HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 24-035, Certifying Saratoga Retirement Community EIRRESOLUTION NO.24-035
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MASTER
PLAN UPDATE AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPROVAL FOR
SARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, 14500 FRUITVALE AVENUE (ENV19-0005)
(APNS 397-12-012, 397-12-019, AND 397-40-006)
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2020 an application was submitted by Ankrom Moisan Architects
(Applicant) for Odd Fellows of California (Owner). The Applicant requests approval of a Planned -
Combined District zoning reclassification of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 397-12-012, 397-12-019,
and 397-40-006 from R-1-40,000 to R-1-40,000 P-C (Planned Combined) for the Saratoga
Retirement Community and a Master Plan Update including Design Review (PDR19-0023),
Arborist Review (ARB19-0039), and Geotechnical Review (GE019-0013), and certification of
the associated Final Environmental Impact Report.
WHEREAS, the current facility and associated uses received design review and
conditional use permit approval in the year 1996 (UP94-001). The Applicant is proposing to
construct three new apartment style buildings containing 52 independent living units. The project
would also combine skilled nursing rooms in the Health Center to create single occupancy rooms.
The project site currently has 249 units (143 independent living units and 106 assisted living units)
and 94 skilled nursing beds. The Applicant's proposal would bring the total residential units to
298 (195 independent living units and 103 assisted living units) and skilled nursing beds would be
reduced to 52. A new meeting room would be added to the west side of the existing Manor
building, and a new workout room would be added to the existing fitness center. The project
would include a net increase of 109 parking spaces, new landscaping (including removal of 65
protected trees), relocation of outdoor recreation facilities and a new Fire Department Emergency
Access from Chester Drive. The foregoing work is described as the "Project" in this Resolution;
and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")
for the Project was issued by the Community Development Department of the City of Saratoga on
November 22, 2021; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") Scoping Meeting was held
on December 9, 2021, to receive comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft
EIR; and
WHEREAS, the NOP was sent on November 17, 2021, to representatives from six Tribal
groups, based on a contact list that the City had on file. Additional NOP notifications were sent to
five more tribal contacts on June 13, 2022, based on the address list provided by the Native American
Heritage Commission. One Tribe, Tamien Nation, responded to the initial outreach effort and
requested formal consultation under AB 52. As a result of the Tamien Nation's requested
consultation, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2 was included in the Final EIR, which requires that
specified procedures be followed if precontact or historic period archaeological resources are
encountered during Project construction; and
Resolution 24-035
Page 2
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2023, the City published and circulated the Draft EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2021110366), for a 45-day public review and comment period that ended on
August 21, 2023, and copies of the Draft EIR were transmitted to the State Clearinghouse, posted on
the City's website, and made available at City Hall for review; and
WHEREAS, on July7, 2023 the City published in the Saratoga News a Notice of Availability
(NOA) of the Draft EIR, which was mailed and/or emailed to all previously requesting to be notified
of the Draft EIR, to those agencies and individuals who received a copy of the NOP; and to members
of the public who had indicated interest in the Project through the City's notification platform; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2023, the City held a meeting to hear public comments on the
Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City received four hundred and forty comment letters on the Draft EIR from
public agencies, organizations, and individuals; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2024, the City issued a Final Environmental Impact Report
Volume ("Final EIR Volume") for public review, and posted the Final EIR Volume on the City's
website, and a notice of the public hearing date and time was published on the project webpage,
incorporating all comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to comments; and
WHEREAS, the complete Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") consists of
the Draft EIR (published on July 6, 2023); the Final EIR Volume (published on April 25, 2024),
which includes comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to comments, and text revisions
to the Draft EIR; and all documents incorporated therein; and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires that "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so"
(Public Resources Code section 21002.1(b)); and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR concludes that potentially significant environmental effects
associated with the Project can be reduced to a less -than -significant level through the inclusion of
mitigation measures, except that with respect to the Manor Building because the Project would result
in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (see Section 3.5 of Draft
EIR, Cultural Resources, Impact CUL-1); and
WHEREAS, the EIR analyzed four alternatives to the project: (1) the No Project Alternative;
(2) Alternative 1— Residents' Alternative; (3) Alternative 2 — Reduced Development Alternative; and
(4) Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative; and
WHEREAS, CEQA authorizes the City to adopt a project alternative rather than a proposed
project (Public Resources Code §§21002-21002.1, 21004; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §I5002(a)); and
WHEREAS, if one of the Alternatives in the Final EIR is feasible and is adopted, all
potentially significant environmental effects associated with the Project, including the significant
unavoidable impacts to the Manor Building (Impact CUL-1), can be avoided and mitigation measures
will reduce other potentially significant environmental effects to a less -than -significant level; and
Resolution 24-035
Page 3
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2024 Planning Commission conducted a duly -noticed public hearing
to take public comment on the Project and reviewed all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, the
staff report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments. At the conclusion of the public
hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council: certify the Final EIR as
adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA, and as adequate and complete for consideration
in making a decision on the merits of the Project; adopt an ordinance rezoning Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 397-12-012, 397-12-019, and 397-40-006 from R-1-40,000 to R-1-40,000 P-C (Planned
Combined); and approve the Master Plan Update for Alternative 3 including Design Review (PDR19-
0023), Arborist Review (ARB 19-0039), and Geotechnical Review (GE019-0013)including
corresponding findings and conditions of approval and to recommend that the City Council adopt
Alternative 3; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve
Alternative 3 on the grounds that Alternative 3 meets, or partially meets with respect to parking, the
Project objectives and provides greater project benefits in that each Independent Living Unit is larger
than the units in Alternative 2 (Reduced Development Alternative) and provides more space for
ageing seniors; and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2024 the City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed
public hearing on the Project and it reviewed and considered the Final EIR, written reports, public
testimony, and other information in the record.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Saratoga makes
the following findings:
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
2. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR (published on July 6, 2023), and the Final EIR
Volume (published on April 25, 2024), and all documents incorporated therein; and
Notices of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the Final EIR Volume for
the Project were given as required by law and the actions were conducted in accordance with
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
4. All individuals, groups, and agencies desiring to comment were given adequate opportunity
to submit comments on the Draft EIR and to submit comments on the adequacy of the Final
EIR for certification. These opportunities to comment met or exceeded the requirements of
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
5. All comments submitted during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR have
been considered and adequately responded to in the Final EIR Volume, or included in the
public record; and
6. The City Council was presented with all of the documents constituting the Final EIR together
with all public comments and testimony on the EIR, and the City Council has reviewed and
considered this information and the Final EIR.
Resolution 24-035
Page 4
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby:
Certifies that the Final EIR is adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines, reflects the independent judgment of the City of Saratoga, and is adequate
and complete for consideration in making a decision on the merits of the Project,
2. Adopts the CEQA Findings for the Project, attached hereto as Attachment 1, and incorporated
herein by reference.
Adopts Alternative 3 (Applicant's Alternative) identified in the Final EIR on the grounds that
Alternative 3 meets, or partially meets with respect to parking, the Project objectives and
provides greater project benefits in that each Independent Living Unit is larger than the units
in Alternative 2 (Reduced Development Alternative). and provides more space for ageing
seniors.
4. Adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project
identified in the Findings.
5. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto as
Attachment 2, and incorporated herein by reference.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City
Council held on the 5t' day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS FITZSIMMONS, PAGE, WALIA, VICE MAYOR
AFTAB, MAYOR ZHAO
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
an Zhao, Mayor
ATTEST:
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
Resolution 24-035
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS FOR THE
SARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN UPDATE
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Saratoga (City), as lead agency under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the
Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR" or "EIR") for the Saratoga
Retirement Community Master Plan Update Project (the "Project"). The Final EIR is
a project -level EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines.' The
Final EIR consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR")
(published on July 6, 2023); the Final EIR Volume (published on April 25, 2024),
which includes the comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to the comments,
and text revisions to the Draft EIR; as well as appendices, and all documents and
resources referenced and incorporated by reference.
Both the proposed project originally contemplated in the EIR (referred to herein as the
"originally proposed project"), and Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative (which is
the Project being considered for approval by the City Council, as detailed further
below, referred to herein as the "Project") would involve construction and operation
of three new independent living residential apartment buildings at the existing
Saratoga Retirement Community ("SRC") campus, as well as construction and
operation of a new meeting room addition to the existing Manor Building and an
addition to the existing fitness center.
As described in Section 3.5, "Cultural Resources" in the EIR, the construction of one
of the apartment buildings (Building B) under the originally proposed project would
result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (the
Manor Building) which was determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact
(Draft EIR, pp. 3-87 to 3-104).
As described in Section 4.6, "Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative", in the EIR,
Alternative 3 would not include construction of Building B directly north of the Manor
Building and would therefore avoid the significant and unavoidable impact to the
historical resource (Draft EIR, pp. 4-146 to 4-150).
As further described in Section 4, "Alternatives" in the EIR, Alternative 3 —
Applicant's Alternative was determined to be environmentally superior to the original
proposed project (Draft EIR, pp. 4-193 to 4-196) as it would result in fewer
environmental impacts than the original proposed project and would meet, or partially
meet with respect to parking, the project objectives. Furthermore, Alternative 3 —
Applicant's Alternative would provide greater project benefits in that each
1 The State CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.
Resolution 24-035
Page 6
Independent Living Unit would be larger than the units proposed under Alternative 2
— Reduced Development Alternative, thereby providing more space for aging seniors.
Therefore, for the purposes of this CEQA Findings of Fact ("Findings"), Alternative
3 — Applicant's Alternative is the Project being presented for City Council's
consideration. Therefore, in the subsequent sections of these CEQA Findings, the
Project described, and the findings made, relate to Alternative 3 — Applicant's
Alternative rather than the original proposed project described in the EIR.
In determining to approve Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative, which is described
in more detail in Section II, below, the City makes and adopts the following findings
of fact and adopts and makes conditions of approval all of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR that are applicable to Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding (administrative
record).
Pursuant to Section 15090(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR was
presented to the City Council, the City Council reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the findings in Sections II
through XII, below, and the City Council determined that the Final EIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City. The conclusions presented in these findings are
based on the Final EIR and other evidence in the administrative record.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As fully described in the EIR (Draft EIR Section 4.6.1; as amended by Section 4 and
Appendix E of the Final EIR), Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would involve
the construction and operation of three new independent living residential apartment
buildings (herein referred to as Buildings A, C, and D) on the existing Saratoga
Retirement Community campus at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, as well as a new
meeting room extension to the existing Manor Building (herein referred to as the
Meeting Room) and an addition to the existing fitness center building (herein referred
to as the Fitness Center Addition). Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would also
require the demolition of the existing staff parking lot and one duplex cottage in the
northwest corner of the campus (to make space for Building D) and would construct a
new single unit cottage further south near the fitness center. A new parking lot would
be constructed in the grassy slope to the north of the Manor Building (between Manor
Circle and Odd Fellows Drive), and a new secondary access would be constructed for
emergency access between Odd Fellows Drive and Chester Avenue.
In addition to the originally proposed project and Alternative 3 — Applicant's
Alternative, the EIR analyzed three other alternatives: the No Project Alternative,
Alternative 1 — Residents' Alternative, and Alternative 2 — Reduced Development
Alternative. The originally proposed project and all of these alternatives are discussed
in Section VII of these Findings, below.
Resolution 24-035
Page 7
A. Project Objectives
The project objectives are as follows:
1. Continue to improve this long established and well respected Life Plan
Community so that it responds to the changing Senior Housing market and
remains a viable campus for years to come. Continue to provide a campus
where seniors can age in place, with independent living, assisted living,
memory care, and Skilled Nursing.
2. Add a minimum of 52 new independent living senior housing units to provide
the opportunity for more seniors, including many from the city of Saratoga, to
enjoy independent living, with access to a high quality continuum of care.
3. Generate an additional income stream from the new independent living units,
to help upgrade other parts of the campus including a major renovation of the
Health Center. Always maintain a strong financial position to insure the
future of the campus.
4. Provide upgrades to the existing Health Center, which would include
converting existing semiprivate rooms to private rooms with private baths.
5. Preserve and maintain the existing the buildings on the campus, including the
original Manor Building and the Health Center.
6. Provide a new and larger Meeting Room, that will seat all the apartment and
cottage residents on the campus.
7. Expand Independent Dining to serve the additional residents that will join the
campus and provide more dining choices for existing residents.
8. Provide an additional Fitness Building suitable for more fitness options like
floor exercise, aerobics, yoga, tai chi, dance, and more.
9. Ensure that new buildings are designed to blend with the existing independent
living buildings and Cottages, and also designed to respect and be
sympathetic to the original Manor Building.
10. Augment the existing parking on the campus for the residents, staff, visitors,
service providers, and vendors.
11. Maintain a high level of landscape design, amenities, and plant materials on
the campus.
B. Requested Entitlements
The applicant requests approval of the following entitlements from the City of Saratoga
for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative:
1. A Planned -Combined zoning reclassification of Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 397-12-012 & 397-12-019 & 397-40-006 from R-1-40,000 to R-1-
Resolution 24-035
Page 8
40,000 P-C (Planned Combined District) (ZOA19-0004)
2. A Master Plan Update including Design Review (PDR19-0023), arborist
review (ARB 19-0039), and geotechnical review (GEO19-0013).
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A. Environmental Impact Report
On November 22, 2021, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft
EIR to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and interested
agencies and the public. The NOP was circulated for comment by responsible and
trustee agencies and the public for a total of 30 days, ending on December 22, 2021,
during which time the City held a public scoping meeting on December 9, 2021. The
purpose of this meeting was to provide the public and governmental agencies with
information on the proposed project and the CEQA process and to give attendees an
opportunity to identify environmental issues that should be considered in the EIR. A
total of 16 comment letters and emails were received during the public scoping period.
