HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 96-10 RESOLUTION NO. 96- l0
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA MAIrdNG FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO PUBHC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2108 1
FOR THE PROIECT IGNOWN AS NELSON GARDENS
Trinity Devdopment Company; 2085 1 Saratoga Hills Road
WHEREAS, Trinity Development Company ("the applicant") is proposing a
single-family residential subdivision (hereafter, "the Project") on a 5.1 acre site lcnown
as the Nelson Gardens property (hereafter, "the Project site"), located on Saratoga
Hills Road in Saratoga, California and currently owned by the Community
Foundation of Santa Clara County; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the two existing parcels on
the Project site into nine lots for single-family residential building sites; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is currently subject to an Agricultural Preserve
contract as defined under the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act),
which will expire on January l, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the primary discretionary actions and/or approvals required for
the Project include a General Plan land use change from Open Space-Outdoor
Recreational to Residential-Very Low Density and Residential-Medium Density;
r~zoning from the Agricultural designation to R1-40,O00/R1-12,500 designations;
request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide the two hillside
parcels totaling 5.1 acres into nine single-family residential lots, and Tentative
Cancellation of the Williamson Act contract covering the Project site; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 1996, via Resolution No. 96-05, the City Council
certified (a) that a Final Environmental Impact Report CEIR'') has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, (b) that the EIR was presented to the City Coundl, and (c)
that the City Coundl reviewed and considered the information contained therein.
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies and discusses all potentially significant
adverse environmental effects of the Project, as well as (a) mitigation measures
proposed to minimize each such potential adverse environmental effect to a level of
insignificance, and (b) a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
I. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
II. Mitigation Measures. Pursuant to section 21081 (a) ( 1 ) of the Public
Resources Code and section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City
Courtall hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on
the environment. To support this finding, the City Council sets forth below
each of the potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the Project,
as identified in the Final EIR, as well as an brief explanation of how each of
these potential adverse effects has been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The City Council also hereby incorporates by reference the portions of the
Final EIR describing each of these impacts:
A. VISUAL RESOURCES AND AESTHETICS
Impact 4,3-c: Because oak trees have been recognized as an important natural resource by the
City of Saratoga, the potential loss of one oak tree on Lot # 1 (measuring 10 inches in diameter
or greater at 24 inches above ground level) would be considered a significant visual impact.
However, the following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level considered less-
than-significant, as it will ensure either that the oak tree on Lot # 1 is preserved or that its loss
will be replaced by equivalent visual amenities:
Mitigation Measure
a) Efforts to retain the coast live oak tree for aesthetic quality of the
project site shall be made. Before approval of the final grading permit,
the conceptual driveway for Lot # 1 shall be relocated to retain coast
live oak tree #119 on the tree survey map, Appendix F. (Refer to
Section 4.6 of the ElK Biological Resources Mitigation Measures 4.6-g).
b) As back-up mitigation, if, for any reason, the driveway for Lot # 1
cannot be relocated and the coast live oak tree # 119 is not retained, the
proiect applicant shall be required to prepare revegetation plans to
compensate for its removal. (Refer to Section 4.6 of the EIR, Biological
Resources Mitigation Measure 4.6-g).
B. EARTH RESOURCES
Impact 4,4-a: Since there is the potential for expansive soils at the site, the potential for
sub surface soil conditions to impact the structural integrity of proposed buildings is significant.
2
However, the following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level considered less-
than-significant, as the City Public Works Director has granted Preliminiry Geotechnical
Clearance. having determined (in collaboration with the City's Geotechnical Consultant,
William Cotton &Associates) that standard or routine engineering practices such as these can
feasibly be applied to mitigate such an impact:
· Mitigation Measure 4.4-a:
a) Prior to final approval of a grading permit for each lot, the Qty's
geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
final geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction
related to subsurface soil conditions as identified in the preliminary
geotechnical report (EItL Appendix D). These final inspections shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and sub surface
drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining
walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete, and comply with the
geotechnical consultant's recommendations (as identified in Technical
Appendix D and on page 4.4-14 of the Draft EIR). The results of these
final inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be
described in letters and submitted to the City Engineer.
ImpaCt 4~4-b: Due to the topography and related slope and soil conditions of the site, the
potential for erosion during construction is considered significant.
However, the following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level considered less-
than-significant, as the Regional Board's regulations and NPDES requirements havd been
designed, in part, to minimize erosion from construction activities through implementation of
standard best management practices, and these measures require compliance with such
regulations:
Miti~ration Measure 4.4-b:
a) Prior to the approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicant shall
file a Notice of Intent (NOt) with the Regional Water Quality Control
Board to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity
NPDES permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be
furnished to the Director of Public Works. The applicant shall comply
with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including
preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works prior to Final Map Approval and maintained
on site at all times during construction of the subdivision
improvements.
b) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit
an erosion control program which indicates proper control of siltation,
sedimentation and other polhtants will be implemented per NPDES
permit requirement. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to
3
maintain downstream water quality which may include standard drop
inlet silt and grease trap structures, detention basins, overflow collection
Impact 4.4~e: While there is the potential for damage from groundshaking which is not
unusually severe compared to general conditions in Northern California, development of the
project would result in a potentially significant impact, as it would expose new residents and
structures to such potential damage.
