4) Non-wood windows shall be removed and replaced with wood windows. b-d) The City of Saratoga General Plan states that the City’s heritage is to be preserved by providing for the protection of cultural resources representing significant elements of City and regional history. No evidence of potentially sensitive cultural resources is associated with the project site. The relocated Harry Brandenburg House would not include a basement and it will be located on a new concrete foundation which will be constructed at grade. The accidental discovery or recognition of archaeological resources or human remains is unlikely due to the minimal soil disturbance to relocate structure. No construction is currently proposed for the newly created Parcel 1. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on Cultural Resources. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 13 19. ENERGY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? DISCUSSION: a-b) Implementation of the project would not be considered to result in wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy. The project consists of the relocation on site of an existing two-story single- family home. No additional development is currently proposed. Energy consumption would be expected to be commensurate with other buildings with similar uses and wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation is not to be expected. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 14 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? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? DISCUSSION: a-f) The Safety Element of the General indicated that the Monta Vista Fault is located to the north of the project site and the Shannon Fault is located to the south of the project site. The primary seismic hazard at the site would be from ground shaking related to the two fault lines previously mentioned. Implementation of the seismic design parameters per Chapter 16 of the California Building Code for both the relocated structure and the development of any new structures would reduce any adverse impacts associated with seismic shaking to be less than significant. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is included in the body of environmental document. While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to provide the public and decision-makers as much information as possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding the project’s direct and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the environmental document. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a-b) The project site would create greenhouse gas emissions largely from the generation of electricity for the residential development and vehicle trips. Solid waste would make up a small amount of the total generation of greenhouse gas emissions Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 15 The BAAQMD identifies screening levels for evaluation of operational GHG emissions based on project size as described in the Air Quality section of this initial study. The applicable land use category of the Air District's screening criteria tables for the project is residential. The project is below the Air District's screening thresholds for such uses and would have a less than significant impact related to operational GHG emissions. The City of Saratoga does not have an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan. The Air District is the only regional agency that to date has developed a plan for GHG emissions reductions that can be utilized by the City. The Air District has published comprehensive guidance on evaluating, determining significance of, and mitigating GHG impacts of projects and plans. The guidance is contained in the 2017 Air District CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project is below the screening criteria listed in the 2017 Air District CEQA guidelines, Table 3-1. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 16 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? DISCUSSION: a-h) The proposed project is a residential development that does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nominal amounts of hazardous material in the form of fuels and other construction materials are routinely used during construction processes. The project will include the relocation on site of an existing single-family home and a tentative map to create an additional parcel for the future construction of a single-family home. Neither structure would be a source of hazardous emissions. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that the Department of Toxic Substances Control compile and regularly update a list of hazardous waste facilities and sites. A search of the Envirostor website (Department of Toxic Substances Control 2018) revealed that the project site is not on the list. The project site is not within an airport land use plan, is not within two miles of a public airport, and is not near a private landing strip. The nearest airports are San Jose International Airport ten miles to the northeast, and Reid-Hillview Airport 16 miles to the east, northeast. The City participates in the Santa Clara County Operational Emergency Plan. The plan is an all hazards document describing the County's Emergency Operations organization, compliance with relevant legal statutes, other guidelines, and critical components of the Emergency Response System. Development of the project would not impair the implementation of this plan. The project site is not located within the Wildland-Urban Interface Area and is subject to the requirements of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. Development on the project site is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, the project would have no impact on Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 17 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow DISCUSSION: Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 18 a-j) The project would subdivide an existing 25,698 square foot parcel located at 13939 Quito Road into two lots. Parcel 1 fronts on Loquat Court and Parcel 2 fronts on Quito Road. The project would include the relocation of an existing single-family home from its current location in the western portion of the site to the eastern part (Parcel 2) of the site adjacent to Quito Road. A new single- family home would be developed at a later time on Parcel 1. The proposed project would be less than one acre and the developer would not be required to obtain a State NPDES Construction General Permit since the threshold for requiring such a permit is the disturbance of 1 acre or more. The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed project would utilize public water provided by the San Jose Water Company and would not use groundwater for any phase of the project. Regarding surface water that recharges the groundwater, the project site is not located in a groundwater recharge area. Consequently, the