Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-2002 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent: Commissioners Barry, Kurasch &t Chair Jackman Staff: Planner Oosterhous, Director Sullivan ~sz Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 23, 2002. (Continued to 12/1U02) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 7, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL #02-053, APPLICATION #O1-044 (403-28-034) - AZIZI, 18360 Purdue; -Denial of Design Review application to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two- cargarage is 2,923 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet. The site is zoned R-1-10,000. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 3-1, GARAKANI OPPOSED) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 2. Application #02-190 - (397-O1-012), SAINT ARCHANGEL MICHAEL SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, 18930 Allendale Avenue; -Request for General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Very Low Density to Quasi-Public Facility. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment would allow a parcel that is presently designated Residential Very Low Density and containing a single family dwelling to be designated Quasi-Public Facility. The change in designation is requested in order to facilitate a lot line change, which would allow the parcel in question to become part of the adjacent Saint Archangel Michael Church facility. An Environmental Initial Study has been prepared. (WELSH) (REQUEST TO BE CONTINUED TO DATE UNCERTAIN) (APPROVED TO BE CONTINUED 4-0) 3. GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES; -Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right-of- way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway district. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2002) (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 11, 2002, 4-0) 4. Application #SD-O1-001 ~ ED-O1-003 - (397-27-029), JAVANMARD/ASGARI, 20440 Arbeleche Lane; -The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one parcel into two building sites. The existing parcel is 27,661 square feet (net) and contains an existing single-family. Proposed parcel A is 11,892 (net) square feet. Proposed parcel B is 15,769 (net) square feet. The existing single-family dwelling is to be demolished. One single-family dwelling is proposed on each parcel. The project site contains a riparian corridor, the Saratoga Creek, and several mature trees. The proposed parcels are located in the R-M 4,000 zoning district. The General Plan designation for the proposed parcels is Multi-Family Residential. A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. (OOSTERHOUS) (STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL APPROVED 4-0) DIRECTORS ITEM Remind Commissioners that the Meeting on November 27, 2002 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports Discussion of site visit times COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from adjourned meeting on September 24, 2002 ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mall address to planning@sarato ag ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 -10:30 a.lll. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #SD-O1-001 - JAVANMARD Item 4 &r ED-O1-003 20440 Arbeleche Lane LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 10:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you .are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 23, 2002. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta ff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 7, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL #02-053, APPLICATION #O1-044 (403-28-034) - AZIZI, 18360 Purdue; -Denial of Design Review application to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two- cargarage is 2,923 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet. The site is zoned R-1-10,000. (OOSTERHOUS) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 2. Application #02-190 - (397-O1-012), SAINT ARCHANGEL MICHAEL SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, 18930 Allendale Avenue; -Request for General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Very Low Density to Quasi-Public Facility. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment would allow a parcel that is presently designated Residential Very Low Density and containing a single family dwelling to be designated Quasi-Public Facility. The change in designation is requested in order to facilitate a lot line change, which would allow the parcel in question to become part of the adjacent Saint Archangel Michael Church facility. An - Environmental Initial Study has been prepared. (WELSH) (REQUEST TO BE CONTINUED TO DATE UNCERTAIN) 3. GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES; -Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape vnprovement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right-of- way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway district. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2002) (SULLIVAN) 4. Application #SD-O1-001 &t ED-O1-003 - (397-27-029), JAVANMARD/ASGARI, 20440 Arbeleche Lane; -The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one parcel into two building sites. The existing parcel is 27,661 square feet (net) and contains an existing single-family. Proposed parcel A is 11,892 (net) square feet. Proposed parcel B is 15,769 (net) square feet. The existing single-family dwelling is to be demolished. One single-family dwelling is proposed on each parcel. The project site contains a riparian corridor, the Saratoga Creek, and several mature trees. The proposed parcels are located in the R-M 4,000 zoning district. The General Plan designation for the proposed parcels is Multi-Family Residential. A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. (OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - Remind Commissioners that the Meeting on November 26, 2002 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports Discussion of site visit times COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN Ciry Council Minutes from adjourned meeting on September 24, 2002 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to lp anning@sarato a.ca.us • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: PLACE: TYPE: ~~~1~ Wednesday, October 23, 2002 Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garal;ani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 9, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the regular Planning Commission minutes of October 9, 2002, were approved with a correction to page 4. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 17, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communication Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 2 a CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 DR-O1-035, UP-01-013, ED-O1-002 (393-25-022) ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL, 13601 Saratoga Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review and Use Permit Approval to construct new facilities for St. Andrew's Parish and School. The Planning Commission will take public testimony and will conduct a formal discussion of issues. The Planning Commission will not take action to approve or deny the project at this time. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of the following facilities: Performing Arts/Gymnasium, Sunday school Rooms, Administration Offices, Classrooms, Clergy Offices, Parish Center and a Bell Tower. The project also includes a memorial garden, covered walkways, an outdoor eating area, re-grading and reconfiguration of the parking lot and eliminating off-site queuing. New building construction will total 72,345 square feet and will include six new structures. The existing sanctuary is to remain. (OOSTERHOUS) (CONTINUED FROM 10/9/02) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Use- Permit Approval for a new facility for St. Andrew's Parish and School. • ,Advised that this evening's meeting will consist of public testimony and Commission discussion but that no action will be taken. • Said that staff has recommendations for project revisions, which will be presented following the applicant's thorough project description. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Scott Sheldon, Premier Commercial, Project Manager for St. Andrew's Parish and School: • Informed the Commission that St. Andrew's Parish and School has been at this location since the early 1960s, exhibiting good corporate and religious ties for and with the City. • Advised that their team present this evening consists of Reverend Cockrell, Mr. McKay, the project architect, the project landscape designer and their traffic consultant. • Said that this has been an evolving process over the last three years with lots of thought and care going into the proposal. • Stated that he would explain how this project would mesh with the community and its neighbors. • Assured that they have planned a first class project that meets the needs of the Parish and School as well as the City of Saratoga. Reverend Ernest Cockrell: Said that St. Andrew's has been in operation since 1957 and built its current facility in 1962. Stated that this 1962 era facility is no longer sufficient to serve the Parish and School. Informed that there are more programs today. Therefore more meeting spaces are required. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 3 • Said that this place never stops and that the Parish and School share facilities as much as possible with every available room tightly scheduled. • Declared that they need more room, updated technical support and improved security. • Said that their space needs are drastic and not window dressing. • Assured that their project would fit within Saratoga graciously. Mr. Harry McKay, Head of St. Andrew's School: • Agreed that they are desperately in need of space, which is a daily problem. • Said that their library does not meet current standards and that their gymnasium is insufficient. • Reminded that the school was built 40 years ago and that teaching and learning is not the same today, as it was 40 years ago. • Reiterated that they simply need more space. • Assured that they will not increase enrollment. • Stated that they want to conduct a 21S` Century program within a 21S` Century facility. Mr. Jorge Rico, Project Architect: • Presented a PowerPoint Presentation with the site plan and elevations. • Stated that the current 40-year-old school does not meet new needs and that the entire school would be demolished with the exception of the Sanctuary, which will remain. Additionally, they will replace the gymnasium, construct atwo-story administrative/classroom building, another two-story classroom wing and atwo-story clergy/office building. • Said that the existing 203 parking spaces would be maintained. • Described site constraints including a sewer easement over which they cannot locate buildings and the fifty-foot line at the creek embankment. There are also heritage Oak trees, which must remain. • Informed that the new site layout will permit improved vehicle queuing with two pick up and drop off areas, which will eliminate the current situation where queuing oftentimes ends up out on Saratoga Avenue. • Stated that the proposed gymnasium will include two volleyball courts, one basketball court and a theater. • Said that the classroom/administration building would house third and fourth graders, with the kindergartners through second graders on the first floor. There is a State requirement to have K-3 located on a first floor level for emergency exiting reasons. The fourth through six grades would be housed within a second story classroom wing. • Said that on the main campus level, five Sunday school classrooms are planned and both Parish and School administration buildings. There will be a gathering space for weddings, etc., a nursery, and on the upper level classrooms for seventh and eighth grade English, History, etc., and offices. • Said that the roof plan includes the use of mansard roofs to try to lower the height of buildings. • Described the cluster of buildings as equaling a campus. • Said that the gym would consist of light colored cement plaster over a darker cement plaster base. • Stated that they have agreed to lower the entry element of the Administration Building by three feet. • Said that a trellis component will tie buildings together as a unifying element. • Stated that the Parish Building with clergy offices would be lowered by 2.5 feet to reduce building height. • Described the Bell Tower. • Said that the project site is flat in the front with a bottom portion that drops 12 feet lower. This change in grade will give the effect of lowering the appearance of these buildings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 200 Page 4 • Assured that they have made an effort to reduce heights using the property's topography. Mr. Scott Sheldon: • • Stated that they held a series of neighborhood meetings as well as workshops with the Commission. • Said that they have dealt with issues is a real straightforward way and worked with staff on a number of issues. • Advised that a revised acoustical report was provided to staff. • Addressed traffic issues and assured that they don't want to impact either Saratoga or Fruitvale at all. • Made himself available for questions as well as any of the project consultants. Commissioner Garakani asked if any projections have been done in response to the letter from a neighbor concerning the visual impacts from this project in blocking their hillside view. Mr. Jorge Rico said that they have done a projection and that they do not believe the project will block views. Added that they have placed the tallest building in the middle of the site to diminish impacts on surrounding residences. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Rico if he has any calculations to share. Mr. Jorge Rico replied no. Commissioner Garakani suggested to Ivir. Rico that these calculations be prepared. Commissioner Zutshi su ested hoto simulations to show how these buildin s mi ht im gg p g g pact the surrounding residences. Director Tom Sullivan suggested a photomontage that accurately reflects what a building would look like on site. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there is a distinction between a public library and a school, with different requirements. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City has the right to excuse some particular properties from certain requirements. Commissioner Zutshi said that a private school could not compare itself to a public library. Ms. Christy Oosterhous presented the staff recommendations as follows: , • Suggested that no increase in enrollment be permitted without Planning Commission approval. • Added that there is no proposed increase enrollment. • Recommended the reduction or elimination of the bell-ringing schedule. • Suggested that the applicant recalculate the FAR since spaces above 15 feet in height have not been double counted. • Said that to deal with massing issues, the applicant should reduce the three-story element to a two- story element and that the Parish and School classrooms be combined as possible. • Reported that the applicant has agreed to reduce the mass and height of the entry. Saratoga Planning Commission Minuies of October 23, 2002 Page 5 • Suggested more detail elements on some buildings, that the roofline follows the hillside contours and that the proposed Color #2 have more earthtoneality. • Stated that staff finds the proposed bell tower to be too massive and imposing and recommended either outright elimination or relocation further away from Saratoga Avenue. • Advised that the revised Noise Study requested of the applicant was recently provided to staff. • Recommended Exhibit D for site circulation be implemented. This plan would provide 1,000 feet of queuing area. • Advised that the Arborist supplied comments and found most of the features of the plan present no major conflict.. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the recommendation to reduce the entrances of two buildings and asked if it includes the defined area over the doorway. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. The buildings in question are the Clergy. and Administration buildings. Commissioner Kurasch supported the reduction of three-story elements to two-story, pointing out the 30-foot height limitation and stating that when there is a conflict between Zoning and General Plan, the General Plan supercedes Zoning. Planner Christy Oosterhous clarified that the number of stories is limited but not the height. Director Tom Sullivan said that the General Plan indicates public/quasi public uses that can be increased through issuance of a Use Permit. Commissioner Hunter asked if the proposal from the school includes any increase in student population. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that any increase would be minor, with a fluctuation of less than five percent. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that with the expansion from 17 current classrooms to 18 proposed classrooms, the assumption can be made that student population could be expected to grow by about 25. Chair Jackman said that she sees the potential for an additiona122 students, which is a concern. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a letter from the school proposes a student cap at 500, with any increase requiring Planning Commission approval. Questioned the provision for parking if there should be an increase to 500 students. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the applicant can be asked to evaluate that question. Pointed out that the parking on site is necessary more for Sunday than during weekday school uses. Mr. Scott Sheldon: • Stated that the traffic report took into account 470 students. • Assured that they would have no problem developing a photomontage and reminded that they had placed story poles on site to depict proposed building heights. • Pointed out that Code permits three-story buildings for quasi-public buildings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 6 • In response to staff's recommendation to reduce heights in the Administration/Clergy buildings, they had prepared an extensive needs analysis. Additionally, the State has accreditation issues regarding amount of square footage per pupil, etc. • Said that their space needs have driven their proposed square footage. • Said that they have tried to utilize the site's natural slope. • Explained that the additional student population is' a means to give some flexibility. • Pointed out that student population is down from last year but that next year it could go up. • Asked for that right within constraints. • Said that there are no parking impacts with a student increase to 500 since none of their students yet drive this being a K-8 grade school. Most students are dropped off. • Added that they are proposing to enhance the landscape along Saratoga Avenue. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Rico for the minimum legal height of a classroom. Mr. Jorge Rico said that a classroom ceiling cannot be lower than 8 feet but that most are 9 to 10 feet high now days. Commissioner Zutshi expressed support for the new gymnasium, library and classrooms but not the proposed bell tower. Chair Jackman suggested treating the bell tower separately. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the bell tower is part of this overall application. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that the bell tower is not a ne • ed but rather a tradition that they believe would add to the beauty and be a gift to the community in Saratoga. It is more to the "glory of God." Commissioner Zutshi said that there are many churches in Saratoga but only two with a bell tower. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that there are only 31 bell towers in the County. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that this bell tower is proposed to be situated in front of their beautiful church building. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they don't mind and pointed out that the bell tower will be somewhat shielded by trees. Commissioner Zutshi suggested a simulation of the bell ringing to demonstrate to the neighbors how it would sound. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they could shield the sound away from neighbors and would close off the sound when practicing their bell ringing. Commissioner Zutshi insisted on the need for a simulation. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they have a sample CD. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Scott Sheldon advised that the sound impact from the bell tower is addressed in the acoustical report. Commissioner Zutshi again asked about a trial run. Mr. Scott Sheldon said it would be impossible to provide it short of building the bell tower. Reverend Ernest Cockrell: • Assured that the bells are a gentle sound. • Said that they cannot disturb regular school classrooms for Sunday school use. • Pointed out that the Sunday school rooms will also serve as meeting rooms. • Reminded that they have 64 parish organizations requiring meeting space. • Declared that they are not just a school but also a parish. _ Commissioner Garakani asked about trees to block the bell tower from view. Ms. Rebecca Coffman, Landscape Architect for Project: • Pointed out that there are several Live Oak trees and Redwood trees that would block the bell tower. They are about 35 feet tall. • Said that another Redwood tree could be added, a large 25 to 30-foot specimen to provide additional screening. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the 18-foot high parish hall located at the property line. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that the parish hall is 15 feet off the easterly ro erty line and is about 24-feet P P high at the highest point. Said that this height could be dropped down. Commissioner Kurasch: • Expressed concerns about the intensity of use of this property. • Said that she is trying to understand the needs. • Pointed out that the additional. 34,000 square feet represents an approximately 68 percent increase over what is there now, which has an effect on the area and community. • Said that she understands the importance to the applicant but needs to understand how it will work on this property. • Reminded that the General Plan supercedes the Zoning and sets atwo-story limit. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that they have tried to blend in the needs of the School and neighborhood by using existing typography, using the natural slope and adding landscaping to make the School work. Commissioner Kurasch: • Asked about the projections for space needs. There are 15,000 square feet of classroom space now and 18,000 square feet would be what the proposed enrollment requires. • Said she was wondering how to make it all work. • Stated that she does not see the building stepping down from the slope. Mr. Scott Sheldon said- that they gave staff the list that outlines State school standards and that they have tried to be judicious and brought their proposal down to minimum standards. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 8 Director Tom Sullivan suggested continuing this line of discussion following the Public Hearing. Mr. Harry Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Said that his home shares one common fence with the Parish and School. • Said that he can understand the needs of the Parish and School. • Stated that part of the design is inadequate for the area. • Said that he currently has a strong objection until this project is modified. • Said that the proposed Parish center would be located adjacent to his property. • Demonstrated photos that depict his view of the School from his home and the view of his home from the School. - • Declared that this existing building results in a big invasion of his family's privacy. • Stated that the proposed 24-foot height would block his views, views that he has enjoyed for a long time and that he does not want to lose. • Informed that he submitted a letter, • Listed his objections and/or suggestions to include: • Reduce the building heights to two story. • Modify the setback of the Parish hall, proposed at 15 feet fora 24-foot high structure. • Modify the Parish hall's four big windows, which would overlook his property line and allow people from the,Parish hall to see into his living room. • Reduce or eliminate the bell tower. • Modify the plan to a maximum of two stories. • Break up the massing. • Increase the setback to 20 feet from his property line. - • Lower the height of the Parish center to 15 feet. • Either remove or raise the height of the proposed four windows so that his property cannot be looked upon. • Advised that he has resided in Saratoga for eight years, enjoys his property and wants to be able to continue to enjoy his property. • Declared that he does not want to see a big building instead of blue sky. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Luoh if his home is a single or two-story structure. Mr. Harry Luoh replied that his home is a single-story as are most homes in the area. Ms. Susan Kranich, 19541 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Stated that she lives next door to Harry Luoh and has lived there since 1968, where her parents raised their five daughters. • Said that this project would impact her family greatly. • Stated that she can understand. the need for improvements to the school but has a problem with the proposed heights, particularly for the Administration and northern classroom building, which are closest to her home and yard. • Said that she is concerned about the loss of view from her family home. • Expressed concern about environmental impacts from car exhaust, as vehicles would queue toward the creek area. • Asked if a study of potential impacts has been prepared. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 ~ Page 9 • Suggested that the bell ringing schedule might be problematic for her family and was concerned that the potential move of the bell tower away from Saratoga might cause it to be located closer to her home. • Declared that they have had very little problem with St. Andrew's Parish and School over the years. They have been good neighbors and it has been nice to hear the sound of children. • Stated that this proposal seems like a huge addition to what is currently apark-like setting. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Kranich how many stories her home has. Ms. Susan Kranich replied one. Mr. Donald A. Carr, 19803 Merribruck Court, Saratoga: • Said that he lives two blocks from the Church, has been a resident of Saratoga since 1980, a member of the Church since 1989 and involved with the School since 1985. His daughter graduated from St. Andrew's and went on to graduate from Mitty and USC. • Added that as he is involved with the Church and since his daughter got off to a good start at St. Andrew's, he is a proponent of this project. • Stated that he would like to see the project go forward. • Said that they cannot do things now because there is not enough room to accommodate the 64 different programs operated at the Parish and School. Mr. Jim Stallman, 19750 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that St. Andrew's is a good neighbor and that he is excited about the bell tower. • Said he notices a front path depicted and stated it is good to see this path. • Asked if there would be a sidewalk along Saratoga Avenue. • Pointed out that there is room to move the curb and add a sidewalk. • Suggested that parking not be prohibited along Saratoga avenue since it could calm traffic to allow such parking. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he believes there will be sidewalk but not all the way. Mr. Jim Stallman said that a sidewalk is needed from Mrs. Jorganson's onward. Ms. Rebecca Coffman, Project Landscape Architect, reported that there will be sidewalk all along the frontage of Saratoga. Ms. Diana Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Said that her property is adjacent to St. Andrew's. • Pointed out that the school replaced a trailer about two years ago. Instead of being angled like the original trailer, the new trailer was installed parallel to her property. They were promised screening trees but they are not there. • Said that Saratoga traditionally does not have two-story classrooms but rather have a more park-like campus. • Said that while she can see the need for additional space, a 70 percent increase is too aggressive. • Said that the big picture needs to be considered including traffic and noise concerns. • Asked that activities near their shared fence should be limited to avoid noise impacts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 10 • Pointed out that there is a park on the other side where no residence would be impacted by noise coming from this proposed building. • Said that people don't always stay within the building and that conversations from the site infringe on their use of their home and yard. • Stated her. opposition to any three-story building and expressed a preference for single-story buildings. • Suggested the outright removal of the, bell tower and said that she would not enjoy hearing the bells ringing every Sunday even though she does love music. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that several schools have been renovated with multi-story buildings, including Saratoga School with three stories and Redwood School, which has atwo-story science building. Asked Ms. Luoh if she was aware of the school when she purchased her home. Mrs. Diana Luoh: • Replied yes. • Reminded the Commission that the trailer originally located closest to her home did not impact her family until it was replaced and repositioned on the site. • Pointed out that the school day is typically done by 3 p.m. However, the proposed Parish Center will have extended hours, seven days a week. • Concluded by saying that operations at St. Andrew's have changed since she purchased her home and now has a greater impact. Commissioner Zutshi had questions for the traffic consultant. Mr. Sohrad Rashid, Project Traffic Engineer and City Consulting Traffic Engineer: • Stated that currently cars dropping off students at St. Andrew's School often end up queued on Saratoga. • Added that with the proposed second drop off point, this would remove cars from queuing off the street by increasing on-site queuing space by 70 to 80 percent.. Commissioner Zutshi asked if parking has been considered too. Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that with up to 1,000 feet of queuing space, allowing 20 to 25 feet per car, would allow approximately 50 vehicles to queue on site. Commissioner Kurasch asked about impacts with increased enrollment. Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that an additiona124 cars would not be an issue. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Rashid to explain a Level D intersection and potential impacts with up to 470 to 500 students at St. Andrew's. Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that with no change from the current 439 students, there would be no queuing onto Saratoga Avenue. Additionally, up to 470 could be accommodated on site. Commissioner Zutshi asked if any provisions are being made to accommodate left turns from the site s onto Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that no change is proposed. Commissioner Garakani asked what impacts to the site's queuing might occur if people are waiting to leave the property via left turns onto Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Sohrad Rashid stated that cars waiting for left turn exiting would not impact queuing on site. Commissioner Kurasch asked about meeting with neighbors. Mr. Scott Sheldon: • Advised that they had relayed copies of the sign up sheets to staff. There were three meetings and two workshops. With the exception of Mr. Luoh, on one else who attended one of the meetings is present this evening. • Said that he wants to address needs for everyone. • Pointed out that St. Andrew's has been a good neighbor as has been testified by neighbors. • Stated that the intent and letter of Zoning regulations has been met. • Said that they have addressed security issues for their students. • Said that to satisfy the concerns of the neighbor to the east, the four windows that go in would be changed to a clear story window, located up high. Additionally, they will reduce the height of the roof so as not to impact neighbor views. • Informed that they moved the lunch area near Mrs. Jorganson's property with her support. • Stated that this is a good solution for all parties. Chair Jackman closed the Public Heanng for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:40 p.m.. Commissioner Kurasch: Stated her support of staff's analysis and recommendations. Said that the project needs to come more into balance with the rest of the area with less intensive uses and lower building heights. Said that she could not support so many variations from standards. Chair Jackman: Said that the intensity bothers her. Stated that she is not sure how to reduce some of these buildings but that they must fit better onto the site. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she has a great deal of compassion for St. Andrew's. • Pointed out that most public schools have remodeled and include high buildings. • Declared that kids are the most important thing in the world. • Said that she sees St. Andrew's making a great effort. • Agreed that one cannot teach today in a school built in 1962. • Said that we have to prepare kids for the future. • Agreed that something must be done about the building located closer to residences. • Said that this will be wonderful for the community and for St. Andrew's and should be allowed to go ahead. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 12 Commissioner Kurasch questioned comparing this to public schools. Chair Jackman said that St. Andrew's has a wonderful reputation and the security improvements for its students is important. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that she looked at the school today and found that it looks subdued and like a nice village school. • Expressed a problem with the proposed three-story buildings and bell tower. • Said that she is trying to visualize this big project on this site. • Stated a need to reduce bulk. • Agreed that she too understands the need for proper classrooms for children. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that he takes issue with the bell tower. • Said he could not understand why neighbors have not been taken more into consideration. • Said he basically would go with the staff recommendations. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it has achieved what was desired this evening. Chair Jackman called for a break at 8:50 p.m. Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:01 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #01-044 (403-28-034) - AZIZI, 18360 Purdue: Request for Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and- attached two-car garage is 2,923 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet. The site is Loned R-1-10,000 (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Sheet A-8 indicates a height of 21 feet but is actually 20 feet. • Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family for a residence totaling 2,923 square feet. The first floor would be increased by 245 square feet and the second floor by 842 square feet. The maximum height would be 20 feet. • Described the lot as being 8,040 square feet within an R-1-10,000 Zoning District. • Said that staff finds that design policies have been met, that use of earthtones reduce the appearance of mass and bulk. • Informed that the applicant has provided evidence that their neighbors do not object with eight letters of support. "~ • Recommended approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 13 Commissioner Kurasch asked whether this home could be brought back at a future date to increase the height of the second story. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Mr. Cove Britton, Architect: • Explained the decision to go with a second story was made in order to preserve open space in the yard for the two young children in the family. • Said that the expansion to this smaller home is necessary to provide room for extended family members to visit. • Said that the interior height of the garage and guestroom would be the minimum allowed or 7 feet, 6 inches. • Said that they have worked with neighbors to address any concerns. • Pointed out that the windows along the property line are high to avoid any privacy impacts. • Said that they have carefully tied the new construction with the existing residence. • Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Britton about the front glass feature. Mr. Cove Britton described it as a bow window. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the purpose was for the slab at the side of the property. Mr. Cove Britton replied a service area for maintenance of trash and recycle barrels. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not believe there were any windows next door to be impacted but rather a blank wall. Commissioner Kurasch said that one does not see second story additions over garages much these days. Mr. Cove Britton explained that actually only the Craftsman style architecture locates the largest mass at the center of a house while other traditional styles do not. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is impressed with the reason expressed for placing the second story over the garage but said that it appears there is kind of a straight wall on the side elevation. Mr. Cove Britton replied that the second story is moved back three feet from the first story. Commissioner Zutshi said that three feet is not a lot of clearance. Mr. Cove Britton said that they wanted a 4 and 12 pitch roof and that required windows to provide egress from the bedrooms also impacted the need for this roof pitch. Commissioner Hunter stated that this does not look like any other home in the neighborhood. Mr. Cove Britton pointed out that this was not an issue for the neighbors who gave their support. Chair Jackman said that it is different but fits in. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Cove Britton said that it is a tradition northern European style. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that only two two-story homes are found among the approximately 160 homes in the immediate area. Mr. Cove Britton said that he felt it could be supported if neighbors don't object. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern over the facade of the two-story addition, which creates a long mass. Additionally, the potential of this home being pushed up to 26 feet in height in the future, without Commission review, is a problem for her. Director Tom Sullivan advised that there is a penalty for building height above 15 feet, which would require a reduction in the total square footage of house allowed. Added that the Commission has the authority to place a Condition of Approval that would require any change in the site plan, elevation or ridgeline be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:22 p.m. Ms. Suzanne Salehpour, 18421 Vanderbilt Drive, Saratoga: • Said that the single-story ranch style character of her neighborhood is a key reason for her purchase of a home in this neighborhood. • Said that she wants to see the neighborhood retain its charm. • Pointed out that most additions in the area are accomplished without going up into a second story. • Said she would hate to see the neighborhood change in this way. • Asked that the Commission not allow atwo-story. Mr. Anjan Lukkoor, 18373 Vanderbilt Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he resides behind this property, which he purchased eight years ago. • Said that there are only three two-story homes. • Said that asingle-story neighborhood offers a lot of privacy. • Expressed his objection to a second story addition. • Pointed out that there are a number of ways to add on without needing a second story as these are fairly big lots. • Added that he would not object to a basement addition. Mr. Chris Wiles, 18363 Purdue Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is directly across the street and that he is here to support this request. • Said that he was contacted early in the design phase and asked for his input. • Said he is impressed with the work and design put into this project. • Informed that he grew up in this neighborhood. • Stated that this project's design will greatly improve the neighborhood, offering some style and flare. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Wiles if his home is the one that had been removed. Mr. Chris Wiles replied yes. His home had asingle-story 1,024 square foot addition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 15 Ms. Maureen Williams, 18396 Purdue Drive, Saratoga: • Said she is very much in support and finds this to be a great design. • Identified her home as the other second story on the block. • Said she has three small children and asingle-story addition would have taken too much open space from their lot. They remodeled about 10 to 12 years ago with a second story addition. Chair Jackman asked how much square footage was added. Ms. Maureen Williams replied 1,100 square feet. Said that since she did not get a letter of support in on time she elected to come this evening to support the applicant's request. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Williams if she had trouble getting her second story addition approved. Ms. Maureen Williams said that she installed a high fence with lattice as recommended by the Commission to help screen the addition from the neighbor's home. There have been no complaints. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Williams if she has a number of trees in her backyard. Ms. Maureen Williams replied that she has just one tree in the back corner of her backyard. Mr. Cove Britton stated that he believed this project could be approved with the impacted neighbors expressing support. Added that additional landscaping could be installed if necessary. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the concern is over future two-story home additions in the neighborhood. Mr. Cove Britton said that those applicants would also have to obtain Commission approval. Commissioner Garakani advised that this approval would establish a precedent for two story additions in this neighborhood. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that her main objection is that this house design does not look like any other house around and that she does not understand the turret type element. • Added that the home is not in keeping with the neighborhood. • Said that while it is fine for neighbors to express support, there is a reason for having a Planning Commission to review these .proposals. If not, in the future, someone would look at this and question "how did that get through." • Said that her main objection is not the fact that this is a two-story but mostly because of the proposed glass bow window feature. Chair Jackman said that this home is not like the neighborhood and that asingle-story addition could be accommodated while still leaving a fair amount of open space available. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 16 Commissioner Kurasch: • Agreed with the comments of Commission Hunter. • Said that the larger and most important issue is lessening the impacts for everyone else including the precedent for second stories. • Stated that she cannot support atwo-story home in an area with a predominately single-story character particularly since there are options available for asingle-story addition to the home. • Suggested that the applicant try again with a smaller one story. Commissioner Zutshi said she saw a lot of homes in this area with additions, one-story additions. There are just two two-story homes. Suggested the applicant go for asingle-story design to in keeping with the style of the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that this neighborhood was built 50 years ago and is about to change. • Questioned what if three years from now others get to build atwo-story. How will this applicant feel then. • Said that overall, this home would look better than the rest of the houses over there. • Suggested going to a basement addition, which he could support, or providing better articulation. Commissioner Hunter said that she could support this second story because it is only 20 feet high but the design would need to match the neighborhood better. Chair Jackman said that this is a nice proposed addition but that she has to say no to having it placed in a traditional one-story neighborhood as it would change that neighborhood. Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff has prepared a Resolution for approval. The Commission can prepare denial findings this evening and staff could bring the revised Resolution to the next meeting on Consent for final approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked how the applicant would feel about a request for redesign. Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Cove Britton reminded the Commission that without a second story, this request would not require Commission review. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this statement is correct. Mr. Cove Britton continued to say that if the project is denied, it won't need to come back and they also would-have the option to appeal the denial to Council. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Commission has the authority to require the single-story redesign to come back to the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan re lied that the Director has the o tion er Code to brin it back to the Plannin P P P g g Commission if he or she finds it necessary. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 17 Commissioner Garakani said he cannot outright say only single-story but rather he would like to see more articulation in the design. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission denied a Design Review Approval to allow an addition to a residence located at 18360 Purdue with the findings that there is a lack of neighborhood compatibility, which is overwhelmingly single-story in character; due to the design of the front window; and due to a conflict with potential privacy issues as stated, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOE5: Garakani ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Resolution would be added to the Consent Calendar for the next meeting. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #02-197 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would revise side yard setback requirements for structures over 18 feet in height in the R- 1-10,000, R-1-12.500, R-1-15,000 and the R-1-20,000 Districts. (SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM 10/9/02) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this amendment is the result of complaints regarding the interpretation of side yard setback requirements, particularly as they relate to substandard lots. • Said that the letter of the law requires the entire building setback to be moved in by one foot for every foot above 18-feet in height. • Added that typically staff recommends that applicants apply for a Variance. • Stated that staff has prepared an Ordinance Amendment to address how to handle substandard lots. Another alternative would be to get rid of the 18-foot setback penalty for height altogether. • Advised that frankly the Ordinance as currently written is not working. • Explained that for non-conforming lots, the first floor must meet the minimum standard and the second floor must be moved in another five feet. • Informed that this issue did rise up to the Council, who instructed staff to prepare and bring forward this Ordinance Amendment. Commissioner Zutshi asked for clarification regarding interior and exterior lots. Director Tom Sullivan explained that an interior lot is located between two other lots while an exterior lot would be found on a corner. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that most .complaints have been based upon non- conforming lots. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 18 Director Tom Sullivan advised that most issues have been with remodels with second floors, usually on substandard lots, particularly when the applicants seeking additions want to take advantage of existing load bearing walls. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Amendment could be earmarked just for non-conforming lots. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission could make that recommendation. Commissioner Garakani said that the .current Ordinance offers the incentive to give a building articulation and avoid straight walls. Commissioner Zutshi said that straight walls could happen anyway with larger sized lots. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that a conforming lot width in R-1-10 is 85 feet. Some older lots have only a 50-foot width. Chair Jackman asked if McCoy Avenue has less than 85-foot width. Director Tom Sullivan said it could be that it does. Commissioner Garakani asked what the advantage would be for conforming lots. Director Tom Sullivan replied that if dealing with a new house, where the old house has been torn down, the current Ordinance works find. When remodeling or on a substandard lot, it does not. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Commission mostly sees tear downs. Asked if there is an advantage to having the Amended Ordinance apply in all circumstances. Director Tom Sullivan replied consistency is the advantage if the same guidelines apply to new and remodeled homes. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that it would make it simple to follow. Chair Jackman expressed that this Ordinance would create more open space. Commissioner Kurasch added that the Design Review process would still allow consideration of bulk and mass issues. Director Tom Sullivan said that if the 18-foot penalty rule is repealed, someone wishing to build up would have to meet Design Review findings. Commissioner Kurasch said that she had no problem with the proposed Amendment. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by. Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council for approval of the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #02-197) that would revise side yard setback requirements for structures over 18 feet in height in the R- 4 _. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 19 1-10,000, R-1-12,500, R-1-15,000 and R-1-20,000 Districts, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #02-210 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would increase regulatory requirements related to the removal and or pruning of trees. The Amendment would also reduce the diameter of trees that would be protected by Article 15-50 of the Saratoga Code. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that it had become increasingly clear that the existing Tree regulations needed to be clarified and strengthened. The issue was last addressed 10 years ago. • Informed that staff and the Tree Committee (Commissioners Kurasch, Hunter and Garakani) took the work done 10 years ago and massaged it. • Stated that this item was advertised as a public hearing and that the environmental determination made longer noticing required. • Added that this item has also been advertised for Council's November 20`'' meeting. • Recommended that the Commission move this item on to Council for action. • Said that he had given the entire revised Ordinance to both City Attorney offices and that 85 percent of their proposed changes have been implemented. For the most part, their changes included turning "will" into "shall." Some of the other proposed changes from the City Attorney need to be further explained to the Tree Committee, which can be done between this meeting and the Council hearing. • Stated that this represents a comprehensive update with definitions that are an important tool for staff. Included are where to measure the size of tree. The industry standard is 4.5 feet above grade. • Said that a significant change is that violations would go from being an infraction (with a $100 fine as a penalty) to a misdemeanor (with more severe penalties). As a fall back proposal, first violations could be treated as infractions while second violations would be misdemeanors. Chair Jackman said that the severity of the first event might play a role. Director Tom Sullivan advised that enforcement would have to be treated as is outlined in the Code. Commissioner Hunter commended the work done by Commissioner Kurasch and Tom Sullivan. Chair Jackman agreed that this has been an excellent effort. Commissioner Kurasch replied if it works. They wanted to have something that was achievable without diluting it down to nothing. Commissioner Hunter said that it is important to see what other cities are doing. x Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 20 Commissioner Zutshi mentioned a church in San Francisco that illegally removed three trees and will be fined $1,000 per tree. Commissioner Hunter added plus the fact that the infraction made the news. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the revised Ordinance prohibits pruning the crown of a tree any more than 20 percent: Director Tom Sullivan added that up to 20 percent requires no permit while 20 to 30 percent pruning would require a permit. Additionally, no pruning can be done to a tree that is rooted on a neighboring property without a permit. Commissioner Kurasch suggested definitions for crown versus canopy. Director Tom Sullivan suggested adding the definition for crown. Commissioner Kurasch advised that the crown is the same as the canopy, the green leafy area. Commissioner Garakani added "the umbrella." Commissioner Kurasch replied very good. She expressed the importance of the preparation of a Tree Protection Plan, which would be a site plan. Director Tom Sullivan asked for suggested amended language to the draft. Commissioner Kurasch suggested adding the word "site." She added that the City Attorney recommended omitting the tree valuation from the Ordinance. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:17 p.m. Mr. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the City for spending time to do this and said that, while it is not perfect, it represents a great start. • Supported the approval of the Ordinance Update as soon as possible. • Said that he hoped the City would allow amendments and/or adjustments to this Ordinance in the future. • Stated his wholehearted support. • Said that it is good that affected neighbors would be notified of a tree removal permit. ' • Suggested a longer appeal period. • Pointed out that it takes just hours to cut down a tree. • Asked to what extent this Ordinance allows grandfathering in existing conditions. ~~ Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Ordinance is prospective and not retroactive. Added that Council will hold two hearings and then 30 days later the Ordinance would be in effect. Mr. Bill Breck asked what would tugger-the requirement to get a perrrut. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 21 Director Tom Sullivan replied that encroachment into the root zone with almost anything would-need a permit. Mr. Bill Breck questioned Section 070, 25(d) as it calls for pruning permits. Director Tom Sullivan said that there are certain instances when greater than 30 percent pruning would be required. A 20 percent standard was chosen to back off from that maximum level. Mr. Bill Breck proposed removing ISA standards. Commissioner Kurasch did not support that suggestion. Mr. Bill Breck said that either ISA or specific rule should be enforced. Commissioner Hunter asked whether PG&E is allowed to prune without standards simply by right. Director Tom Sullivan advised that PG&E would require permits but he is not sure if the City has the authority over how they actually do the pruning. Mr. Bill Breck said that it would be prudent not to allow pruning of trees if trees are under City. Arborist remediation, under stress, gouged or with severed roots, etc Added the encroachment permit is not defined. Director Tom Sullivan advised that it is defined under Section 15-50.20(H). The City Attorney put it in with all other issues. Mr. Bill Breck asked where. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they are all on one form. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that both removal and encroachment permits appear on the same form. Mr. Bill Breck asked about penalties for damaging and encroachment of trees and where they are specified. Director Tom Sullivan replied that all provisions are for misdemeanors, which are criminal penalties. Civil penalties need to be further addressed. Mr. Bill Breck pointed out that under State law, if damage is over $400, it becomes a felony. Commissioner Kurasch: • Pointed out that encroachment permits mostly would happen with development projects or activities while removals may be different from development activity. • Said that the Ordinance tries to accomplish a way to open the dragnet a bit. • Said that the goal is to find something that is enforceable and achievable and to avoid and prevent injury to trees. } Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 22 Director Tom Sullivan invited Mr. Breck to provide additional written comments within the next week for his use when writing the staff report. Mr. Bill Breck declared that the ISA formulas for valuing trees is way too low and agreed to submit the rest of his comments in writing to Director Sullivan. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:35 p.m. Chair Jackman stated that this is a good report and a big step from where we were. Reiterated that Mr. Breck is encouraged to submit additional written comments. Director Tom Sullivan added that he would schedule a meeting of the Tree Committee together with the City Attorney to make final changes prior to the Council hearing. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #02-210) that would increase regulatory requirements related to the removal and/or pruning of trees, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Zutshi stated that lots of work was done on this and thanked those involved. Commissioner Hunter asked when Council would have its hearing on this Ordinance Amendment. Director Tom Sullivan replied November 20, 2002. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S APPLICATION #02-210 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: Consistent with the provisions of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan, this Zoning Ordinance Amendment will broaden the opportunities to obtain a Use Permit for Second Dwelling Units on Residentially Zoned Properties. (SULLIVAN) (Request to be continued to December 11, 2002) Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff is proposing a continuance of this item to the meeting of December 11, 2002. ~~* DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 23 COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communication Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, November 13, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ITEM 1 RESOLUTION No. 02-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. DR-O1-044 18360 Purdue Drive, Maryam and Siamak Azizi WHEREAS, an application was made to the Planning Commission for Design Review approval to construct first and second-story additions to an existing one-story residence at 18360 Purdue Drive; presented at the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and .WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the staff report, attachments, and evidence presented in support of and in opposition to the application; and Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds that the proposed project does not support the following design review findings required by Municipal Code Section 15-45.080(a), (d), and (f), as detailed below: • The proposed two-story residence will not avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, because the proposed second story would interfere with the privacy of an adjacent residence located diagonally behind the subject property, at 18373 Vanderbilt Drive. • The proposed two-story residence will not be compatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood because the overwhelming majority of residences are single-story. The immediate neighborhood is defined as the parallel and adjacent streets of Baylor, Purdue, Vanderbilt, and Clemson. Only two of approximately 100 residences in the immediate neighborhood are currently two-story. The neighborhood is strongly characterized by one-story, ranch-style bungalows. • The proposed main structure does not conform to the Residential Design Handbook as required because the proposed architectural elements and style (including, but not limited to, the turret on the facade) are not compatible with the predominate style of modest one-story ranch bungalows with wood siding and shake roofs in the immediate neighborhood (Policy 1, Technique #5). 000041 Section 2. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Design Review Application No. DR-O1-044 is hereby denied. PASSED AND ADOPTED, The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, held on the 13`h day of November 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • • ~~~a~Z ITEM 2 Memorandum To: Erna Jackman, Planning Commission Chair and~lanning Commissioners From: Ann Welsh, AICP, Assistant Planner ~~~ Date: November 6, 2002 ~"~~ Subject: Continuation Request, Application #02-190- Saint Michael the Archangel Serbian Orthodox Church, 18870 Allendale Avenue The attorney on behalf of Saint Michael the Archangel Serbian Orthodox Church has requested that the hearing for the General Plan amendment be continued to a date uncertain. The applicant is considering revising their application and submitting a complete package for General Plan, lot line change, design review and use permit to the Planning Commission as a single application rather than dealing with each issue separately. For the record, the October 30, 20021etter from Jolie Houston, the applicant's attorney is attached to this memorandum. C~ 000401 BERLINER COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW SANFORDA.BERLINER' ANDREW L. FABER FRANK R.UBHAUS LINDA A GALLON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING WILLIAM E. ADAMS PETERBAJOREK WILLIAM J.GOINES' JAMES P.CASHMAN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS MARK MAKIEW ICZ HARRY A LOPEI ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS STEVEN J CASAD PAULAPELOSI JOHN F.DOMINGUE RALPH J. SWANSON . NANCY J. JOHNSON TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD THOMAS P. MURPHY NADIA V HOLOBER SETH J. COHEN PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY JEROLD A REITON . CHRISTINE H. LONG JOSEPH E. DWORAK ROBERT L CHORTEK ELEVENTH FLOOR MARK V. ISOLA BRIAN L SHETLER PATRICK LIN SAMUEL L FARE JONATHAN D. WOLF KRISTIN GENC ALAN J. PINNER KATHLEEN K. SIPLE SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233 MICHAEL VIOLANTI JOLIE HOUSTON CHARMIAN D. TUNNEY KEVIN F. KELLEY DAVID D. WADE 'A Professional Corporation TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800 CHRISTIAN E. PICONE EILEEN P. KENNEDY NATHANIEL WILLIAMS BRIAN H. KIM FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388 RETIRED SAMUEL J. COHEN www.berliner.conl Branch Otfice -Merced. CA OF COUNSEL HUGH L. ISOLA' STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON ^ ERIC WONG NANCY L.BRANDT - CHARLES W.VOLPE PETA LEW IS HALLISEY JEFFREY SCOTT KAUFMAN October 30, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL Ms. Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: General Plan Amendment -- 18870 Allendale Avenue File No. 02-190 f Dear Ann: This letter is submitted on behalf of St. Michael the Archangel Serbian Orthodox Church, located at 18870 Allendale Avenue, concerning their application for a General Plan Amendment for the property located at 18y30 Allendale Avenue (`'Application"). It is our understanding that their Application has been scheduled for the November 13, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. We respectfully request that their Application be conti~iued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 408-286-5800. Sincerely, BERLINER COHEN ._ IE HOUSTON E-Mail: jh@berliner.com U • UM570055.1 ~0000~ 01-103002-12822001 .~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director DATE: November 13, 2002 RE: Gateway Design Guidelines ITEM 3 Since the second hearing conducted September 25, 2002 on the Gateway Design Guidelines, the Planning Commission has held several study sessions on the proposed Guidelines. At the study sessions, the Planning Commission formulated discussion points, which are located in the far right column of the attached revisions table. As you may recall, the revisions table chronicles the gateway taskforce recommendations and staff recommendations. In particular, the Planning Commission will continue their discussions from the study sessions on the topic of landscaping and buffering in the Gateway. At the Commissioners request staff has prepared tables and sketches for illustration purposes. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Tables 2. Sketches 3. Existing Commercial Zoning Regulations 4. Revisions Table, dated November 13, 2002 • ~0~~®1 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . UODUO~ Gateway Design Guidelines. Page 6, Numbers 12 & 13. - .Attachment 1 #12 Adjacent to Residential A. Height=l8' Rear setback=20' (for mixed use)_ Number ofstories=one B. Height 18'>26' Rear setback=30' Number of stories=two #13 Adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd A. Height=l8' Front setback=20' (for mixed use) Number ofstories=one B. Height 18'>26' Front setback 30' Number ofstories=two • *Above figures based on July 26, 2002 task force meeting. ~0®~0~ ,° • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • ~ODU04 CV >~ v ~ *Figure 1: Side yard setbacks U ~ F R O N T P L **Figure 2: Front and rear yard setbacks loft Front PL ~ 20 ft Rear PL 20 ft ~ Right of Way 30 ft 30 ft *Figure 1 scenario based on current zoning ordinance. ** Figure 2 scenario based on design guidelines task force meeting July 26, 2002 ~. `~-_, Sample Setback Illustrations COMMERCIAL USE One Story < 18 ft 20 ft . 30 ft 20 ft E A R P T RESIDENTIAL USE 10 ft 26 ft 18 ft ~ • L1~ O '~ ~~, • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . ~JO~J~06 .I~ • (b) Not less than ten feet of the required front yard shall be landscaped and permanently maintained. (c) Fences, walls and hedges shall comply with the regulations set forth in Article 15-29 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 15-18.110 Signs. No sign of any character shall be erected or displayed in a P-A district, except as permitted under the regulations set forth in Article 15-30 of this Chapter. 15-18.120 Off-street parking and loading facilities. Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be pro- vided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15-35 of this Chapter. 15-18.130 Design review. All sttuctrttrs shall be subject to design review approval in accordance with the provisions of Article 15116 of this Chapter. Article 15-19 C: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Sections: 15-19.010 Purposes of Article. 15-19.020 General regulations. 15-19.030 C-N district regulations. 15-19.040 C-V district regulations. 15-19.050 C-H district regulations. 15-19.060 Continuation of nonconforming uses. 15-19.010 Purposes of Article. In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020, the commercial districts ate included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following proposes: (a) To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores and service establishments offering goods and services required by residents of the City. (b) To provide opportunities for retail stores, offices and service establishments to concentrate for the conve- nience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each other. (c} To promote stable, attractive commercial develop- mentwhich will afford a pleasant shopping environment and will complement the essential residential character of the City. Attachment ~ (d) To provide space for community facilities which may appropriately be located in commercial areas. (e) To provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern commercial development, including off-street parking and loading areas. (f) To protect commercial propemes from noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke. vibration, heat, glare, heavy traffic and other objectionable influences, and from fire, explosion, noxious ftunes and other hazards. (g) To implement the Saratoga Village Specific Plan. as adopted by the City on May 18, 1988, and thereby achieve the following objectives with respect to the Village: (1) Preservation and enhancement of the small-scale, pedestriart character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; (2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village; (3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants. convenience shops, services and resi- dences; and (4) Conservation of historic structures. 