However, the following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level considered less-
than-significant, as the City Public Works Director has granted Preliminary Geotechnical
Clearance, having determined (in collaboration with the City's Geotechnical Consultant,
William Cotton &Associates) that standard or routine engineering practices such as these can
feasibly be applied to mitigate such an impact:
· Mitigation Measure 4.4-e:
a) Prior to issuance of each building permit, the applicant shall submit
Final Foundation and Grading Plans to the City Plan Check Engineer
showing that the proposed structures have been analyzed for
earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic
standaxds in the Uniform Building Code adopted by the City of
Saratoga,
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each lot the geotechnical
consultant shall inspect, test and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
proiect as follows:
1. All proposed structures shall be supported on pier and grade
foundations. In all cases, grade beams shall be a minimum of 8
inches wide and shall be designed to transfer all imposed
vertical loads to the piers. Grade beams shall be reinforced per
the recommendations provided by the Applicant' s Geotechnical
Consultant and as outlined in Technical Appendix D.
2. Retaining walls shall be required for Lots #8 and #9. Such
walls shall be designed using the recommendations and values
established by the applicants Geotechnical Consultant and as
outlined in Technical Appendix D. All wall designs shall be
reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
bidding or construction.
3. All gradients shall be planned and built so as to direct water
away from the edges of buildings, pavements and slabs and
towards the site collection.
4
C. HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE
ImPact 4,5-~: The drainage im act caused by the proposed
development for the 100- ear s{orm event is considered
potentially significant {ecause the increase in runoff resulting
100-year storm) will contribute to existin deficiencies in the
storm drain sys{em at the Trinity AvenueZMa~colm inlet (as
discussed on pages 4.5-6 through 4.5-8 of the draft EIR .
(Although it is more likely that the flows from the Eastern
Subbasin will flow into the Trinity Court/Trinity Avenue inlet,
at which there is no existing deficiency. (Wang corr.,
2/13/96.))
However, the followin measures (which are standard, routine
engineerin practices~ will miti ate the identified impact to a
level considered less-than-significant, as these improvements
will not only full offset the increased runoff resulting from
the Project but ~{11 actuall result in an overall improvement
in the exis{ing drainage conditions on and adjacent to the
Project site:
· Mitigat~0~..Me~ure 4,5-a;
a) Prior to Final Subdivision Ma approval, the
project ap licant shall submi~ final drainage
lans whic~ verif that the downstream drainage
~acilities along ~he se ent of Trinit Avenue
east of Pontiac Avenue ~particularly tKe Trinit
Court inlet) can accommi~ate the pro'ect-relate~
increase of 0.6 cfs for a 100- ear s~orm. The
applicant shall replace 12" inflow pipeline with
an 18" pipeline to eliminate local ponding at the
Trinity Avenue/Malcolm Avenue inlet. ~f ponding
~ac~lities that will retain surface runoff during
peak flow periods. Implementation of this measure
would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant.
b) Prior to Final Subdivision Ma approval, the
project a plicant shall submiE final drainage
plans thaE indicate how the site grading, in
con unction with the draina e conveyance systems,
inc~udin ap licable catch Easins storm drains
and flo~ waEer retarding, will ailow building
and includin tKe 100- ear storm event. The City
Engineer sha~l ensure ~hat ro ect structures are
consistent with the City's Eraling and Zoning
Ordinances.
Impact 4.5-Q: Water qualit could be substantially degraded
duEin Construction activit~es which would be considered a
significant effect.
However the following measures will mitigate the identified
impact ~o a level considered less-than-significant, as the
Regional Board's waste dischar e requirements and NPDES Permit
requirements have been desi ne~ to prevent construction
activities from having an a~verse impact on water quality through
the implementation of standard best management practices:
Mitigation Measure 4.5-c:
a) Prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicant shall file a
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board
to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity
NPDES Permit_ Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be
furnished to the Director of Public Works. The applicant shall comply
with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including
preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works prior to Final Map Approval and maintained
on site at all times during construction of the subdivision
improvements.
b) Prior to Final Subdivision Map approval, the proiect applicant shall
submit final drainage plans which demonstrate the future post-
development stormwater quality discharged from the project site will
not deteriorate from the existing stormwater quality.
c) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit
an erosion control program which indicates proper control of siltation,
sedimentanon and other pollutants will be implemented per NPDES
permit requirement. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to
maintain downstream water quality which may include standard drop
inlet silt and grease trap structures, detention basins, overflow collection
areas, and oil and sedimentation traps.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.6-g: Because oak trees have been recognized as an important natural resource by the
City of Saratoga, removal of oak trees measuring 10 inches in diameter or greater would be
considered a significant impact. The Project could result in the loss of one coast live oak tree
# 119 on Lot # 1 which would be considered a potentially significant impact.
However, the follow:rag measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level considered less-
than-significant, as they will ensure preservation of all other oak trees which are at least 10
inches in diameter and will require either preservation of coast live oak tree # 119 or its
replacement with sufficient oak saplings in accordance with City policy.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-~:
a) Prior ~o Final Subdivision Map approval, the conceptual driveway for
Lot # 1 shall be relocated to retain a coast live oak tree # 119 on the tree
survey map, Appendix F.