The Draft EIR was made available for review by the public and interested parties,
agencies, and organizations for a 45-day comment period starting on July 6, 2023 and
ending August 21, 2023. In accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines,
the City published a notice of availability of the Draft EIR at the same time it sent out
a notice of completion to the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and
County Clerk. On August 2, 2023, the City held a meeting to hear public comments on
the Draft EIR and written comments were accepted until 5:00 pm on August 21, 2023.
Four hundred and forty written comments were received on the Draft EIR during the
public review period and 17 verbal comments were presented at the public meeting.
A Final Environmental Impact Report Volume ("Final EIR"), incorporating all
continents received on the Draft EIR and responses to comments was issued on April
25, 2024. The complete Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR (published on July 6, 2023),
the Final EIR Volume, which includes comments received on the Draft EIR, responses
to the comments, and text revisions to the Draft EIR; as well as appendices, and all
documents and resources referenced and incorporated by reference in the EIR.
B. Background
On September 27, 2023, the Planning Commission held a Site Visit and Study Session
to discuss the project. The meeting was well attended with 31 speakers. The Planning
Commission had an informative discussion regarding the project as then proposed,
asked the applicant questions and provided the applicant with some broad questions to
be answered. The applicant answered the questions posed at the study session.
Resolution 24-035
Page 9
On October 24, 2023 the Heritage Preservation Commission met to discuss and make
a recommendation on the project. After hearing from residents, the Commission
recommended that the proposed meeting room addition to the manor has been designed
in accordance with the Secretary of The Interior Standards, and found that it would not
have an impact on the historic character of the manor if the DEIR Mitigation is imposed
on the project, and further recommended that the City Council adopt the Applicant's
Alternative to avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to the Manor Building.
On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
applicant's request for an exception to the requirements for Story Poles pursuant to
City Code due to safety concerns and impairment of the use of the existing structures
on the site and to allow for the use of alternative methods, tools or technologies. The
Planning Commission approved the request for a story pole exception pursuant to City
Code Section 15-45.075(e) per the modified story pole plan and the Computer Visual
Simulation and based on the findings contained in Resolution 23-18. Further, the
applicant was not required to install story poles on the proposed Building B but was
required to install story poles on the Applicant's Alternative Building D and the
proposed cottage.
On May 8, 2024 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
subject application, and considered the Final EIR and evidence presented by City
Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties and recommended that the City
Council certify the Final EIR as adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA,
and as adequate and complete for consideration in making a decision on the merits of
the Project, and further recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigation and
Monitoring and Reporting Program in the Final EIR to satisfy the City's obligations
under Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1) (Resolution 24-018). The Planning
Commission also recommended that the City Council approve application ZOA19-
0004 and amend the City Zoning Map to rezone 37.17 acres located at 14500 Fruitvale
Avenue (APNs 397-12-012 and 397-12-019 & 397-40-006) from the existing R-1
40,000 District to the R-1-40,000 P-C (Planned Community) (Resolution 24-019) and
recommended that the City Council approve the Master Plan Update and Design
Review by adopting Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative (Resolution 24-020).
IV. FINDINGS
The findings set forth below (the "Findings") are made and adopted by the Saratoga
City Council as the City's findings under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines
relating to Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative. The Findings provide the written
analysis and conclusions of this City Council regarding the environmental impacts and
mitigation measures for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative, and other alternatives
considered.
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR with
regard to impacts of Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative before and after mitigation,
Resolution 24-035
Page 10
and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each environmental impact contained
in the Final EIR. Instead, these findings provide a summary description of and basis
for each impact conclusion identified in the Final EIR, describe the applicable
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and state the City's findings and
rationale about the significance of each impact following the adoption of mitigation
measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be
found in the Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR's determinations
regarding mitigation measures and the impacts of Alternative 3 — Applicant's
Alternative.
When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of either a list of past,
present, and probable future projects, including projects outside the control of the lead
agency, or a summary of projections in an adopted planning document. This EIR's
cumulative impact analysis is based on a combination of these approaches, depending
on the specific issue area being analyzed, as described in the Draft EIR p. 3-1 to 3-4.
In adopting mitigation measures, below, the City intends to adopt each of the
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR as applicable to Alternative 3 —
Applicant's Alternative. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure identified in
the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such mitigation
measure is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of Alternative 3 —
Applicant's Alternative in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event
the language of a mitigation measure set forth below fails to accurately reflect the
mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the
mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control unless the language of
the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
Section V, below, provides brief descriptions of the impacts for Alternative 3 —
Applicant's Alternative that the Final EIR identified as less than significant with
adopted mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact. Any impacts not
listed under Section V are less than significant and do not require mitigation.
Topics analyzed but found to have less -than -significant impacts or no impacts for
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative, include Agriculture and Forestry Resources,
Aesthetics, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral
Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services and Safety, Recreational
Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems.
The EIR concluded that for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative, no impacts
would remain significant or potentially significant with the implementation of
recommended mitigation measures.
Resolution 24-035
Page 11
V. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL
EIR THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL BY MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AND MADE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE 3 —
APPLICANT'S ALTERNATIVE
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts and mitigation measures
associated with Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative. It is hereby determined that
the impacts addressed by these mitigation measures will be mitigated to a less -than -
significant level or avoided by adopting and incorporating these mitigation measures
as conditions of Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative (Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(1)). As explained in Section VIII, below, the findings in this Section V are
based on the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in
full by this reference.
A. Impact AIR-2: Would the proposed project 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?
The EIR finds that construction of Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could result
in emissions of air pollutants such as fugitive dust (Draft EIR p. 4-139 to 4-140). Such
particulate matter without the implementation of fugitive dust control best
management practices would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-AIR-2: Fugitive Dust Reduction Measures
A. The construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD BMPs. for
reducing construction emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM] 0 and PM2.5):
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered twice daily, or as often as needed, treated with
non -toxic soil stabilizers, or covered to control dust emissions. Watering should be
sufficient to prevent airborne dust from the leaving the site.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power (with reclaimed water, if possible) vacuum street sweepers at least once per day,
or as often as needed. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
Resolution 24-035
Page 12
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13 CCR Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within
48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations.
B. The Project Applicant's project manager or his/her designee shall verify compliance
that these measures are included in the Project's grading plan and have been
implemented during normal construction site inspections.
B. Impact AIR-3: Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could result in toxic air
contaminant emissions, including diesel particulate matter (PM) associated with
heavy-duty equipment operations that could potentially exceed annual PM 2.5
thresholds and excess cancer risk thresholds (Draft EIR, p. 4-141 to 4-142). Such
emissions, without the implementation of measures to reduce concentrations to below
the BAAQMD-recommended thresholds, would be considered a potentially
significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-AIR-3: Require Clean Construction Equipment
A. Construction contractors shall use equipment that meets the USEPA's Tier 4 Final
emissions standards for off -road diesel powered construction equipment with engines
rated 50 horsepower or greater for all construction activities, unless it can be
demonstrated to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department on a case -
by -case basis that such equipment is not available. Documentation shall consist of
Resolution 24-035
Page 13
signed written statements from at least three construction equipment rental firms
identifying that such equipment is not available. If the City of Saratoga Community
Development Department grants the exception, the construction contractor must use the
next -cleanest piece of available off -road equipment, according to the step-down
alternative compliance table below. If seeking an exception, the construction contractor
shall demonstrate to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department's
satisfaction that the resulting construction emissions would not exceed the health risk
thresholds of significance for cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations with respect to
sensitive receptors, as identified within the EIR under Impact AIR-3.
Compliance Engine Emissions Emissions Control
Alternative Standard
FA
Tier 4 Interim
Tier 3
CARB Level 3 VDECS
Notes:
How to use the table: If the City of Saratoga Community Development Department determines that the
equipment requirements cannot be met, then the construction contractor must attempt to meet Compliance
Alternative 1. If the City of Saratoga Community Development Department determines that the contractor
cannot supply off -road equipment that meets Compliance Alternative 1, then the contractor must meet
Compliance Alternative 2.
VDECS = Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategies
B. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g.,
demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for USEPA Tier 4 Final
emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During
construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment
in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Saratoga Community
Development Department. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models,
and numbers of construction equipment on site in addition to the engine tier rating and
CARB engine identification number for each piece of construction equipment.
C. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of
construction equipment on site in addition to the engine tier rating and CARB engine
identification number for each piece of construction equipment.
MM-AIR-3 ALT3: Health Risk Assessment
Prior to issuance of grading permits for Alternative 3, the Project Applicant shall
conduct a health risk assessment for construction activities to calculate maximum
PM2. S annual concentrations, excess cancer risk, and chronic non -cancer risk,
associated with Alternative 3 construction emissions, and identify additional measures
to be implemented, as necessary, to ensure that sensitive receptors are not exposed to
substantial pollutant concentrations. The analysis may include screening level
analysis and/or a health risk assessment, consistent with applicable guidance from the
BAAQMD. The City of Saratoga shall require the Project Applicant to implement
feasible mitigation measures to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations to levels consistent with thresholds recommended by the
Resolution 24-035
Page 14
BAAQMD (as shown in Error! Reference source not found. of this EIR) or as
applicable at the time the project is proposed. Agreed upon feasible mitigation actions
shall be documented as a project condition of approval.
C. Impact 11I0-1: Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse
effect on any candidate, sensitive, or special status species?
The EIR finds that removal of trees with nesting birds during construction of
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could result in direct nest destruction and
failure, while construction -related noise and vibration could cause indirect impacts to
nesting birds (Draft EIR, p. 4-144). Without measures to prevent nest destruction or
disturbance, this would be potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
A. To the extent practicable, construction activities and any tree trimming/removal shall be
performed from September 16 through February 15 to avoid the general nesting period
for birds. If construction or tree trimming/removal cannot be performed during this
period, nesting bird surveys and active nest buffers (as necessary) will be implemented
as follows:
i. Nesting Bird Surveys: If Project -related work is scheduled during the nesting
season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as
passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15
for other raptors), a qualified biologist will conduct two surveys for active nests of
such birds within 14 days prior to the beginning of Project construction, with the
final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate minimum
survey radii surrounding the work area shall be determined by the qualified
biologist but should be at least: i) 50 feet for passerines; ii) 300 feet for raptors.
Surveys should be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during
appropriate nesting times, as determined by the qualified biologist.
ii. Active Nest Buffers: If the qualified biologist documents active nests within
the survey area, an appropriate buffer between the nest and active construction
should be established. The buffer should be clearly marked and maintained until the
young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the
qualified biologist should conduct baseline monitoring of the nest to characterize
"normal " bird behavior and establish a buffer distance which allows the birds to
exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist should monitor the nesting birds
Resolution 24-035
Page 15
daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if the birds show signs of
unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing
up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer
establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman should
have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have
fledged and the nest is no longer active. Construction will only be allowed to impact
a migratory bird or its nest, including its young, if a permit from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is obtained in accordance with the MTBA.
B. Notwithstanding the restrictions in measure A above, the removal of the cork oak tree
(identified in the arborist's report as Tree 4136) shall not be undertaken during the fall
and winter months (September through February, inclusive). The applicant shall also
consult with the City Arborist to determine if the tree could be retained on -site as a
"snag", without creating a safety hazard.
D. Impact BIO-4: Would the proposed project 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?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could result in removal of
trees containing bats during the maternity or winter season that could result in
mortality of roosting bats (Draft EIR, p. 4-144 to 4-145). Without measures to prevent
bat mortality, this would be potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM-BIO-4: Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance.
A. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a bat habitat
assessment in all project areas that require tree removal. The qualified biologist will
identify and document the location of potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior to
construction activities. If no suitable bat habitat is observed, the biologist shall inform
the City Community Development Department, the Project Applicant and its
Construction Contractor, and no further considerations are required. If bat roosting
habitat is observed, the location of such habitat areas shall be provided to the City
Community Development Department, the Project Applicant and its Construction
Contractor, and the following requirements shall be implemented throughout the
construction period:
Resolution 24-035
Page 16
i. Removal of trees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat shall be conducted outside
of the bat maternity season (April 15 to August 31) and overwintering season
(October 16 to January 1 S) to the extent feasible.
ii. Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted 2 to 3 days prior to removal of any
trees in suitable bat habitat, at any time of year. If presence/absence surveys are
negative, work may proceed with no restrictions. If presence/absence surveys detect
bats within trees planned for removal, work should proceed in accordance with the
following restrictions:
• If a maternity colony of bats is observed during maternity season (April 15 to
August 31), tree removal shall not occur until August 31 or when maternity
season has ended based on surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are observed during overwintering season (October 16 to January 15),
tree removal shall not occur until January 15 or until bats are no longer present
based on surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are present outside of maternity or overwintering seasons, construction
shall follow a two-phase tree removal system conducted over 2 consecutive days.
On the first day (in the afternoon), limbs and branches will be removed using
chainsaws or other hand tools. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark
fissures will be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features will
be removed. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed.
E. Impact CUL-1: Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could result in a substantial
adverse change to the Manor Building due to the potential for damage to character -
defining features during construction of the Meeting Room or new parking lot.