15.19.020 General regulations. The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City: (a) Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in any. commercial district, unless a use in- volves the operation of a business providing direct custom- er service (including, but not limited to, conducting a delivery service) on-site between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M., in which event such use may be allowed upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Retail establishments, except restaurants, markets, delicatessens, and any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. (2) Service establishments. (3) Home occupations. conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 150 of this Chapter. (4) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off-street parking facilities as sec forth in Section 15- 35.020 of this Chapter. (5) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use. (b) Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed in any commercial district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Restaurants. (2) Markets and delicatessens. 313 cs,Rw~ 6.9~ OODUO'7 15-19.020 (3) Any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. (4) Hotels and motels. (5) Bed and breakfast establishments. (6) Institutional facilities. (7) Community facilities. (8) Game arcades. (9) Gasoline service stations on sites abusing Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Sazatoga/Los Gatos Road or Saratoga Avenue and accessible directly from such arterial road; provided, that all operations except the sale of gasoline and oil shall be conducted within an enclosed structure. (10) Animal establishments, asdefined in Section 7- 20.010(c) of this Code. All animal establishments shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7-20.210 of this Code. (11) Public buildings and grounds. (12) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations, drainage ways and structtttes, storage tanks, transmission lines and cable television facilities. (13) Accessory structures and uses locate!1 on the same site as a conditional use. (14) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. (c) Expressly prohibited uses. Without limiting the application of Section 15-05.055(x) of this Chapter, the following uses are expressly declared to be prohibited in all commercial districts: (1) Any use which emits air pollutanu, solid or liquid wastes. radioactivity, or other discharge which endangers human health or causes damage to animals, vegetation or property. (2) Any use which creates offensive odor, noise, vibra- tion, glare or electrical disturbance, detectable beyond the boundaries of the site, or creates a hazard ~f fire or explosion. (3) Any use involving drive-through service, such as restaurants and fmancial institutions with drive-through windows. (4) Any use involving automotive body work, such as collision repair, painting, dismantling or customizing. (5) Mini-storage facilities. (6) Outdoor sales or storage of motor vehicles. (d) Location of building sites. The average natural grade of the footprint underneath any structure shall not exceed thirty percent slope, and no structure shall be built upon a slope which exceeds forty percent natural slope at any location under the structure between two five-foot contour lines, except that: (1) A variance pursuant to Article 15-70 of this Chapter may be granted where the findings prescribed in Section 15-70.060 can be made, and (2) An exception under Article 14-35 of the Subdivi- sion Ordinance may be granted where the findings pre- scribed in Section 14-35.020 can be made. (e) Yards. No use shall occupy any required yard, except fences, .walls, hedges, landscaped areas, walks, driveways and parking areas. No required yard shall be used for a loading area or for storage. (f) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) Where a site is adjacent to an A, R-l, HR, R-M or P-A district, a solid wall or fence six feet in height shall be located along the property line between the two districts, except in a required front yazd, and an area five feet in depth adjoining such property line shall beland- scapedandpermanently maintained with plant materials suitable for ensuring privacy, screening unsightliness and insulating adjacent properties against noise. (2) Open storage of materials and equipment shall be permitted only within an area surrounded and screened by a solid wall or fence (with solid gates where necessary) not less than six feet in height; provided, that no materials or equipment shall be stored to a height greater than that of the wall or fence. (3) All outdoor trash containers and gazbage areas shall be fully enclosed by a solid wall or fence and solid gates of sufficient height to screen the same from public view. No trash or garbage containers shall be placed or kept within twenty-five feet from the property line of any site occupied by a dwelling unit. An owner or occu- pant of a commercial establishment shall comply with the requirements of this subsection within sixty days after receiving a directive from the Ciry to do so. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this subsection (f), the Planning Director or the Planning Commission may require the installation of a solid fence or wall up to eight feet in height along any property line that abuts a residential district, upon a determination that such fence or wall is necessary to mitigate noise or other adverse impacts of the commercial activity upon the residential use. In the case of an existing commercial development, such fence or wall shall be installed within sixty days after the requirement is imposed by the Plaruring Director or the Planning Commission, unless a longer period of time is allowed by the Director or the Commis- sion by reason of extenuating circumstances, including, but not limited to, the installation cost of the new fence or wall, or the value of any existing fence or wall to be demolished, or the cost of removing any existing fence or wall. • • (Saratoga 69~ 314 U®UU08 ~~ r~ • (5) Required pedestrian open spaces, front yards and side yards, and not less than fifteen pert:ent of any parkng lot area, shall be completely landscaped and permanently maintained. (6) No credit shall be given against any landscaping or open space requirement imposed by this Article by reason of adjacent public parking facilities or public rights- of-way. (7) Whenever screening or landscaping is required by the provisions of this Article, or as a condition of any project approval, the owner or occupant of the property shall keep and maintain such screening and landscaping in good condition and repair. (8) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (fj, fences, walls and hedges shall comply wrath the regula- tions set forth in Article 15-29 of this Chapter. (g) Signs. No sign of any character shall be erected or displayed in any C district, except as permitted under the regulations set forth in Article 15-30 of.this Chapter. (h) Off-street parking and loading facilities. Except in the case of a site located within and constituting a part of a City parking district, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15-35 of this Chapter. (i) Design review. All structures shall be subject to design review approval in accordance with the provisions of Article 15-46 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. 71.91 §§ 3, 4, 1991; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992; Ord. 71.122 § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 71-163 § 1 (part), 1996) 15-19.030 C-N district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-N district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-N district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this chapter. (1) Multi-family dwellings, including such dwellings combined with commercial uses on the same site. (2) Medical offices and clinics. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a C-N district shall be ten thousand square feet. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C-N district shall be as follows: 315 15-19.030 Frontage Width Depth 60 feet 60 feet 100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a C-N district shall be sixty percent. (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C-N district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the streetfrom, an A, R-1, HR, R-M or P-A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yards. No side or rear yard shall be required for any lot in a C-N district, subject to the following exceptions: (1) On a reversed comer lot abutting a lot in an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum exterior side yard shall be not less than one-half of the required front yard of the abutting lot. (2) Exceptas otherwise provided in subsection (g)(1) of this Section, on a lot abutting an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard abutting such other district shall be thirty feet. (3) On a lot directly across a street or alley from an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard adjacent to such street or alley shall be ten feet. Where a side or rear yard is required under any of the foregoing provisions, one foot shall be added to the required yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a structure within thirty feet of the lot line, for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in a C-N district shall be twenty feet. (i) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely en- closed structure, except for off-street parking and loading, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining, nurseries, garden shops and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j) Screening, landscaping and fencing. An area not less than five feet in depth along all property Iines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or pathways as required by the Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of the site. ' (k) ~ Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multifamily dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in .Article 15-17 of this Chapter. The density of development shall be as (Saratoga 69'n UODU09 15-19.030 r determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 1~-19.040 C-V district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(x) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-V district: (I) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses mayalso beallowed in a C-V district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter. (1) Religious and charitable institutions. (2) Multi-family dwellings, including such dwellings combined with commercial uses on the same site. (3) Medical offices and clinics. (4) Mortuaries. (5) Theaters. (6) Automobile upholstering shops, provided all opera- tions are conducted within an enclosed structure. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten thousand square feet. (d} Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C-V district shall be as follows: Frontage Width Depth 60 feet 60 feet 100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a C-V district shall be sixty percent. (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, ar directly across the street from, an A, R-1, HR, R M or P-A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yard. The minimum side yards of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet and the mini- mum rear yard of any lot in a C-V district shall be thirty feet, subject to the following exceptions: (1) One foot shall be added to the minimum side yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within thirty feet of the side lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (2) One foot shall be added to the minimum rear yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the rear lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (3) On a comet lot. the minimum exterior side,yard . shall be twenty feet. (h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in a C-V district shall be twenty feet. (i) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) An area not less than ten feet in depth along all property lines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or path- ways asrequired by tttePlanning Conunission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of the site. (2) A use not conducted within a completely enclosed structure shall be screened by a solid wall or fence, vine- covered fence or compact evergreen hedge (with solid gates where necessary) not less than six feet in height. This requirement shall not apply tooff-street parking and loading areas, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining areas, nurseries, garden shops, and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j) Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multi-family dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of • t (Saratoga 69~ 316 --~. - - 15-19.OS0 • • this Chapter. The density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 15-19.050 C-H district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the pert~itted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permined uses shall also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. (2) Single-family and multi-family residential units, when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial insdrutions, when located at street level and having street frontage. (2) Theaters- (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Single-family and multi-family residential units, when located at street level and having street frontage. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area in each C-H district shall be as follows: District Net Site Area CH-1 5,000 sq. ft. CH-2 7,500 sq. ft. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth in each C-H district shall be as follows: 317 District Frontage Width DepL6 CH-1 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft. CH-2 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft. (e) Coverage; pedestrian open space. (1) In the CH-1 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be eighty percent, except that up to one hundred percent of the site may be covered by structures if, for any structwe coverage in excess of eighty percent, an equivalent•arca on the site is devoted to pedestrian open space. (2) In the CH-2 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be sixty percent. In addition, an azea equivalent to not less than twenty percent of the net site area shall be devoted to pedestrian open space. All or any portion of the required front yard may be used for pedestrian open space. (3) The term "pedestrian open space; ' as used in subsections (e)(1) and (2) of this Section, means common areas open to the public where pedestrians may walk or gather, such as plazas and arcades, which are designed to be visible and accessible to pedestrians on streets, sidewalks and parking facilities adjacent to the site. (f) Front yard. No front yard shall be required in the CH-1 district. The minimum front yard of any lot in the CH-2 district shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side yards. No side yards shall be required in either the CH-I or CH-2 district. (h) Rear yard. No rear yard shall be required in the CH-1 district. No rear yard shall be required for any lot in the CH-2 district having a rear lot line that abuts a public right-of-way, public parking district, Saratoga Creek, or the CH-1 district. Where the rear lot line of any lot in the CH-2 district abuu an A, R-1, HR, or R-M district, the minimum rear yard shall be thirty feet, plus one foot for each two feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the reaz lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (i) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structwe in each C-H district shall be as follows: District Height CH-1 35 feet. No portion of a structure facing Big Basin Way shall exceed two stories, and no portion of a structure facing Saratoga Creek shall exceed three stories. CH-2 26 feet. No structwe shall exceed two stories. cs~, s.9st OOOa11 15-19.050 ~ ~ _ " r• V, (j) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely en- closed structure, except for off-street parking and loadinD, gasoline service stations, garden shops and outdoor dining. (1) Modification of standards for historic structures. The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify any of the development standards contained in this Section, without the granting of a variance, if the subject of the application is a structure which has been designated as a historic landmark pursuant to Article 13-15 of this Code, and the Planning Commission finds and determines that: (1) The modification will facilitate preservation of the historic structure; and (2) The application and the proposed modification have been reviewed and approved by the City's Heritage Commission; and (3) The modification will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity; and (4) The modification will not adversely affect the movement of vehicular and pedesaian traffic, or the avail- ability of on-street parking, and will not create a hazard to the public safety. (Amended by Ord. 71-lOd § 1, 1992; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 1~-19.060 Continuation of nonconforming uses. Notwithstandingthe provisions of Section 15-55.130 of this Chapter, any clinic operating no earlier than 7:00 A.M. and no later than 9:00 P.M., any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages and any res- taurant, market or delicatessen which, as of September 6. 1989, was lawfully established and legally operating as a permitted use, shall be exempted from the reouirement for elimination after lapse of time pursuant to Section 15-65.110 of this Chapter and also exempted from the necessity to obtain a use permit for continuation of such use, but in all other respecu shall be regards as a noncon- forming use. Any mini-storage facility lawfully operating pursuant to a use permit granted prior to September 6, 1989, may continue to operate pursuant to the terms and conditions of such use permit. Article 15-20 R-OS: RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Sections: 15-20.010 Purposes of Article. 15-20.020 Permitted uses. - 15-20.030 Conditional uses. 15-20.040 Nonconforming uses. 15-20.050 Development criteria. 15-20.060 Subdivision of sites. 15-20.070 Site frontage, width and depth. 15-20.080. Site coverage. IS-20.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard. 15-20.100 Height of structures. 15-20.110 Accessory uses and structures. 15-20.120 Fences, walls and hedges. 15-20.130 Signs. 15-20.140 Off-street parking and loading facilities. 15-20.150 Design review. 15-20.160 Storage of personal property and materials. 15-20.010 Purposes of Article. In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020, the residential open space district is included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following purposes: (a) To preserve hillside and mountainous land in its natural condition thmugh the establishment of dedicated open space areas, and through environmentally sensitive low density residential use. (b) To promote those uses which support and enhance a rural character and preserve important resources such as forests, natural vegetation, watersheds, animal habitat, scenic beauty, recreational areas, open space and public access thereto. • • ~~ ~J (Sara[oga 5-95) 318 ~'~V~J~irr t.. • SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions November 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION TO THE REVISIONS TABLE Attachment 4 The following table has been prepared to serve as a guide to the successive revisions to the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Design Guidelines. The left column includes text from the June 6, 2002 Final Draft. That Final Draft incorporates input from the May 10 and 24, 2002 Task Force Meetings that were exclusively devoted to discussion of the Guidelines. Task Force revisions to that text are noted in the center column (July 26) and the column to the left (August 23), to create a chronology of revisions reading left to right for each guideline item. The Gateway Taskforce is an advisory committee to the Planning Commr:rsion and staff on the Gateway Design Grrideline.r. The task/orce i.r ~,omprz.red of business and residential property owners with competing interests. Tn light of their divergent views, staff'has prepared recommendations to the Planning Commission representing the interests of the City as a n~hole. "1 bore recommendations can be for~nd in the column titled "staf~recommendation': The Planning Commission held several study sessions on the Guidelines. As a result, the Planning Commission has created a dra%t c~olunrn o/~rec~omnaendations as discussion points located on the far rzght of the table below. Revisions are highlighted in bold type, with deletions indicated with astrike-through and additions in italics. If there were no revisions "No Revisions" is noted. To date, no revisions have been ~roposed to graphics included in the Final Draft -Design Guidelines. TABLE OF CONTENTS June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt TABLE OF CONTENTS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions A. Introduction Page 1 A. Introduction Page 1 No Revisions No Revisions This document, in its fotalify, is the Gateway Design Guidelines. B. A licabili Pa e 2 No Revisions B. A licabili Pa e 2 No Revisions B. Gateway District Boundary Page 2 B: C. Gateway District Boundary Rage-2 Page 3 No Revisions B: C. Gateway District Boundary Rage-2 Page 3 No Revisions C. Goals for SaratogalSunnyva~ Road Page 3 6: D. Goals for SaratogalSunnyvale Road Rage-3 Page 4 No Revisions G D. Goals far SaratogalSunnyvale Road Rage~3 Page 4 No Revisions D, Development Standards Page 4 8. E. Development Standards Rage-4 Page 5 No Revisions B. E, Development Standards Rage-4 Page 5 No Revisions E. New Scenario Page 5 € F. New Scenario Rage-~ Page 6 No Revisions € F. New Scenario Rage-~ Page 6 No Revisions F. Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles ~ G. Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles No Revisions €: G. Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles No Revisions Page 6 Page 6 Page 7 Paged Page 7 Architecture and Materials Page 7 Architecture and Materials Rage-~ Page 8 Architecture and Materials Rage-~ Page 8 Commercial Retail Signage Page 9 Commercial Retail Signage Page-9 Page 10 Commercial Retail Signage Rage-9 Page 10 Landscape and Buffering Page 10 ~ Landscape and Buffering Rage-19 Page 11 Landscape and Buffering Page-1A Page 11 Fencing and Screening Walls Page 1 t Fencing and Screening Walls Rage-~ Page 12 Fencing and Screening Walls Rage-1-1 Page 12 Li htin and Furnishings Pa a 12 L' htin and Furnishin s Pa a 13 Li htin and Fumishin s Pa a 13 TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 2 PART 1-INTRODUCTION June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt INTRODUCTION No Revisions Na Revisions No Revisions No Revisions The Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road No Revisions No Revisions Gateway have been prepared to guide new development or No Revisions No Revisions property re-development in fheSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway district. The Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway streetscape improvement master plan has been adopted to address improvements within the public street right-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. These guidelines build upon that plan to address private sector redevelopment that is anticipated to occur adjacent to the public street right-of-way on private, commercially zoned property. Additionally, the guidelines provide direction for the design ofmixed-use projects that introduce - acomponent ofresidential uses within the Gateway district, as rovided for in the General Plan housin element. These design guidelines were developed in concert with the No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions These design guidelines were developed in concert with the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway master plan through a series Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway master plan through a of citizen Task Force meetings. Goals for the Gateway were series of si#izen Task Force meetings, Goals for the Gateway identified at the initial Task Force meeting and further refined at were identified at the initial Task Force meeting and further successive meetings. An inventory of existing conditions and visual refined at successive meetings. An inventory of existing images that occur along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road was prepared cenditans and visual images that occur along Saratoga- inthe early stages of project development that served as the basis Sunnyvale Road was prepared in the eary stages of project for a Visual Preference Survey. That survey allowed Task force deveopment that served as the basis for a Visual Preference members to document their preferences as to what types of design Survey. That survey allowed Task Force members to elements reFlected an appropriate character for Saratoga and the document their preferences as to what types of desgn Gateway district. Draft guidelines and suaessive revisions to those elements reBected an appropriate character for Saratoga and drafts have resulted in this document addressing: the Gateway district. Draft guidelines and successive revisions to those drafts have resulted in this document addressin • Gateway District Boundaries encompassing the C-V and C-N • Applicability; No Revisions • Applicability; Commercial Zone districts; • Gateway District Boundaries encompassing the C-V and C-N • Gateway District Boundaries encompassing the C-V and C-N No Revisions • Goals for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway; Commercial Zone districts; Commercial Zone districts; • Development Standards for new development; • Goals for fheSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway; • Goals for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway; • New Development Scenario illustrating application of these • Development Standards for new development; • Development Standards for new development; guidelines fo a "typical" sFle; • New Development Scenario illustrating application of these • New Development Scenario illustrating application of these guidelines • Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles, and Design guidelines to a "typical" site; to a "typical" site; Guidelines for: • Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles, and Design • Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles, and Design Architecture and Materials Guidelines for: Guidelines for: Commercial Retail Signage Architecture and Materials Architecture and Materials Landscaping and Buffering Commercial Retail Signage Commercial Retail Signage Fencing and Screening Walls Landscaping and Buffering Landscaping and Buffering Lighting and Furnishings Fencng and Screening Walls Fencing and Screening Walls Li htin and Fumishin s ~ Li hti and Fumishin s TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 3 PART 2 -APPLICABILITY June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt This a added after June 6, 2002 Draft APPLICABILITY No Revisions APPLICABILITY No Revisions These guidelines and development standards are intended to No Revisions This document is intended to govern new development occurring in the No Revisions govern new development occurring in the Saratoga Sunnyvale Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Gateway District, as defined by the boundaries Road Gateway District, as defined by the boundaries described in described in this design guideline document. The guidelines are not this design guideline document. The guidelines are not intended intended to apply to existing uses or development (structures and site to apply to existing uses or development (structures and site improvements) but rather, to new development of mixed use, commercial improvements) but rather, to new development of mixed use, or residential projects or substantial redevelopment of existing uses as commercial or residential projects orsubstantial redevelopment described below. of existing uses as described below. 1. These development standards and guidelines shall not require No Revisions 1. These development standards and guidelines shall not require No Revisions properties in the gateway fo be redeveloped as mixed use; properties in the gateway to be redeveloped as mined use; 2. These developmentstandards and guidelines shall apply upon No Revisions 2, These development standards and guidelines shall apply upon No Revisions reconstruction of 50% or more of the building total floor area of reconstruction of 50% or more of the building total floor area of an an existing building, cumulative over a 5 year period; existing building, cumulative over a 5 year period; 3. If rebuilding in-kind replacement of a current use, the No Revisions 3. If rebuilding in-kind replacement of a current use as a result of a No Revisions provisions of these development standards and guidelines shall catastrophic event, the provisions of these development standards and not appty; guidelines shall not apply; 4. References to adjacent'exis6ng residential' uses shall be No Revisions 4. References to adjacent'ezisting residential' uses shall be defined as No Revisions defined as existing residential uses present as of 2002. existing residential uses present as of 2002. Residential development Residential developmentsu6sequent to 2002 shall not be subsequent to 2002 shall not be considered existing residential uses for considered existing residential uses for the provisions contained the provisions contained in these development standards and guidelines; in these development standards and guidelines; PART 3 -GATEWAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002 Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 Task Force Mt STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION GATEWAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions District Bounda Ma Gra hic No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions • TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 4 PART 4 -GOALS FOR SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt GOALS FOR SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions ~ No Revisions Goals established for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road by the Saratoga No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Gateway Citizen Task Force are; 1. Create a memorable GatewaylSpecial Entry 2. Character and Image identifiable 3. Maintain business viabilitylcommercial strength 4. Userfriendly 5. Improve Safety 6. Meet functional and other necessary requirements 7. Improve corridor consistency 8. Develop functional and character elements For the purpose of Design Guidelines, those goats can be No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions expanded upon to further define the scope of the proposed guidelines through the addition of objectives and guiding principles for tannin and desi n that su ort each oat. The planning and design objective and guiding pdnap~s can be No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions expressed in terms of the existing uses in the corridor and the potential future uses that might define a desirable future condition in the corridor. • TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 5 PART 5 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 2G, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 A Use Permit is required for the establishment of a 1 A Use Permit is required for the establishment of a No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions mixed-use residential and commercial development. mixed-use combination of residential and commercial development. A Use Permit is not required for single use commercial develo ment 2 Design Review is required for all proposed mixed-use 2 Design Review is required for all proposed mined-use No Revisions Applicants shall meet with adjacent residential and commercial Design Review applicants shall meet with adjacent residential and commercial projects. combination otresidential and commercial projects. property owners during design development prior to submitting an residential and commercial property owners during application to the Planning Department for review. design development prior to submitting an application to the Plannin Department for review. 3 The design of maed use projects will be required to 3. No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions conform with the policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook including buffering set back requirements included in these des' n uidelines. 4 The maximum net density is twenty (20) dwelling units 4 The maximum net density is twenty (20) residential No Revisions No Revisions The maximum net density is twenty (20) dwelling units per per acre. dwelling units per acre. acre, 5 The dwelling units shall be located on either a second 5 The residential dwelling units shall be located on either No Revisions No Revisions The dwelling units shall be located on either a second floor floor or at the rear of the arcel. a second floor or at the rear of the arcel. or at the rear of the parcel. 6 The dwelling units shall not comprise over fifty (50) 6 The residential dwelling units shall not comprise over No Revisions No Revisions The dwelling units shall not comprise over fifty (50) percent percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The fifty (50) percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The maximum floor area allowed may be increased by ten (10) percent maximum floor area allowed may be increased by ten (10) percent maximum floor area allowed may be increased by ten (10) for projects providing bebw market rate rental housing. Set backs for projects providing below market rate rental housing. Set backs percent for projects providing below market rate rental and building locations should consider building location of adjacent and building loations should consider building location of adjacent housing. Set backs and building locations should consider roe roe buildin location of ad'aceni roe . 