project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or recharge other than its indirect impact on the use of groundwater by the San Jose Water Company. The Water Company receives water from Santa Clara Groundwater Basin supplied by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. According to the water district's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, there is adequate groundwater recharge within the Basin, and groundwater elevations have been steadily on the rise for the past 40 years. Consequently, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater resources nor substantially interfere with groundwater recharge and the impact is less than significant. New development of the project site is required to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the Construction General Stormwater Permit. The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the Construction General Stormwater Permit require that any development on the project site incorporate Low Impact Design techniques, provide erosion control measures during construction, and ensure that runoff does not exceed the rate and duration of that existing runoff. Further, the required Low Impact Design techniques require pre-treatment of runoff before it enters the City's storm water system. Development on the site will be required to prepare a storm water management plan which be reviewed by City staff to ensure it meets the City's requirements for storm water management. These requirements will ensure that the proposed project will have no impact on downstream flooding, including impacts on downstream creeks. These requirements will also ensure that the proposed project would not create or contribute substantial amounts of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Large scale flooding is not a significant hazard in the City (General Plan, page 27). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain and future development on the project site would not result in the placement of housing or structures within the 100-year flood hazard area. The project site is located inland and is not at risk of inundation by a tsunami. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Flooding from a seismically- induced seiche is unlikely. The project site is not located at the base of a hill and the area surrounding is developed with single-family homes on sites heavily vegetated. The project site would not be subject to inundation by mudflow. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the Hydrology and Water Quality. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 19 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a. The project site containing a one-story single-family home and a detached garage. Surrounding land uses single-family residential land uses. The proposed project would include the subdivision of the site to create an additional single-family zoned parcel and the onsite relocation of the existing single-family home and would not physically divide an established community. b. The site zoned R-1-10,000. The existing parcel has frontage on both Quito Road and Loquat Court with a site frontage of 103.91 feet and 42.93 feet, respectively. The project would subdivide the parcel so that one parcel has frontage on Loquat Court and the other on Quito Road, both public streets. The Loquat Court facing parcel would maintain the existing frontage width of 42.93 feet. The minimum site frontage is 60 feet for parcels fronting on a cul-de-sac, so the Loquat Court parcel would have a nonconforming site frontage. Seven parcels currently have frontage on Loquat Court with three of the seven parcels having nonconforming frontage that abuts the turnaround (including the subject parcel). The applicant has applied for a variance to create a new parcel with nonconforming frontage. Because two other parcels on Loquat Court have nonconforming frontages on a cul-de-sac turnaround, staff could make the variance findings in City Code Section 15-70.060. Planning Commission approval of the variance would reduce land use impact to less than significant. c. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, no habitat conservation plan conflicts/impacts would occur. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 20 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: a-b. The City of Saratoga does not contain any designated important mineral resources that need to be protected. Mineral resources in the City are limited primarily to sandstone and shale. There are several closed quarries within Saratoga and there are no mines or quarries known to be operating in the City or its Sphere of Influence. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts to known mineral resources or result in the loss of availability of a locally important resource recovery site. 12. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: a. The standards of the City of Saratoga General Plan Noise Element utilize the Day-Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor. The Noise Element of the General Plan includes the existing roadway noise and noise contour distances for various roadway segments within the City (Table NE-A1) including the portion of Quito Road which borders the project. Based on the table, the project can expect a DNL of 67 dB as measured 50 feet from the roadway center line. The Noise Element includes land- Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 21 use compatibility guidelines (Table NE-2) which lists a DNL of between 60 to 70 dB as being in the range of being conditionally acceptable for single-family residential land uses. Policy 2.2 of the General Plan Noise Element requires residential development be designed and constructed to reduce interior noise levels of DNL 45 dB or less in habitable rooms. Implementation of standard building design and construction techniques per CALgreen standards will ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. b. The proposed project would not result in substantial ground-borne vibrations during the operational phase. The equipment expected to be used during construction associated with the project, would generate ground-borne vibration levels lower than the 0.20 in/sec criterion (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, DOT, May 2006). Therefore, the impacts will be less than significant. c. The primary source of ambient noise levels associated with the project would be traffic noise. The General Plan Noise Element includes projected future noise contours. The portion of Quito Road to the project is expected to have a DNL of 65-70 in 2030 which is still conditionally acceptable for residential land uses. See discussion in above Paragraph A which would ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. d. Short-term noise impacts may be created during relocation of the Harry Brandenburg House. Temporary noise excesses will occur at the properties adjacent to the site during construction of the project. The noise levels are expected to be consistent with typical single-family home construction within the City. Compliance with the City’s construction hours will reduce the projects impacts on noise to less than significant. e. The project site is not located within an airport land-use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, and therefore, would not expose people residing in the project area to excessive noise levels. f. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and therefore, would not expose people residing in the project area to excessive noise levels. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 22 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a. The project would create one additional parcel for the future construction of once single-family home. The construction of one single-family home would not induce substantial population growth in the area. b. The project will maintain the existing single-family home on site and will not displace existing housing. c. See b. above. The project would not displace any people. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: a/b The Santa Clara County Fire Department provides fire protection to the City of Saratoga. The closest fire station to the project site is the Quito Fire Station located at 18870 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road which is approximately 2 miles east of the project site. The Santa County Sheriff provides law enforcement services to the City. The project is an urbanized infill site therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered police or fire facility. c-e The project would create one additional single-family home site. The development of one single- family home would have a negligible increase the demand for schools, parks, or public facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact Public Services. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 23 15. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a-b) The project would create one additional single-family home site. The development of one single-family home would have a negligible increase the demand for exiting neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. 16. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 24 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION: a-f. The project includes the relocation on site of an existing single-family home and the subdivision of the site to create a new parcel for the development of a new single-family home. The construction of a new single-family home could generate six peak hour trips based on the appropriate trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, 10th edition (2017). The General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element requires a transportation analysis to all new development projects resulting in 25 or more new net peak-hour trips. Due to the minimal trip generation with the project, the project would result in a less than significant impact to traffic circulation. 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21704 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources code section 5020.1(k), or 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, or in it discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision © of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 25 DISCUSSION: a) The project site is in an established urbanized area. Located on site is an existing two-story single- family home and related accessory structures. Residential land uses surround the site. There are no known tribal resources on site. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with enough permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: a. Sanitary sewer services are provided by the West Valley Sanitation District. The district has adequate capacity to service the site and therefore the proposed project would not cause the district to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b/d/e The Santa Clara County Valley Water District and San Jose Water Company provide water service to the City of Saratoga. The District is responsible for designing and building local water reservoirs and water distribution facilities and operating water treatment plants. The District then sells treated water to local water retail agencies that serve communities using their own distribution systems. San Jose Water Company is the water retailer that provides water to Saratoga residents. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 26 c. The City uses a storm water collection system, in conjunction with the natural creek drainage system, to manage storm water runoff. Storm water collected through this system ultimately drains into the San Francisco Bay. Development of the project would be required to install adequate storm water infrastructure. In addition, the proposed development will require any new development on site to incorporate Low Impact Design techniques and that stormwater runoff be maintained on site to the maximum extent possible. f. Solid waste and recycling service are provided by West Valley Collection and Recycling (WVC&R). Solid waste is picked up Monday through Friday weekly, depending on the Saratoga neighborhood. Paper, plastic, metal, glass and green waste, such as lawn trimmings, can be recycled. All recyclables collected are transmitted to the Material Recovery Facility located in San Jose, where they are sorted and processed into new materials. E-waste is not collected by WVC&R at this time but may be dropped off by residents at the Material Recovery Facility. g. Solid waste and recycling services is available to the project site and would continue with redevelopment of the project site consistent with the proposed project. Redevelopment of the site would be consistent with the proposed General Plan and would need to comply with all federal and state regulations as well as any local goals and policies related to solid waste. Therefore, there is no impact because the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable regulations. 20. WILDFIRE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes? DISCUSSION: a-d. The location of the project at 13939 Quito Road is not in a designated Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire area as identified in the Safety Element of the Saratoga General Plan. Therefore, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 27 project would not be threatened by wildfires or pollutants from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Quito Road is designated as an evacuation route in the Safety Element of the Saratoga General Plan. The proposed two lot subdivision would create the potential to develop one additional single-family home on the lot. The addition of one additional residence would have no impact on the Quito Road evacuation route. The site and surrounding sites are on level site so there are no impacts from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. 20. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a) The project would subdivide an existing 25,698 square foot parcel located at 13939 Quito Road into two lots. Parcel 1 fronts on Loquat Court and Parcel 2 fronts on Quito Road. The project would include the relocation of an existing single-family home from its current location in the western portion of the site to the eastern part (Parcel 2) of the site adjacent to Quito Road. A new single- family home on Parcel 1would be developed later and any impact this project may have on existing ordinance sized trees would be subject to review by the City Arborist. No ordinance sized trees are in or near the proposed footprint of the relocated single-family home. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Two Lot Subdivision, 13939 Quito Road Page 28 City arborist review and approval of any ordinance sized trees on Parcel 1 would be required prior to design review approval of any single-family home. City arborist recommendations would be included as condition of project approval and would reduce any adverse impacts associated with biological resources to be less than significant. The site is in a developed urbanized area and does not support any sensitive habitats or provide habitat for any rare or endangered plant or animal species, and the proposed project would not affect or substantially diminish plan or animal habitats, including riparian or wetland habitat. The proposed project would not interfere with any resident or migratory species habitat, or affect any rare, threatened, or endangered species. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed project has the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. However, during grading activities, there is always the potential to inadvertently disturb previously unknown historic and prehistoric resources. In the event this should occur, mitigation measures are included herein to ensure the impact would not be significant. b) The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project will be maintaining an existing heritage resource on site and furthermore, the development of a single-family home on the newly created parcel in an urbanized area are exempt from CEQA review. c) The proposed project is a residential project and does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. E. SOURCES 1. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation, Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and Safety Element). 2. Tentative Map for 13939 Quito Road, dated February 25, 2019. 3. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map 4. City staff review of the project. 5. Condition Assessment Evaluation Report for the Harry Brandenburg House, prepared by Evans & De Shazo, May 31, 2019. 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. 7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. April 19, 2017. 8. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2018. EnviroStor Database; Accessed June 2019. http://www.environstor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ 9. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. FEMA Flood Map Service Center; Accessed June 2019. https://msc.fema.gov/ F. APPENDIXES A. Tentative Map for 13939 Quito Road, dated February 25, 2019 B. Condition Assessment Evaluation Report for the Harry Brandenburg House, prepared by Evans & De Shazo, May 31, 2019. Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 3 DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2019 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Ahuja called the Planning Commission Regular Meeting to order in the Civic Theater, Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Sunil Ahuja, Vice Chair Razi Mohiuddin, Commissioners Leonard Almalech, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Anjali Kausar, Lucas Pastuszka, Tina Walia ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Victoria Hernandez, Planner I Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 10, 2019. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of July 10, 2019 meeting. ALMALECH/WALIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 10, 2019 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS 1. NEW BUSINESS: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1. Application PSP19-0001; 13718 Saratoga Avenue (397-30-047); Sacred Heart Parish. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.19-022 approving the proposed illuminated freestanding sign subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Commission Fitzsimmons recused herself from item due to its proximity to her residence. KAUSER/PASTUSZKA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-022 APPROVING APPLICATION PSP19-0001 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN ATTACHEMENT 1. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: FITZSIMMONS (RECUSED). Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 3 2.2. Application PDR19-0003, ARB19-0005, ADU19-0008; 15305 Pepper Lane Drive (510-02-009); Ravi and Prianka Chopra / Young and Borlik Architects. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.19-021 approving the proposed residence subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-021, APPROVING APPLICATION PDR19-0003, ARB19-0005, ADU19-0008 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN ATTACHMENT 1. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.3. Application SUB19-0001, VAR19-0001, and ENV19-0002; 13939 Quito Road (397- 43-017); Howell Development & Investments, Incorporated. Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 19-019 adopting the Negative Declaration ENV19-0002, included as Attachment 1; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-020 approving Tentative Map SUB19-000 and Variance VAR19- 0001 subject to conditions included in Attachment 2. WALIA/ALMALECH MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.4. Annual Code Update/ ZOA19-0006. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-018 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance which includes amendments to Chapters 15 (Zoning Regulations) and 16 (Building Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code. WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-018 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 15 AND 16, EXCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLINGS 15-56.020 AND DEADLINE FOR APPEALS 15-90.050 AND TO USE THE DEFINITION OF SUBTERRANEAN STRUCTURE AS DEVELOPED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE STUDY SESSION OF MARCH 12, 2019. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND. MOHIUDDIN/KAUSAR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-018, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 15 AND 16, EXCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLINGS 15-56.020 AND DEADLINE FOR APPEALS 15-90.050. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA. NOES: WALIA. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 3 of 3 DIRECTOR ITEMS: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None ADJOURNMENT ALMALECH/AHUJA MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT the meeting at 10:06 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Assistant City of Saratoga REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Meeting Date: September 11, 2019 Application: PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 Address/APN: 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive/517-18-067 Property Owner: Lands of Yu From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Nicole Johnson, Planner II Report to the Planning Commission 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive – Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 September 11, 2019 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story residence (maximum height 25’) with a basement and a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) (maximum height 17’). Three (3) protected trees are requested for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No 19-026 approving the proposed residence with a basement and detached ADU subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1) (2) and (6), Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required because the project is a new multi-story residence and the cumulative floor area on the property exceeds 6,000 square feet. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 47,333 sq. ft. gross site area / 38,813 sq. ft. net site area Average Site Slope: 13.9% General Plan Designation: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) Zoning: R-1-40,000 Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residence/ ADU Walkways/Patios/Pool Permeable Paver Parking Total Proposed Site Coverage 4,854 sq. ft. 7,389 sq. ft. 251 sq. ft. 12,494 sq. ft. (26%) 14,942 sq. ft.* (35%) Floor Area First Floor Second Floor Non-basement ADU Basement (exempt) Total Proposed Floor Area 3,892 sq. ft. 1,525 sq. ft. 194 sq. ft. 902 sq. ft. (3,660) sq. ft. 6,513 sq. ft. 6,514 sq. ft.* Height 25’5” 26’ Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1st Floor 2nd Floor 30’ 30’ 27’ 42.33’ 25’ 43.58’ 104.55’ 114.67’ 1st Floor 2nd Floor 30’ 30’ 25’ 30’ 20’ 25’ 20’ 20’ Grading Cut 4,830 CY Fill 1,100 CY Export 3,730 CY No grading limit in the R-1-40,000 zoning district *Includes a one-time 10% site coverage and floor area bonus for the deed restricted ADU pursuant to City Code Section 15-56.030 (3) Report to the Planning Commission 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive – Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 September 11, 2019 Page | 3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The subject property is vacant and located on the northern side of Montalvo Heights Drive. This lot is one of five lots created when a subdivision of a 6.27-acre parcel was approved by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2012 (Reso#12-045). The surrounding uses consist of single-family residences to the east, west, north, and south. Thirty (30) trees, which are protected by the Saratoga City Code, were inventoried on the site by the project arborist. Project Description The proposed project would include the construction of a new 5,611 square foot two-story residence with a 3,660 square foot basement, and a 902 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit. The 3,660 square foot basement would include a four (4) car garage, mechanical room, storage room, mud room, wine cellar, lounge and a bedroom suite. 194 square feet of the bedroom suite does not qualify as basement per section 15-06.090 of the City Code and is included in the overall floor area on the property. The 3,892 square foot first floor of the main residence would consist of foyer, great room, formal dining room, library/tea room, kitchen, and four (4) bedroom suites. The second floor is 1,525 square feet and is comprised of a master suite with an office. In addition, the 902 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit would have a kitchen, living room, and a bedroom suite. Architecture/Design The project would have a contemporary architectural style. Exterior materials and colors would consist of white (alabaster) stucco walls, stone veneer, and multi-color clay tile roofing. The variety of exterior materials and the smaller foot print of the second floor provides architectural articulation to break up the mass of the home. The architectural style, exterior materials, and colors of the accessory dwelling unit would be consistent with those of the main residence. The applicant has provided a color and materials board, which will be available for review at the site visit and during the public hearing. Below is a list of the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Stucco (alabaster) Stone Veneer (multi-color) Trim wood (brown) Windows Clear Glazing and Aluminum (bronze) Doors Clear Glazing and Steel Frame (black) Roof Clay Tile (multi-color) Report to the Planning Commission 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive – Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 September 11, 2019 Page | 4 Trees The project arborist inventoried thirty (30) trees on the site, which are protected. The City Arborist is able to make the findings and recommend approval for the removal of the three (3) requested trees. All protected trees to remain in the vicinity of the project will be protected prior to building permit issuance and throughout the duration of the project. The applicant is required to place a tree security deposit of $48,410 and install tree protection fencing on the site. Details of the arborist report findings and descriptions of the trees to be preserved are included in the Arborist Report (Attachment 2). Landscaping Most of the existing landscaping is proposed to remain. A new permeable paver driveway and concrete walkways are proposed in the front yard. Per Section 15-12.095 the applicant shall be required to landscape at least 50% of the front yard setback area prior to final inspection. The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance when the application is submitted to the Building Department. Geotechnical Review This project is not located in a geo hazard zone therefore Geotechnical review was not required. 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. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new structures and driveway. b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the City Arborist has reviewed and recommends approval for the proposed removal of three (3) protected trees. The number of trees to be removed is being kept to a minimum and limited to trees that are in poor condition or dead and in conflict with the location of the project. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. Report to the Planning Commission 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive – Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 September 11, 2019 Page | 5 This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and proposed setbacks that are greater than the minimum required by the zoning district. No community viewsheds are located in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will create a two-story residence in a neighborhood with both one and two-story structures, fitting with the context of other residences within its vicinity. The project includes architectural elements consistent with the contemporary architectural style which are in scale with the structure and the neighborhood. e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the hardscape will be less than 50% of the front setback area and limited to a driveway. The majority of the existing landscaping is proposed to remain. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project exceeds required setbacks. g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the proposed project incorporates applicable design policies and techniques from the Residential Design Handbook. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed manner which is complementary to the architectural style of the home. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative because although the site is considered a hillside lot by definition, the project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. Report to the Planning Commission 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive – Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 September 11, 2019 Page | 6 Neighbor Notification and Correspondence A public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. In addition, the public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. Two (2) completed neighborhood notification forms were received from the same resident about asking that the proper drainage is installed (Attachment 3). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of three single-family residences in a residential area, including small structures. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of a new residence with a detached ADU in a suburban, residential area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 19-026 2. Arborist Report dated April 24, 2019 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Story Pole Certification 5. Project Plans At RESOLUTION NO: 19-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 20455 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DRIVE (APN 517-18-067) WHEREAS, on November 1, 2017 an application was submitted by Tracy Yu requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 5,611 square foot two-story residence with a 3,660 square foot basement, and a 902 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit located at 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive (APN 517-18-067). Three (3) protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on September 11, 2019 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single- family residence and small structures in a residential area. Section 3: The proposed residence is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The proposed residence is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; the porch and entry are in scale with other structures in the Attachment 1 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Application # Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 Resolution #19-026 Page | 2 neighborhood. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 located at 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive (APN 517-18- 067), subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 11th day of September 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Sunil Ahuja Chair, Planning Commission 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Application # Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 Resolution #19-026 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 20455 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DRIVE (APN 517-18-067) 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 or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Application # Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 Resolution #19-026 Page | 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. PERMANENT CONDITION-The owner shall restrict the rental of the accessory dwelling unit to only households that qualify as low, very-low, or extremely-low income households as those terms are defined in the most recent Santa Clara County Housing and Urban Development Program Income Limits or, in the event that the most recent such report is more than five years old, in accordance with the definitions set forth in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5, 50105, and 50106 as those sections exist as of the effective date of this restriction. “Rental” means any agreement whereby the occupant(s) of the accessory dwelling unit make any payment in consideration of said occupancy. The Deed Restriction document shall be notarized and recorded with the County of Santa Clara Clerks Office, prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 7. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans date stamped May 6 , 2019. All proposed changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 8. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the owner/applicant shall conduct in depth site specific geotechnical investigation must be prepared for the lot including design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls, basements, swimming pools, etc.) per Resolution no. 12-045 for the subdivision. 9. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval, a Lighting Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited to full-cut off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties. 10. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 11. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Application # Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 Resolution #19-026 Page | 5 a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 12. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 13. The final landscaping and irrigation plan submitted for Building Permit approval shall demonstrate how the project complies with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall take into account the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees 14. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 15. A locking mailbox approved for use by the U.S. Postal service shall be installed and in compliance with Saratoga Municipal Code section 6-25.030. The mailbox shall be installed prior to final inspection. 16. 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT 17. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Application # Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 Resolution #19-026 Page | 6 ARBORIST 18. All requirements in the City Arborist report dated April 24, 2019 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans. PUBLIC WORKS 19. Applicant / Owner shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including all new utilities prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 20. Applicant / Owner shall submit the design plans to the Public Works Department for a comprehensive drainage review following the receipt of geotechnical approval. This condition will be satisfied when Public Works has determined that the proposed drainage facilities meet the requirements of the site and the subdivision. 21. Applicant / Owner shall make the following improvements in the City right -of-way: a. To be determined following the completion of Public Works Condition 20. See City of Saratoga Standard Details for removal and new installation. New flow line shall conform to existing flow lines and grade. 22. Damages to driveway approach, curb and gutter, public streets, or other public improvements during construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection. 23. All new/upgraded utilities shall be installed underground. 24. Applicant / Owner shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and other right of way as well as adjacent properties, both public and private, in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed immediately. 25. All project that create and/or replace more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surface shall install one or more of the following site design measures: a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. f. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 26. The Owner/Applicant shall incorporate adequate source control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff (e.g. landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Application # Application # PDR17-0017, ARB17-0051, ADU19-0024 Resolution #19-026 Page | 7 promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs, such as Bay- Friendly Landscaping). 27. Construction Site Control a. Owner shall implement construction site inspection and control to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains per approved Erosion Control Plan. b. The City requires the construction sites to maintain year-round effective erosion control, run-on and run-off control, sediment control, good site management, and non-storm water management through all phases of construction (including, but not limited to, site grading, building, and finishing of lots) until the site is fully stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures. c. City will conduct inspections to determine compliance and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs in preventing the discharge of construction pollutants into the storm drain. Owner shall be required to timely correct all actual and potential discharges observed. 28. At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of any earthwork/grading activities, the Owner/Applicant shall arrange a pre-construction meeting with Public Works for BMP compliance. 29. Prior to the Building final, all Public works conditions shall be completed per approved plans. BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL 30. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. Arborist Report dated April 24, 2019 printed onto a separate plan page; and c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. e. 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. Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB17-0051 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Mark Yu Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 517-18-067 Email: kaiyu6688@gmail.com Report: Approval of Tree Protection Plan Date: April 24, 2019 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to build a new two story house with a basement and a second unit on a vacant lot. The project includes a basement level four car garage. Three trees (145, 148 and 174) protected by Saratoga City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $48,410 Tree protection – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – Tree 145, 148 and 174 are approved for removal once building permits have been issued. Replacement trees – Required = $2,490 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Findings and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map Showing Tree Protection Page 1 of 9 Attachment 2 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Attachment 1 FINDINGS: Tree Removals According to Section 15-50.080 of the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Three trees (145, 148 and 174) protected by City Code are requested for removal for this project. They meet the City’s criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Species Criteria met Comments 145 Monterey pine 1, 4, 7, 9 In fair health with poor structure 148 Monterey pine 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 Dead 174 Coast live oak 1, 7, 9 Poor structure, in conflict with driveway New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15- 50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final sets of plans: 1) The recommendations and tree information from the submitted arborist report dated January 7, 2019; 2) The Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the map showing tree protection from this report dated April 24, 2019. TREE INFORMATION: Arborist Report reviewed: Preparer: Allie Strand, Urban Tree Management, Inc. Date of Report: September 14, 2017, revised January 7, 2019 An arborist report was submitted for this project that inventoried 30 trees protected by Saratoga City Code. Information on the condition of each tree, potential impacts from construction, suitability for preservation, appraised values and tree protection recommendations were provided. A table summarizing information about each tree is below. Three trees (145, 148 and 174) protected by Saratoga City Code are requested for removal to construct this project. Page 2 of 9 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Attachment 1 TREE INFORMATION: Table 2: Tree information from September 14, 2017 arborist report. Page 3 of 9 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Attachment 1 Table 2.1: Key to tree information table from September 14, 2017 arborist report. Key Health Structure Good Excellent/vigorous Flawless Good/Fair Healthy Very stable Fair Healthy but showing initial or temporary disease, insects, or lack of vitality Routine maintenance needed such as pruning or end weight reduction as tree grows, minor structural corrections needed Fair/Poor Declining Significant structural issues, mitigation needed – may or may not preserve the tree Poor Dead or nearly dead At risk of imminent failure W/H Width/height Table 3: Tree values from September 14, 2017 arborist report. Tree no. Tree name DBH Value Protected 143 Coast live oak 24 $7,500 Yes 144 Monterey pine 21 $1,220 Yes 145 Monterey pine 23 $1,470 Yes – Remove 146 Monterey pine 18 $900 Yes 147 Monterey pine 18 $1,580 Yes 