Additionally, the construction of the new parking lot within the landscaped slope and
curvilinear driveway in front of the Manor Building could potentially result in a
substantial adverse change to the setting of the Manor Building due to alteration of
these character -defining features (Draft EIR, p. 4-146 to 4-150). Such substantial
adverse changes would be a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
Resolution 24-035
Page 17
MM-CUL-la: Historical Resource Protection Plan
A. Prior to construction, the Project proponent shall prepare a Historical Resource
Protection Plan, under the oversight of an architectural historian and/or historian
meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR
Part 61). The Historical Resource Protection Plan shall be implemented throughout the
duration of construction activities, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following
measures.
i. A pre -construction survey on the Manor Building shall be conducted by an
architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Historic
Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. The Pre -construction survey
shall establish a baseline of existing conditions of exterior of the Manor Building
with written descriptions, photographs, and sketches of all cracks, spalling, or
similar damage.
ii. A vibration management and continuous monitoring plan shall be developed and
adopted to protect the Manor Building against damage caused by vibration during
project construction. The vibration management and monitoring plan related to the
Manor Building shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of any
grading or building permits. The vibration management and monitoring plan shall
be at the direction of the qualified structural engineer and shall constitute a
blended approach, using both optical survey targets and crack monitors. Use of
optical survey targets and crack monitors during construction shall measure
whether construction vibration is approaching levels where damage to the
historical resource may be possible. The vibration management and monitoring
plan shall include site visits every six months by an architectural historian who
meets the Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Professional
Qualification Standards, during the duration ofconstruction to survey and record
any changes to the exterior of the Manor Building. Construction methods shall be
reevaluated if measurements and levels of vibration are found to exceed the levels
established in the vibration management and monitoring plan and/or if damage to
the historical resource may be possible.
iii. Pre -construction fencing shall be installed at construction zones around the
perimeter of the Manor Building to prevent damage to the building from physical
impact of construction equipment and/or vehicles. Such fencing shall be maintained
throughout the duration of the construction periods for Building B and the Meeting
Room but shall allow for pedestrian access to and from the Manor Building by
residents and others. If it is necessary to temporarily remove the fencing for
logistical reasons, the physical and temporal extent of removal shall be minimized
to the extent necessary for the task, and the unfenced area shall be monitored by a
spotter until the fencing is replaced.
A post -construction survey on the Manor Building shall be conducted by an
architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Historic
Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. The post -construction survey
shall report any changes that occurred to the exterior of the Manor Building during
construction with written descriptions, photographs, and of all pre -construction
survey areas that expanded during construction and/or any new cracks, spalling, or
Resolution 24-035
Page 18
similar damage that occurred during construction. If the post -construction survey
report documents any damage as a result of Project construction, the architectural
historian shall make recommendations for the method of repair for such damage to
pre -construction condition, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation. The Project Applicant shall implement the
recommended repairs under the oversight of the architectural historian at the
Project Applicant's expense.
MM-CUL-Ib: Archival Documentation (HABS/HALS)
A. The Manor Building and its associated character -defining features on the Project site shall
be documented in accordance with the guidelines established for the Historic American
Building Survey/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABSIHALS) program. At a
minimum, archival documentation shall include:
i. Large format photographs
ii. Written narrative following HABSIHALS short format outline
iii. Sketch plan of the Manor Building site, including spatial relationship to Odd
Fellows Drive
B. An architectural historian and/or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61) shall oversee the preparation of
the archival documentation. The Level III HABS-equivalent documentation shall cover the
Manor Building, along with associated features, spaces, and landscaping.
C. Archival -quality prints of the documentation shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga
Community Development Department for archival and educational purposes. Additional
print copies shall be made available to other local research institutions including the
Saratoga Public Library.
MM-CUL-1 c: Interpretive Program
A. The Manor Building and its associated, features on the Project site shall be commemorated
in an interpretive program, the details of which shall be determined in consultation with the
City of Saratoga Community Development Department. The interpretive program may
include, but shall not be limited to:
i. Exhibit, website, pamphlet or similar
ii. Historical displays
MM-CUL-1d ALT3: Design Review for Parking Lot
Prior to issuance of a grading permit.for Alternative 3, the Project Applicant shall submit
detailed designs for the proposed parking lot to the City for design review by an architectural
historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. The
Project Applicant shall revise the design, as needed, based on the recommendations of the
architectural historian, to avoid substantial adverse changes to the setting of the Manor
Building.
Resolution 24-035
Page 19
F. Impact CUL-2: Would the proposed project result in a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The EIR finds that construction of Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could
encounter as yet unrecorded subsurface precontact and historic period archaeological
resources throughout the property (Draft EIR, p. 4-150). Without measures to protect
such resources from damage or inappropriate handling if encountered, this would be
considered a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery Plan
A. Prior to the start of earthmoving activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist and a representative from the Tamien Nation to develop and implement
Archaeological Awareness and Tribal Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training and to
develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan in coordination with the City Community
Development Department.
i. The training shall include information regarding the possibility of encountering
buried cultural resources (including tribal cultural resources), the appearance and
types of resources likely to be seen during construction, notification procedures,
and proper protocols to be followed should suspected or confirmed resources be
encountered. This training shall be provided to all workers prior to their
involvement in ground -disturbing activities throughout the duration of
construction and shall be documented in training records.
ii. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall include a project description,
background information and context, definitions of monitoring roles and
requirements for the project, protocols for discoveries during project work, a list
of research questions, and specifications for treatment of finds, including scope of
analysis, appropriate analytical techniques, and directions for curation and/or
repatriation. This document also describes necessary documentation during
project work (e.g., monitoring logs), and defines reporting requirements for
results.
B. The Project Applicant shall retain a Tamien Nation tribal cultural resources monitor to
undertake construction monitoring during initial ground disturbing activities within
native soils. Monitoring is not required for redisturbance of soils that have already been
monitored. The Project Applicant shall also retain a qualified archaeologist to be on-
Resolution 24-035
Page 20
call during construction and/or to be present for monitoring of initial ground disturbing
activities.
C. In the event that prehistoric or historic resources (or suspected resources) are
encountered during project construction, all activity within a 50 foot radius of the find
shall be stopped, the Project Applicant's Project Manager or designee and the City
Community Development Department shall be notified, and the Tamien Nation tribal
monitor and the on -call archaeologist shall examine the find. Project personnel shall
not collect or move any cultural material. The archaeologist, in collaboration with the
Tamien Nation tribal representative, shall evaluate the finds) to determine if it meets
the definition of a historical, unique archaeological, and/or tribal cultural resource, and
follow the further procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a historical resource or unique
archaeological resource, no further study or protection is necessary prior to
resuming Project implementation.
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a historical resource or unique
archaeological resource, then it shall be avoided by Project activities. If avoidance
is not feasible, as determined by the City Community Development Department,
the qualified archaeologist, in collaboration with the Tamien Nation tribal
representative, shall make appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment
and disposition of such finds, and significant impacts to such resources shall be
mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the archaeologist, in
collaboration with the Tamien Nation tribal representative, prior to resuming
construction activities within the 50 foot radius.
iii. If the find(s) is potentially a tribal cultural resource, then the Tamien Nation tribal
representative shall be consulted. If, after consultation with the Tamien Nation, it
is determined that the find(s) is a tribal cultural resource, then the find(s) shall be
avoided by Project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the
City Community Development Department, the qualified archaeologist, in
consultation with tribal representatives and the City Community Development
Department, shall make appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment
and disposition of such finds and significant impacts to such resources shall be
mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the archaeologist, and
reasonably agreed upon by the Tamien Nation, prior to resuming construction
activities within the 50 foot radius.
iv. If the find(s) are human remains or grave goods, the requirements of PRC Section
5097.98, California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054, and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), shall be followed.
V. Recommendations for treatment and disposition offinds could include, but are not
limited to, the collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials, or the turning over of tribal cultural resources to tribal representatives
for appropriate treatment. A report of findings documenting any data recovery
shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC). A redacted report
of findings shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department.
D. Reasonable efforts should be made to ensure that fill soils used for this Project do not
contain archaeological materials. If it is found that fill soils used,for construction
Resolution 24-035
Page 21
purposes do contain archaeological materials, a different source of fill materials must
be retained immediately.
E. The Project Applicant shall fabricate and install an interpretive panel or plaque as part
of the public trail connection along Odd Fellows Drive, acknowledging the tribal history
and indigenous peoples of the area. The content of the panel shall be developed in
consultation with the City Community Development Department and Tamien Nation
tribal representatives.
G. Impact GEO-6: Would the proposed project directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological
feature?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would require excavation
and grading activities within geological units that are considered to be of high
paleontological sensitivity, and therefore could result in accidental damage to, or
destruction of, unique paleontological resources (Draft EIR, p. 155). Without
measures to protect such resources if encountered, this would be considered a
potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-GEO-6: Paleontological Resource Avoidance Measures
A. Before the start of earthmoving activities associated with Project construction, the
Project Applicant shall require that all construction personnel involved with
earthmoving activities be informed regarding the possibility of encountering fossils, the
appearance and types of fossils likely to be seen during construction, and proper
notification procedures if such fossils are encountered. This worker training may be
prepared and presented by an experienced field archaeologist at the same time as
construction worker education on cultural resources, or prepared and presented
separately by a qualified paleontologist.
B. If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, all work
within 50 feet of the find shall cease immediately, and the construction contractor shall
notify the City of Saratoga Community Development Department. The Project Applicant
shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery
plan, based on SVP guidelines (SVP 2010). The recovery plan may include afield
survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum
curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the
recovery plan that are determined by the City Community Development Department to
Resolution 24-035
Page 22
be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities resume at
the site where the paleontological resources were discovered.
H. Impact GHG-1: Would the proposed project generate GHG emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative, when assessed against the
project design elements recommended by BAAQMD to evaluate GHG impacts from
land use development projects, would not include the required number of off-street
electric vehicle requirements. Further, when assessed against the GHG efficiency
threshold, the GHG emissions per service population associated with Alternative 3 —
Applicant's Alternative would exceed the 2030 GHG efficiency threshold (Draft EIR
p. 4-156 to 4-157). For both of these reasons, Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative
would result in a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-GHG-la: Require Compliance with Electric Vehicle Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Building Plans shall demonstrate
compliance with the following applicable measure included in the BAAQMD
Thresholds for Climate Impacts, to the satisfaction of the City of Saratoga Community
Development Department, that the Project achieve compliance with off-street electric
vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
MM-GHG-lb: Participation in Silicon Valley Clean Energy Program or On -Site Renewable
Energy
The Project shall enroll in the Silicon Valley Clean Energy "GreenStart" or
"GreenPrime " program, which provide 100 percent GHG emissions free electricity
to participating customers or meet 100 percent of their electricity demand through on -
site renewable energy, such as solar panels.
I. Impact GHG-2: Would the proposed project conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would conflict with the
State's GHG efficiency metric for its 2030 goals and would not include all the
Resolution 24-035
Page 23
recommended project design features required by BAAQMD to achieve California's
long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 (Draft EIR p. 4-157 to 4-158).
This would be a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-GHG-la: Require Compliance with Electric Vehicle Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2.
See above (Section V. H) for full text of mitigation measure.
MM-GHG-lb: Participation in Silicon Valley Clean Energy Program or On -Site Renewable
Energy
See above (Section V. H) for full text of mitigation measure.
J. Impact HAZ-5: Would the proposed project impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could result movement of
construction equipment and machinery and work associated with removal of the
existing traffic circle at the entrance to Odd Fellows Drive from San Marcos Road that
could cause congestion and delays that could hinder emergency evacuation from the
project site and adjacent Fellowship Plaza property (Draft EIR p. 4-159 to 4-160).
Without measures to control construction traffic, this would be a potentially significant
impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-TRA-3a: Construction Traffic Control Plan
See below (Section V.N) for full text ofmitigation measure.
Resolution 24-035
Page 24
K. Impact N0I-1: Would the proposed project result in generation of a
substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
excess of applicable standards?
The EIR finds that use of construction equipment for Alternative 3 — Applicant's
Alternative, in particular for the construction of Building C, the Meeting Room, and
the new cottage, and demolition of the existing cottage could generate noise levels at
nearby receptors including existing Saratoga Retirement Community residents and
neighboring residences that exceed the Federal Transit Administration's
recommended construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq (Draft EIR, p. 4-166 to 4-
171). Further, operation of mechanical/HVAC equipment at the proposed apartment
buildings could cause noise levels at the site boundary that exceed the City's Noise
Ordinance (Draft EIR, p. 4-172 to 4-175). These exceedances would be considered a
potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-NOI-la: Update and Implement Construction Noise Mitigation Plan.
The Project Applicant and its construction contractors) shall retain a qualified acoustic
consultant to update the preliminary Construction Noise Management Plan to include the
following actions, and shall implement the updated plan throughout the duration of
construction activities at the project site. The updated Construction Noise Management
Plan shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department for
review and approval prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the project.
A. Provide ongoing coordination and training to all subcontractors on "Noise Awareness
Training". Training will help ensure the Construction Noise Mitigation Plan is
implemented effectively.
B. Engage the public and residents for active feedback:
i. Provide sufficient notice (no fewer than 14 days prior to onset of any noise -
intensive construction activity) to the facility, its residents, and neighboring
properties within 200 feet of any construction area, including the anticipated
schedule of planned work (if needed) on future construction activities.
ii. Such notices shall include contact information for a point of contact to address
questions or noise concerns.
iii. Conduct weekly status meeting with the Facilities team outlining upcoming
activities, which shall be verifiably relayed to the residents.
C. Identify noise abatement opportunities below, wherever practicable:
Resolution 24-035
Page 25
i. Locate haul routes away from active noise -sensitive buildings
ii. Locate storage and construction staff parking areas off site.
iii. Design foundation systems that eliminate noise -intensive creating work, (e.g., pile
driving).
iv. Design shoring systems that prevent unnecessary noise or vibration.
D. Mitigation at noise source:
i. Specify the use of quieter equipment/procedure alternatives, where practicable, in
the contract documents.
ii. Require equipment used onsite to produce sound levels below the City of Saratoga
100 dBA limit at 25 feet.
iii. Schedule construction activities that generate higher noise levels at optimal times of
the day.
iv. Ensure all construction activities occur within the working hours prescribed by the
City of Saratoga.
v. Install temporary signage on approaches to speed bumps along on -site haul routes
to remind drivers to slow down before crossing.
E. Path mitigation by providing sound barriers.
i. Provide temporary sound barriers along heavy traffic paths and portions of the site
haul route as needed.
ii. Provide temporary sound barriers that would obstruct the line -of -sight from
receptors to key construction zone areas for all receptors predicted to experience
construction noise levels greater than the FTA criterion of 80 dBA (Leq(8-hour)).