b) As back-up mitigation, if for any reason coast live oak tree # 119 is not
preserved, prior to approval of the Final Grading Plan, an oak tree
restoration plan shall be developed to ensure that adequate habitat
6
restoration occurs. ff the one oak tree identified for potential removal
cannot be relocated onsite, the plan will include the replanting of oak
saplings in a sufficient ratio to replace the oak tree potentially lost with
project development. This plan shall be prepared by a qualified
restoration ecologist and approved by the City of Saratoga Community
Development Director. Replacement trees shall be planted onsite in
designated open space. Temporary irrigation equipment will be
installed and operated during the first several years of growth to ensure
sapling survival. During the revegetation process, tree survival will be
maxirnized by using gopher cages, deer screens, regular maintenance,
and replanting as needed. This plan shall also include measures
designed to enhance the long-term maintenance and preservation of
oaks not approved for removal.
c) Oaks not approved for removal that are within 200 feet of grading
activities shall be protectively fenced 5 feet beyond the dripline and
root zone of each (as determined by a c~rti~ed arborist). This fence,
which will prevent soil from being pushed dow~t beneath the canopies
or over the root collars, shall be maintained until all construction
activities are completed. No grading or trenching shall be allowed
within this area and construction equipment and debris shall be
exduded. Protection for oak trees on slopes and hillsides will also
include installation of a silt fence. The silt fence shall be installed at the
base of the protective fence to prevent any soil from drifting down over
the root zone. Construction equipment and debris shall be excluded
from the dripline of each tree.
III. Alternatives. As the Project w~l not have any significant or potentially
significant adverse environmental effects following the implementation of the
above mitigation measures, the City Council finds that there is no legal
requirement under CEQA to further consider alternatives to the Project to
avoid significant adverse environmental effects. Nonetheless, the City Council
finds that the EIR describes a range of reasonable alternatives in accordance
with section 15 126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines and, based on this analysis,
that there are no feasible environmentally superior alternatives to the Project
which would accomplish most or all of the Project's main objectives.
In summary, the basic obiectives of the Proiect are to remedy the long-standing
vacant and unused status of the Proiect site (the Project site has not been used
for agriculture or any other productive use for many years), to instead radiilate
a socially-beneficial productive use of the site, to encourage development of the
site in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan and Area B Guidelines
for Area Development, to encourage development ~vhich is compatible with
7
surrounding uses, to encourage development which will increase local
government revenues, and to provide stable housing for City residents in a
manner that preserves environmental quality.
The EIR analyzes a couple of conceptual alternatives to the Project which
would accomplish many of the City's main objectives, particularly development
of agricultural uses on the Project site (consistent with its current zoning and
general plan designation) and the development of a public park on the Project
site. However, the City finds that neither of these alternatives are feasible. As
explained in Section 7.3 of the EIR, productive agricultural use of the site
would not be feasible due to the small size of the property, its relatively
constrained topography, soil insultability, conflicting surrounding residential
uses, and the cost of conservation and irrigation. As explained in Section 7.5
of the EIR and in various responses to comments (particularly C- 13 through C-
16, and E-50), development of a park on the Project site would create greater
conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood, would not be consistent with
Area B Guidelines for Area Development in the City's General Plan, and would
have considerable acquisition and improvement costs. The City Council notes
that the Project site was previously owned by the California State Parks
Foundation, which gave up the site rather than improving it for park uses.
The EIR also describes a No-Proiect/No Development alternative, but, as
explained in Section 7.2, this alternative dearly would not feasibly accomplish
any of the basic obiectives of the Project.
Finally, Section 7.4 ot? the EIR considers three different akemative sites,
analyzing one in detail. However, devdopment of these sites will not
accomplish the primary objectives of this Project (i.e. remedying the long-
standing vacant and unproductive status of .thi.s. site), and, further, the
applicant cannot reasonably acquire any of the other sites.
IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the mitigation measures described in Section II above has been designed to
ensure Project compliance with said mitigation measures and is being adopted
as part of the RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN. Pursuant to this
Resolution, compliance with the Mitigation'Monitoring Program is made a
condition of the Tentative Map approval, thus rendering all mitigation
measures fully enforceable permit conditions.
8
V. Location and Custodians of the Record. The City Clerk, the Community
Development Director, and the Public Works Director of the City of Saratoga
shall be the custodians of the documents and other material which constitute
the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, and
this material shall be located in their respective files in City Hall.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Saratoga held on the 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Burger, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk ~V' ....
J:\WPE:P,,MNRSWX273'~.F396\CBQA. FIN.DGS
9