148 Monterey pine 18 0 Yes - Remove 149 Monterey pine 21 $2,140 Yes 150 Monterey pine 13 $480 Yes 151 Monterey pine 14, 9, 7.5 $580 Yes 152 Monterey pine 12 $720 Yes 153 Monterey pine 8 $340 Not protected - Remove 154 Valley oak 24 $13,000 Yes 155 Monterey pine 24 $900 Yes 156 Monterey pine 10 $510 Yes 157 Blue gum 9.5, 7.5 $100 Yes 158 Coast live oak 13.5, 12.5, 12, 7 $2,130 Yes 159 Deodar cedar 24 $8,100 Yes 160 Valley oak 30 $16,900 Yes 161 Coast live oak 9, 9 $880 Yes 162 Coast live oak 11 $930 Yes 163 Coast live oak 8, 8 $760 Yes 164 European olive 6.5, 6 $470 Not protected 165 Coast live oak 13, 10, 7, 7, 5 $410 Yes 166 Coast live oak 30 $11,600 Yes 167 Coast live oak 17.5, 16 $480 Yes 168 Coast live oak 17 $3,770 Yes 169 Coast live oak 23 $6,900 Yes 170 Coast live oak 13.5, 8 $350 Yes 171 Coast live oak 26 $8,700 Yes 172 Coast live oak 6 $840 Yes 173 Coast live oak 8 $710 Yes 174 Coast live oak 7, 6, 6, 5 $660 Yes - Remove Page 4 of 9 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. Page 5 of 9 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Owner, Architect, Contractor: It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2. Permit: a. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. b. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 3. Final Plan Sets: a. Shall include the recommendations and tree information from the arborist report by Allie Strand dated January 7, 2019 copied onto a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”. b. Shall include the Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the map showing tree protection sections of the City Arborist report dated April 24, 2019. 4. Tree Protection Security Deposit: a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be $48,410 for tree(s) 143, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 154, 160, 163, 165, 172 and 173. c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond. e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 5. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be shown on the Site Plan. c. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. d. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. e. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. f. Wherever protection is needed outside of fences, unprocessed wood chips, or approved equivalent, shall be placed to the edge of the tree’s canopy and to a depth of 6 inches. g. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. h. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. Page 6 of 9 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Attachment 3 6. Construction: All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing unless permitted as conditioned below. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching for utility installation, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7. Work inside fenced areas: a. Requires field meeting with City Arborist before performing work. b. Requires City Arborist approval prior to performing work. c. Requires Project Arborist on site to monitor work. 8. Project Arborist: a. Shall be Allie Strand/Michael Young unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. b. Shall visit the site every two weeks during grading, trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. c. Shall provide a letter to the Applicant for the City at the end of the project. The letter shall document visits to the site, the work performed around trees, the condition of trees during site visits, and include photos of the work in progress. d. Shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 9. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within: a. 10 feet of tree 163 b. 15 feet of trees 165, 167 and 174 c. 20 feet of tree 160 10. Tree removal: Trees 145, 148 and 174 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed once building division permits have been obtained. 11. New trees: a. New trees equal to $2,490 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species. b. Trees shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices, and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. c. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 d. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. e. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. Page 7 of 9 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Attachment 3 12. Damage to protected trees that will be retained: a. Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. Replacement values for new trees are listed above. b. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. 13. Final inspection: a. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. b. Before scheduling a final inspection from the City Arborist, have the project arborist do an inspection, prepare a letter with their findings and provide that letter to the City for the project file. Page 8 of 9 Attachment 4 Legend Tree Protection Fencing 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive Page 9 of 9 Attachment 3 STORY POLE HEIGHT LOCATION CERTIFICATION May 13, 2019 Property Designer: South Coast Architects, Inc. Project Address: 20455 Montalvo Heights Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 Legal Description: APN: To whom it may concern: I hereby certify that the Story Poles located on the referenced site were constructed under my supervision and survey, and the Story Poles are in conformance with the design, height and location as shown on the approved staking plan and/or architectural plan. I further certify that 1) The Story Pole identification numbers, 2) Story Pole location base grade elevations, 3) Story Pole heights and 4) the proposed maximum height elevations are true and correct. I acknowledge and understand that the required staking is for the purpose of informing the owner, architect, designer, City/County staff, design review authority, and the public as to the accurate location and exterior dimensions of the proposed structure or addition. TERWILLIGER Land Survey Engineers Ph: 415.937.2203 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 OASTCOUTHSA R C H I T E C T S, I N C.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED C COPYRIGHT 2019THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF SOUTH COAST ARCHITECTSANY OTHER PURPOSE OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUTTHIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FORFOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING ORSOUTH COAST ARCHITECTS AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCETHIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TODate:Drawn By:Scale:Job:Job No.:Sheet:YUJOB#17005RESIDENCECOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVISIONS102-26-18COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVISIONS209-20-18COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVISIONS301-07-19 SOUTH WEST ELEVATION - STREET VIEW SOUTH WEST ELEVATION SOUTH EAST ELEVATION NORTH EAST ELEVATION T-4 COLORED ELEVATIONS