Such barriers shall be designed by a qualified acoustic consultant and shall be of
sufficient mass and dimension to reduce predicted construction noise levels to the
FTA criterion or lower wherever practicable. Should barrier implementation be
infeasible, or if monitoring shows that noise levels at receptors still exceed the FTA
criterion, residence windows shall be acoustically upgraded with sufficient window
inserts (as recommended by the qualified acoustic consultant) or affected residents
shall be temporarily relocated.
F. Construction Noise Monitoring
i. Noise measurements shall be conducted on a weekly basis, or more frequently if
complaints are received, to verify that noise barriers are performing as intended
and construction noise levels remain at or below the FTA criterion at receptors.
Measurements shall be conducted for a period considered representative of noise
levels for the given day/week. Noise measurements shall also be conducted at the
onset of new construction phases (considering phase changes in nearby work areas
as well) and if ongoing construction activities shift drastically toward a receptor.
ii. Measurements shall be conducted by or under the direction of a qualified acoustic
consultant using a sound level meter rated by the American National Standards
Institute as Class I or Class 2 per American National Standards Institute SL 4-
2014.
Resolution 24-035
Page 26
iii. Should monitored noise levels exceed the FTA criterion, construction activities
generating the exceedance shall be stopped until either construction noise levels
can be reduced to within limits or residents are relocated.
G. Noise Receptor Mitigation
i. The contractor shall coordinate with the facility to move residents temporarily if
needed during construction activities that are disruptive.
ii. Facility management shall ensure that building heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems are operating at full capacity/function throughout the
construction period, to allow residents to maintain closed windows throughout the
construction period.
MM-NOI-1 b: Limit Sound Power Level of Mechanical Equipment or Implement Additional
Noise -Reduction Measures
Where possible, the Project Applicant shall install rooftop mechanical (HVAC)
equipment with a sound power rating of 91 dBA or less on all proposed buildings. If
mechanical equipment with a Sound Power Level rating of more than 91 dBA is to be
installed, then prior to building permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall retain a
qualified acoustic consultant to model the predicted noise levels on adjacent
properties, based on the actual Sound Power Level rating of the units proposed for
installation. The qualified acoustic consultant shall submit a report to the City
Community Development Department showing the predicted noise levels, and
recommending additional measures (e.g., additional acoustic screening) to reduce the
predicted noise levels at all adjacent properties to below the 40 dBA Leq threshold.
The report shall also demonstrate that the recommended additional measures
adequately reduce the predicted noise levels to below the 40 dBA Leq threshold.
L. Impact NOI-2: Would the proposed project result in generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The EIR finds that use of construction equipment for Alternative 3 — Applicant's
Alternative, in particular for the construction of Buildings A, C, and D, the Meeting
Room, Fitness Center Addition, and the new cottage, and demolition of the existing
cottage could generate vibration levels at nearby receptors (including existing
Saratoga Retirement Community residents and neighboring residents) that exceed the
threshold for potential human annoyance. Further, construction of the Meeting Room
addition could result in vibration levels that exceed the threshold for potential building
damage for the historic Manor Building, and demolition of the existing cottage and
construction of the new cottage and Building D could result in vibration levels that
exceed the threshold for potential building damage for adjacent cottages (Draft EIR,
p. 4-176 to 4-178; Final EIR, p. 4-14 to 4-16). These levels of construction -related
vibration would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
Resolution 24-035
Page 27
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-NOI-la: Update and Implement Construction Noise Mitigation Plan.
See above (Section V. K) for full text of mitigation measure.
MM-NOI-2: Construction Vibration Minimization Measures.
The Project Applicant shall include the following measures in its contractor specifications,
and such measures shall be implemented by the Contractor(s) during construction:
A. The use of vibratory rollers within a 25 foot buffer zone around the Manor Building and
other occupied structures, and the use of drill rigs, large bulldozers, or dump trucks
within a 15 foot buffer of the Manor Building and other occupied structures shall be
avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
B. Where practicable, smaller equipment which generates lower levels of vibration shall be
used within the specified buffer zones.
C. Advance notice (at least 14 days) shall be provided to SRC residents, neighboring
property owners and the City Community Development Department for construction
activities requiring use of vibratory rollers within 75 feet of residential units, or the use
of drill rigs, large bulldozers, or dump trucks within 45 feet of residential units.
MM-CUL-Ia: Historic Resources Protection Plan.
See above (Section V. E) for full text of mitigation measure.
M. Cumulative Impact C-NOI-l: Would the proposed project, when viewed
in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future
projects generate substantial temporary or permanent noise in excess of
applicable standards?
The EIR finds that vehicle noise from construction traffic associated with Alternative
3 — Applicant's Alternative could potentially occur at the same time as vehicle noise
from construction traffic for future development at the adjacent Fellowship Plaza
property, which could combine to cause a potentially significant cumulative noise
impact for receptors along Odd Fellows Drive and San Marcos Road (Draft EIR, p. 3-
238 to 3-240).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Resolution 24-035
Page 28
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
C-MM-NOI-1: Cumulative Construction Traffic Noise Reduction Plan
In the unlikely event that the construction period for the Project overlaps with the
construction period for future development on the adjacent Fellowship Plaza
property, the Project Applicant and its construction contractor, in conjunction with
the developer and contractor for the Fellowship Plaza project, shall develop a
combined construction traffic noise reduction plan. The plan shall be submitted to the
City Community Development Department for review and approval and shall be
implemented by the Project Applicant and its contractors throughout the duration of
overlapping construction. The combined plan shall contain, but not be limited to, the
following:
A. Identification of anticipated periods when construction of the two projects would overlap,
and the estimated level of construction traffic that would utilize Odd Fellows Drive and
San Marcos Road from each project during those periods.
B. Analysis from a qualified acoustic consultant determining the estimated cumulative
increase in traffic noise along Odd Fellows Drive and San Marcos Road during those
periods when the two projects would overlap. If the combined increase in traffic noise
would exceed 5 dBA above existing levels at any time during the overlapping
construction periods, the acoustic consultant shall provide details of the location and
design of temporary noise barriers and/or other measures that would be required in
order to shield adjacent sensitive receptors such that the combined increase in traffic
noise at any receptor would not exceed 5 dBA above existing levels.
C. A cost -sharing agreement between the two project proponents for implementation of
required shielding measures.
N. Impact TRA-3: Would the proposed project substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could result in temporary
congestion, lane closures or other temporary changes to circulation pattern on the
campus during construction that if not implemented in accordance with the City's
standards for temporary traffic control might create traffic safety hazards (Draft EIR,
p. 4-183 to 4-184). The Final EIR also found that there could be potential for traffic -
related safety hazards if applicable recommendations from the original Traffic Study,
and additional recommendations from the supplemental Traffic Study prepared for
Alterative 3 — Applicant's Alternative were not implemented (Draft EIR, p. 4-184 to
4-185). Both of these construction and operational impacts would be considered a
potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
Resolution 24-035
Page 29
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-TRA-3a: Construction Traffic Control Plan.
A. Prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, the Project Applicant and/or its
construction contractor shall develop a traffic control plan in accordance with the City's
Standard Details and Specifications for Construction and Temporary Traffic Control
Plan Requirements and shall submit the plan to the City Community Development
Department for review and approval. The Traffic Control Plan shall be implemented
throughout the duration of construction and shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
i. Schedule of construction showing each phase of the project, construction hours, and
anticipated method of handling traffic for each phase, including drawings
identifying lane configurations, haul routes, road and lane closures, detour routes
for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, work areas, staging areas, and worker parking
areas. The location of signs, barricades, codes, etc., to warn, direct, and guide
traffic shall be shown on the plan, as well as any supplementary traffic control
devices that might be required. The plan shall address both vehicular traffic as well
as pedestrians, and shall specifically address pedestrians utilizing mobility devices
such as wheelchairs, motorized scooters, and walking frames, for example, as well
as pedestrians with visual and/or hearing impairments.
ii. Development and implementation of a process for communicating with
owners/occupants of properties accessed via Odd Fellows Drive and/or San Marcos
Road about Project construction, with at least 72 hours advance notice prior to
commencing work on the Project and of any temporary lane or road closures
(including private roadways within the SRC campus). Notification shall include the
construction schedule, the exact location and duration of activities on each roadway,
detours and alternative routes that may be available to avoid delays, and contact
information for questions and complaints. The City Community Development
Department shall be included in any notifications.
iii. Notification of administrators of any affected police and fire stations, and
ambulance service providers regarding the timing, location, and duration of
construction activities and the locations of detours and road or lane closures. Access
for emergency vehicles on and/or adjacent to roadways affected by construction
activities shall be maintained at all times.
iv. Scheduling equipment/deliveries during off-peak vehicular commuter hours and use
of flaggers if oversized loads are required.
MM-TRA-36 ALT3: Implement Recommendations of Original and Supplemental Traffic
Studies
A. The Project Applicant shall implement all recommendations of the Traffic Study
Resolution 24-035
Page 30
prepared for the Project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., dated
January 22, 2021, which are:
i. that the Project Applicant ensure that there is no tall vegetation near the
driveways that would block a driver's sight distance in accordance with Caltrans'
stopping sight distance based on roadway speed;
ii. that stop signs should be installed for exiting vehicles at all new intersections, and
a drop-off area be maintained in front of the Manor Building;
iii. that a sign indicating one-way travel be installed at the exit from Pavilion Circle
onto West Cottages Lane; and
iv. that the Project Applicant clearly communicate with the delivery vehicles that
they need to park in designated areas on site.
B. In addition, the Project Applicant shall implement the following additional measures
pertaining to traffic safety:
i. develop and implement a delivery schedule for vendors so that the number of
simultaneous deliveries to campus does not exceed the available designated
loading space.
ii. ensure that no signage is installed that would block a driver's sight distance (per
item A. i above).
C. The Project Applicant shall implement all recommendations of the supplemental
traffic memorandum prepared for the Project Applicant's alternative site plan by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated April 21, 2023, which are:
i. Install a painted nose where Manor Circle and the new parking lane meet, to
ensure vehicles on both roadways stay within their own lanes before they turn
onto Colfax Avenue (refer Figure I of Hexagon 2023 memorandum).
ii. Install stop signs at the end of Manor Circle and the new parking lane to establish
intersection operation orders at the Colfax Lane intersection.
iii. Ensure there are no tall vegetations or objects that would prevent a driver's
ability to see vehicles turning onto Colfax Lane from Odd Fellows Drive
(recommended stopping sight distance of 50.feet).
iv. Ensure there are no tall vegetations or objects that would prevent a driver's
ability to see at least 150 feet south on Colfax Lane (recommended stopping sight
distance of 150 feet).
O. Impact TRA-4: Would the proposed project result in inadequate
emergency access?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could result in congestion
and movement of construction equipment and machinery and work associated with
removal of the existing traffic circle at the entrance to Odd Fellows Drive from San
Marcos Road that could cause congestion and delays for emergency vehicles trying to
access the Saratoga Retirement Community campus or the adjacent Fellowship Plaza
property, particularly during the 6-month period when Phases 2, 3 and 5 overlap (Draft
EIR, p. 4-185 to 4-186). This would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Resolution 24-035
Page 31
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-TRA-3a: Construction Traffic Control Plan.
See above (Section V.N), for full text of mitigation measure.
P. Cumulative Impact C-TRA-4: Would the proposed project, when
viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable
future projects result in inadequate emergency access?
The EIR finds that construction -related disruptions to Odd Fellows Drive from
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative (e.g., from construction activities and/or
removal of the traffic circle at the entrance to Odd Fellows Drive) could potentially
occur at the same time that construction traffic associated with future development at
the adjacent Fellowship Plaza property (Draft EIR, p. 3-292), which could combine to
cause a potentially significant cumulative impact to emergency access.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
C-MM-TRA-4: Coordination of Traffic Control Plans
In the event that the construction period for the Project overlaps with the construction
period for future development on the adjacent Fellowship Plaza property, the Project
Applicant and its construction contractor shall coordinate closely with the developer
and contractor for that project to develop a combined construction traffic control plan
addressing the combined impacts of temporary disruptions to Odd Fellows Drive and
San Marcos Road and the secondary emergency access points between Odd Fellows
Drive and Chester Avenue. The combined plan shall be submitted to the City
Community Development Department for review and approval, and shall be
implemented by the Project Applicant and its contractors throughout the duration of
overlapping construction. The combined plan shall contain, but not be limited to, the
same contents described in MM-TRA-3a, but pertaining to construction of both
projects.
Resolution 24-035
Page 32
Q. Impact TCR-1: Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of tribal cultural resource?
The EIR finds that excavation and grading associated with construction of Alternative
3 — Applicant's Alternative could encounter previously unknown and buried tribal
cultural resources (Draft EIR, p. 4-187), damage to or destruction of which would be
considered a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery Plan
See above (Section V. F) for full text of mitigation measure.
R. Impact WF-1: Would the proposed project substantially impair an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The EIR finds that Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative could result movement of
construction equipment and machinery and work associated with removal of the
existing traffic circle at the entrance to Odd Fellows Drive from San Marcos Road that
could cause congestion and delays that could hinder emergency evacuation from the
project site and adjacent Fellowship Plaza property (Draft EIR, p.4-190), which would
be a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative that avoid or lessen the potentially significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1)). Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated impacts.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
MM-TRA-3a: Construction Traffic Control Plan.
See above (Section V.N) for full text of mitigation measure.
Resolution 24-035
Page 33
VI. OTHER CEQA FINDINGS
A. Irreversible Environmental Changes
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 requires the evaluation of significant irreversible
environmental changes, stating, "uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and
continued phases of a proposed project may be irreversible since a large commitment
of these resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely." As explained in
Section VIII, below, the findings in this Section VI are based on the Final EIR, the
discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
The EIR evaluated whether the originally proposed project would result in the
irretrievable commitment of resources or would cause irreversible changes in the
environment. The EIR determined that the construction of Building B and associated
modifications to the curvilinear driveway and sloped landscaped area in front of the
Manor Building as part of the originally proposed project would cause the irreversible
loss of integrity for the setting of the historic Manor Building, due to permanent
destruction of character -defining features of the historic setting, even if the building
itself were to be removed in the future. No other significant irreversible changes were
identified in relation to the originally proposed project (Draft EIR Section 5.2, p. 5-1
through 5-2; Section 3.5.3, p. 3-87 through 3-104).
Because Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would not include the construction of
Building B within the sloped landscape area in front of the Manor Building, but instead
would include the construction of Building D further to the west away from the Manor
Building, Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would avoid the irreversible impact
of building construction on the integrity of the historic setting of the Manor Building
(Draft EIR Section 4.6.3, p. 4-146 to 4-150; Final EIR Section 3.1.10 p. 3-15 to 3-17).
Although Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would include construction of
additional parking spaces within the sloped landscape area, the EIR determined that
these alterations to the sloped landscape area would not cause irreversible
environmental change or removal of character -defining features, as if the parking lot
were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and
its environment would be unimpaired (Draft EIR Section 4.6, p. 4-147 to 4-148).
Finding: Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would not cause irreversible
environmental changes.
B. Growth Inducing Impacts
An EIR is required to discuss growth inducing impacts, which consist of the ways in
which the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of
additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(e); Public Resources Code § 21100(b)(5). Direct growth
inducement would result, for example, if a project involves the construction of
substantial new housing that would support increased population in a community or
Resolution 24-035
Page 34
establishes substantial new permanent employment opportunities. This additional
population could, in turn, increase demands for public utilities, public services, roads,
and other infrastructure. Indirect growth inducement would result if a project
stimulates economic activity that requires physical development or removes an
obstacle to growth and development (e.g., increasing infrastructure capacity that would
enable new or additional development). It must not be assumed that growth in any area
is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. State
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d). As explained in Section VIII, below, the findings in
this Section VI are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is
hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
The EIR analyzed the growth inducing impacts of the originally proposed project,
which were determined to not be growth -inducing (Draft EIR Section 5.3, pg 5-2).
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would include the same number of additional
senior residential units to be constructed at the site as the originally proposed project,
would require the same level of employment, would not require temporary housing for
construction workers, and would not require the extension or expansion of roads or
other infrastructure beyond that required for the proposed level of development.
Therefore, the growth inducing impacts of Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative
would be the same as discussed for the originally proposed project and would not
directly or indirectly encourage unplanned growth.
Finding: Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would not have substantial growth -
inducing impacts.
VII. ALTERNATIVES
The EIR analyzed the originally proposed project and four alternatives (including a
no project alternative), examining the environmental impacts and feasibility of each
alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives. The
project objectives as presented in Section 2 (Project Description) and Section 4
(Alternatives) of the Draft EIR are listed above in Section II.A of these Findings. A
detailed description of the originally proposed project is included in Section 2 of the
Draft EIR, and detailed descriptions of each of the alternatives is included in Section
4 of the Draft EIR.
The No Project Alternative is a required element of an EIR pursuant to Section
15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines that examines the environmental effects if the
project were not to proceed. Additionally, Alternative 1 — Residents' Alternative,
Alternative 2 - Reduced Development Alternative, and Alternative 3 — Applicant's
Alternative were analyzed as part of the "range of reasonable alternatives" that could
result in a reduction in project impacts while achieving most of the basic objectives of
the project. Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A brief discussion
of the Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the alternatives.
Resolution 24-035
Page 35
As explained in Section VIII, below, the findings in this Section VI are based on the
Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this
reference.
A. The Originally Proposed Project
The originally proposed project analyzed in the EIR included the same Buildings A
and C, the Meeting Room addition, Fitness Center addition, and new secondary access
identical to those described for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative in Section II
of these findings, above. However, instead of Building D and a new cottage, the
originally proposed project would include a new 10-unit Building B on the sloped
grassy area north of the Manor Building, and associated reconfiguration of Manor
Circle and West Cottages Drive (Draft EIR Section 2, as amended by Final EIR
Section 4). The number of residents and employees under the originally proposed
project would be the same as for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative.
The originally proposed project was determined to have a significant and unavoidable
impact on the setting of the Manor Building, which is a historic resource, because the
construction of Building B would result in the physical demolition, destruction, and
alteration of all four of the character -defining features of the Manor Building's setting
to the extent that the building's historical significance would be materially impaired
(Draft EIR Section 3.5.3 p. 3-87 to 3-104). The originally proposed project would
meet all of the project objectives, except that it would only partially meet Objective 5
(preserving and maintaining the existing buildings on the campus, including the
original Manor Building and the Health Center) because although the Manor Building
itself would be retained, the integrity of its historic setting would be destroyed.
Finding: The originally proposed project is rejected because it would have a significant
and unavoidable impact to historic resources and because there is a feasible alternative
to the project (Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative) that would achieve the majority
of project objectives whilst avoiding the significant and unavoidable impact.
B. The No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed campus expansion would not occur,
and no new facilities would be constructed. The Saratoga Retirement Community
facility would continue to operate as per existing conditions and there would be no
change to the number of residents or employees (other than normal fluctuations as
currently occurs).
The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the Project Objectives, except
for preserving and maintaining the existing buildings on the campus, including the
original Manor Building and the Health Center (Objective 5) and maintaining a high
level of landscape design, amenities, and plant materials on the campus (Objective
11). Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not help to fulfill the City's
Resolution 24-035
Page 36
housing goals, in particular for senior and deed -restricted below market rate housing,
nor provide other project benefits such as meeting facilities for public use, or upgrades
to the existing health center on campus.
Finding: The No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would not meet
the majority of project objectives and would not achieve any of the project benefits.
C. Alternative 1— Residents' Alternative
Under Alternative 1 — Residents' Alternative, the project site would be developed with
a new skilled nursing facility in the same location and with the same or very similar
footprint, height, and massing as Building C from the proposed project and Alternative
3 — Applicant's Alternative. The skilled nursing facility would contain two floors with
40 single occupancy skilled nursing rooms with attached private bathrooms and
showers, offices, therapy facilities, a kitchen, and patient dining room, and would also
include two levels of underground parking. Once construction of the new skilled
nursing facility is complete, the patients in the existing Health Center would be
relocated over a 1-month period into the new skilled nursing facility. The existing
Health Center would then be demolished, and that site would be prepared for
construction of a new building (Building D). Building D for Alternative 1 would be a
3-story building containing 52 independent living units, with one level of underground
parking, within the same location as and similar footprint to the existing Health Center.2
A 3,000 square foot auditorium would also be constructed within Building D facing
the intersection of McLaren Lane and Colfax Lane. Alternative 1 would not include
construction of the proposed project's Buildings A or B or the Meeting Room Addition
to the Manor Building.
The EIR (Draft EIR, Section 4.4) found that Alternative 1 — Residents' Alternative
would avoid the originally proposed project's significant and unavoidable impact to
historic resources (Impact CUL-1) and would avoid the need for mitigation measures
MM-CUL-1 a through MM-CUL-1 c. Alternative 1 would also reduce the intensity of
several impacts compared to the originally proposed project due to the smaller
construction footprint, e.g., tree removal (Impact BIO-5), potential for encountering
archaeological, tribal or paleontological resources (Impacts CUL-2, GEO-6, and TCR-
1), construction vibration (Impact NOI-2), recreation (Impacts REC-1 and REC-2), and
emergency access (Impact TRA-4), even though the overall level of significance for
these impacts would be the same as for the originally proposed project. However,
Alternative 1 would also increase the intensity of some impacts compared to the
originally proposed project, e.g., construction air emissions (Impact AIR-1), potential
to encounter special -status species (Impact BIO-1), and greenhouse gas emissions
(Impact GHG-1), even though the overall level of significance for these impacts would
be the same. Alternative 1 would also introduce new potentially significant impacts
requiring additional mitigation measures, relating to potential exposure of sensitive
2 Building D for Alternative 1 — Resident's Alternative is in a different location and of different size and shape to
Building D for Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative.
Resolution 24-035
Page 37
receptors to pollutants (Impact AIR-3), potential impacts to riparian habitats and
wetlands (Impacts BIO-2, and BIO-3) and potential impacts relating to seismic hazards
and slope instability (Impacts GEO-1 and GEO-3) as a result of the demolition of the
existing Health Center and construction of Building D in its place.
Compared to Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative, Alternative 1 — Residents'
Alternative would reduce the impact to historic resources (Impact CUL-1) to less than
significant and would avoid the need for mitigation measures MM-CUL-la through
MM-CUL-Id, but would increase the level of significance for four impacts (Impacts
BIO-2, BIO-3, GEO-1 and GEO-3) which would require additional mitigation
measures.
Alternative 1 — Residents' Alternative would not meet Objective 3, as the proposed
new independent living units would not be constructed until after the new skilled
nursing facility is constructed and existing Health Center is demolished, meaning that
no additional revenue stream would be generated for several years to offset the costs
of the proposed campus expansion. Alternative 1 — Residents' Alternative would only
partially meet Objectives 4 and 5 as the existing Health Center would not be maintained
and upgraded, but rather would be demolished and replaced by a new skilled nursing
facility.
Finding: Alternative 1 — Residents' Alternative is rejected because it would not meet
the objective to preserve and maintain the existing buildings on campus and would
achieve other key objectives to a lesser extent than Alternative 3 — Applicant's
Alternative. Furthermore, Alternative 1 — Residents' Alternative would result in
additional environmental impacts compared to Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative.
D. Alternative 2 — Reduced Development Alternative
Under the Reduced Development Alternative, the project site would be developed with
the same number and size of building footprints as the proposed project, except that
Building B would not be constructed. The size of the units within Buildings A and C
would be reduced slightly to accommodate the same number of overall units as the
proposed project (52 new units), and the underground parking garages of Buildings A,
C and/or the Meeting Room addition would be reconfigured so that the total number
of parking spaces would be the same as for the originally proposed project.
Alternative 2 — Reduced Development Alternative would avoid the originally proposed
project's significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources, but would require
the same mitigation measures as the originally proposed project (MM-CUL-1 a through
MM-CUL-Ic) in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant with
mitigation (Impact CUL-1). Alternative 2 would reduce the intensity of several impacts
compared to the originally proposed project due to the smaller construction footprint,
e.g., construction -related air emissions (Impact AIR-1), tree removal (Impact BIO-5),
potential for encountering archaeological, tribal or paleontological resources (Impacts
CUL-2, GEO-6, and TCR-1), greenhouse gas emissions (Impact GHG-1), construction
Resolution 24-035
Page 38
noise (Impact NOI-1) and construction vibration (Impact NOI-2), even though the
overall level of significance for these impacts would be the same as for the originally
proposed project.
Compared to Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative, Alternative 2 — Reduced
Development Alternative would have the same level of significance for all
environmental impacts, although the intensity of some impacts would be slightly less
(but the same level of significance) due to the slightly smaller construction footprint,
e.g., Impact CUL-2, GEO-6, NOI-1, NOI-2, TCR-1).
Alternative 2 — Reduced Development Alternative would fully or partially meet all of
the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than Alternative 3 — Applicant's
Alternative, particularly with respect to responding to market conditions and increasing
revenue generation, due to the smaller size of the new living units.
Finding: Alternative 2 — Reduced Development Alternative is rejected because it
would provide less project benefits than Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative
because the living units would be smaller and would therefore provide less space for
aging seniors.
E. Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative
As discussed previously, Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative is the Project being
presented for City Council's consideration. This alternative is described in Section II
above and the significant adverse impacts of this alternative are described in Section
V. A more detailed description of this alternative and its environmental impacts is
provided in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR.
Finding: Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative is environmentally superior to the
originally proposed project because it would avoid the significant and unavoidable
impact to historic resources associated with Building B. Alternative 3 is also
environmentally superior to Alternative 1 — Residents' Alternative because it would
not result in any additional impacts compared to the originally proposed project.
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would meet, or partially meet with respect to
parking, the project objectives. Furthermore, Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative
would provide greater project benefits than Alternative 2 — Reduced Development
Alternative, in that each Independent Living Unit would be larger under Alternative 3
than the units proposed under Alternative 2, thereby providing more space for aging
seniors.
F. Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an "environmentally
superior" alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. The
environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to create
the least significant environmental effects. Identification of the environmentally
Resolution 24-035
Page 39
superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not
be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City.
The EIR determined that the No Project Alternative would result in the least
environmental impacts and would be the environmentally superior alternative (Draft
EIR Section 4.7, p. 4-193 to 4-196). However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA
Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project
Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among
the other alternatives.
In this case, the EIR identified Alternative 2 — Reduced Development Alternative as
the environmentally superior alternative, since it would avoid the significant and
unavoidable impact of the originally proposed project to historic resources and would
not introduce any additional impacts or require any additional mitigation measures
compared to the originally proposed project.
The EIR also determined that all of the alternatives would be environmentally superior
to the originally proposed project as they would all avoid the significant and
unavoidable impact of the originally proposed project to historic resources.
Finding: Although Alternative 2 — Reduced Development Alternative was identified
in the EIR as the environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 3 — Applicant's
Alternative would also be environmentally superior to the originally proposed project
and would provide greater project benefits than Alternative 2 — Reduced Development
Alternative, in that each Independent Living Unit would be larger under Alternative 3
than the units proposed under Alternative 2, thereby providing more space for aging
seniors. Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative would also better meet some of the
project objectives. While it is not the environmentally superior alternative, Alternative
3—Applicant's Alternative also avoids all the significant and unavoidable impact of
the proposed project.
VIII. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final EIR for the Project, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, City staff reports relating to the Project and other
documents relating to public hearings on the Project, by reference, in their entirety.
Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature
of mitigation measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for determining the
significance of impacts, the comparison of the alternatives to the Project, the
determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for
approving the Project.
IX. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials related to the Project constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein.
Resolution 24-035
Page 40
Those documents and materials are available online at
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/461 /Proposed-Saratoga-Retirement-Community-P
and at the City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning
Division located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070.
X. NO RECIRCULATION REQUIRED
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR
for further review and comment when "significant new information" is added to the
EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before
certification. No significant new information was added to the Draft EIR as a result of
the public comment process. The Final EIR Volume responds to comments, and
clarifies, amplifies and makes insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. The Final
EIR Volume does not identify any new significant effects on the environment or a
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact.
Finding: For the foregoing reasons, recirculation of the Final EIR is not required.
XI. SUMMARY
Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City
determines that all significant effects on the environment due to the approval of
Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative have been eliminated or substantially lessened
where feasible.
Resolution 24-035
Page 41
Attachment 2
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga 41
Resolution 24-035
Page 42
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies the individual mitigation
measures included in the Final EIR for the project that are applicable to Alternative 3 —
Applicant's Alternative, as that is the version of the "project" approved by the City Council.
Where a CEQA document has identified significant environmental effects, Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for
the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval to
mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment."
A public agency is required to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable, through permit
conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b)). A MMRP
must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project
implementation.
The City of Saratoga is the lead agency that must adopt an MMRP for development of the
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan project. This MMRP has been prepared
to provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the project (i.e., Alternative 3 —
Applicant's Alternative), as set forth in the Final EIR. This MMRP addresses those measures in
terms of how and when they will be implemented.
Key features of the tables are briefly described below:
• Monitoring and Reporting Action identifies the outcome from implementation of mitigation
measures.
• Implementation Timeframe provides the general schedule for conducting each mitigation
task.
• Implementation Responsibility identifies the person/group responsible for implementation
of the mitigation measure.
• Implementation Oversight assigns the responsibility for verifying compliance with each
mitigation measure and reporting task.
• Verification of Compliance documents the person who verified implementation of the
mitigation measure and the date on which this verification occurred.
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga
AECOM
42
Resolution 24-035
Page 43
Page left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga
AECOM
43
Resolution 24-035
Page 44
Table 1: Mitigation Measures Applicable to Alternative 3 — Applicant's Alternative
Mitigation and Reporting Implementation Implementation Implementation Verification of
Mitigation Measure Action Timeframe Responsibility Oversight Compliance
MM-AIR-2: Fugitive Dust Minimization Measures Include required measures in Prior to issuance of Project Applicant. City of Saratoga Name:
A. The construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD BMPs for reducing construction emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5): construction documents. construction contract. Community Development Date:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered twice daily, or as often as needed, treated Department
with non -toxic soil stabilizers, or covered to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from the leaving the site.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power (with reclaimed water, if possible) vacuum street sweepers at least once per
day, or as often as needed. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13 CCR Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
B. The Project Applicant's project manager or his/her designee shall verify compliance that these measures are included in the Project's grading plan and have been
implemented during normal construction site inspections.
Maintain complaint records Throughout duration of Project Applicant and City of Saratoga Name:
and corrective actions taken. construction. construction contractors. Community Development Date:
Department
Maintain site inspection Throughout duration of Project Applicant and
records and construction. construction contractors
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
MM-AIR-3: Require Clean Construction Equipment
Include required measures on Prior to issuance of Project Applicant. City of Saratoga Name:
A. Construction contractors shall use equipment that meets the USEPA's Tier 4 Final emissions standards for off -road diesel -powered construction equipment with
construction documents. construction contract. Community Development Date:
engines rated 50 horsepower or greater for all construction activities, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department on a
Department
case -by -case basis that such equipment is not available. Documentation shall consist of signed written statements from at least three construction equipment rental
firms identifying that such equipment is not available. If the City of Saratoga Community Development Department grants the exception, the construction contractor
must use the next -cleanest piece of available off -road equipment, according to the step-down alternative compliance table below. If seeking an exception, the
construction contractor shall demonstrate to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department's satisfaction that the resulting construction emissions would
not exceed the health risk thresholds of significance for cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations with respect to sensitive receptors, as identified within the EIR under
Impact AIR-3.
Compliance Alternative Engine Emissions Standard Emissions Control
1 Tier 4 Interim
- -- - ---- -- --
Maintain records showing Throughout duration of Project Applicant and City of Saratoga Name:
2 Tier 3 CARB Level 3 VDECS
compliance with requirements. construction, construction contractors. Community Development Date:
Notes: - — - - - - - -- - - - -
Department
How to use the table: If the City of Saratoga Community Development Department determines that the equipment requirements cannot be met, then the construction contractor must attempt to meet
Compliance Alternative 1. If the City of Saratoga Community Development Department determines that the contractor cannot supply off -road equipment that meets Compliance Alternative 1, then the
contractor must meet Compliance Alternative 2.
VDECS = Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategies
B. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for USEPA Tier 4 Final
emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in
use on the construction site for verification by the City of Saratoga Community Development Department. The construction equipment list shall state the makes,
models, and numbers of construction equipment on site in addition to the engine tier rating and CARB engine identification number for each piece of construction
equipment.
C. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment on site in addition to the engine tier rating and CARB engine
identification number for each piece of construction equipment.
MM-AIR-3-ALT3: Health Risk Assessment
Submit health risk assessment Prior to issuance of Project Applicant. City of Saratoga Name:
Prior to issuance of grading permits for Alternative 3, the Project Applicant shall conduct a health risk assessment for construction activities to calculate maximum PM2.5 annual
to the City. grading permits. Community Development Date:
concentrations, excess cancer risk, and chronic non -cancer risk, associated with Alternative 3 construction emissions, and identify additional measures to be implemented, as
Department
necessary, to ensure that sensitive receptors are not exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. The analysis may include screening level analysis and/or a health risk
assessment, consistent with applicable guidance from the BAAQMD. The City of Saratoga shall require the Project Applicant to implement feasible mitigation measures to
Maintain records Throughout duration of Project Applicant and City of Saratoga Name:
demonstrating implementation construction (if construction contractors. Community Development Date:
of mitigation measures. needed) Department
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga
44
Resolution 24-U35
Pugo45
Mitigation and Reporting Implementation Implementation
Implementation
Verification of
Mitigation Measure
���`��������`�����������`����������������`�����������������������������������������'�������`��`������������������`���������������������`�������������`�������������`��������������'�
Action Timnhamo Responsibility
Oversight
Compliance
�duooexpoouveofeonoi�veveceptomtooubstandu|po||utantoonoontrodonobo|avo|000nuistantwiththeoho|durocommondodbytho8AAQMD(auehowninTnh|o3.37of
this EIR) or as applicable at the time the project is proposed. Agreed upon feasible mitigation actions shall be documented as a project condition of approval.
K8K8'13104: Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization K8eamunaa
Retain qualified biologist. Project Applicant.
City ofSaratoga
Namo:_______
A. To the extent practicable, construction activities and any tree trim m ing/removal shall be performed from September 16 through February 15 to avoid the general nesting
Prior toinitiation (or
Community Development
Data:________
period for birds. |fconstruction ortree trimming/removal cannot beperformed during this period.non8ngbird oumoyoand a�ivano�buMem(as necessary) wiUbo
recommencement) of
Departmentimp|omontodosfoU
� mwn�
construction activities
Submit survey results and within nesting season Project Applicant and
City ofSaratoga
Name: -------
i. Nesting Bird Surveys: If Project -related work is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines;
active nest avoidance plan. (Jan 16_Sept15of qualified biologist
Community Development
Date:
Januoryi5toSoptambar150orow|u;andFebmory16toSoptembor16forothorraptom)ra-qua|ifiodbio|ogistwi||oonducthvosuwoyoh»ractivonostoofuuoh
each year). �
Department--------
bivdowithin14dayopriortothoboginningofPn�o�oon�m�iun.withthofina|numoyoondu�od*ithin48huu�phortoonnotm�ion.Appmpriutominimum
survey radii surrounding the work area shall be determined by the qualified biologist but should be at least: i) 50foet for passerines; ii) 300 feet for raptors.
Surveys should be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during appropriate nesting times, as determined by the qualified biologist.
Submit monitoring results (if Throughout duration of Project Applicant and
City ufSaratoga
Nome:_______
ii. Active Nest Buffers: If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the survey area, an appropriate buffer between the nest and active construction should
required). construction within qualified biologist
Community Development
Dato:_______
be established. The buffer should be o|oudy marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the
nesting oeaoon(o).
Department
qualified biologist should conduct baseline monitoring of the nest to characterize "normal" bird behavior and establish a buffer distance which allows the birds to
exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist should monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if the birds show signs
ufunusual ordistressed behavior (o.g.. defensive flights and vocalizations, standing upfrom o brooding position, and/or flying away from the neut). If buffer
Submit USFVVSpermit (if Prior 0oconstruction Project Applicant and
City ofSaratoga
Namo:_______
establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman should have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young
required) within active nest qualified biologist
Community Development
Doto:________
have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Construction will only be allowed to impact a migratory bird or its nest, including its young, if a permit from U.S.
buffer (if required)
Department
Fish and Wildlife Service iuobtained inaccordance with the MTB&
B. Notwithstanding the restrictions in measure A above, the removal of the cork oak tree (identified in the arborist's report as Tree #136) shall not be undertaken during the
fall and winter months (September through February, inclusive). The applicant shall also consult with the City Arborist to determine if the tree could be retained on -site as
Maintain records showing Throughout duration ofProject Applicant
City ofSaratoga
Nomo:_______
o^onug^.without creating asafety hazard.
compliance with requirements. construction.
Community Development
Doto:________
Dopadmont
88K8'1310-4: Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance
Retain qualified biologist tu Prior totree removal Project Applicant and
City ofSaratoga
Name:_______
A. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a bat habitat assessment in all project areas that require tree removal. The qualified biologist will
conduct required habitat activities. qualified biologist
Community Development
Dat*:________
identify and document the location of potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior to construction activities. If no suitable bat habitat is observed, the biologist shall
assessment and surveys.
Department
inform the City Community Development Deportmont the If ' �
Submit bat habitat assessment Phortutree removal Pn�edApplicant and
Q�ofSaratoga
Name:
�-------
habitat innboomod the the
' '
� �
mou|ta activities. qualified
Community
Date:
�
Contra�or.andthofo||o*ingroquimmontushaUbeimp|emontodthmughouttheuonstm�ionpehod�
Ooparl:mont
�--------
i. Removal oftrees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat shall beconducted outside ofthe bat maternity season (April 15tuAugust 31)and ovonwintoring
season (October 1GtoJanuary 15)tothe extent feasible.
Submitprenonoe/obsonua Prior tnremoval of Project Applicant and
City ofSaratoga
Nemo:_______
ii. Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted 2 to 3 days prior to removal of any trees in suitable bat habitat, at any time of year. If presence/absence surveys
survey results. trees insuitable bat qualified biologist
Community Development
Dato:________
are nogativo, work may proceed with no restrictions. |fpveoenoo/uboonue surveys detect bats within tnnau planned for removal, work should proceed in
habitat.
Department
accordance with the following oeotrictions� �
Maintain records showing Throughout duration of Project Applicant &
City ofSaratoga
Namo:_______
° If a maternity colony of bats is observed during maternity season (April 15 to August 31), tree removal shall not occur until August 31 orwhen maternity
compliance with requirements. construction. construction contractors
Community Development
Date:
season has ended based onsurveys conducted byaqualified biologist.
Daparlmon1
--------
° If bats are observed during overwintering season (October 16 to January 15), tree removal shall not occur until January 15 or until bats are no longer
present based nnsurveys conducted byaqualified biologist.
° If bats are present outside of maternity or overwintering seasons, construction shall follow a two-phase tree removal system conducted over 2 consecutive
days. On the first day (in the afternoon), limbs and branches will be removed using chainsaws or other hand tools. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep
bark fissures will be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features will be removed. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed.
K8K8'CUL'1o: Historical Resource Protection Plan
Retain qualified architectural Prior inconstruction. Project Applicant.
City ofSaratoga
Name:_______
A. Prior to construction, the Project proponent shall prepare a Historical Resource Protection Plan, under the oversight of an architectural historian and/or historian
historian and qualified
Community Development
Dute:________
meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61). The Historical Resource Protection Plan shall be implemented
structural engineer.
Department
throughout the duration ofconstruction uctivitieo and but the ' ' ' �
Submit Historic Resource Prior 1oconstruction. Project Applicant and
City ofSaratoga
Name:
i. Ap»o'nonstmction survey on the Manor Building shall be conducted by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Historic peoomotion
Protection Plan. qualified omhitodum|
Community Development
Date: -------
Professional Qualification Standards. The Pre -construction survey shall establish a baseline of existing conditions of exterior of the Manor Building with written
historian
Dopa�mont
�--------
descriptions, photographs, and sketches of all cracks, spalling, or similar damage.
ii. Avibration management and continuous monitoring plan shall be developed and adopted to protect the Manor Building against damage caused by vibration
Submit pre -construction survey Prior toconstruction. Project Applicant and
City ofSaratoga
Numa:_______
during project construction. The vibration management and monitoring plan related to the Manor Building shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to
report. qualified architectural
Community Development
Data:________
historian
Dopurl:mont
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus MastePlan Asomw
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga 45
Resolution 24-035
Page 46
Mitigation and Reporting Implementation
Mitigation Measure Action Timeframe
issuance of any grading or building permits. The vibration management and monitoring plan shall be at the direction of the qualified structural engineer and shall Submit vibration management Prior to construction.
constitute a blended approach, using both optical survey targets and crack monitors. Use of optical survey targets and crack monitors during construction shall and continuous monitoring
measure whether construction vibration is approaching levels where damage to the historical resource may be possible. The vibration management and plan.
monitoring plan shall include site visits every six months by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Professional
Qualification Standards, during the duration of construction to survey and record any changes to the exterior of the Manor Building. Construction methods shall Maintain monitoring records. Throughout duration of Project Applicant and
be reevaluated if measurements and levels of vibration are found to exceed the levels established in the vibration management and monitoring plan and/or if construction. qualified architectural
damage to the historical resource may be possible. historian
iii. Pre -construction fencing shall be installed at construction zones around the perimeter of the Manor Building to prevent damage to the building from physical Maintain records showing Throughout duration of Project Applicant &
impact of construction equipment and/or vehicles. Such fencing shall be maintained throughout the duration of the construction periods for Building B and the compliance with fencing construction. construction contractors.
Meeting Room, but shall allow for pedestrian access to and from the Manor Building by residents and others. If it is necessary to temporarily remove the fencing
requirements.
for logistical reasons, the physical and temporal extent of removal shall be minimized to the extent necessary for the task, and the unfenced area shall be
monitored by a spotter until the fencing is replaced.
iv. A post -construction survey on the Manor Building shall be conducted by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation
Submit post -construction Following completion
Professional Qualification Standards. The post -construction survey shall report any changes that occurred to the exterior of the Manor Building during construction
survey report. of construction.
with written descriptions, photographs, and of all pre -construction survey areas that expanded during construction and/or any new cracks, spalling, or similar
damage that occurred during construction. If the post -construction survey report documents any damage as a result of Project construction, the architectural
historian shall make recommendations for the method of repair for such damage to pre -construction condition, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Maintain records showing Following completion
Standards for Rehabilitation. The Project Applicant shall implement the recommended repairs under the oversight of the architectural historian at the Project
compliance with repair of post -construction
Applicant's expense.
recommendations (if required) damage (if any).
MM-CUL-1b: Archival Documentation (NABS/HALS)
A. The Manor Building and its associated character -defining features on the Project site shall be documented in accordance with the guidelines established for the Historic
American Building Survey/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) program. At a minimum, archival documentation shall include:
i. Large -format photographs
iii. Written narrative following HABS/HALS short format outline
iv. Sketch plan of the Manor Building site, including spatial relationship to Odd Fellows Drive
B. An architectural historian and/or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61) shall oversee the preparation of
the archival documentation. The Level III HABS-equivalent documentation shall cover the Manor Building, along with associated features, spaces, and landscaping.
C. Archival -quality prints of the documentation shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department for archival and educational purposes.
Additional print copies shall be made available to other local research institutions including the Saratoga Public Library.
MM-CUL-1c: Interpretive Program
A. The Manor Building and its associated features on the Project site shall be commemorated in an interpretive program, the details of which shall be determined in consultation
with the City of Saratoga Community Development Department. The interpretive program may include, but shall not be limited to:
i. Exhibit, website, pamphlet or similar
ii. Historical displays
MM-CUL-1d-ALT3: Design Review for Parking Lot
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for Alternative 3, the Project Applicant shall submit detailed designs for the proposed parking lot to the City for design review by an
architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. The Project Applicant shall revise the design, as needed, based on the
recommendations of the architectural historian, to avoid substantial adverse changes to the setting of the Manor Building.
Project Applicant and
qualified architectural
historian
Project Applicant &
construction contractors.
Implementation Implementation
Responsibility Oversight
Project Applicant and City of Saratoga
qualified structural engineer Community Development
Department
Verification of
Compliance
Name:
Date:
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
Retain SOI-qualified Prior to construction. Project Applicant. City of Saratoga Name:
architectural historian or Community Development Date: _
historian. Department
Submit HABS Level III Prior to construction. Project Applicant and SOI- City of Saratoga Name:
documentation and archival- qualified architectural Community Development Date: _
quality prints. historian or historian. Department
Implement/install interpretative Prior to building
program. occupancy.
Submit detailed design plans Prior to issuance of
for parking lot. grading permits.
Review detailed design plans Prior to issuance of
for compliance with SOI grading permits.
standards.
Revise design, if needed, to Prior to issuance of
address recommendations. grading permits.
Project Applicant and City City of Saratoga Name:
of Saratoga Community Development Date: _
Department
Project Applicant.
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
City of Saratoga
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development
Community Development Date:
Department and qualified
_
Department
architectural historian.
Project Applicant. City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
MM-CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery Plan Retain qualified archaeologist Prior to construction. Project Applicant. City of Saratoga Name:
and tribal representative. Community Development Date:
Department
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga
AECOM
46
Resolution 24-035
Page 47
Mitigation and Reporting
Implementation
Implementation
Implementation Verification of
Mitigation Measure Action
Timeframe
Responsibility
Oversight Compliance
A. Prior to the start of earthmoving activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist and a representative from Tamien Nation to develop and Maintain training records.
Prior to the start of
Project Applicant and
City of Saratoga Name:
implement Archaeological Awareness and Tribal Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training and to develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan in coordination with the City
ground -disturbing
construction contractors.
Community Development Date:
Community Development Department.
activities or new
Department
i. The training shall include information regarding the possibility of encountering buried cultural resources (including tribal cultural resources), the appearance and
workers starting.
types of resources likely to be seen during construction, notification procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected or confirmed resources be
encountered. This training shall be provided to all workers prior to their involvement in ground -disturbing activities throughout the duration of construction and
shall be documented in training records.
ii. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall include a project description, background information and context, definitions of monitoring roles and requirements for
the project, protocols for discoveries during project work, a list of research questions, and specifications for treatment of finds, including scope of analysis,
appropriate analytical techniques, and directions for curation and/or repatriation. This document also describes necessary documentation during project work
(e.g., monitoring logs), and defines reporting requirements for results.
B. The Project Applicant shall retain a Tamien Nation tribal cultural resources monitor to undertake construction monitoring during initial ground disturbing activities within
native soils. Monitoring is not required for redisturbance of soils that have already been monitored. The Project Applicant shall also retain a qualified archaeologist to be
on -call during construction and/or to be present for monitoring of initial ground disturbing activities.
C. In the event that prehistoric or historic resources (or suspected resources) are encountered during project construction, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall
be stopped, the Project Applicant's Project Manager or designee and the City Community Development Department shall be notified, and the Tamien Nation tribal monitor
and the on -call archaeologist shall examine the find. Project personnel shall not collect or move any cultural material. The archaeologist, in collaboration with the Tamien
Nation tribal representative, shall evaluate the find(s) to determine if it meets the definition of a historical, unique archaeological, and/or tribal cultural resource, and follow
the further procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource, no further study or protection is necessary prior to resuming
Project implementation.
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource, then it shall be avoided by Project activities. If avoidance is not
feasible, as determined by the City Community Development Department, the qualified archaeologist, in collaboration with the Tamien Nation tribal representative,
shall make appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of such finds, and significant impacts to such resources shall be mitigated in
accordance with the recommendations of the archaeologist, in collaboration with the Tamien Nation tribal representative, prior to resuming construction activities
within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find(s) is potentially a tribal cultural resource, then the Tamien Nation tribal representative shall be consulted. If, after consultation with the Tamien Nation, it
is determined that the find(s) is a tribal cultural resource, then the find(s) shall be avoided by Project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the
City Community Development Department, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with tribal representatives and the City Community Development
Department, shall make appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of such finds and significant impacts to such resources shall be
mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the archaeologist, and reasonably agreed upon by the Tamien Nation, prior to resuming construction
activities within the 50-foot radius.
iv. If the find(s) are human remains or grave goods, the requirements of PRC Section 5097.98, California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054,
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), shall be followed.
V. Recommendations for treatment and disposition of finds could include, but are not limited to, the collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials, or the turning over of tribal cultural resources to tribal representatives for appropriate treatment. A report of findings documenting any data recovery
shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC). A redacted report of findings shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department.
D. Reasonable efforts should be made to ensure that fill soils used for this Project do not contain archaeological materials. If it is found that fill soils used for construction
purposes do contain archaeological materials, a different source of fill materials must be retained immediately.
E. The Project Applicant shall fabricate and install an interpretive panel or plaque as part of the public trail connection along Odd Fellows Drive, acknowledging the tribal
history and indigenous peoples of the area. The content of the panel shall be developed in consultation with the City Community Development Department and Tamien
Nation tribal representatives.
Submit Monitoring and
Prior to the start of
Project Applicant, qualified
City of Saratoga
Name:
Treatment Plan.
ground -disturbing
archaeologist and tribal
Community Development
Date:
activities.
representative.
Department
Maintain monitoring records.
Throughout
Project Applicant, qualified
City of Saratoga
Name:
construction.
archaeologist and tribal
Community Development
Date:
representative.
Department
Provide notification regarding
Immediately following
Project Applicant, qualified
City of Saratoga
Name:
suspected resource(s), if
discovery of suspected
archaeologist and tribal
Community Development
Date:
encountered.
resource.
representative.
Department
Maintain consultation records
Throughout
Project Applicant
City of Saratoga
Name:
(if required).
consultation process
Community Development
Date:
(if applicable).
Department
Submit report of findings (if
Following data
Project Applicant, qualified
City of Saratoga
Name:
required).
recovery (if applicable)
archaeologist and tribal
Community Development
Date:
representative.
Department
Maintain records showing fill
Throughout
Project Applicant and
City of Saratoga
Name:
sources.
construction
construction contractors.
Community Development
Date:
Department
Implement/install interpretative
Prior to building
Project Applicant
City of Saratoga
Name:
panel/plaque.
occupancy.
Community Development
Date:
Department
Tamien Nation Tribe
MM-GEO-6: Paleontological Resource Avoidance Measures
Maintain training records.
Prior to the start of
Project Applicant and
City of Saratoga Name:
A. Before the start of earthmoving activities associated with Project construction, the Project Applicant shall require that all construction personnel involved with
ground -disturbing
construction contractors.
Community Development Date:
earthmoving activities be informed regarding the possibility of encountering fossils, the appearance and types of fossils likely to be seen during construction, and proper
activities or new
Department
notification procedures if such fossils are encountered. This worker training may be prepared and presented by an experienced field archaeologist at the same time as
workers starting.
construction worker education on cultural resources, or prepared and presented separately by a qualified paleontologist.
Provide notification of
Immediately following
Project Applicant and
City of Saratoga Name:
B. If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall cease immediately, and the construction contractor shall
suspected resource(s), if
discovery of suspected
construction contractors.
Community Development Date:
notify the City of Saratoga Community Development Department. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a
encountered.
resource.
Department
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga
47
Resolution 24-035
Page 48
Mitigation and Reporting
Implementation
Implementation
Implementation
Verification of
Mitigation Measure
Action
Timeframe
Responsibility
Oversight
Compliance
recovery plan, based on SVP guidelines (SVP 2010). The recovery plan may include a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures,
Retain qualified paleontologist
Immediately following
Project Applicant.
City of Saratoga
Name:
museum curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the City Community Development
(if required).
discovery of suspected
Community Development
Date:
Department to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered.
resource.
Department
Submit recovery plan (if
Prior to construction
Project Applicant and
City of Saratoga
Name:
required).
resuming in area
qualified paleontologist.
Community Development
Date:
where resource found.
Department
MM-GHG-1 a: Require Compliance with Electric Vehicle Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2
Submit project plans showing
Prior to issuance of
Project Applicant.
City of Saratoga
Name:
Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Building Plans shall demonstrate compliance with the following applicable measure included in the BAAQMD Thresholds for
compliance with EV
building permits.
Community Development
Date:
Climate Impacts, to the satisfaction of the City of Saratoga Community Development Department, that the Project achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle
requirements.
Department
requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
MM-GHG-1 b: Participation in Silicon Valley Clean Energy Program or On -Site Renewable Energy
Submit evidence of initial
Prior to issuance of
Project Applicant or SRC
City of Saratoga
Name:
The Project shall enroll in the Silicon Valley Clean Energy "GreenStart" or "GreenPrime" program, which provide 100 percent GHG emissions free electricity to participating
enrolment in program OR that
building permits.
Facility Management.
Community Development
Date:
customers or meet 100 percent of their electricity demand through on -site renewable energy, such as solar panels.
on -site renewable provision
Department
meets 100% of demand.
Maintain evidence OR ongoing
Throughout project
SRC Facility Management
City of Saratoga
Name:
enrolment or continued on -site
operation.
Community Development
Date:
renewable provision.
Department
MM-NOI-1a: Update and Implement Construction Noise Mitigation Plan
Retain qualified acoustic
Prior to construction.
Project Applicant and
City of Saratoga
Name:
The Project Applicant and its construction contractor(s) shall retain a qualified acoustic consultant to update the preliminary Construction Noise Management Plan to include
consultant
construction contractors.
Community Development
Date:
the following actions, and shall implement the updated plan throughout the duration of construction activities at the project site. The updated Construction Noise Management
Department
Plan shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the project.
Submit updated Construction
Prior to issuance of
Project Applicant and
City of Saratoga
Name:
A. Provide ongoing coordination and training to all subcontractors on "Noise Awareness Training". Training will help ensure the Construction Noise Mitigation Plan is
Noise Management Plan
grading or building
construction contractors
Community Development
Date:
implemented effectively.
permits.
and qualified acoustic
Department
B. Engage the public and residents for active feedback:
consultant.
i. Provide sufficient notice (no fewer than 14 days prior to onset of any noise -intensive construction activity) to the facility, its residents, and neighboring properties
within 200 feet of any construction area, including the anticipated schedule of planned work (if needed) on future construction activities.
Maintain evidence of
Throughout
Project Applicant
City of Saratoga
Name:
ii. Such notices shall include contact information for a point of contact to address questions or noise concerns.
Construction Noise
Management Plan
construction duration.
Community Development
Department
Date:
iii. Conduct weekly status meeting with the Facilities team outlining upcoming activities, which shall be verifiably relayed to the residents.
implementation.
C. Identify noise abatement opportunities below, wherever practicable:
i. Locate haul routes away from active noise -sensitive buildings
Maintain training and
Throughout
Project Applicant and
City of Saratoga
Name:
coordination records.
construction duration.
construction contractors.
Community Development
Date:
ii. Locate storage and construction staff parking areas off site.
Department
iii. Design foundation systems that eliminate noise -intensive creating work, (e.g., pile driving).
iv. Design shoring systems that prevent unnecessary noise or vibration.
Maintain records of
Throughout
Project Applicant,
City of Saratoga
Name:
D. Mitigation at noise source:.
public/resident engagement
construction duration.
construction contractors,
Community Development
Date:
and notifications.
and SRC Management.
Department
i. Specify the use of quieter equipment/procedure alternatives, where practicable, in the contract documents.
ii. Require equipment used onsite to produce sound levels below the City of Saratoga 100 dBA limit at 25 feet.
Maintain record of complaints
Throughout
Project Applicant,
City of Saratoga
Name:
iii. Schedule construction activities that generate higher noise levels at optimal times of the day.
and actions taken to address.
construction duration.
construction contractors,
Community Development
Date:
iv. Ensure all construction activities occur within the working hours prescribed by the City of Saratoga.
and SRC Management.
Department
V. Install temporary signage on approaches to speed bumps along on -site haul routes to remind drivers to slow down before crossing.
Specify use of quieter
Prior to issuance of
Project Applicant.
City of Saratoga
Name:
E. Path mitigation by providing sound barriers.
equipment and procedures in
construction contract.
Community Development
Date:
i. Provide temporary sound barriers along heavy traffic paths and portions of the site haul route as needed.
contract documents.
Department
ii. Provide temporary sound barriers that would obstruct the line -of -sight from receptors to key construction zone areas for all receptors predicted to experience
Maintain noise measurement
Throughout
Project Applicant and
City of Saratoga
Name:
construction noise levels greater than the FTA criterion of 80 dBA (Leq(8-hour)). Such barriers shall be designed by a qualified acoustic consultant and shall be
records and actions taken to
construction duration,
construction contractors
Community Development
Date:
of sufficient mass and dimension to reduce predicted construction noise levels to the FTA criterion or lower wherever practicable. Should barrier implementation
address exceedances (if
and qualified acoustic
Department
required).
consultant.
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga 48
Resolution 24-035
Page 49
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation and Reporting Implementation
Action Timeframe
be infeasible, or if monitoring shows that noise levels at receptors still exceed the FTA criterion, residence windows shall be acoustically upgraded with Maintain function of HVAC
sufficient window inserts (as recommended by the qualified acoustic consultant) or affected residents shall be temporarily relocated. systems in existing buildings
Construction Noise Monitoring
i. Noise measurements shall be conducted on a weekly basis, or more frequently if complaints are received, to verify that noise barriers are performing as
intended and construction noise levels remain at or below the FTA criterion at receptors. Measurements shall be conducted for a period considered
representative of noise levels for the given day/week. Noise measurements shall also be conducted at the onset of new construction phases (considering
phase changes in nearby work areas as well) and if ongoing construction activities shift drastically toward a receptor.
ii. Measurements shall be conducted by or under the direction of a qualified acoustic consultant using a sound level meter rated by the American National
Standards Institute as Class 1 or Class 2 per American National Standards Institute S1.4-2014.
iii. Should monitored noise levels exceed the FTA criterion, construction activities generating the exceedance shall be stopped until either construction noise levels
can be reduced to within limits or residents are relocated.
G. Noise Receptor Mitigation
i. The contractor shall coordinate with the facility to move residents temporarily if needed during construction activities that are disruptive.
ii. Facility management shall ensure that building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems are operating at full capacity/function throughout the
construction period, to allow residents to maintain closed windows throughout the construction period.
Throughout
construction duration
Implementation
Responsibility
Project Applicant and SRC
Facility Management.
Implementation
Oversight
City of Saratoga =
Community Development
Department
Verification of
Compliance
Name:
Date:
Mitigation MM-NOI-1 b: Limit Sound Power Level of Mechanical Equipment or Implement Additional Noise -Reduction Measures Submit evidence that HVAC Prior to building permit Project Applicant and SRC City of Saratoga Name:
Where possible, the Project Applicant shall install rooftop mechanical (HVAC) equipment with a sound power rating of 91 dBA or less on all proposed buildings. If mechanical unit sound power ratings do issuance. Facility Management. Community Development Date:
equipment with a Sound Power Level rating of more than 91 dBA is to be installed, then prior to building permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified acoustic not exceed 91 dBA. Department
consultant to model the predicted noise levels on adjacent properties, based on the actual Sound Power Level rating of the units proposed for installation. The qualified OR
acoustic consultant shall submit a report to the City Community Development Department showing the predicted noise levels, and recommending additional measures (e.g., Submit additional modeling to
additional acoustic screening) to reduce the predicted noise levels at all adjacent properties to below the 40 dBA Leq threshold. The report shall also demonstrate that the demonstrate compliance with
recommended additional measures adequately reduce the predicted noise levels to below the 40 dBA Leq threshold. 40 dBA Leq threshold at
property boundary.
MM-NOI-2: Construction Vibration Minimization Measures
The Project Applicant shall include the following measures in its contractor specifications, and such measures shall be implemented by the Contractor(s) during construction:
A. The use of vibratory rollers within a 25-foot buffer zone around the Manor Building and other occupied structures, and the use of drill rigs, large bulldozers, or dump
trucks within a 15-foot buffer of the Manor Building and other occupied structures shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
B. Where practicable, smaller equipment which generates lower levels of vibration shall be used within the specified buffer zones.
C. Advance notice (at least 14 days) shall be provided to SRC residents, neighboring property owners and the City Community Development Department for construction
activities requiring use of vibratory rollers within 75 feet of residential units, or the use of drill rigs, large bulldozers, or dump trucks within 45 feet of residential units.
Include required measures in Prior to issuance of
construction documents. construction contract.
Maintain notification records
Throughout
construction
Project Applicant.
Project Applicant and
construction contractors.
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
MM-TRA-3a: Construction Traffic Control Plan.
Submit Construction Traffic Prior to issuance of Project Applicant and City of Saratoga Name:
D. Prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, the Project Applicant and/or its construction contractor shall develop a traffic control plan in accordance with the City's
Control Plan. demolition or building construction contractors. Community Development Date:
Standard Details and Specifications for Construction and Temporary Traffic Control Plan Requirements and shall submit the plan to the City Community Development
permits. Department
Department for review and approval. The Traffic Control Plan shall be implemented throughout the duration of construction and shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
Maintain records Throughout Project Applicant and City of Saratoga Name:
i. Schedule of construction showing each phase of the project, construction hours, and anticipated method of handling traffic for each phase, including drawings
demonstrating compliance with construction duration. construction contractors. Community Development Date:
identifying lane configurations, haul routes, road and lane closures, detour routes for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, work areas, staging areas, and worker
Construction Traffic Control Department
parking areas. The location of signs, barricades, codes, etc., to warn, direct, and guide traffic shall be shown on the plan, as well as any supplementary traffic
Plan.
control devices that might be required. The plan shall address both vehicular traffic as well as pedestrians, and shall specifically address pedestrians utilizing
Maintain notification records Throughout Project Applicant and City of Saratoga Name:
mobility devices such as wheelchairs, motorized scooters, and walking frames, for example, as well as pedestrians with visual and/or hearing impairments.
for affected property construction duration. construction contractors. Community Development Date:
ii. Development and implementation of a process for communicating with owners/occupants of properties accessed via Odd Fellows Drive and/or San Marcos
owner/occupants and public Department
Road about Project construction, with at least 72 hours advance notice prior to commencing work on the Project and of any temporary lane or road closures
service administrators.
(including private roadways within the SRC campus). Notification shall include the construction schedule, the exact location and duration of activities on each
roadway, detours and alternative routes that may be available to avoid delays, and contact information for questions and complaints. The City Community
Development Department shall be included in any notifications.
iii. Notification of administrators of any affected police and fire stations, and ambulance service providers regarding the timing, location, and duration of
construction activities and the locations of detours and road or lane closures. Access for emergency vehicles on and/or adjacent to roadways affected by
construction activities shall be maintained at all times.
iv. Scheduling equipment/deliveries during off-peak vehicular commuter hours and use of flaggers if oversized loads are required.
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga
AECOM
49
Resolution 24-035
Page 50
Mitigation and Reporting
Implementation
Implementation Implementation Verification of
Mitigation Measure
Action
Timeframe
Responsibility Oversight Compliance
MM-TRA-3b-ALT3: Implement Recommendations of Original and Supplemental Traffic Studies
Maintain vegetation and
Throughout project
SRC Facility Management City of Saratoga Name:
A. The Project Applicant shall implement all recommendations of the Traffic Study prepared for the Project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., dated January
prohibit signs/ancillary
operation.
Community Development Date:
22, 2021, which are:
structures within sight distance
Department
i. that the Project Applicant ensure that there is no tall vegetation near the driveways that would block a driver's sight distance in accordance with Caltrans'
triangles.
stopping sight distance based on roadway speed;
ii. that stop signs should be installed for exiting vehicles at all new intersections, and a drop-off area be maintained in front of the Manor Building;
iii. that a sign indicating one-way travel be installed at the exit from Pavilion Circle onto West Cottages Lane; and
iv. that the Project Applicant clearly communicate with the delivery vehicles that they need to park in designated areas on site.
B. In addition, the Project Applicant shall implement the following additional measures pertaining to traffic safety:
i. develop and implement a delivery schedule for vendors so that the number of simultaneous deliveries to campus does not exceed the available designated
loading space.
ii. ensure that no signage is installed that would block a driver's sight distance (per item A.i above).
C. The Project Applicant shall implement all recommendations of the supplemental traffic memorandum prepared for the Project Applicant's alternative site plan by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated April 21, 2023, which are:
i. Install a painted nose where Manor Circle and the new parking lane meet, to ensure vehicles on both roadways stay within their own lanes before they turn
onto Colfax Avenue (refer Figure 1 of Hexagon 2023 memorandum).
ii. Install stop signs at the end of Manor Circle and the new parking lane to establish intersection operation orders at the Colfax Lane intersection.
iii. Ensure there are no tall vegetations or objects that would prevent a driver's ability to see vehicles turning onto Colfax Lane from Odd Fellows Drive
(recommended stopping sight distance of 50 feet).
i. Ensure there are no tall vegetations or objects that would prevent a driver's ability to see at least 150 feet south on Colfax Lane (recommended stopping sight
distance of 150 feet).
C-MM-NOI-1: Cumulative Construction Traffic Noise Reduction Plan
In the unlikely event that the construction period for the Project overlaps with the construction period for future development on the adjacent Fellowship Plaza property, the
Project Applicant and its construction contractor, in conjunction with the developer and contractor for the Fellowship Plaza project, shall develop a combined construction
traffic noise reduction plan. The plan shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval and shall be implemented by the Project
Applicant and its contractors throughout the duration of overlapping construction. The combined plan shall contain, but not be limited to, the following:
A. Identification of anticipated periods when construction of the two projects would overlap, and the estimated level of construction traffic that would utilize Odd
Fellows Drive and San Marcos Road from each project during those periods.
B. Analysis from a qualified acoustic consultant determining the estimated cumulative increase in traffic noise along Odd Fellows Drive and San Marcos Road during
those periods when the two projects would overlap. If the combined increase in traffic noise would exceed 5 dBA above existing levels at any time during the
overlapping construction periods, the acoustic consultant shall provide details of the location and design of temporary noise barriers and/or other measures that
would be required in order to shield adjacent sensitive receptors such that the combined increase in traffic noise at any receptor would not exceed 5 dBA above
existing levels.
C. A cost -sharing agreement between the two project proponents for implementation of required shielding measures.
C-MM-TRA-4: Coordination of Traffic Control Plans
In the event that the construction period for the Project overlaps with the construction period for future development on the adjacent Fellowship Plaza property, the Project
Applicant and its construction contractor shall coordinate closely with the developer and contractor for that project to develop a combined construction traffic control plan
addressing the combined impacts of temporary disruptions to Odd Fellows Drive and San Marcos Road and the secondary emergency access points between Odd Fellows
Drive and Chester Avenue. The combined plan shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval, and shall be implemented by the
Project Applicant and its contractors throughout the duration of overlapping construction. The combined plan shall contain, but not be limited to, the same contents described
in MM-TRA-3a, but pertaining to construction of both projects.
Install necessary signage and Prior to new roads and Project Applicant City of Saratoga Name:
painted nose. driveways being used Community Development Date:
Department
Maintain drop-off area in front Throughout project SRC Facility Management City of Saratoga Name:
of Manor Building. operation. Community Development Date:
Department
Maintain records of vendor Throughout project SRC Facility Management
delivery schedule operation.
implementation
Require similar mitigation or Prior to City approval City of Saratoga
condition of approval. of future development Community Development
plan at Fellowship Department
Plaza property.
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
Submit combined Construction Prior to Project Applicant and City of Saratoga Name:
Traffic Noise Reduction Plan. commencement of any construction contractor Community Development Date:
overlapping Fellowship Plaza Developer Department
construction activities. and construction contractor
Develop cost -sharing
Prior to
Project Applicant and City of Saratoga Name:
agreement.
commencement of any
construction contractor Community Development Date:
overlapping
Fellowship Plaza Developer Department
construction activities.
and construction contractor
Maintain records
Throughout
Project Applicant and City of Saratoga Name:
demonstrating compliance with
construction duration.
construction contractor Community Development Date:
combined Construction Traffic
Fellowship Plaza Developer Department
Noise Reduction Plan.
and construction contractor
Submit combined Construction Prior to
Traffic Control Plan. commencement of any
overlapping
construction activities.
Maintain records Throughout
demonstrating compliance with construction duration
combined Construction Traffic
Control Plan.
Project Applicant and
construction contractor
Fellowship Plaza Developer
and construction contractor
Project Applicant and
construction contractor
Fellowship Plaza Developer
and construction contractor
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
City of Saratoga Name:
Community Development Date: _
Department
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga
50
Resolution 24-035
Page 51
Page left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
Saratoga Retirement Community Campus Master Plan AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for City of Saratoga