7 Overall sfle coverage may be increased up to ten (10) 7 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions rcent for ro'ects containin below market rate housin units. 8 Parking for both the commercial and dwelling units 8 Parking for both the commercial and residential No Revisions No Revisions Parking far both the commercial and dwelling units shall be shall be as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, providing that the dwelling unfls shall be as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, providing that the Planning Commission may consider shared parking in some cases. providing that the Planning Commission may consider shared Planning Commission may consider shared parking in arkin in some cases. some cases. 9 Each dwelling shall have a private, useable outdoor 9 Each residential dwelling shall have a private, useable No Revisions Amen~ies and public open space areas shall be encouraged where they Each dwelling shall have a private, useable outdoor space space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. outdoor space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. do not infringe upon the qualify of life of surrounding single-family , i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. Amenities and residences. public open space areas shall be encouraged where they do not infringe upon the quality of life of surroundin sin le•fami residences. 10 The maximum height of a mixed use structure shall be 10 The maximum height of amixed-use structure shall be No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions structure that is solely commercial on a site that has 26 feet An 26 feet . y . mixed use the maximum height is as in the underlying zone These . , maximum heights are further governed by a bulklplane transition of These maximum heights are further governed by a bulklplane heght from the property edge. transition of heght from the property edge. 11 Building heights shall be established based on average 11. No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions existing grade of the proposed development site to prevent excessive fillip and artificial) elevated total buildin het hts, TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 6 12 Building heights shall be restricted io one story (18' max. 12 Building heights shall be restricted to one story (18' max, No Revisions No Revisions (see attached tables and sketches) ht.) adjacent to existing residential uses and Saratoga-Sunnyvale ht.) adjacent to existing residential uses and-Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road ai the minimum setback of 20 feel. Then feet (10') additional Read at the minimum setback of 20 feet for mixed use. Ten feet building setback (30' total from property line) shall be required for (10') additional building setback (30' total from property line) shall be buildings caller than 18' to provide a transition of building heights to required for buildings taller than 18' to provide a transition of building the maximum allowable 26 foot max. ht.. he' hts to the maximum allowable 26 foot max. ht, . 13 Building heights shall be restricted to one story (18' No Revisions No Revisions (see attached tables and sketches) max. htJ adjacent to Saratoga•Sunnyvale Road at the minimum setback of 20 feet for mixed use. Ten feet (f0') additional building setback (30'total from property line) shall be required for buildings taller than 18'to provide a transition of building het hts to the maximum allowable 26 foot max. ht . 13 Building Heights to 26 feet maximum are allowed a3 14 No Revisions. No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions adjacent to existin 2-sto residential buildin s. 14 Perimeter 8 feet height solid fencing shall be required 44 15 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions adjacent to residential uses. 15 Any redevelopment projects shall provide sound walls 43 16 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions and landscape screening in order to protect the pmacy and quality of life of abutting residential land uses as provided for in these design uidelines. 16 The commercial component of redevelopment projects No Revisions The retail commercial component of redevelopment projects in the No Revisions in the Gateway district shall belimited insize tolocal-serving t di G i h ll a eway str ct s a be limited in size to communityserving businesses. businesses. 17 In mixed use projects office uses are permissive on the N R i i N R i i , o ev s ons o ev s ons No Revisions second floor adjacent toSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road and require use ermit an round floor. i • bl TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 7 PART 6 -NEW DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 Task Force Mt STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION NEW DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO No Recisions No Revisions No Revisions No Recisions New Develo ment Scenario Gra hic No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions PART 7 -DESIGN GUIDELINE OBJECTIVE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES une 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt DESIGN GUIDELINE 08JECTIVE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Recisions 1. PLANNING AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES 1. No Chan a No Chan a No Chan a No Recisions 1 The primary planning and design objective for the 1 The primary planning and design objective for the No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Saratoga Gateway District is to organize buildings, parking and Saratoga Gateway District is to organize buildings, parking and intemal site circulation to create convenient, comfortably-soled internal site circulation to create convenient, comfortably-scaled commercial activity areas and incorporate residential uses to increase commercial activity areas. dives in Sarat a's housin stock. 2 Allowforincorporation ofresidentialuses toincrease No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions diversi in Sarato a's housin stock, 2 Preserve and protect Saratoga'spedestrian-friendly 2-3 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Preserve and protect Saratoga'spedestrian-friendly environment and enhance the quality of life by encouraging environment and enhance the quality of life by Commercial activity in the Gateway district. encouraging accessible Commercial activity in the Gatewa district. 3 Promotelencouragehovsing provision consistent with 3 4 Promoielencourage housing n provisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions General Plan for resident employees of the City of Saratoga consistent with General Plan for resident employees of the City of businesses and service roviders such as Teachers. 5arat a businesses and service roviders such as teachers. S Promote site design and other opportunities to No Revisions No Revisions No Recisions encoura a the dis la of ublic art. 2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Guilin rinci les in su ort of chose ob'edives include the followi No Revisions No Revisions Na Revisions Nc Revisions 1 Encourage a diverse miz of complementary commercial 1 Encourage a diverse mix of complementary commercial No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions uses (retail, restaurant, service) with residential uses located on upper uses (retail, restaurant, service, office) with residential uses located floors and to the rear of the roe on u er flcors and to the rear of the ro 2 Create a strong identity that represents the entire No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Create a strong identity that represents the entire aratoga Gateway District. This may be accomplished through the use Saratoga Gateway District. This may be accomplished mishes or site elements that tie the different uses together through the use oifinishes or-site architectural elements that fie the different uses t ether 3 Provide a variety of building sizes and building facade 3 Provide a variety of building sizes and building facade No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions articulation to foster variety, mix and to mitigate large-scale building articulaflon to foster variety, mix and- in orderto mitigaielarge-scale masses. building masses. TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 8 4 Coordinate site development proposals to maximize site to site connections, minimize Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road access conFlicts and promote shared parking where possible 4 Coordinate site development proposals to maximize site to site pedestrian connections, No Revisions Coordinate site development proposals to maximize site to site pedestrian connections minimize Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road access Fli No Revisions . con cts and promote or encourage shared parking where possible. 5 Coordinate site developmentproposals fo promote No Revisions No Revisions shared arkin where ossible. 5 Locate service and ancillary areas so that they can be visually screened from view and are away from Saratoga-Sunnyvale 5- 6 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Road and edestrian use areas 6 Encourage site design where parking does riot dominate site layout from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road or from buildings. 6 7 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Encourage site design where parking does not dominate site layout from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road or from buildings frontages by locating some parking in back of or undemeafh buildings where feasible. 7 Provide direct, continuous pedestrian routes from the street to building entries, across all large parking areas and between all activity areas of the Saratoga Gateway District. ~ 8 Where appropriate, Rprovide direct, continuous pedestrian routes from the street to building entries, across all large parking areas and between all activity areas of the Saratoga Gateway District. No Revisions No Revisions Provide direct, continuous pedestrian routes from the street to building entries, across all large parking areas and between all activity areas of the Saratoga Gateway Disirick Dedicatedpedestrianaccess paths should be encouraged between parking spaces and not on drive aisles. Mitigate potential adverse impacts to existing neighboring N R i i N R i i es in a manner consistent with the character of those uses o ev ons s o ev s ons Through the design review process, mitigate potential . adverse impacts to existing neighboring uses in a ~~ manner consistent wish the character of those uses, 9 Focus commercial development toward the front of the 9 Fesus Encourage commercial development toward the No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions roe alon Sarat a-Sunn vale Road. front of the roe alo Sarato a-Bunn vale Road. C7 TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 9 PART $ -ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 Encourage smaller-scale building Floorplates with a 1 Encourage smaller-scale building Floorplates with a No Revisions No Revisions residential scale and architectural s le. residential an appropriate scale and architectural s le. 2 Buildings should relate specifically to Saratoga's No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions residential areas and illustrate residential massing with low-pitched able or hi roofs, dormer windows, etc. 3 In order to reduce the perceived scale of buildings, No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions building masses shall be broken into smaller components. Large "bones" with no articulation will not be allowed. 4 No portion of a building wall should exceed 35 feet in No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions horizontal length unless articulated with a change in surface material, color or surface plane. No parapet or roofline should exceed one half of the length of the building facade without a change in elevation. All rimary building entrances must be identified with architectural details ch as towers, projections, varied roofs, trellis work, pergolas or vered ant a s. 5 Buildings with facades longer than 70 feet should be No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions designed with vertial breaks to create differentiation along the front facade. This can be done with indented balconies orland aru~culation of massin orland chan es in material, texture, and color 6 Comers of buildings should be highlighted with special 6 Comers of buildings should be highlighted with special No Revisions Street frontage facades of buildings should be highlghted with special Street frontage facades of buildings should be design features to increase visual interest where appropriate. design features to increase visual interest where appropriate. design features to increase visual interest where appropriate. Entrances highlighted with special design features to increase Entrances or display windows to the retail shops are encouraged at Entrances or display windows to the retail shops are encouraged at or display windows to the retail shops are encouraged. visual interest where appropriate. Street facing building comers that face the street building comers that Lace the street comer locations. entrances or display windows to the retail shops are encoura ed. 7 RooFlines should be varied in style and size to create No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions interest. All buildings should include roof features such as pitched roofs, detailed parapets, or entry features. Rooftop mechanical e ui ment shall be screened on all sides. 8 Rooftop mechanical units, vents, and Flues shall be No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions screened. Screening rooftop mechanical equipment by means of itched roof forms or nthoases is encoura ed 9 Service and loading areas should be located away from 9 Service and baling areas should beaesated-away-tram No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions adjacent residential uses and visually screened from Saratoga- not be located immediately adjacent to residential uses. and Sunnyvale Road 10 Service and loading areas should not be located No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions immediately adjacent to Saratoga•Sunnyvale Road and should be visuall screened from Sarato a-Bunn le Road. TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 10 PART 9 -ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS -CONTINUED June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt 10 A specific color palette, list of materials, and common ~Q 11 No Revisions No Change 1A 11 No Revisions No Revisions architectural features will be required for all development in the Saratoga Gateway District. This is intended to establish a common theme or style of architectural design for all buildings within the District, All buildings shall incorporate 360 degree (i.e. all building faces use of materials and color. 11 Colors for all buildings should be earth tones, neutrals ~ 12 No Reuisions No Revisions ~ 12 No Revisions No Revisions and soft muted colors. The predominant color shout be in the range of grays, beige through dark brown, terracotta and sandstone, dark greens, or muted red. Bright intense colors are not allowed. Stark white or black is discouraged for use other than astrim. Un-muted rims colors are not allowed 12 f finish materials for walls should be predominantly natural ~. 13 No Revisions No Revisions 42. 13 No Revisions No Revisions materials such as brick, textured block, stone, slate, stucco, wood, p board siding or textured and colored concrete that closely embles such materials. Accent materials may include canvas for awnings, metal trim, ceramic tiles, concrete castings, terra cotta, or stucco. Window and door trim should be bronzed or baked enamel colored finish that is complimentary to the color of the wall. Materials such as galvanized metal, glossy aluminum, smooth concrete, metal sidin ,vin I, and reflective lass are not allowed 13 Encourage canopieslawningslarcades to define entrances 43 14 No Revisions No Revisions 43 14 No Revisions No Reuisions and rovide shelter alon buildin s. 14 Building entrances should be set back from drive 14 15 No Revisions No Revisions 44 15 No Revisions No Revisions curblines a minimum of 10 feet. 15 Building entrances should be visible from parking areas. ~ 16 Building entrances should be identifiable-visible from No Revisions Building entrances should be visibly identifiable from parking areas. Building entrances should be visibly identifiable arkin areas. 16 Building materials should include appropriate materials to x6-11 Building materials should include appropriate materials to No Revisions No Revisions No Reuisicns convey a residential nature. Such materials should establish a single, serwey-a-residentiafnature. Such materials should establish a re nizable thematic s le for all ad'acent commercial areas sin le, re nizable t~ematis s le for all ad'aceni commercial areas. 17 A predominance of masonry, wood and brick shall be ~ 18 No Revisions. No Revisions ~ 18 No Revisions. No Revisions used on round levels of all buildin s 18 Reflective materials such as bright aluminum and glass ~ 19 No Revisions. No Revisions 16-19 No Revisions. No Revisions are not allowed as the rima buildin material on exteriors. 19 Pedestrian amenities, such as benches, trash 19 20 No Revisions No Revisions Pedestrian amenities, such as benches, decorative paving material, No Revisions receptacles, outdoor dining and vendor catts on private property, are trash receptacles, outdoor dining and vendor carts on private property, encouraged to be consistent with the theme established by Saratoga- are encouraged to be consistent with the theme established by Bunn vale Road Gatewa . Sarat a-Bunn vale Road Gateway. • TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 11 PART 1O -COMMERCIAL RETAIL SIGNAGE June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 Task Force Mtg STAFF PC RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION COMMERCIAL RETAIL SIGNAGE No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 Signage should be visible but fit appropriately with No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions buildin architecture. 2 Sign materials should complementary and consistent wish No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions architectural materials. 3 Individual storefrontishop signage at entries should be No Revisions 3 Indiv;dual-storefrondshop-signageat No Revisions No Revisions encouraged at a pedestrian scale, such as hanging signs under entries-should-be~nceuragedat-a-pedestrian scale; eaves, awning signs and building mounted signs sash-as hanging signs-undeFeaves~ awning-signs-and building-mounted-signs: (Moved to #8 below) 4 Commercal signs for the identification ofmulti-tenant No Revisions 4 Gemmersial signs for-the-identitisation~f No Revisions No Revisions projects or buildings should beground-mounted, internally orground- multi-tenant~rejects$Fbuildings3heeld-{~e greund. I~hted with a masonry base that is integrated with site landscaping. meunted, ir+ternally~ground-ligt}ted witha masenry base-that-is{ntegrated-with-siteaandssaping: (Moved to #7 below No polemounied signs identifying commercial businesses No Revisions b- 3 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions are allowed 6 No permanent billboards are allowed anywhere in the No Revisions 6 4 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Sarat a Gatewa District. 7 Internally lit cabinet-type signs are discouraged No Revisions ~ ~ Inter No Revisions No Revisions 8 Signage should beground-lit or otherwise washed with No Revisions >I 6 No Revisions No Revisions light from a concealed light source . Moved to #7 below 9 Monument signs shall exhibit the following design No Revisions g 7 Monument signs shall exhibit the following No Revisions No Revisions character: design character. Horizontal orientation. Horizontal orientation. Externally illuminated only. Externally illuminated enly is encouraged. Limited to one monument sign per parcel. Infernally lit signs subject to review Sign size "matched" to frontage length of parcel. Limited to one monument sign per parcel. Must use natural materials. Sign size "matched" io frontage length of parcel. Encourage monument signs io be similar within the Gateway. Must use natural materials. Must maintain adequate landscaping around the monument sign. Encourage monument signs to be similar design consistencywithinthe Gateway, Monument signs are to be placed so that fheyare visible to passing motorists. Must maintain adequate landscaping around the monument sign. Commercial signs for the identification of multi• tenant projects or buildings should be ground- mounted, internally orground•lighted with a masonry base that is integrated with site landscaping. Signage should beground-lit or otherwise washed with li ht from a concealed li ht source. TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 12 10 StorefronUShop signage. No Revisions ~ 8 StorefronUShop signage: The issue of when commerciai Avoid impacts to existing residential Prefer indirect illumination. Prefer indirect illumination. signage should be Turned offshou;d properties Intemally illuminated signs only permitted along Saratoga- Internally illuminated signs only permitted along be addressed throug/~ a Cary wide Sunnyvale Road. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. ordnance which wtll apply ro all Sign area and intensity as per Municipal code. Sign area and intensity as per Municipal code. commercial signage in Sararoga. Illuminated signs must be off after hours of operation or 9pm. NO CONSENSUS REACHED ON THIS ITEM: Illuminated signs must be off after hours of operation or 9pm Individual storeironbshop signage at entries should be encouraged at a pedestrian scale, such as hanging signs under eaves, awning signs and building mounted signs. 11 Regulatory sgns on private property: - No Revisions ~ 9 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Limited to 18 inches by 24 inches only, One is permitted at each entranceiezit. Must be mounted at a finished height no higher than 5 feet. Prefer the use of 4x4 lumber versus alvanized i e. 12 Seasonal banners on light poles identifying the Gateway No Revisions ~ f0 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions trict may be permitted. It may be permissible to identify, in a small nt, a business or individual in exchan a for fundin of the banners. • TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 13 PART 11- LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC Task Force Mt RECOMMENDATION LANDSCAPE AND BUFFERING No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 Landscape islands should be provided in parking lots to No Revisions No Revisions 50'% of the parking !or shalt be shaded in 10~~ears. interrupt consecutive runs of 10 or more spaces. Landscape islands shall incorporate a miz of shade tree and shrub plant material to visually buffer intemal site views from both ground and to provide shade. Minimum width of landscaped islands shall be 8 feet min. . 2 Parking areas should incorporate low landscaping buffers No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions to screen parked cars from adjacent streets. All head in parking adjacent to public right of way or residential areas shall be screened by one of the following: 30-inch minimum hgh masonry wall incorporated with landscape setback. 30-inch minimum high earthen berm. A dense shrub planting (shrubs planted a minimum of 4 feet on nter . Landscaped parking islands and medians should No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions constitute a minimum of 15 percent of the overall arkin area 4 The use of landscaping should be encouraged to No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions distinguish access points, break up parking and define pedestrian access and s aces. 5 Landscaping layout and design should screen and orient 5 Landscaping layout and design should ssreenand No Revisions Landscaping layout and design of front tagade should screen-and No Revisions the pedestrian environment orient the pedestrian environment. orient the pedestrian environment. 6 Street tree plantings shall be required along Saratoga- 6 Street tree plantings shall be required where none exist No Revisions No Revisions 6 Street tree plantings shall be Sunnyvale Road at 40 foot (maz.) spacing to promote a consistent along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at 40 foot (max.) spacing to required where none exist along Saratoga- tree anopy, reduce perceived building heights and provide shade. promote a consistent tree canopy, reduce perceived building heights Sunnyvale Road at 40 foot (maz.) spacing to and provide shade. Street trees shall be pruned and otherwise promote a consistent tree canopy, reduce maintained to provide visibility of businesses. perceived building heights and provide shade. Streettrees shall be pruned, consistent with ISA pruning standards, and otherwise maintained to provide visibility of businesses. 1 Private drives serving the internal circulation needs of No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions proposed development shall require street tree plantings at 50 foot s acin maz. . 8 Shrubs, groundcovers and perennial plantings are No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions encouraged between detached pedestrian walks antl buildings. 9 Trellises with flowering vines and hanging flower baskets No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions are encouraged at building entries to make the entry more easily identifiable, rovide destrian sale and add visual interest r ~ TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 14 10 Buffering between commercial or mined use projects and adjacent residential uses shall incorporate: 8 foot high solid (decorative) masonry wall. 20 foot depth exclusive landscape buffer yard reserved for buffering purposes - no private outdoor use or other programmed activities are allowed within the buffer yard. Landscaping shallconsist ofover-sized "mature" plant material. No balconies or windows above ground floor level on the sides that face adjacent residential properties 10 Buffering between commercial or mixed use projects and adjacent residential uses shall incorporate: 8 foot high solid (decorative) masonry wall. -20 5 foot depth exclusive landscape buffer yard reserved for buffering purposes - no private outdoor use or other programmed activities are allowed within the buffer yard. material: No Revisions Buffering between commercial or mixed use projects and adjacent residential uses shall incorporate: 8 foot high solid (decorative) masonry wall, 20 foot depth exclusive landscape buffer yard reserved for buffering purposes - no private outdoor use or other programmed activities are allowed within the buffer yard. Landscaping shall consist ofover-sized "mature" plant material. Mature shall be defined as 36"boxed trees of a minimum height of 15' l Buffering between commercial or mined use projects and adjacent residential uses shall incorporate: 8 foot high solid (decorative) masonry wall. 20 foot depth exclusive landscape buffer yard reserved for buffering purposes - no private outdoor use or other programmed activities are allowed within the buffer yard, . Rear or side parking lots adjacent to residential uses shall be designed to be equipped with locking gates to be secured on p anted as to create a screen within 5 years. No balconies or windows above ground floor level on the sides chat f d i i l Landscaping shall consist ofover-sized "mature" plant material. Mature shall be " weekends: ace a jacent res dent a properties. R id ki l t d id l defined as a minimum 36 boxed tree or a n ' ear or s e par ng o s a jacent to res entia uses shall be mi imum height of 20 planted as to create +~ designed to be equipped with locking gates to be secured on weekends: a continuous evergreen screen within 5 years. No balconies or windows above ground floor level on the sides that face adjacent residential properties. Rear or side parking lots adjacent to residential uses shall be designed to 6e equipped with locking gates to be secured on weekends: Solid walls between mixed use and commercial properties shall provide breaks in the wall for destrian access. 11 Buffering between commercial or mined use development and ocher similar uses shall consist of a minimum 4 foot (min,) depth No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions landsca a area lanted with trees, shrubs and roundcovers. • TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 15 PART 12 -FENCING AND SCREENING WALLS June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC Task Force Mt RECOMMENDATION FENCING AND SCREENING WALLS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 Fencing materials in the Saratoga Gateway District shall No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions consist of wood, wood and masonry combinations or wood with masonry columns to reflect the general residential character of the Sarai a communi . 2 Fencing installations shall incorporate continuous No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions landscaping at the base and edges of the fence to integrate the fence with site and landsca in 3 Fencing is discouraged between properties of similar No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions use 4 Trash service and loading areas should incorporate No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions masonry wall buffers to screen service areas from adjacent streets. All trash, service and loading areas shall be screened by a 8 foot (min.) height masonry wall or enclosure designed to be an integral nd com lementa extension of the buildin architecture, Trash, service and loading areas should not be located 5 Trash, service and loading areas should not be located No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions along street frontage or adjacent to existing residential uses and will along-adjacent to street frontages or adjacent fo existing residential ` be screened from view from public streets, open areas, and uses and will be screened from view from public streets. sgen-areas; ~ edestrian condors 6 Trash and recycling enclosures shall be of masonry No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions construction using broken face, slump bock, raked joints or other ' textural variation to provide shadow effects and other subtle visual interest. 7 Self closing gates shall b provided on all trash and No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions r clip enclosures 8 Concrete-filled bollards or other means of comer No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions protection are encouraged to protect enclosures from vehicular traffic , and loadin lama e. • ~ ~ ii~~ TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 16 PART 13 -LIGHTING AND FURNISHINGS June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC Task Force Mt RECOMMENDATION LIGHTING AND FURNISHINGS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions ~ No Revisions i Pedestrian lighting is encouraged throughout non-parking No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions areas. A single "village" type thematic light fixture should be selected for the Sarato a Gatewa District. 2 High-pressure sodium, wall pack and °barnyard"light No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Light poles in parking areas shall be limited to es are discoura ed. a 12 fodt maximum het ht. 3 Light poles in parking areas shall be limited to a 18 foot No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions het ht. ' 4 All parking lot lighting shall be down cast °cut-ofd type No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. A photometric study shall be r wired to document li htin levels at roe line. i 5 All pole lights shall use the same color and style of pole No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions and fixture. 6 Site furnishings including benches, crash receptacles and No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions e racks should be complementary to the family of site furnishing ments designated for SaratogaSunnyvale Road gateway streetsca e. 7 Bike racks shall be provided for new retail or mined use No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Rev isions develo ment l 8 Site lighting shall be restricted to security lighting only No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Security' lighting shall avoid impacts to afterbusiness hours. residential ro ernes: • I~EM4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: ED-O1-003 &t SD-O1-001 / 20440 Arbeleche Lane Applicant/Owner: Nasrin Asgari / Javanmard w Staff Planner: Christine Oosrerhous AICP, Associate Plannetli`~ Date: November 13, 2002 APN: 397-27-29 Department Hea ~ v a ~, ~ a ~ RION I ~ wC~~ y/ -'" ~ ~, a ~,~~ ~ \ 4 i LIJ. ;~ ~~~xw°°~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~z~~ ~ ~~-~ /~ e 5 \ %~ a i 1 ~ '~ v~ / ~ 0`~ ~~,~ ~ ~ ~~ v ~~~ ~~ ~ f ~\ ~ ~~ y ~, ,~ l ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~~ ~ ti~ ~ ~ q~~ ~° i'; ~ ~ .o G y' ,.~/ r j' ~~ i'\ ~'/ 500 0 OAK 500 pL. 1 0 Feet ~~ ~~ ~. 20440 Arbeleche Lane X00001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The a licant re uests Tentative P pp q arcel Map approval to subdivide one parcel located at 20440 Abeleche Lane into two parcels, each of which would include a new building site. The existing parcel is 27,661 square feet (net) and contains an existing single-family dwelling. Proposed parcel A is 11,892 (net) square feet. Proposed parcel B is 15,769 (net) square feet. There are two existing structures on the existing parcel: an 800 square foot one-story single-family dwelling and a 600 square foot detached garage. The existing dwelling and garage are currently occupied by a tenant who rents the unit from the applicant. The two existing structures are to be demolished, and atwo-story single-family dwelling is proposed on each parcel. The Saratoga Creek borders the eastern property line of the project site. The proposed building pads and surrounding areas are flat with the exception of portions of the property close to the Saratoga Creek. The proposed parcels are located in the R-M 4,000 (multi- familyresidential) zone district. The General Plan designation for the proposed parcels is Multi-Family Residential with a max density of 14.5 dwelling unit per net acre. A subdivision application is not required to construct multiple family structures on the existing parcel. Development in the immediate surrounding area is characterized bymulti-family residential and commercial uses. The applicant has provided a site development plan, which includes conceptual building elevations, floor plans, building heights, and floor areas of the proposed residences. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence on lot A is 28 feet 6 inches. The floor area of the proposed residence on lot A is 3,800 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence on lot B is 28 feet. The floor area of the proposed residence on lot B is 3,995 square feet. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: Mature Healthy Trees The City Arborist has prepared several reports with regard to the subject property (Attachment 11). The Arborist Report dated September 14, 2001 identifies several mature healthy trees located throughout the project site including: a fine California sycamore with a trunk diameter of 38 inches (tree #2); an exceptional Douglas fir with a trunk diameter of 44 inches (tree #1); and an exceptional coast redwood which has a trunk diameter 36 inches (tree #9). Tree #1 is perhaps the best Douglas fir specimen that the Arborist has seen in the area. The same Arborist Report also identifies other exceptional species located on the site, including willows and London planes. The Arborist Report rates all of the above-mentioned trees "excellent" in health. • X00®02 The Arborist Report dated October 24, 2002 identifies a row of approximately 22 coast redwoods located on the subject property. The Arborist Report dated September 14, 2001 states these redwoods are in fine condition and provide an excellent screen between the project site and the adjacent commercial building. These trees range in height from 20-30 feet. The applicant's proposed project would result in the removal of approximately twelve redwoods due to direct conflict with the building pad or as a result of damage during construction. The location of existing mature healthy trees makes siting development on the subject parcel difficult (Arborist Reports, Attachment 11) Riparian Habitat A biotic assessment has been prepared for the applicant by H.T. Harvey & Associates, a consulting firm (Attachment 4). The biotic assessment has identified a moderate to high quality riparian habitat on the subject parcel. The biotic assessment identifies a riparian corridor boundary and recommends a 75-foot setback boundary for future development from the corridor (Attachment 4, Figures 2-3). The riparian corridor boundary encompasses approximately two-thirds of the existing parcel. The recommended 75-foot setback boundary encompasses almost the entire project site (Attachment 4, Figures 2-3). Proposed Lot Configuration As noted above, the applicant proposes to divide the existing parcel into two smaller parcels (Site Plan, Attachment 12). Lot A would bean irregular trapezoid (with a small stem). Lot B would be a triangle. It is inherently more difficult to design and construct residential structures on small triangular shaped parcels than on rectangular shaped lots, because the building envelopes that result are triangular in shape. The difficulties constructing on a triangular shaped lot increase exponentially as the size of the lot decreases. It has generally been the Planning Commission's practice to avoid creating parcels that would impose significant constraints on the design and construction of structures. The existing parcel is triangular, but the constraints imposed by the shape of the existing parcel are mitigated by its larger size. The two proposed parcels approximately half the size of the existing parcel, would substantially increase the constraints on future development (Site Plan, Attachment 12). In addition, the access requirements for Lot B would impose new constraints on development on both parcels. In summary, the proposed lot configuration would exacerbate the existing constraints to development on the site, including mature healthy trees and a riparian corridor. Approval of the proposed subdivision would require imposing additional setbacks and access requirements. These additional.requirements would create small and confined building pads. C7 000003 BIOTIC ASSESSMENT: The biotic assessment prepared on the applicant's behalf concludes that, in the absence of mitigation, the higher level of human activity adjacent to Saratoga Creek, especially with regard to the increased size of the buildings, would result in decreased value of the riparian corridor to wildlife, particularly birds. The biotic assessment anticipates the following wildlife impacts: 1. The project will create a higher level of human encroachment into the riparian corridor. This increase human presence will result in increased disturbance of birds using the riparian corridor for breeding, foraging and shelter. Disturbance to mammals and fish within the riparian corridor is expected to be minimal. 2. The increased size of the buildings will also have some adverse effect on birds since it may hinder lateral movements to and from the riparian corridor. 3. Removal of trees from the riparian corridor will result in the direct loss of habitat for birds. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: An initial study of the proposed subdivision has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The initial study concluded that, without mitigation, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on biological resources. A rigorous mitigation monitoring program was formulated to reduce significant impacts on the riparian corridor. Based on the initial study and the mitigation monitoring program, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued. The proposed Tentative Map and the environmental documents were circulated to various departments and agencies for review and were made available for public review. The following departments and agencies have received and reviewed the plan and the environmental documents for the proposed project:. the Fire Department, Public Works Department, City Arborist, Santa Clara County Department of Health, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, West Valley Sanitation District, and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. All written comments received from these agencies and departments have been attached for your information. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) commented that the proposed project conflicts with the City's Creek Protection Ordinance, stating in part, "Placement of the proposed building within the riparian corridor does not comply with the City of Saratoga's Creek Protection Ordinance that requires a creek protection easement encompassing the riparian corridor within which not structures are allowed.... The proposed subdivision appears to be in conflict with the City's ordinance and with its intent." (SCVWD Comments, Attachment D). 000004 The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) commented that the departments, the agencies, and the public were not being given an adequate opportunity to review the impact of the proposed project on trees, stating in part, "The Arborist Report will be available for review on October 7, 2002. Since this date is 3 days after the close of the comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, it will not be possible to make any comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration in response to the arborists report. The comment period should not have started until the complete set of attachments was available." (SFRWQCB Comments, Attachment E). CEQA requires any potentially significant impacts to be evaluated. Subsequent to circulation of the initial study for public review, and based in part on comments received, staff has determined that the following potentially significant environmental impacts were not evaluated: (1) the project is not consistent with Municipal Code Section 14- 25.065 which restricts structures in riparian habitats; and (2) the project would result in the removal of approximately 12 redwoods. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission find the environmental documents inadequate because the documents do not evaluate the following potentially significant impacts: (1) Inconsistency with Municipal Code. The proposed project is not consistent with MCS 14-25.065, Creek Protection. The stated purpose of MCS 14-25.065 is to "provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat." MCS 14-25.065(a) requires the applicant to provide a creek protection easement for any subdivision which contains or abuts a protected creek. MCS 14-25.065(d) prohibits the construction of structures or other improvements within the creek protection easement. Saratoga Creek is a protected creek and is located in part on proposed Lots A and B. As noted above, the biotic assessment prepared on the applicant's behalf indicates that the creek protection easement should extend at least 75 feet to the side of the creek (Attachment 4, Figures 2-3). The creek protection easement would encompass most of the building sites proposed for Lots A and B. These building sites are therefore inconsistent with MCS 14-25.065(d), and the applicant has not identified any alternative proposed building sites that would satisfy MCS 14-25.065. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides that any inconsistency between a proposed project and a local land use ordinance should be evaluated as a potentially significant environmental impact. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with MCS 14-25.065 because the proposed building sites are located in a prohibited area, but this inconsistency was not evaluated in the initial study (See Initial Study at sec. 9.B (p.13)). The environmental documents are therefore inadequate and should be revised to evaluate this inconsistency. • ~OO~~rJ (2) Removal of approximately 12 redwoods not evaluated. The environmental documents did not evaluate the impact of the proposed project on an existing row of 22 redwoods on the parcel. The site plans submitted with the application do not include the redwoods. Staff was not aware that the redwoods were close to the proposed building pad on Lot B until the building pad was marked with stakes. By the time staff became aware of the proximity of the redwoods to the building pad, the initial study had already been prepared. As noted above, the City Arborist dated October 24, 2002 estimates that the proposed project would result in the removal of most of the redwoods. The existing row of redwoods provides an essential buffer with respect to noise, lighting, and privacy between the adjacent commercial buildings and the subject residentially zoned property. In addition, removal of or damage to the existing redwoods could adversely affect the riparian corridor. Consequently, the loss of the redwoods could be a potentially significant environmental impact. However, this impact was not evaluated in the initial study. The environmental documents are therefore inadequate and should be revised to evaluate this impact. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission not adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission, before approving the project, direct staff to revise and recirculate the environmental documents. APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN SECTIONS: Staff has researched the following General Plan goal and policy statements for the Planning Commission to consider prior to taking action on the proposed project: General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures C0.2.0 Conserve natural vegetative and significant topographic features which exist in Saratoga and its sphere of influence. Pg 2-16. CO.?..5 In the process of all new development, particular care shall be taken to pr-esen~e native oaks...and other significant trees by careful citing of all improvements. Pg 2-17. C0.3. D Preserve the quality of the natural environment and the character of the City through appropriate regulation of site development. Pg 2-17. C0.3.1 The City shall strive to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats when considering proposals, for development or plans for active recreation. Pg 2-17. • ~J4UU46 Area Plans, Housing Element The twelve Area Plans (A-L) located in the Housing Element of the General Plan are meant to guide future development. The subject property is located in Area E. Area E.... multiple [family) development[s] should be allowed to expand further on a project by project basis. Pg 4-14. Open Space Goals, Open Space Element 4. To achieve and maintain a harmonious relationship between the natural environment and man-made structures and land uses. Pg 10. 5. To protect and conserve natural resources including watersheds, water quality, productive agricultural land, native vegetation and wildlife habitat, _. mineral land, archeological and historic sites and areas of ecological significance. Pg 10. 10. To ensure that any new development is sensitive to the natural environment and the community s open space resources. Pg 10... Creek Policies, Open Space Element The Open Space Element of the General Plan encourages the City to work with other agencies to establish creek and drainage conservation zones to: • • To preserve the natural character of creek corridors. Pg 19. • To preserve riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. Pg 20. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map or building site if it makes any of the nine findings listed in Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b). With regard to the proposed project, staff review indicates that there is evidence to support five of the nine findings listed in MCS 14-20.070(b); therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the proposed project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following two findings with regard to the proposed project, pursuant to MCS 14-20.070(b)(1) and (2): • That the proposed map or buildings site is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (MCS 14-20.070(b)(1).) • That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision or building site is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (MCS 14- 20.070(b)(2).) The proposed project is not consistent with CO 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.2 of the General Plan goal and policy statements. C0.2.0 directs the City to conserve natural vegetative and significant topographic features. CO 2.5 requires the City to take particular care to preserve significant trees by cazeful siting all improvements in new developments. CO 3.0 directs the City to preserve the quality of the natural. environment and the character of ~~~~~"~ the City through appropriate regulation of site development. CO 3.1 requires the City to strive to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats when considering proposals for development. As noted above, the proposed project locates structures in a riparian comdor, requires removal of approximately 12 redwoods, does not conserve natural vegetation, does not preserve significant trees, and does not preserve the quality of the natural environment or areas of ecological significance. The project does not protect wildlife and wildlife habitats, because it would remove redwoods and construct multiple large structures. The proposal does not achieve or maintain a harmonious relationship between the natural environment and man-made structures and land uses. The proposed project is not sensitive to the natural environment. It does not preserve the natural character of the creek corridor nor does it preserve the riparian habitat. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following two findings with regard to the proposed project, pursuant to MCS 14-20.070(b)(3) and (4): • That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. (MCS 14-20.070(3).) • That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (MCS 14-20.070(4).) The Saratoga Creek borders the project site. A moderate to high quality riparian corridor is located throughout the subject parcel. Mature healthy trees are located throughout the project site. Preserving these trees is essential to maintaining the riparian corridor. The proposed parcel B is a triangular shaped lot much smaller in-size than the existing triangular shaped lot. The constraints of the Saratoga Creek, mature trees, riparian corridor, and proposed triangular shaped lot B result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed subdivision, including building pads and structures. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following finding with regard to the proposed project, pursuant to MCS 14-20.070(b)(5): • That the design of the subdivision or building site or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (MCS 14-20.070(5).) The project will create a higher level of human encroachment into the riparian corridor. This increase human presence will result in increased disturbance of birds using the riparian corridor for breeding, foraging and shelter. The two proposed second-story residences which are approximately 3,800 and 3,995 square feet in floor area are not suitable for the site because the size of the buildings will have some adverse effect on birds since it may hinder lateral movements to and from the riparian corridor. Removal of trees from the riparian corridor will result in the direct loss of habitat for birds. The removal of a row of 22 redwood trees to accommodate the building pad for proposed lot B would adversely affect the riparian corridor. ~JODU08 • Staff recommends the Planning Commission determine the environmental documents are inadequate and deny the proposed project. ALTERNATIVE: Require an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS: A. Project Data B. Resolution of Denial Subdivision 01-001 C. Letter in Opposition to the Propose Project dated October 24, 2002. D. Santa Clara Valley Water District Comments E. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Comments F. Sanitation District Comments G. Department of Environmental Health Comments H. Fire Department Comments I. Public Works Department Comments J. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration K. Initial Study INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENTS: 1. Mitigation Monitoring Program 2. Mitigation Monitoring Program Agreement 3. Project Location Map 4. Biotic Assessment, H.T. Harvey & Associates, dated April 11, 2002 Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Project Impact Map Figure 3, Riparian Enhancement Plan 5. Cultural Resources Evaluation, dated February, 25, 2002 6. Split Rail Fence Detail 7. Standards of Construction in Area of Special Flood Hazards 8. Air Pollution Control Measures During Construction 9. Creek Protection Easement: MCS 14-25.065 10. Mercalli Intensity Scale 11. Arborist Reports and Maps 12. Tentative Parcel Map including Site Development Plan (building elevations) • UOUOOS • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~00~~.0 • I~~ 1~_J File No: SD-O1-001, ED-OI-OG3; 20440 Arbeleche Lane ATTACHMENT A Proposed Code Requirements Parcel A Site Area: Minimum Lot size net 11,892 sq ft. 12,000 sq ft Lot size gross 18,131 sq ft. Minimum Frontage 70 ft 60 ft Width 100 ft 100 ft Depth 160 ft 115 ft Maximum Floor Area 3,880 sq ft. n/a*** Setbacks: Minimum Front 30 ft _ _ 25 ft Right Side 20 ft 10 ft Left Side 20 ft 10 ft Rear 25 ft * 25 ft Maximum Height 28 ft 6 inches 30 ft Maximum Lot Coverage .28% 40% * measured to Top of Creek bank pursuant to MCS 15-45.045(a). ** A lot bounded by only three lot lines will not have a rear lot line. *** No floor area restrictions in the R-M zone district. OOU~11 File No. SD-O1-001, ED-O1-003; 20440 Arbeleche Lane • Proposed Code Requirements Parcel B Site Area: Minimum Lot size (net) ~ 15,769 sq ft. 12,000 sq ft Lot size (gross) 15,774 sq ft. Minimum Frontage 230 ft 60 ft Width 120 ft 100 ft Depth 150 ft 115 ft Maximum Floor Area: 3,995 sq ft. n/a*** Setbacks: Minimum Front 25 ft* 25 ft Right Side 30 ft 12 ft Left Side 13 ft 12 ft Rear n/a** n/a** Maximum Height 28 ft 30 ft Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 40% • * measured to Top of Creek bank pursuant to MCS 15-45.045(a). ** A lot bounded by only three lot lines will not have a rear lot line. *** No floor area restrictions in the R-M zone district. • 000®12 RESOLUTION No. ATTACHMENT B A RES TI N OF TH OLU O E CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NO. SD-O1-001 20440 Arbeleche Lane, Nasrin Asgari WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one existing parcel into two parcels, set forth in file no. SD-O1-001; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement is not consistent with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specific in such General Plan reference the staff report for further particulars; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2002 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map or building site if it makes any of the nine findings listed in Municipal Code Section 14- 20.070(b). The Planning Commission made the following two findings with regard to the proposed project, pursuant to MCS 14-20.070(b)(1) and (2): • That the proposed map or buildings site is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (MCS 14-20.070(b)(1).) • That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision or building site is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (MCS 14- 20.070(b)(2).) The proposed project is not consistent with CO 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.2 of the General Plan Qoal and policy statements. C0.2.0 directs the City to conserve natural vegetative and significant topographic features. CO 2.5 requires the City to take particular care to preserve significant trees by careful siting all improvements in new developments. CO 3.0 directs the City to preserve the quality of the natural environment and the character of the City through appropriate regulation of site development. CO 3.1 requires the City to strive to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats when considering proposals for development. As noted above, the proposed project locates structures in a riparian comdor, requires removal of approximately 12 redwoods, does not conserve natural vegetation, does not X00013 preserve significant trees, and~does not preserve the quality of the natural environment or areas of ecological significance. The project does not protect wildlife and wildlife habitats, because it would remove redwoods and construct multiple large structures. The proposal does not achieve or maintain a harmonious relationship between the natural environment and man-made structures and land uses. The proposed project is not sensitive to the natural environment. It does not preserve the natural character of the creek comdor nor does it preserve the riparian habitat. The Planning Commission made the following two findings with regard to the proposed project, pursuant to MCS 14-20.070(b)(3) and (4): • That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. (MCS 14-20.070(3).) • That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (MCS 14-20.070(4).) The Saratoga Creek borders the project site. A moderate to high quality riparian corridor is located throughout the subject parcel. Mature healthy trees are located throughout the project site. Preserving these trees is essential to maintaining the riparian corridor. The proposed parcel B is a triangular shaped lot much smaller in size than the existing triangular shaped lot. The constraints of the Saratoga Creek, mature trees, riparian corridor, and proposed triangular shaped lot B result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed subdivision, including building pads and structures. The Planning Commission made the following finding with regard to the proposed project, pursuant to MCS 14-20.070(b)(5): • That the design of the subdivision or building site or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (MCS 14-20.070(5).) The project will create a higher level of human encroachment into the riparian corridor. This increase human presence will result in increased disturbance of birds using the riparian corridor for breeding, foraging and shelter. The two proposed second-story residences which are approximately 3,800 and 3,995 square feet in floor area are not suitable for the site because the size of the buildings will have some adverse effect on birds since it may hinder lateral movements to and from the riparian comdor. Removal of trees from the riparian corridor will result in the direct loss of habitat for birds. The removal of a row of 22 redwood trees to accommodate the building pad for proposed lot B would adversely affect the riparian corridor. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the Tentative Parcel Map, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter including but OOU014 . not limited to evidence that the proposed project could have a significant environmental impact, Subdivision Application No. SD-O1-001 is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirement of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, held on the 13`h day of November 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission SECRETAF.Y OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~J00015 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000016 • ATTACHMENT C MARTIN N. LETTUNTC~ A7rORNEY AND CoUNSIIAR AT LAW 12333 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Suite A Saratoga, California 95070 Telephone (408) 865-1000 Facsimile: (40S) 8650341 October 24, 2002 2 M VIA FACSIlVIII.E - OCT 2 8 2002 Christine Oosterhous, AICP City of Saratoga crrv uE~ sAknTOCn 13777 Fruitvale Ave. •~4,IIUITV f1F~/CI (1P~,c+' Saratoga, CA 95070 J.te: Project #ocation 20440 Arbeleche Lane, Saratoga, CA Dear Ms. Oosterhous: I' d like to thank you for spending time with me on Wednesday the 16u' of Qctober at the site. it was very beneficial to walk the azea and to get a better idea of the site issues. I have reviewed the issues with my clients, the owners ofNeale's klollow with regard to certain concerns that they have regarding the proposed lot split and the construction of two single family residences on the property directly behind their commercial buildingg, which has been operating in the Saratoga area sznce 1965. The concerns of the owners ofNeale's Hollow are for the safety and the quiet enjoyment of their premises for themselves as well as their tenants, and it is from that viewpvimt that these caznme>ats are directed. Everyone is well aware of the individual rights of property owners to develop theirproperty and to make use oftheir property in the most advantageous manner possible for their own profit and enjoyment. The issues, are amplified because there is a proposed division of a lot that is already at a disadvantage because the majority of the existing lot is unbuildable due to the riparian areas and the creek areas within its boundaries. This alone reduces substantially the useable square footage of the lot. Now to split that lot into two building sites further reduces the useable square footage for each of the homes that are being proposed which adds to the impact that it has not only on the property upon which it is being built, but also on the adjacent property owners and the tenants of the adjacent property owners: The purpose of my meeting with you, and the ppurrpose of this letter, is to try and find some type of a compromise in which all of the parties including the owners of the lot, the city as well as the tenants and the owners ofNeale's Hollow can agree to go forward with the project, but atthe same tune zzzitigate the impact, thatthe project will have on the neighbors, the owners of Neale's Hollow and their tenants. The first concern is theplacement of building B which is the one that is directly adj acent to the fence immediately behind Neale's Hollow. As the stakes are presently set in the ground, that building which is proposed to be a two story building of approximately 3 995 square feet far the home plus another 447 square feet for the garage in and offitself creates several issues. The fast issue is that it requires the removal of all of the redwood trees that, at present, block the view of that lot from the existing office building complex. Besides creating a visual impact, this closeness ~0~~1'7 October 24, 2002 Letter to Christine Oosterhous at the City of Saratoga Re: 20440 Arbeleche LanelNeale's Hollow Page 2 could also create a safety problem with regard to fire safety and would also create potential nuisance problems with regard to lighting of the of6'ice building at night for safetyppurposes for its tenants which could potentially annoy the owners and tenants of the new home. In addition, the use of the back entrances to the offices, which would be directly adjacent and across the fence from the new home, could also cause noise and affect the quiet enjoyment of the residence. This can all lead to additional strife between the two neighbors which can only create future problems which should be avoided now by attempting to nutigate these issues. As we discussed in our meeting, the trees should be left as they ane and the homes should be required to be set further away from the property line by a mwi:mum of eight to ten feet so that those trees can continue to grow unimpe ed d and act as a sound and light barrier which would substantially mitigate any potential issue with regard to nuisance by light and noise. An additional issue that may be a problem is that there is a limousine service that operates out ofNeale's Hollow and the limousine drivers walk around to the back of the building and up to the second floor balcony to go into the back door of their offices at night aad sometsmes as late as two or three o'clock in the morning. This happens on a very regular basis. There are motion sensing lights as well as normal lights that are on for their access and safety. These lights shine directly on the area which is currently marked forthe construction of the new house. This also could create a noise and a light problem and once again issues of nuisance and disturbance which should be avoided. Another matter that is of concern is that, if the new home were built too close to the property line, then if there were attire roblem in the office building, it would be virtually impossible for fire fighting equipment or fire fighters to fight the fire from the back of the building because of the Lack of access to the back. This same argument would also apply to fighting fire on the house itself on that side because of its closeness to the propertyliae unless there is a substantial setback from that property line to allow for equipment and or fire fighters to be able to work in that area. Flood control issues. The new~roject is situated in a flood plain adjacent to the creek. Developing the property on land which is far lower and closer to the creek than Neale's Hollow could present a danger to the new construction as well as a potential flooding danger to Neale's Hollow's basemern rear units which are, of course, below ground level. Even though ceztain plans, I am sure, have been instituted to prevent this type of flooding, this is an additional concern and should be carefully reviewed. The flood issue does not stop with the flooding because of the potential flood plain, but also there is a secondary flood issue, and that is the water that runs from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road across the City of Saratoga parking areas that are directly in front of Neale's Hollow and then into the access road that goes to the sub'ect building sites. That water normally runs into the area where the buildings are going to be ~lt and then runs out into the creek. With all of the pawing that will be going on, has any p}an been made for a drainage system that will accommodate the runoff from the road and the parking lots to accommodate that additional water as well as the additional water that will be collected from all of the paving and the roofing from the new stzuctures?This can also create substantial runoffthat could also flood the basements of Neale's Hollow. The Linda Mood Bell School. Of most concern is one of the main tenants at Neale's ~70UJ~8 October 24, 2002 Letter to Christine Oosterhous at the City of Saratoga lte: 20440 Arbeleche Lane/Neale's Hollow Page 3 Hollow, the Linda Mood Bell School which has classes forchildren with dyslexia and other Teaming disabilities. They have spent a gc~eat deal of nwne~ and time restructuring the classrooms and have several of the spaces on the back side of the building downstairs, immediately adj scent to the fences where the houses are going to be coustiucted. It is of the utmost importance for the children that they have a great deal of quiet tune for their instruction and learning. Their classes go from 8: (?0 in the momzng until x:00 in the afternoon. The attention issues that these children have are greatly affected by noise and any type of disruption. The building of two houses, twelve to fifteen feet away from their classrooms is going to be extremely disruptive. A great deal of thought and effort must be directed to mitigating the impact that it will have on the students and the school. The financial impact on the school as well as onNeale's Hollow if the children cannot continue on at that location because of the construction could be an immense hardship on both. Some type of control of the construction site and good management of the workers is critical forthe well being ofthe school and the children. Of concern also is ifthe constnution is taking place during the summermonths, there is also an issue of~ because the parking of construction vehicles can take up the majority ofthe parking for N e's Hollow which then interferes with the teachers able to park, vvtth the other tenants ofNeale's Hollow being able to park and creates anon-endutg stream of complaints by everyone. It seems that the summer months aze the busiest time of the year for the school because a lot of children take summer classes that don't normally~o to the school even though there are round students, there is an in~Elux of students during the summer which creates an even mo e rigorous requirement for quiet. In addition, as I indicated, there were certain easements for utilities and access that I am at the present tune working with a title company to research to see where exactly tlwse easements are. I should have that information within the next two or three days and I wilt get that information to you as soon as I receive it from the title company. Hopefully it will not have any impact on what we have alxeady discussed, but if it does, we will need to deal with those issues when I get the information from the title company. Again, thank you for your cooperation and attention to these matters and we are more than happy to cooperate and work with you in any way we can to facilitate a mutually acceptable solution to these matters. Very truly yours, 1~ ~~ MARTIN N. LETTUNICH MNLCjs cc: Client OOU019 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000020 ATTACHMENT D File: 25027 Saratoga Creek October 7, 2002 Ms. Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: 20440 Arbeleche Lane; Subdivision-Job No. 01-247 Dear Ms. Oosterhous: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff received the revised plans for the subject project on September 16, 2002. The plans show a proposed building on Lot A within the identified riparian corridor. Placement of the proposed building within the riparian corridor does not comply with the City of Saratoga's (City) Creek Protection Ordinance that requires a creek protection easement encompassing the riparian corridor within which no structures are allowed. Upon what basis is a deviation from this ordinance being considered and what other restrictions are proposed to minimize development impacts to the riparian corridor. The proposed subdivision appears to be in conflict with the City's ordinance and with its intent. Should the City approve this two-lot subdivision, revised sheets one and two of the plans should be provided showing and labeling all District easements and fee right of way. Page 31 of the Assessor Parcel Book No. 397 showing District easement in yellow and fee in green was enclosed with one of our previous letters dated November 6, 2001. The District would be interested in accepting an easement of 15 feet in width along the top of the creek bank for creek maintenance if the owner wishes to dedicate it. Please let us know and the District will then proceed with the real estate transaction. The plan sheet 2 labels "Existing Floor Zone Area" and should be revised to state "Existing Flood Zone Area" and the abbreviation of the silt fence and Flood Zone Area must be shown on the legend on the plans. The drain field is a storm water infiltration device (SWID). The District is concerned about long-term maintenance of the SWID, the flow of contaminants, and the amount of flow entering the SWID. The use of dry wells poses a threat to groundwater quality and the District discourages their use. The District recommends that the site runoff be directed into an existing storm drain system. In the absence of an existing storm drain system, on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City, the District allows the use of dry wells in low-risk residential land use areas. The proposed dry wells should meet the setting and construction requirements in the District's SWID Supplement to the Well Standards. The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy, safe and enhanced quality of living in Santa Clara Count' ~Ot~~21 through the comprehensive management of water resources in o practical, costOffective and environmentally sensitive manner. ~~ Ms. Christy Oosterhous Page 2 October 7, 2002 The revised plans must indicate the amount of discharge that will be entering the drain field. Based on the amount of discharge, the drain field may need to be readjusted. If the proposed SWID is necessary, it must be registered. Enclosed is a Dry Well Notification Form. Please fill out the form and return the white copy to the property owner and the yellow and card copy to the District for our records. The arborist report identifies several native tree species located within the project development area and within the riparian corridor. Trees located at the top of bank perform both a structural function in terms of bank stability and erosion protection, and an ecological one, supporting the overall health and diversity of riparian vegetation and the habitat it provides. Existing native trees within the riparian corridor should be protected from both above ground and root damage. Paragraph 2 on Sheet No. 2 of Seeding Specifications must specify that the "pounds per acre" listed is equal to the "pounds of pure live seed per acre." Any seed used shall conform to the minimum requirements of (1) 90:percent purity and (2) 85 percent germination. rate. Specify limits of seeding and limits of proposed straw application on the revised plans. It is strongly recommended to cover the seed with straw mulching (approximately 2 bales per 1,500 square feet). This ensures erosion protection prior to the grass reaching functional growth. It also protects the seed and aids in weed suppression. The District recommends treat Trifolium Willenovii be removed from the proposed seed mix. Specify all grass seed to be propagated from Bay Area Ecotypes. One vendor is Pacific Coast Seed which maintains supplies of locally collected native grass species and can be contacted at (925) 373-4417. Please provide two sets of revised plans, details, and complete construction plans for our review and approval prior to the issuance of a District permit if this subdivision is approved. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (408) 265-2607, extension 2731. Please reference District File No. 25027 on any future correspondence regarding this project. Sincerely, ~~g ~ C~a-~v~ . Usha Chatwani, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Community Projects Review Unit Enclosure: Dry Well Notification cc: Mr. Scott Vigil, TS Civil Engineering Ghoulamreza Javanmard, Ezat Loukzadeh Nashrin Asgari S. Tippets, U. Chatwani, Jennie Micko, R. Bramer, uc\cm:fd 1007c-pl.doc C. Presley, C. Mohanna, File (2) • • OOU022 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Winston H. Hickox Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov Gray Davis Secretary for 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, Califomia 94612 Governor Environmental Phone (510) 622-2300 • FAX (510) 622-2460 Protection ATTACHMENT E Date: September 30, 2002 File No. 2188.05 (BKW) Christine Oosterhous, AICP Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: City of Saratoga, Notice of Intent to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration; 20440 Arbeleche Lane, Saratoga Ca 95070, Application No. SD-O1-001 (Subdivision) & ED- O 1-003 (Environmental Determination) Dear Ms. Oosterhous: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed subdivision of the parcel at 20440 Arbeleche Lane in the City of Saratoga, the demolition of an existing residence, and the construction of two new residences, which was received by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) on September 16, 2002. Regional Board staff have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and have the following comments on document. Comment 1 Page 1 of the Initial Study. Under Item 10, other agencies whose approval is required, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is currently listed. This item should also note that approval will be required from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Regional Board for any work that is performed below the ordinary high water mark (OHW) of Saratoga Creek. Approval will also be required from the Regional Board for any work performed anywhere on the banks of Saratoga Creek. In addition, approval will be required from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for any work performed in the riparian corridor. Comment 2 Page 6, Section 3c. Text in this section refers to the creation of vegetative filter swales and energy dissipaters to manage runoff from the site, and also refers to the need to obtain a permit from the SCVWD. Text should also note that, if the swales or energy dissipaters extend below the OHW of Saratoga Creek, the project will require a Section 404 Permit from the ACOE and Section 401 certification from the Regional Board. If the work will not extend below OHW, the project will require a waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Board. Any work performed in the riparian , corridor will also require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. Comment 3 Page 7, Section 7a. Text in this section states that water quality impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels through the use of vegetative swales and an energy dissipater. In order to demonstrate that impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level, please describe how the appropriate dimension of the Swale and dissipater will be determined. Also, as noted in Comment 2, construction of the energy dissipater and swales may require permits from the Regional Board, CDFG, and ACOE. The energy challenge facing Califomia is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov. 000023 Ms. Oosterhous, City of Saratoga - 2 - 20440 Arbeleche Lane Comment 4 Attachment 4, Arbeleche Lane, Riparian Enhancement Plan, Page 3. The text states that the encroachment into the riparian corridor will increase from 0.016 acres to 0.04 acres, and that the project will encroach into the 75-foot riparian setback by 0.10 acres. The project should attempt to maintain the pre-project surface areas of intrusion into the riparian corridor and riparian setback. In addition, the CDFG should be consulted to determine the necessary amount of mitigation for the loss of riparian vegetation. - Comment 5 Attachment 4, Abeleche Lane, Riparian Enhancement Plan, Page 9. Text on this page recommends monitoring riparian plantings for 3 years following installation. The monitoring period should extend for a minimum of five years to ensure that the plantings are successfully established. The monitoring and maintenance plan for the riparian plantings should include performance goals, with provisions for replacing dead vegetation and extending the monitoring period to ensure the survival of replacement plantings. Comment 6 Attachment 11, Arborist Report. Attachment 11 currently states that the arborist report will be available for review on October 7, 2002. Since this date is 3 days after the close of the comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, it will not be possible to make any comments on the Mitigation Negative Declaration in response to the arborists report. The comment period should not have started until the complete set of attachments was available. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If you have any questions regarding this letter, contact me at (510) 622-5680, or by email at bkw(a~rb2.swrcb.ca.gov. Sincerely, ~~~L Brian Wines Water Resources Control Engineer USACE, San Francisco District, 333 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Robert Floerke, Regional Manager, P.O. Box 47, Yountville CA 94599 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Attn: Sue Tippets, Community Projects Review Unit 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 • n)OOc724 The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov. ATTACHMENT F WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY SEFNING RESIDENTS OF CITY OF CAMPBELL TOWN OF LOS GATOS CnY OF MONTE SERENO CITY OF SARATOGA UNINCORPORATED AREA October 10, 2002 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue ~~ratoga, CA 95070 RE: Subdivision Application, SD-O1-001 20440 Arbeleche Lane Dear Ms. Oosterhous: The district has reviewed the tentative map for the proposed residential subdivision project. Sanitary sewer is available from the existing sanitary sewer line in Arbeleche Lane. The district's comments are the following: 1. The developer will construct a privately maintained sewer system for the two future homes. 2. For development approval, the developer is required to obtain a sewer connection permit for each lot. Cost of the permit is estimated at $2,500 per lot. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (408) 378-2407. ery trul ~ yours, ~ athan K. Lee r for Civil Engineer cc: Terrence J. Szewczyk, TS Civil Engineering U OCT 15 2002 CITY OF SARAT~~ AA~,_ .,~~~iNiTV nF 100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue, Campbell, California 95008-6608 Tel: (408) 378-2407 Fax: (408) ~ 25 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • OODU26 • OCT-10-2001 14 48 DEH CONSUMER PROTECTION 408 298 6; -- +,~ ~ OF ~~}~plyMEriTAI HEALTI"~ .AND USA SU_~ ATTACHMENT G ReEerc®d Frorrr:_ sa/a'~,~a Rec'd' - 9-or Oue: Fle #: SIB o/-D~p / LocaHon:_ 24'f O ~~ ,~-"fie. ~a.^~ Proposal: S ~v~~e~/ applicant: q, lr i Phone #; Owner: ~' Phone #: Existing Yom. ~ a I~Welis: # active It inactive Use ^ ~ Septic Tanks (describe, permits) ~ `~ Structures (describe) ~ Referr8ls Needed (describe under rr~isoellaneous -indicate if referred and to whom) Hazardous Materials- OYes ~ No Vector Control: [aYe, t~No Solid Waste: Oyes 12~tvo Sewage Olsposal p Not Applicable ~~/ 5eweced: `Yes ONo (If no, distance to sewer (miles): District Name ~`'d'r' V Sad Profile Required: OYes I,~1v Date Completed: Depth {fast) l'erC Test: Required: DYes ~No Oate Completed: Size Septic Tank Req'd (gal.): Lsachfield Requirement (lineal tt.): plus (^plus 100°~6 expansion in t_exington Drainage) prairtf~eld Slope: Op-1p°,6 ^i0-20%. ^20,30% p34~0°k 050% [ Ceotech. Repoli: CI Req'd. OApproved] s Naar Dtainfietd: ^Creelcs QDrainage Channels OCtrUSteep Banks C]Wel~s ONone Water Supply ^ Not Applicable G~~ ~~~ PubCclMutuat Water System (name), Shared (r!t connections) Private Supply: OWee OSpru~g OOther (describe below) Distance to Public Supply (mites) ~lliscellaneou&~ ~p Acid'1 Info. on Back RP•-ommendatio~ (Check only one1: rpAdd'i. Info on Back 't~ Compiste/Approved with following conditions ^ Incomplete (provide following) ^ Disapprove for following rear ~"~'Y Spedallst- ~ Qate: ~ D 3 0 Supervisor- /~'/`"'~-- pate- TO~LOP" ~2~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • iD0()~28 . 09/19/2001 16:01 4088672780 SARATOGA FIRE r /,-"~, BUILDING SITE APPROVAL CHECK LIST FILE # DR SD-O1-001 DATE 09/19/2001 APPLICANT ASGARI PAGE 04 ATTACHMENT H # OF LOTS ONE LOCATION 20440 Arbeleehe L~ 0 1 Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. N/ 2 Early Warning FirE Alarm 5ystEnn is not required. N/ 3 Property is located in a designated hazardous fue area. 0 4 Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. S Roof covering shall be fire .retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Rc-roofing Less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) N/ 6 Early Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article I6-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16-GO-E.) NIA 7 Earl Warnin it y g F e Alarm System, shall have documentatxort relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 8 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the si~.e of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090 [I]) N/ 9 All fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14-30:040 [C]) N/ 10 Automatic sprinklers are required for the new sq. f~. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approvat. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. Page 2 -Building Sitc Approval Check List FILE # DR SD-01-001 . 000029 09/19/2001 16:01 4088672780 SARATOGA FIRE PAGE 05 N/ 11 Fire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrants that meet the fire district`s specifications. Hydrant{s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. . N/ 12 Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required A Slopes from 0% to 11 % shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. a B Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5`' of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. C Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. E Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' Long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building planss_ ® 13 Turn-grounds: construct a ttun-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans anal approved by the fire district. 14 Parking: Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fue district. Details shall be shawn on building plans. N/A 15 Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate shall be controlled by a remote digital transmitter. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/ 16 Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. ~""' ~ ~/' APPROVED: O' A~ ~ ~ , _ _ ,._ f-f" . _ _ _ .~ Chief Ernst Krause • ~JOUO~O ATTACHMENTI TO: Christy Oosterhouse, Associate Planner CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works Conditions for Asgari, 20440 Arbeleche Lane, SD-O1-001 DATE: October 23, 2002 1. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with -the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Public Works Department for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Department. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. ~OQ331 5. The owner a licant shall rovide Irrevoca 1 ( pp ) p b e Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of--way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 6. The owner (applicant) shall obtain permit from-Santa Clara Valley Water District prior to constructing or placing any structure or performing any grading within 50 feet of top of the creek banks. , 7. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Department with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 8. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivi- sion improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 9. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Pazk and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 10. Geotechnical Cleazance for each individual lot shall be required. The Project . Geotechnical Engineer shall provide supplemental geotechnical evaluations and design criteria to assure long-term stability of planned improvements. The supplemental work shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following tasks: Boring logs. (i.e., B-1) indicate that at least an upper layer of cohesionless alluvial materials is medium dense, and thus potentially susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spreading. Consequently, the consultant shall calculate the maximum total and differential settlement anticipated due to liquefaction, as well as potential lateral spreading displacement. Findings shall be incorporated into the recommendations for pier foundations, and modified as necessary to ensure long-term stability of the proposed structures. Despite the lack of ground water observed during site exploration, the proximity to Sazatoga Creek and underlying alluvial materials indicate that the site could , experience shallow ground water during wetter times in the future. Consequently, the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate the potential impacts of shallow ground water on ariy proposed basement and foundation excavations, and provide recommendations for control of water in excavations during construction. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall consider modifying recommended minimum pier diameters to assure that adequate steel reinforcement is properly placed in the pier holes. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation shall be summarized in a letter, and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and ~00~3;~ City Geotechnical Consultant-prior to Geotechnical Clearance for individual lots. 11. According to the referenced geotechnical report, the site construction should involve removal of the existing fill. The referenced report does not indicate the extent of proposed earthwork activities, and a grading plan has not been provided for our review. Consequently, we recommend that a Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan be prepared to depict the outline of proposed structures and final contours of all proposed cuts and fills. The Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Geotechnical Clearance for individual lots. 12. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The geologic and geotechnical consultants shall ensure that the grading plan accurately identifies and appropriately mitigates all previously placed fill. The results of the plan review(s) shall be summarized in letters by the geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of each individual Grading Permit. 13. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to finalization of each Grading Permit. l 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Final Map approval. 15. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 16. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. • ~JO(~~33 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • ~OU334 • a~~ ~~ 0 Qom ATTACHMENT J a ,,., C~~~~ o~ C.°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oOC~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 • Incorporated October 22, 1956 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT LOCATION: 20440 Arbeleche Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehafley Nick Strei; Ann Wa/tonsmith DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes the subdivision of one parcel into two building sites; demolition of an existing residence; and construction of two single-family dwellings. The project site is adjacent to Saratoga Creek. The proposed project includes installation of a drainage system including an energy dissipater and vegetative swales. REVIEW PERIOD DURING WHICH THE CITY WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS: September 25, 2002- October 15, 2002 (408) 868-1286. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT: Please direct all written correspondence to Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 DATE/TIME/PLACE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS:. Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2002 at 7pm in the Saratoga Civic Theater at City Hall located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. COPIES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW: The Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring program are available for public review at City Hall, Planning Department located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. ~OU~35 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • UOU036 ATTACHMENT K INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Project Title: Application No. SD-O1-001 (Subdivision) & ED-O1-003 (Environmental Determination) 2. Project Location: 20440 Abeleche Lane, Saratoga, California 3. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga, Planning Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 4. Contact Person & Phone Number: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner (408) 868-1286 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Nasrin Asgari 1570 Walters Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 6. General Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential (RMF) 7. Zoning: Multi-Family Residential (R-M 4,000) 8. Description of Project: The proposed project includes the subdivision of one parcel into two building sites; demolition of an existing residence; and construction of two single-family dwellings. The project site is adjacent to Saratoga Creek. The proposed project includes installation of a drainage system including an energy dissipater and vegetative swales. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is within and adjacent to the Saratoga Creek. Surrounding land uses include commercial, office, and multi-family residential. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara Valley Water District Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist below: ^ Aesthetics o Agricultural Resources ^ Air Quality Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA ~J0003'7 o Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology/Soils ^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Land Use/Planning ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population/Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities/Service Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. / I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE- DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but a least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been address by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~ CO~~ L- S ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 2 Christine Oosterhous, AICP Date Associate Planner City of Saratoga • 2 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane Ciry oJSaratoga, C~ ~JOU038 • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: A) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X No Impact. Discussion: The site is located near downtown Saratoga in the City's valley floor near the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road along Saratoga Creek. The site is not located within an identified potential scenic corridor. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan, Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Update Final Report, pg 24) B) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a scenic highway? ~ X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: All grading, sewer, gas and drain lines, drainage swales, building pads and the driveway turnaround shall be located as recommended by the City Arborist and the SCVWD. The proposed project includes the removal of two trees #13 (Bay Laurel) & #22 (Maple). Tree # 13 is hazardous and its condition is poor. Its removal is recommended by the City Arborist. Tree #22 is a 14-inch diameter maple. Mitigation: Replacement trees equal to the values of trees #13 and #22, a monetary bond on file with Planning to assure protection of retained trees and temporary tree protective fencing are required. (Source: City Arborist Reports) C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The site of the proposed two-lot subdivision is located along a riparian corridor. Mitigation: Annual progress reports documenting the implementation of the riparian corridor enhancement plan over a five year period are required. The proposed riparian corridor enhancement plan includes, but is not limited to, eradication of select non-native species and subsequent establishment of native riparian vegetation. Refer to section 3. (Source: Riparian Enhancement Plan, H.T. Harvey and Associates, Ecological Consultants) D) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or night time views in the area? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Improvements on the site are proposed to increase from one single family dwelling to a total of two residences. Lighting to be installed for the proposed dwellings 3 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA UODU39 shall be designed to minimize the intensity of light reaching the adjacent riparian comdor and setback area. Mitigation: At the time of submittal for design review for the proposed residences, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan which shall be approved by a qualified biologist so that the intensity of light reaching the adjacent riparian corridor is minimized. (Source: Riparian Enhancement Plan, H.T. Harvey and Associates, Ecological Consultants) Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project does not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Refer to section 2b. (Source: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency) B) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. X Discussion: The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not under a Williamson Act contract (Source: City of Saratoga Zoning District Map an General Plan Map) C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature, could result in conversation of Farmland, to non-argricultural use? X No impact. Discussion: Refer to section 2a & b. (Source: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, City of Saratoga Zoning District Map and General Plan Map) 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: A) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans? X No impact. Discussion: The generation of emissions which could substantially diminish ambient air quality is not typically associated with the construction of two single-family dwellings. (Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District) 4 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, C.4~o(,~40 • _ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated B) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? - X No impact. Discussion: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District does not recommend a detailed air quality analysis for projects that generate less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day. Refer to section 3a. (Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD) C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X No impact. Refer to 3 a & b. (Source: BAAQMD) D) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X No impact. Discussion: A sensitive receptor is generally defined as a location such as a school, retirement facility or hospital where populations could be exposed to continuous emissions. Refer to 3 a & b. (Source: BAAQMD, review of the proposed project) E) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Less than significant with mitigation. Discussion: During the construction phase of the project, unpleasant odors from construction materials may be present on the site overt the short term; however, the long term creation of objectionable odors is not associated with the proposed project. Mitigation: Short term construction emissions will be controlled through the implementation of Feasible Control Measure for Construction Emssion, Table 2, including Basic Enhanced and Optional Control Measures of the BAAQMD Guidelines. (Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) 4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X No Impact. $ Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA OODU41 Discussion: The propose project is not located in an area where endangered species are known to exist. (Source: Saratoga General Plan, Conservation Element) Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated B) Have a substantial adverse. effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X Less than significant with, mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project is located along a riparian corridor of Saratoga Creek. Mitigation: All future landscaping on the site shall consist of native trees, shrubs and ground cover that occur naturally in the riparian habitat near the site. At the time an application for design review is submitted, a landscape plan approved by a qualified biologist shall also be submitted which indicates the proposed landscaping for the residences is consistent with the riparian corridor enhancement plan. Select non-native species shall be eradicated and native riparian vegetation shall be planted. Creek enhancements shall be performed in accordance with the restoration plan. (Source: Riparian Enhancement Plan, H.T. Harvey and Associates, Ecological Consultants) C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project includes installation of a drainage system. Mitigation: There shall be no over bank drainage from the. subject site into Saratoga Creek to avoid potential bank erosion. Runoff from the site shall be directed through vegetative filter swale and then to the energy dissipater to disperse flow into a vegetative area. Any proposed swales, pipes, and area drains shall be approved by the SCVWD to minimize possible erosion to the creek bank. A permit shall be obtained by Santa Clara Valley Water District. (Source: Santa Clara Valley. Water District) D) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The increased human presence will result in an increase in the disturbance of birds using the riparian corridor for breeding, foraging, and shelter. Disturbance to mammals and fish within the riparian corridor are expected to be minimal. The increased size of buildings will also have some adverse effect on birds since it may hinder lateral movements to and from the riparian corridor. 6 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA ~iDOUO42 Mitigation: A soils investigation shall be performed. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key for Map 1) Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Ground shaking intensity in the Valley Floor Zone (V) ranges from six to eight on the Mercalli Scale. Range six on the Mercalli Scale is defined as being felt by all, some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster and damaged chimneys. Damage slight. Range eight on the Mercalli Scale is defined as damage slight in specially designed structures; fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments; heavy furniture overturn. Refer to section 5 A (i). Mitigation: A soils investigation shall be performed. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key for Map l; Mercalli Scale) (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Ground failure probability is low -medium in the Valley Floor Zone (V). Refer to section 5 A (i). Mitigation: A soils investigation shall be performed. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards; Key for Map 1) (iv) Landslides? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Landslide probability is low in the Valley Floor Zone (V). Refer to section 5 a (i). Mitigation: A soils investigation shall be performed. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards; Key for Map 1) B) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project will require a grading and drainage permit issued by the Public Works Department. Review of the proposed project by engineering staff will mitigate soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Construction activity may result in short term erosion and lack of sediment control. Mitigation: All conditions of the grading and drainage permit shall be implemented. Short term soil erosion and sediment control resulting from construction activity will be controlled through the implementation of Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emission, Table 2 including Basic, Enhanced and Optional Control Measure of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. (Source: Public Works, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) • 9 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA ~OV~~S Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Refer to Safi-iv}. Mitigation: A soils investigation shall be performed. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key to Map 1) D) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project is not located on expansive soil. The proposed project is located on soil type "Sun". "Sun" is identified as an area subject to settlement and soil creep. Mitigation: A soils investigation shall be performed. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards) • 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: A) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project does not include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. (Source: Review of the proposed project) B) Create a significant hazard to the public or the' environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X No impact. Refer to section 6 a. (Source: Review of the proposed project) C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X No impact. Refer to section 6 a. (Source: Review of the proposed project) D) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X No impact. 1 ~ Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA UUUU~6 Discussion: The proposed project is not included on a list of hazardous materials. (Source: Government Code Section 65962.5) _ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated E) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with permitted uses in the R-M-4,000 zone district and can be assisted by existing levels of service with respect to City-wide emergency response and evacuation plans. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan, Safety Element) F) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project is located in a developed portion of the City's valley floor. There are no wild lands located within or adjacent to the project site. (Source: Review of the proposed project) $, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: A) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: There shall be no over bank drainage from the subject site into Saratoga Creek. The site drains away from the street and runoff is directed to a proposed energy dissipater and vegetative Swale. Refer to section 3 c. (Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District) B) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X No impact. Discussion: Water usage at the site services an existing single-family residence. The proposed project increases water usage at the site to accommodate two single-family residences. The proposed project can be accommodated within existing levels of service. (Source: San Jose Water Company) • 1 1 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane Ciry of Saratoga, CA ~= ~~~~~ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 3 c. (Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District) D) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of-the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. _ Refer to section 3 c. (Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District) • E) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 3 c & 7 a. (Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District) F) Otherwise substantially degrade water? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 7 a. (Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District) G) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The northwest portions of the site are located within Zone X (areas of 500- year flood). The most southeast portion of the site within Saratoga Creek is located within Zone AE (a special flood hazard area inundated by 100 year flooding). Mitigation: Any portions of the building pads located in the areas of special flood hazard shall meet the standards of construction prescribed in the municipal code for anchoring, materials and methods and elevation and flood proofing. (Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Pane1060351 0004 C, Municipal Code 16-66, Santa Clara Valley Water District) H) Place within a 100-yeaz floor hazazd area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 7 g. (Source: FEMA) 12 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City oJSaratoga, CA ~J000~8 • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 7 g. (Source: FEMA, Saratoga Municipal Code Chapter 16) J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 7 g. (Source: FEMA) 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: A) Physically divide an established community? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project site is located in the R-M 4,000 multi-family residential zone district which is an urbanized setting which permits high density development (14.5 dwelling units per acre). The proposed project is consistent with permitted uses and zoning regulations for the site. (Source: Municipal Code, General Plan) B) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 3 e. (Source: Municipal Code, General Plan) C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community • conservation plan? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The project site is within an area that is subject to and complies with MCS 14-25.065(d). Refer to section 3 e. (Source: Ordinance 71-184, Municipal Code, City of Saratoga General Plan, Conservation Element, Riparian Enhancement Plan, H.T. Harvey and Associates, Ecological Consultants) 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 13 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City ojSaratoga, CA UOU+~49 Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated A) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X No impact. Discussion: Mineral resources within Saratoga and surrounding areas include sandstone and shale. There are no mines or quarries known to be operating in Saratoga or its sphere of influence. (Source: General Plan: Conservation Element) B) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X No impact. Refer to section 8 a. (Source: General Plan: Conservation Element) 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: A) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No impact. • Discussion: The proposed project will not generate additional noise beyond that typically associated with single-family residences. (Source: Review of the proposed project and experience with similar applications) B) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (i.e. noise created inside a building, vibration transmitted through the ground, freight train line within 50-100 feet, adjacent to Army base)? X No impact. Discussion: There are no sources of ground born vibration at the proposed site. (Source: Review of the proposed project) C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X No impact. Refer to section 9 a. (Source: Review of the proposed project and experience with similar applications) D) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X No impact. Refer to section 9 a. (Source: Review of the proposed project and experience with similar applications) 14 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City oJSaratoga, CA `JOUc7•i0 • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: A) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with minimum building site azea requirements, allowable densities, and uses for the R-M 4,000 zone district, and will not induce substantial population growth. (Source: Review of the proposed project) B) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X No impact. Refer to section 10 a. (Source: Review of the proposed project) C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X No impact. Refer to section 10 a. (Source: Review of the proposed project) D) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X No impact. Discussion: Refer to section 10 a. (Source: Review of the proposed project) 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection X Police Protection X Schools }~ Parks X Other public facilities X 15 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City ojSaratoga, CA ~~~~Sl Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact. Discussion: The proposed facility can be accommodated within existing levels of service for fire and police protection, schools, and parks. Refer to section 10 a. (Source: Saratoga Fire District, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, Saratoga City Districts, Saratoga Recreation Department) 14. RECREATION. A) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X No impact. Refer to section 11.~ (Source: Review of the proposed project) B) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X No impact. Refer to section 11. (Source: Review of the proposed project) 1~. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: A) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? No impact. Discussion: The proposed project will not result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections. The proposed project is the subdivision of one lot into two parcels. The proposed project will result in the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of two single-family residences. (Source: Review of the proposed project) B) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X No impact. _ Refer to section 10 a. (Source: Review of the proposed project) X C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Not applicable to this project. -X • • 16 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA UOU05~ • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated D) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X No impact. Refer to section 10 a. (Source: Review of the proposed project) E) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ X No impact. Refer to section 11 a. F) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X No impact. Discussion: City regulations require two covered parking spaces within a garage for each single-family dwelling. Parking regulations for the proposed residences will be examined at the time an application for design review approval is submitted. (Source: Saratoga Municipal Code Sections 15-35, 15-45) G) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X No impact. Discussion: Not applicable to the proposed project. j (, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: A) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? No impact. _ X Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within existing levels of service. (Source: San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board) B) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. (Source: West Valley Sanitation District) C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant • environmental effects? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 1 ~ Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA OODU53 Discussion: The proposed project includes installation of a drainage system. Refer to 4 c. (Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District) Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated D) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X No impact. _ Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. (Source: San Jose Water) E) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. (Source: West Valley Sanitation District) F) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the • project's solid waste disposal needs? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. (Source: West Valley Sanitation District) G) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. (Source: West Valley Sanitation District) j ~, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife - population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: No adverse impacts to wildlife or their habitat shall occur as a result of the proposed project. Refer to section 4 of this initial study for a discussion of biological • concerns. Since the project site is located along a creek the potential remains that cultural 18 Initial study 10440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA ~Q~~~`~' resource cold be unearthed during proposed site preparation and construction activities. With incorporation of prescribed mitigation outlined in section V of this initial study, no significant disruption of important examples of California history or prehistory shall occur. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Conservation Element; H.T. Harvey & Associates, Ecological Consultants, Northwest Information Center) Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated B) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Subject to compliance with the prescribed mitigation measures contained herein to aid in the protection of potentially significant resources and to reduce potentially significant impacts, the effects of the proposed project are not cumulatively considerable. (Source: Initial Study, including mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Refer to 17 b. (Source: Initial Study, including mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program) ATTACHMENTS: Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Agreement Project Location Map 4. Riparian Enhancement Plan, H.T. Harvey & Associates dated April 11, 2002 5. Cultural Resources Evaluation for 20440 Arbeleche Lane dated February 25, 2002 6. Wildlife Split Rail Fence detail 7. Standards of Construction in all areas of special flood hazards: Saratoga Municipal Code Section 16-66.090(a-c) 8. Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions: Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines 9. Creek Protection Easement: Saratoga Municipal Code Section 14-25.065 (a-d) 10. Mercalli Intensity Scale . 11. Arborist Report and Map 19 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA ~JOUc~55 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • ~J00056 ~) ~~J Mitig~l Measure for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for ~ 0 Arbeleche Lane 2) Landscape plan for residences approved by a qualified Landscape Prior to submittal for Comm. Dev. Biologist Architect design review Dept. 3) Exterior lighting plan for residences approved by a qualified Applicant or Prior to submittal for Comm. Dev. Biologist Applicant's Rep design review Dept. 4) Building heights shall be constructed below the canopies of Architect Prior to submittal for Comm. Dev. existing trees on site and surrounding areas. design review Dept. 5) Creek protection easement recorded Applicant or Prior to Final Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep Occupancy Inspection Dept. 6) Soils report on file with the Building Department Applicant or Prior to Bldg permit Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep issuance Dept. 7) Tree protective fencing installed Applicant or Installed prior to Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep demolision Dept. 8) Tree bond of file in the amount of $33,6Q9 Applicant or Prior to Bldg permit Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep issuance Dept. 9) Tree replacements planted- _ ~ Applicant or Prior to final arborist Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep inspection Dept. 10) Arborist conditions (see arborist report) Applicant or as required Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep Dept. 11) Control measures for construction emissions. Applicant or During construction Comm. Dev. i) cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials Applicant's Rep Dept. or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ii) sweep streets daily with water sweepers if visible soil materials is carried onto adjacent public streets. iii) install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. iv) Install wheel washers for all`~ezisting trucks. 12) If archaeological resources or human Applicant or During on-stie Comm. Dev. remains are discovered`dci~ng construction, work Applicant's Rep excavation of Dept. shall be halted within a 50 meter radius of the grading find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional 0 H 1, w x U H d Mitigation Measure for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 20440 Arbeleche Lane MITIGATION: TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY: IMPLEMENTION DATE: MONITORED BY: COMPLETION VERIFIED BY WHOM: DATE: 1) Riparian corridor enhancement plan: a) Removal of existing debris including concrete slabs from Applicant or Immediately Comm. Dev. the riparian corridor Applicant's Rep Dept. b) Eradication of select non-native species: Qualified Biologist Immediately Comm. Dev. i) Giant Reed Dept. ii) French broom iii) Himalayan Blackberry c) Establishment of native riparian vegetation: Qualified Biologist After construction Comm. Dev. i) Red Willow cuttings Dec-Jan Dept. ii) Under-story planting Oct-Dec e) Dead plants will be replaced Qualified Biologist As needed Comm. Dev. Dept. f) All container plantings will be irrigated Qualified Biologist Subsequent to plantings g) Weeds within the site shall be controlled around each plant Qualified Biologist Immediately and throughout the site. h) all future landscaping at the site shall consist of native trees, Qualified Biologist On-going Comm. Dev. shrubs, and groundcover that occur naturally in the riparian & Landscape Dept. habitat near the site. Architect I) Written progress reports documenting the implementation Qualified Biologist Annually Comm. Dev. of the riparian corridor enhancement plan over afive-year period. Dept. j) Split-rail fence (approximately 4 ft. in height) constructed and Applicant or Prior to Comm. Dev. approved by qualified Biologist Applicant's Rep construction Dept. k) Removal of existing wire mesh fence. Applicant or Immediately Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep Dept. • • • O O THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~JOU~60 Mitigation Measure for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 20440 Arbeleche Lane archaeologist. 13) Grading and drainage permit for proposed residences Applicant or Prior to Bldg permit Comm. Dev. `°; Applicant's Rep issuance Dept. 14) Standards of construction for special flood hazards Applicant or During design and Comm. Dev. i) Anchoring Applicant's Rep construction Dept. ii) Materials arid methods iii) Elevation and floodproofing 15) Santa Clara Valley Water District Permit Applicant or Prior to Bldg permit Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep issuance Dept. 16) Army Corps of Engineers Permit Applicant or Prior to Bldg permit Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep issuance Dept. 17) The building height of the proposed residences shall be Applicant's Prior to submittal for reduced to no higher than 22 feet. Rep design review for the residences. 18) The floor area of the proposed residences shall be reduced Applicant's Prior to submittal for Comm. Dev. to approximately approximately 3,000 sq ft (parcel A) and Rep design review for the Dept. 3,200 sq ft (parcel,B). residences. 19) The project biologist shall review and approve the mass Project Prior to submittal for Comm. Dev. and height of the proposed residences for interference Biologist design review for the Dept. with wildlfe. residences. .~ 11~ a 0 • • • 1 O~ fit, ~ ATTACHMENT 2 ~c~' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AGREEMENT COLJNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith The undersigned are the property owners of record for property located at 20440 Arbeleche Lane, Saratoga, California. The undersigned acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Report that has been prepared by the City of Saratoga Community Development Department for the proposed project. The undersigned have read and understand the referenced documents and agree to: (1) incorporate the proposed mitigation measures into the project and (2) comply with the mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Failure to do so may result in the following: a monetary fine, a lien on the property prohibiting transfer of sale, and/or a criminal citation. u Property Owner Property Owner C7 Date Date OODU61 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~JOU06;~ ~ ~ 7+ W a a I /~ i Project Location Map 20440 Arbeleche Lane Proposed Subdivision ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~ i ATTACHMENT 3 ; r~ o~ ~~~ 20440 Arbeleche Lane I I ~ $g( \^\' / I~ ~.~ \ ~~ \~ `\ ~ ~ ~ , . ~~~ / i i~~%y i r, ~ a. ,~ '~ '~,, ~~ ~ ~,~ .i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~, ~:~ ,~. ,, \'~ ~y ~~ \ \ ay~ i ,~.:. ~y~ ~~ i ~~-~ ,~ti~ ;'` Asa I ~~ ~~'~~~~~i ~~ ~ i~~ / yiy . '`; /FGA 5A ~~ r ~/ \~ I L ~: ~ ~~~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • OOU064 . ~ II•T. II~~`~IE~ ~ A~S~~IA~'E~ _ Y EC®~®GICAL C®t~ISULTA[V~'S ATTACHMENT4 • April 11, 2002 Mr. William Paul TS Civil Engineering, Inc. 90 North First Street, Suite 101 San Jose, California 95113 Subject: Arbeleche Lane, Riparian Enhancement Plan (HTH Project # 1460-03). Mr. Paul: As per your request, we have reviewed the revised site plans transmitted electronically to us on Mazch 25, 2002 (TS Civil Engineering, Inc.) for the Lands of Asgari project on Arbeleche Lane, Saratoga, California. The approximately 1-acre site is located 1 mile north of downtown Saratoga, California (Figure 1). The assessment is based upon a riparian survey performed by H.T. Harvey & Associates in July 1998 and outlined in a letter report to TS Civil Engineering, Inc. dated July 17, 1998. EXISTING BIOTIC CONDITIONS Riparian habitat quality was moderate to high at the site, and a 75-foot riparian setback for future development on-site was recommended (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1998). Riparian trees and shrubs typically provide food, shelter, and an appropriate microclimate for wildlife that inhabit riparian ecosystems. The ripazian corridor of Saratoga Creek fronts the property site along the southern border of the property. The majority of the vegetation within the riparian corridor is mature and is comprised of both native and non- native.species. Woody plant species within the riparian corridor include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), big leaf maple (Ater macrophylla), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California black walnut (Juglans californica vaz. hindsii), arroyo willow (Saliz lasiolepis), red willow (Salix laevigata) alder (Ulnus rhombifolia), pine (Pinus sp.) and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Other plant species located within the riparian corridor are poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), giant reed (Arundo donaz), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) and Himalyan blackberry (Rubus discolor). The vegetation structure is dense multi-layered trees, shrubs and ground cover. IMPACT ASSESSMENT This impact assessment is based on the latest version of plans for the site and supercedes the impact assessment performed in July 2001 and outlined in a letter to Ms. Fatemeh Asgari dated July 13, 2001. It is our opinion that the revised plans are an improvement over the previous site layout (see H.T. Harvey & Associates 2001). Improvements to the plan include a modification to the proposed building on Lot 2 that will allow a lazge 3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 145 • San Jose, CA 95118 • (408) 448-9450 • Fax: (408) 448-9454 ~~V~~S ?: ~r~. native riparian tree to remain _(tree #2, California sycamore (Platanus racemosa)), thereby eliminating any direct impacts to riparian vegetation. . The proposed project would construct two domestic dwellings with associated handscape and landscape features. These project elements would be constructed within the riparian corridor and setback area of Saratoga Creek. An existing residence, landscaped gardens and two trailers were located adjacent to and within the riparian corridor. The two trailers have already been removed from the project site. Immediately upstream and downstream from the project site are commercial and residential developments that include houses, office buildings and parking areas. The existing structures on site encroach into the riparian corridor by approximately 0.016 acres. The proposed site plan increases the encroachment into the riparian corridor over the existing conditions. It is our biological opinion that, in the absence of mitigation, the higher level of human activity adjacent to Saratoga Creek, especially with regards to the increased size of the buildings, will result in decreased value of the riparian corridor to wildlife, particularly birds. The wildlife impacts that we would anticipate are briefly described below: 1) The project will create a higher level of human encroachment into the riparian corridor. This increased human presence will result in increased disturbance of birds using the riparian corridor for breeding, foraging and shelter. Disturbance to mammals and fish within the riparian corridor is expected to be minimal. • 2) The increased size of the buildings will also have some adverse effect on birds since it may hinder lateral movements to and from the riparian corridor. 3) Removal of trees from the riparian corridor will result in the direct loss of habitat for birds. Encroachment into the 75-foot riparian setback zone should be mitigated at a 1:1 (mitigation: encroachment) ratio, while encroachment into the riparian corridor itself should be mitigated at a 1.5:1 ratio. Direct removal of native vegetation within the riparian corridor should be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. The proposed site configuration (TS Civil Engineering, July 8, 2001) encroaches approximately 0.10 acres into the 75-foot riparian setback area (Figure 2). Encroachment impacts into the riparian corridor total 0.04 acres (Figure 2). It should be noted that this encroachment occurs within the footprint of some of the existing structures on site. Mitigation for these impacts should include the removal of existing hardscape, eradication of select non-native species and subsequent establishment of native riparian vegetation totaling 0.16 acres. Creek enhancements would need to be performed in accordance with the restoration plan (see below). In addition, all future landscaping within 100 feet of the riparian corridor should consist of native trees, shrubs and groundcover that occur naturally in the riparian habitat neaz the site. • ~JOU06E H. T. HARVEY & ASS®CIATES Furthermore, to minimize additional impacts, any lighting to be installed along the eastern edge of the proposed development should be designed to minimize the intensity of light reaching the adjacent riparian corridor and setback area. RIPARIAN CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT PLAN The following are recommendations for the revegetation of Saratoga Creek at .this location. The general concept to mitigating riparian encroachment impacts is to eradicate invasive non-native species from the riparian corridor, and revegetate the area to the extent possible. The eradication of invasive non-native species will take place throughout the site. Revegetation of the site will consist of the installation of willow cuttings along portions of Saratoga Creek and the installation of native riparian understory species under existing canopy. Any exposed surfaces should be hydroseeded with a seed mix including California brome (Bromus carinatus) and meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum). All landscaping areas within 100 feet of the riparian corridor should also use a similar mix of more drought tolerant, native tree and shrub species. In addition to biotic improvements to the site outlined below, we also strongly recommend the removal of the existing wire-mesh fence at the top of bank, and replacing it with awildlife-friendly split-rail fence that is set back from the top of bank by 10 feet (Figure 3). This will not only improve the aesthetics of the area, but will allow wildlife to better utilize the riparian corridor while still discouraging human intrusion into Saratoga Creek. Non-Native Plant Removal Although several species of invasive non-native plants exist on the site, we recommend the removal, throughout the site, of giant reed, French broom (Genista monspessulana) and Himalayan blackberry (Figure 3). Removal of the non-native tree species on site would prove very difficult, may cause unnecessary damage to nearby, large native trees located on the site, and would deplete the site of canopy structure. Below is a brief description of the recommended removal techniques for each of the target species. Giant Reed. Patches of giant reed located adjacent to the creek channel will be removed. Manual removal of giant reed and stem application of herbicides will be necessary due to its proximity to sensitive aquatic habitats, which would be impacted by heavy equipment or broadcast spraying. This treatment entails cutting the stems of giant reed approximately 2 feet above the existing grade (with hand tools or chainsaws), and immediately applying concentrated herbicide (approved by the EPA for use in aquatic settings, e.g. AquaMaster) direct]y to the cut stems. This method is most effective post- flowering (usually mid-August) when the plants are actively translocating nutrients to the root mass. r~ UODU6'7 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Extensive cleaning and raking must accompany the removal of giant reed, as new plants can re-sprout from cut material. Sediment retention fencing can be utilized to help ensure that no stray fragments of giant reed are dispersed accidentally into the creek. Al] stems must be hauled off site and disposed of properly. These methods may require multiple years of treatment to ensure that the root mass is dead. Treatment in subsequent years will take place in late summer and will entail foliar re-application of herbicides. French Broom. French broom is sparsely scattered throughout the riparian corridor. The best way to eradicate broom at this site is to begin with a manual removal effort. Individual broom plants can be pulled by hand, or removed with simple hand tools. (A specialized tool called a Weed Wrench could also be employed). The removal effort should begin in the least infested areas, working toward denser areas. Care must be taken s_~ not to damage native vegetation; a qualified. biologist should supervise the removal to ensure that only French broom is removed from the site. An effort should be made to remove all broom from the site before the end of the summer (August/September) when the seed pods. burst open and disperse thousands of seeds per plant. The seeds are long lasting, and broom eradication will have to continue for several years until the seed bank has been flushed. The uprooted plants should be removed from the site. We recommend follow-up treatments during the 3-year maintenance program. Newly germinated broom plants should be hand-pulled in the late winter. Himalayan Blackberry. Himalayan blackberry is found throughout the riparian corridor on site as groundcover, and will require considerable effort to eradicate. An extensive manual removal effort will require care to avoid impacting other riparian plants. Initial removal should be via a combination of hand-pulling and a trimmer, as the slope and/or adjacent vegetation permits. The use of a mechanical, hand-held trimmer is preferable (except in area adjacent to native vegetation) so that the physical root structures remain in _ - place to help prevent any erosion of exposed soils into the creek. The physical removal should be followed immediately by treatment of the area with herbicide (AquaMaster). This method will require subsequent spot treatments (physical removal and re-application of herbicides) throughout the first year to ensure eradication of these species. Planting Plan The riparian habitat will consist of densely planted red willow (Salix laevigata) cuttings along the edge of Saratoga Creek (Figure 3). These cuttings should be field fit by a qualified biologist in areas that will receive adequate sunlight. The riparian habitat also includes an understory-planting component. Figure 3 depicts the general area within the riparian corridor that will be revegetated. The understory planting locations should also be field fit by a qualified biologist once const-uction activities associated with the development have been completed Table 1 shows the tree species, on-center spacing, number, and propagule types for the riparian planting areas. The shown number of plantings will provide the 0.16 acres of mitigation required for the impacts .associated ~Nith encroachment into the riparian oooos8 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES corridor. Native plant nurseries such as Central Coast Wilds (831).459-0656, Cornflower Farms (916) 689-1015 and Circuit Rider Productions (707) 838-6641 are experienced at growing the required native plant material. If the suggested plant stock is not available, these nurseries generally need 12 months lead-time to collect propagules and contract grow the desired plants. Table 1. Riparian Habitat Plant Species Palette, Density, and Propagule Type. Common _ Scientific _ , ~ :. Average ]dumber Propagule Name i~Tame - ~ ~ > 4n-Center of'Plants Typel - = Spacing (ft) ~ Container -: ~ Size*' Willow red willow Salix laevigata 8 20 cuttings _ Cuttings Riparian blue Sambucus 12 10 tree pots Understory elderberry . mexicana California Aesculus 12 10 tree pots buckeye californica California Rubus ursinus 8 12 dee pots blackberry California Rosa 8 12 dee pots wildrose californicus coffeeberry Rhamnus 8 8 dee pots californica coyote brush Baccharis 10 8 dee pots _ pilularis *Contamer d~mens~ons tree pot: 4" sq X 1 4" long dee pot: 2~/z" sq X 10" long Cuttings Red willow cuttings will be harvested from Saratoga Creek in late December or early January when the trees are dormant. Willow cuttings will be approximately 18-inches long and %z to 3/a inch in diameter. Each cutting harvested will be examined and those with insect damage will be discarded. The cuttings will be treated with rooting hormone immediately prior to installation to enhance rooting. They will be installed so that the lower two-thirds (2/3) of the cutting is buried. The cuttings will be installed immediately following harvesting, if possible. If stored, the cuttings will be placed in buckets of water in a cool, shady location between harvest and installation, and will be stored no longer than 48 hours. The cuttings will be installed along the toe of the creek bank, angled downstream at a 25-45° angle (Figure 3). Container Plants Holes approximately 1-feet wide and 2-feet deep will be dug for the understory tree and shrub container plants in the riparian planting zones (Figure 3). All stones greater than 3 ~JODU69 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES inches in diameter will be removed from the excavated soils and replaced with native material or topsoil fill. Plants will be installed in such a manner that the roots are not restricted or distorted and so that their root crowns aze at or slightly above (0.5 inches) the soil surface following planting, soil settlement, and initial irrigation. Trees and shrubs-will be -irrigated immediately following planting. .Any plants that have settled deeper than indicated on the plans. after initial irrigation shall be raised back to the required level. A 3-foot diameter irrigation basin will be constructed around each plant, and the irrigation basins will be surrounded by 4-inch high, 4-inch wide earthen berms. Remove plants from the containers in such a manner that the ball of earth surrounding the roots is not broken and plant immediately after removal from the container. Containers shall not be cut until just prior to plant installation.. Site Maintenance The riparian plantings will be maintained for 3 yeazs following installation. Dead Plant Replacement. Dead plants will be replaced during the 3-yeaz maintenance period. Replacement plants will use the same installation methods provided in the Plant Installation section. The plant species chosen for replacement will be based upon a critical evaluation of the vigor and growth of the plantings installed. Those species that are well adapted to the plantings sites and aze rapidly establishing will generally be used to replace dead plants. Irrigation. All container plantings will be irrigated via a drip or bubbler irrigation system during the 3-year maintenance period. Irrigation shall be administered so that the plants do not show any visible signs of drought stress, and will be gradually tapered throughout the maintenance period. In Year 1, the plantings will be irrigated approximately 2-4 times per month from Mazch through October. Each watering will provide a significant amount of water to encourage the development of taproots. The irrigation schedule in Year 2 will be based on the water requirements of the plants and is anticipated 'to be lower (approximately 1-2 times per month), while in Year 3, little irrigation (0-1 time per month) will be required. The irrigation schedule may be modified to ensure vigorous plant growth during the summer months and/or times of drought.. The irrigation system should be regularly maintained during the 3-year plant establishment period.. Any component of the system not functioning properly will be subsequently repaired . as part of regular site maintenance., The maintenance contract should include a provision that the irrigation system will be continuously checked and kept in working order. During the months when irrigation is required, maintain the earthen berms as needed around each container planting to ensure that the irrigation basins hold all water applied and retain the appropriate dimensions. Irrigation for the willow cuttings is not anticipated. • ~DUU70 H. T. hYARVEY & ASS®CIATES Weed Control. In addition to the maintenance of the invasive species specifically outlined. previously, weeds within the mitigation areas will be controlled around each plant and throughout the site as a whole during the first 3 years of the monitoring period. The irrigation basin around each container planting will be kept weed free by maintaining a 3-inch thick wood chip mulch layer and manually removing the weeds that become established in the mulch. Weeds throughout the riparian habitat areas will be kept to a maximum height of 1 foot year round using a mower and/or "weed eater." Weed control activities will occur before seed set. Natural Recruitment. Care will be taken to avoid damaging naturally recruiting native tree and shrub seedlings during maintenance activities. Maintenance personnel will be trained to differentiate between native and non-native species. Fostering natural recruitment will aid in rapid habitat development. I hope these recommendations will be helpful for your planning needs. If you have any questions or need further information, please call me at (408) 448-9450, extension 402. Sin , Eric Webb,~/Ph.D. Project Manager Project Number 1460-03 Cc: Dan Stephens and John Bourgeois, HTH Project File (1460-03) H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1998. Arbeleche Lane/Saratoga Creek Riparian Survey (Project# 1460-02). Unpublished letter report to TS Civil Engineering, Inc. dated July 17, 1998. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2001. Arbeleche Lane, Review of Revised Site Plan (Project # 1460-02). Unpublished letter report to Ms. Fatemeh Asgari dated July 13, 2001. • ~JOU~'71 H. T. HAdZVEY & ASSOCIATES • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~JODU'7;~ ----.--- ~o~~~:~ ~• I~1 W C7 W \t \~ 1 `~ 1 \° ~ ~ \ 1 ~.'F:Fn vu v `f. v n.as~~ u~ rt-SI&~o~ J ~~, i ~-~ I~~9 a. •o ~„1 `. ~~ ~~ \ !~ `.4b '~' l n ` U11u1E5.(BO'J[~~N~~¢l W11 I ( .. .1~ L= .v 1 ` \. '/ ~,'- 3 ,._ A (`~)_\ I\ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~' I.~-f ll.5 ~F I.ILHkI Sl:rl ~ /f; l ~ ~" ~~. u~_s t ~ / %, ~~ %r ~:;: I. i ~ ~~' ~ ~~ ''w ~I ~~ir~a~ ` ~ ' I''• ' / y ~ i.` _ tG / ~~:1~~ p q 4 ~ ~. Q _ 4._ 1 I CfI do i~~9 ii%/r. L' _ V I- --~ ~ v ~~ ~i' _ II. 3 ~ '' 5'~ ~ ( ', .i~ /1~ 6 \ ~ i~ ~ I , ji <~ yy U I ~ I I yC ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ :r+Ei.K . r ~ ~- ~ ~ 1 C 3 1 ~/`~~ ` ~, 1 1 ~~ - 1 ,-. + I 1 I A /` / \` 3' ~ ~1 ..'x~v.... .f - ~+ 76f 1 nl ~ I ' 1 ~ I ~ I +. r ~ :~ !~I ~ .. -..... / ~ / ao P/ f 1 ~ `, ~ . ~!,; r t 1 / ` !8~-77-Ltl ~nnGS OF nE4~e ~y%-27-~OI /+ - LAIJOS OF GrY OF E~dat9~h ~ 3 - .~, .~ • 10%~~SI-I/ 54RAT0(:A Cm10v /• ~ ..~': '.v t> ~ 1`i' ;3-ul /,/. / - IA +tpl 507.1 _I.,a iJ~: ill~l PI aCE /~~~1/,'. ~~ 3gJ-z%-ze ~ ~ Ln:!cs of rl:Al e,:' `-- ,- ~~: ,. t .,~, ~ / Lepsnd Erkhroecfvnentin Riparian Corridor (0.04 saes) ® Enduoedmlent M Setback Area (0. t 0 ease) Map Source: TS Clvll Erglrleerlrg, I.anda Ot Aeparl (3RBi0$) /~/ / i 0 40 80 Feet s~al« 1 • m 4a H. T, fL~RI'EY~.l.£SOClATES ECOLOGlCfL CON.SULT.><NTS Arbeleche Lane: Project Impact Map ~~ 1461103 e+ 4/IN02 F4^ 2 C"7 r,, ~ Q' Gy , A y~+ { r ~~ -- /~ V r w r\ `` tllllllow Cuglny Detall tbw mrecnan ~~i ?sue-a°' ~-~ yound surface (/ ~' -t ~__ , / ~; / j~ ~ ~~ ~~,E Zvi-2~-aD ~ / ;d2'~ `~: s~ai+-„j °~ LANDS OF AI\ikRISJN ~ /. \ -< r?- '~`1 i~ ~ f ~ ~~ ' ~ tip. ~ --/t--~~ f .w- )~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ i Ifzr _~- 1 \ 1 \ ^ o unr U) r or .a iiej~ ~, , ~~ ~ ... \ ~ y / / / J, 0 / / 1 ~. Y / / f ~ R~l . / ` ~ `j ~. a / 1 GsturFr !:' "~ ~ ~ G ~ ~T~. ~' ~ ` N~ ~ .'9 ~N ~ ~' ,. ..-~n~ LI_- `I" :~, ~.._-~.--. _~, ~_~., locrond~eo~ %~~/. ~r ~~,. ' // / ~\ .; \ ~~2 4 ~~ 'r~4• r y,. I NAP PG i r >E'~', }~ , , \ 1 ; ~rnr woac ' I~ N111R1(90P~4 YR 10f) v '~I G\ \ ,j \ \ ~7 asp -z'~ -ol \ LAriDS of arr aF \ ~ \ S?. P.A rI]liA \ `~ \ ~~ \ ,~ \ L- \ Ir \ ,\ ~ , - LC~T ,~ arcxa / - \ j ~\ ~ ` cz. a~auwc `\ `V '~. ~ Fin G Oster roam '~~~\~ - \ ` \ lopd Mlil ~~ \\ r ~ \ _ \, ~,~: r\ r \, ~~ \ \ \ ~ A\ ~;_~ m:~ ~ \ ~ . _ 76iod Rlp~Yl I ~ 1 \~I IA--• l 1 ~ ,, / / V r'. ~ , r \v r. / / ;r:,. L~Iarr, I J'd1~ 27-29 LANDS :F NF PLE Lepand -- -• Proposed Split-ReY Fence .~ willow Cuttings ® Removal of Non~Eatlve Vepetatbn and UndereWry Revepetatlon Area Map Source: TS Gvtl Enpineerlnp, Lends of Aegarl(3/28N2) N 0 40 80 Feet Scale: I" = q0' IV" A+.T H. T. flARf'EYc~ ASSOCIATES _ " ECOLOG/CAL CONSULTANTS Arbeleche Lane: Riparian F,nhancement Plan FAe No 14G0~0J Dane 4110; 02 Flpure 3 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • OOUO'76 1 ATTACHMENT 5 . CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATION FOR 20440 ARBELECHE LANE IN THE CTI'Y OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA i~f ~iIIIL EIdGIIVE~111G, INC _-- F ~ 6 ~ 7 Z~~~ ~~~ • FOR MS. FATEMAH ASGARI 1570 WALTERS AVENUE CAMPBELL, CA 95008 # RY048/1328-01-1293 o ~~C~O~C~ MAR 1 5 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA CObIMUN1TY DEVELOPMEM' BY • Archaeological Resource Management Dr. Robert R. Cartier, Principal Investigator 496 North Fifth Street San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 295-1373 FAX: (408) 286-2040 EMAIL: armcartier@netscape.net FEBRUARY 25, 200x1• ~OUO'7'7 • ADMONITION Certain information contained in this report is not intended for general public distribution. Portions of this report locate significant archaeological sites in the region of the project area, and indiscriminate distribution of these data could result in the desecration and destruction of invaluable cultural resources. In older to ensure the security of the critical data in this report, certain maps and passages may be deleted in copies not delivered directly into the hands of environmental personnel and qualified archaeologists. THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR • • OODU'?'8 ABSTRACT This cultural resource evaluation was carried out for the project at 20440 Arbeleche Drive in the County of Santa Clara. The research included an archival search in the State records and a surface survey of the property. The archival research revealed that there are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. No cultural materials were noted during surface reconnaissance. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed project will have no impact on cultural resources. In the event, however, that prehistoric traces (human remains, artifacts, concentrations of shelUbone/rock/ash) are encountered, all construction within a fifty meter radius of the find should be stopped, the Planning Department notified, and an archaeologist retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. REQUEST FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION The archaeological evaluation was carried out to determine the presence or absence of any significant cultural resources. Archaeological services were requested in February of 2002 in order to provide an evaluation that would investigate the possible presence of cultural resources. This study meets the requirements of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). QUALIFICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Archaeological Resource Management has been specifically engaged in cultural resource management projects in central California since 1977. The firm is owned and supervised by Dr. Robert Cartier, the Principal Investigator. Dr. Cartier has a Ph.D. in anthropology, and is certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) for conducting cultural resource investigations as well as other specialized work in archaeology and history. He also fulfills the standards set forth by the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion as a historian and architectural historian and is certified as such on the State of California referral lists. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT AREA The subject area consists of a two lot subdivision at 20440 Arbeleche Lane in the City of Saratoga. On the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle of Cupertino, the Universal Transverse Mercator Grid (UTMG) appro~smate centerpoint for the project area is 5 86 020mE/41 24 120mN. The elevation is approximately 440 feet MSL. The nearest source of fresh water is the Saratoga Creek which runs along the eastern and southern boundaries of the proposed project area. METHODOLOGY This investigation consisted of an archival search, a surface reconnaissance, and a written report of the findings with appropriate recommendations. The archival research is conducted by transferring the study location to a slate archaeological office which maintains all records of archaeological investigations. This is done in order to learn if any archaeological sites or surveys have been recorded within a half mile of the subject area. Each archival search with the state is given a file number for verification. The purpose of the surface reconnaissance is to determine whether there are traces of prehistoric or historic materials within the study area. The survey is conducted by an archaeologist, who examines exposed soils for early ceramics, Native American cooking debris, and artifacts made of stone, bone, and shell. Older structures, distinctive architecture, and subsurface historic trash deposits of potentially significant antiquity are also taken into consideration. OOUO'79 A report is written containing the archival information, record search number, survey findings, and appropriate recommendations. A copy of this evaluation is sent to the state archaeological office incompliance with state procedure. A cultural resource is considered "significant" if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Properties that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more of the following criteria: - 1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. Association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; - _ 3. Embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Most Native American prehistoric sites are eligible due to their age, scientific potential, and/or burial remains: The CRHR interprets the integrity of a cultural resource as its physical authenticity. An historic cultural resource must retain its historic character or appearance and thus be recognizable as an historic resource. Integrity is evaluated by examining the subject's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the subject has retained these qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cultural resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places yet still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If a cultural resource retains the potential to convey significant historicaUscientific data, it may be said to retain sufficient integrity for potential listing in the CRHR. ARCHIVAL BACKGROUND Prior to reconnoitering the subject area, a study of the maps and'records at the Northwest Information Center of the California Archaeological Site Inventory was conducted and given the file number of RY048/1328-01-1293. This research into the records at the Northwest Information Center was done to determine if~any known archaeological or his- torical resources were reported in or around the subject area. No cultural resources are recorded with the State of California within the proposed project area. One site was recorded within one half mile radius of the subject area, CA-SCL-65. It is described below. CA-SCL-65 This site, previously known as West Valley College 2 (WVC-2), was recorded by L. King in 1973. It was described as a light midden containing burned rock, numerous groundstone tools, and charmstones. Four burials were also excavated here. The site is located approximately 2250 feet southwest of the project area. In addition, two sites were recorded by San Jose State University and were plotted on the maps at Northwest Information Center and labeled "SJS=12A." One is located east of the intersection of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Big Basin Way, approximately 800 feet to the south of the project area. The other is located approximately 800 feet northeast of the project area. No other information about these sites is available. ~J00~~0 2 No studies of the subject property have been previously conducted. There have been, however, five previous studies conducted within a half mile radius of the proposed project area. These studies are S-14775, S-20162, 5-19580, S-20535, and S-10395. SURFACE RECONNAISSANCE A "general surface reconnaissance" was conducted by a field archaeologist on the proposed construction areas in the subject area. A "controlled intuitive reconnaissance" was performed in places where burrowing animals, exposed banks and inclines, and other activities had revealed subsurface stratigraphy and soil contents. The boundaries were well established by fence lined in the field. The entire area was accessible for a walking survey. At the time of the survey, surface visibility was poor, only approximately 5% of the soil was visible for inspection, the remaining 95% was obscured by grass and tree litter. The vegetation on the property consisted of pine, fir, redwood, bay and other trees as well as formal gardening and terraced landscaping. Where native soils were exposed, a medium brown silt, rich loam was observed. Rock types observed included sandstone boulders, cobbles, and gravel. No traces of cultural resources, prehistoric or historic, were noted during surface reconnaissance , CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The archival research revealed that there are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. No cultural materials were noted during surface reconnaissance. Therefore, no further recommendations are being made. In the event that prehistoric traces (human remains, artifacts, concentrations of shell bone/rock/ash) are encountered, all construction within a 50 meter radius of the find should be stopped, the Planning Department notified, and an archaeologist retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. LITERATURE CITED AND CONSULTED California Historical Resources Information Center 2002 Record search number RY048/1328-01-1293 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. King, L. 1973 Site record for CA-SCL-65, on file at the Northwest Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. a OOU081 • _ --•. ARBELECHE PROJECT LOCATION MAP ~ ' ~--~ • ~ • ' ~ - Tank .. _1'--sL -, 8M ~ - , ~ ^ • ~ ~ , • •r;.c - -- aa7 rrtnanuaN 1 ~ ~~ '.j,~ ~f t ~ . - -~ • 'ALLEND 7 • '^ ~ _ pa.k ~ enn / ~ ' ~~ , : ` ~ ecr vas J Foochw ~ i' _: ~, ~_ • tsaca:csi _ r_ _ ~ ~ Sari •~,I~..,m' ~+~ .,~ - jr ,gh Sch , ,~-~; ; _ CS ~ ,/, •4 ENE Nigh O/ C~ ~ c 1 i it ~ Project Location o ~~. ~ -- i _ _ ~ ..oo' .. • , ,\ ~ ~ o ~~ ~f' _ • ~ _ , Pa -a uo. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ;Park i i _ ~' - ~ `~ ; ~ ~ \ ~~--~ S• 2S_, ::%/ ~ i}-\r ee ~SAI~ t JOSE 7as C (~' ORP • ~i .~ ~ i ~; _ ~ ;~. 8iA 32 ~ .t' ~T~ PROSPfCf ~ :- ~ AvF t ~ ~~ ~ 1 ` 1 1~ `, 1 ~~ `~ -`,~4( E BIu~iIIs BM S`h ; ~ ' 'so r - - 318 ~ i _ ` ---•~'--- -- ~~.-y- ~ ~ _ ~• 'Park ~ r t A, _ i ~ ~ • ~: f j ti -^~ ~ ~' ( 1 953 1 utrsta__.~. ~ - ~ _ L~ ~ ~ / 35p 1 f: ~` ! i C grass . .~ .Par _ ~ t (• ~ t S D I ` . v `. - E ~ 7NEliU IVf / : ~~. Brtafwa ~ ~ /' ~• ' ,_/ ter:' ` i / 1 ' ~ ~~ i J so ~: ~ F. fL..1 _ ~ 1 1 . J _ ~ ~ o al ~ ~~ ~ CUPERTINO, CA r ~ater • ',~ e , ~-. j 37122•C1-TF•024 - ~ q _5~~~ .r^ ~~• ~'q~. ~~~ .'V/ ~' ~'.'- ~ .l ,~ 1991 _ _ t ~~ 1 r~' • 'J __ U11fA 1558 1 SP.-tiFatIFS V895 • • • O0008,'~ i V' • ~ Y ~A• I~ , ~. .~a Q~ • {~ ~ t . Y ~ ~' 9 31 ~.._.._.__.3S• ~aRCEI! ~ ~ ~s .t P ±~ ... , .. ~F N i N • •% ? ~ i ~ ~ '~ ..y . . .~ _ ~N Y O ~ l ' ~ , /~ •~, ^~~ ~ ~~ ~F ~j ~ . r •~ Mgt ~ Y . ~ ~ O 0 ~ ~. ~ i f~ a+ 1 W ~ r.~ L ~ O ~ ~ ~ at'~-~,o~s a.st ~c ~ r••' ` ' '+--- f t ~ ~ v J ~ •• • Mq • ~tM,C~iT or rw 3 r~iL: its ~c i ~ . r. ,~ .~ ~. R tul~ u a. u I RR~ ~ ~ Q~ a SARAT06A - SUNNY~//ll.E ~~~ I~IicER MOrM~~T~AQb C'~ 0 • • • • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • OODU84 • ATTACHMENT 6 • L~ SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL 4 mm~ct52n+m LONG UAR RAILS (TIP) 4CTED ~T~) 'LACE GRADE _ _~ODU85 PAStENERS: 3/8' GALV. NE7C BOLT W/ NUT COUNTER9NK NUT & ADD NON-NE7AL WASHER-BOTH SIDES. • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • OOU086 ATTACHMENT 7 16-66.100 • • • dare set forth in Article 15-90 of Chapter 15 of this Code and, in addition thereto, the Planning Commission shall be guided by the consideration listed in Section 16- 66.150(b) of this Article. (b) In the event a floodplain (development) permit is issued by the Planning Commission, as provided in Section 16-66.060, the Commission shall make the deter- minations prescribed in Section 16-66.080(x) with respect to such permit. (Ord. 71-167 § 2 (part), 1996) 16.66.090 Standards of construction. In all areas of special flood hazards the following stan- dards are required: (a) Anchoring. (1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be adequazely anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydra dynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. (2) All manufactured homes shall meet the anchoring standards of Section 16-66.120. (b) Construction materials and methods. All new construction and substantial improvement shall be con- structed: (1) With materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; (2) Using methods and practices that minimize flood damage; (3) With electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumuIatirtg within the components during conditions of flooding; and if (4) Within Zones AH or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. (c) Elevation and floodproofing. (See Section 16- 66.040 defuritions for "basement," "lowest floor," "new construction." "substantial damage" and "substantial im- provement.") (1) Residential construction, new or substantial im- provement, shall have the lowest floor, including basement: (i) In an AO Zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM by at least one foot, or elevated at least three feet above the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified. (ii) In an A Zone, elevated to at least one foot above the base flood elevation, as determined by the City. (iii) In all other zones, elevated to az least one foot above the base flood elevation. Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor. and verified by the City's building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. (2) Nonresidential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall either be elevated to conform with Section 16-66.090(c)(1) or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities: (i) Be floodproofed below the elevation recommended under Section 16-66.090(c)(1) so that the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, (ii) Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyan- cy; and (iii) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this Section 16- 66.090(c)(2) are satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. (3) All new consavction and substantial improvement with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject to flooding, . shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must exceed the following minimum criteria: (i) Be certified by aregistered professional engineer or architect; or (ii) Have a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided thaz they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwazer. (4) Manufactured homes shall also meet the standards in Section 16-66.120. (Ord. 71-167 § 2 (part), 1996) 16-66.100 Standards for utilities. (a) All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or elimi- nate: (1) Infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and (2) Discharge from the systems into flood waters. (b) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them, or contamination from them during flooding. (Ord. 71-167 § 2 (pan), 1996) 431 (Saratoga 69~ ~JODU8"7 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~DOU088 14-25.080 ATTACHMENT 9 • • • subdivision or any lot or parcel thereof or the building site is or will be traversed or bordered by any local drainage facility, or other watercourse not under the jurisdiction of said water district but under the jurisdiction of the Ciry, the subdivider or owner shall offer to dedicate a fee simple interest or easement of reasonable width in said drainage facility and over the property in which it lies, said dedication to be to the City. 14-?5.065 Creek protection easement. (a) Purpose, application. In order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat, a creek protection easement shall be required for any subdivision, lot,_orparcel thereof which contains or abuts a protected creek as defined below. (b) Protected creek defined. A protected creek is a creek identified in the most recently available Maps of Flood Control Facilities and Limits of one percent Flooding, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, as may be amended from time to time. (c) Location. The location of the easement shall be based on a biotic assessment identifying the protected creek, its banks, and riparian habitat x'-'he biotic assessment shall be prepazed by a qualified professional and shall be recorded with the final or parcel map. (d) Restrictions. Structures, improvements, ornamental landscaping or fencing shall be prohibited within the easement, unless the Community Development Director determines that such will enhance the creek's condition b~~ improving flood and/or erosion control or improving or protecting riparian habitat. (Ord. 71-184 § 2, 1998) 14-25.070 Preservation of existing trees. (a) No native, ornamental or orchard trees required to be shown on the application for tentative map or building site approval under Subsection 14-20.040(v) of this Chapter shall be removed or destroyed without a prior permit to do so issued by the Planning Director pursuant to Article 1~-50 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless such removal is specifically authorized as part of the tentative approval granted under this Chapter. Nu such trees may be removed or destroyed prior to the filing of an applica- tion for tentative map or building site approval with the intent of circumventing the requiremenu of this Chapter. (b) The advisory agency may deny approval of any application for tentative map or building site approval, and revoke any previous such approval, upon the violation of this Section by the subdivider or owner. (c) The approval of a tentative map or building site by the advisory agency shall automatically constitute authorization to remove all trees within all portions of street rights-of-way which are to be improved, and to 249 remove trees from the area as designated by the subdivider or owner to be covered by the envelope of the proposed structure or structures to be erected on the lot or site. and the area of the proposed driveway on the lot or site. 14-25.080 Park and recreation dedication and fees. (a) Purpose, application and eiremptions. As a condition of each final, map or final building site approval, and to be detailed in the conditions of tentative man or building bite approval, every subdivider or owner shall be required to, and shall dedicate a portion of land or pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both at the option of the City, for the purpose of providing park or recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the development and in accord with the standards and provi- sions as hereafter set forth. The provisions of this Section are enacted pursuant to Section 66477 of the Government Code and are hereby found to be in accord with the recre- ational element of the General Plan. The requirements of this Section shall not apply to any of the following: (1) Subdivisions or sites for commercial or industrial uses. (2) Subdivisions containing less than five lots and not used for residential purposes. However, it shall auto- matically be a condition of tentative approval of any such subdivision that if a building permit is requested for construction of a residential structure or structures on one or more of such lots within four years from the date of recording the final map, the fee in lieu of dedication, as prescribed in this Section, shall be paid by the owner of each such lot as a condition to the issuance of the building permit. (3) Any condominium project which consists in the subdivision of air space of an existing multi-unit structure which is more than five years old, where no new dwelling uniu are added thereto. (4) Such ocher exceptions as may hereafter be added to the Map Act. (b) Standards and formula for land dedication. It is hereby found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that three acres of real property for each one thousand persons residing within the City be devoted to park and recreation- al purposes. Where a pazk or recreational facility has been designated in the recreational element of the General Plan and is to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate or future needs of the residenu of such subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land within the area of such subdivision for a local pazk consistent with said recreational element. The amount of land (expressed in acreage) required to be ts~.~o;~ ~-~~ OOU091 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . OOOU9~ I _ BARRIE D...OATS AND ASSOCIATES - - Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 ATTACHMENT 11 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033_. TREE SURVEY AND P ~ COMMENDATIONS AT ROPERTY LECHE LANE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request o£ Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist September 14, 2001 Report Prepared: l 0-9 Report Mailed: IO-]0 Job # 07-98-185 Plan Received: 8-27 Plan Due: 9-25 uu ocr 1 i 200 U CI7~Y OF SAKAT~IVO(795 COMMUNITY UEVELOPMEN~i -_ TREE SURVEY AND PRE: _ /ATTON RECOMTdENDATIONS AT THE ASGARI P2 sRTY 20440 ARBELECHE LANE, SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to subdivide an existing single residence into two lots in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent decline. The plan reviewed for this report is the Tentative Survey Map by TS Civil Engineering, Inc., APN #397-27-29, job #O1-247, sheet 1, dated 8-21-01. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes thirty trees to some level of risk by construction. Western sycamore tree #2 is to be removed by implementation of this design. Trees # 19-22 would be so severely damaged that they would not be expected to survive. Replacement trees equal to the values of the trees removed are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected of retained trees. A bond a ual to 50% the value of tree # 1 combined with a bond a ual to 25% of the q q value of all of the other retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risk. Observations Tree # 12 has been removed prior to this observation. Its remains are unidentifiable. There are thirty trees on site that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the locations of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The thirty trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 23 Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga men~iesii) Trees #2, 3, 14 California sycamore (Platunus racemosu) Trees #4-7, 17-21, 25 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Tree #8 Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis) Trees #9, 27 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree # l 0 California black walnut (Juglans hindsii) Trees # l 1, 22 Tree # 13 Big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllumJ laurel (Umbe11u1aria californica) California ba y PREPARED BY: MICI-U1EL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORSST OCTOBER 9, 2001 OOUa96 ~j, - ~^: TREE SURVEY AND PRE: JATION RECOMI~4ENDATTONS AT THE ASGARI Pl.., RTY 2 20440 ARBELECHE LANE, SARATOGA Trees #15, 16 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees #24, 26, 30 London plane (Platanus acerifolia) Trees #28, 29 Willow species (Salix species) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional Fine Specimens Fair Specimens Marginal Poor Specimens S cimens S cimens 1, 9, 15, 27 2-6, 10, 1 l , 13, 7, 17, 18, 21 19, 20 8 14, 16, 22-26, 28, 29, 30 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed N to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees # 24, 26, 28, and 29 are located on adjacent properties toward the north and the northeast. I recommend that these be treated as exceptional regardless of condition. Trees #7 and 21 both Monterey pines trees, have a moderate infestation of red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens). These trees may be able to overcome this attack if they are irrigated, or may be suddenly killed by pine bark beetle next summer. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 9, 2001 OOUa9'7 r- TREE SURVEY AND PRES. JATION RECOIvA4ENDATIONS ATTHE ASGARI Pk,. _ ~'RTY ~ 20440 ARBELECHE LANE, SARATOGA Eight coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens'Aptos Blue') trees in fine condition are located in a row adjacent to the west property boundary. These trees provide an excellent screen between this site and the adjacent commercial building located on the west side of this site. At least some of these eight coast redwood trees would be at risk by construction of the proposed Parcel B building and the proposed driveway to the same building. These eight trees are not large enough to be governed by the tree protection ordinance. Impacts of Construction _ Tree #1 is an exceptional Douglas fir that has a trunk diameter of 44-inch DBH. This specimen is perhaps the best Douglas fir specimen that I have seen in this area. This trees location is in direct conflict with the proposed gas line located about 7 feet from the trunk on the west side of the trunk. Tree # 1 would also require fire clearance pruning, which by itself would not be a significant canopy loss. However, the proposed fire turnaround and the proposed driveway to Parcel B together would remove a large percentage of absorbing roots on the west side. The fire tunaaround as proposed may also damage or sever buttress roots, which potentially may render tree # 1 unstable. Tree #2 is a fine California sycamore that has a trunk diameter of 38 inches DBH. This fine specimen is in conflict with the footprint of the proposed residence on Parcel B and would be removed by implementation of this design. Tree #9 is an exceptional coast redwood that has a trunk diameter of 36 inches DBH. This tree is located approximately 14 feet from the footprint of the proposed residence on Parcel B. Depending on drainage and other features, tree #9 minimally, would suffer fairly significant root loss by this plan but may suffer severe root loss depending on the final plan. Trees #9, 10 and 11 may suffer significant root losses should the adjacent concrete pad and the other small sections of concrete are removed by demolition equipment, such as an excavator, backhoe, or a loader, rather than by hand. The terraced area between trees #9 and 13 has a series of roughly made retaining walls. Should these retaining walls be removed and the area graded for a different contour, trees #9 and 13 may be at risk. No grading plan is presently provided. The removal of the shed adjacent to tree #16 may result in significant root damage if done by a tractor excavator or other large equipment. Trees #19, 20, 21 and 22 would suffer severe root loss with the proposed construction of the residence on Parcel A. Tree #22 would also suffer severe canopy loss. Trees # 19, 20, and 21 are all Monterey pine trees that are currently in fair to marginal condition. Tree # 22 is a big_ leaf maple in fine condition. These four trees would not be expected to survive. Trees #24-27 are in conflict with proposed underground utilities. Also, the proposed paving of the driveway would remove a large percentage of the absorbing roots of all S PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST ~ OCTOBER 9, 2001 ~OU~98 ~_.. TREE SURVEY AND PRE~~. VAT'ION RECOMIv1ENDA7'IONS AT THE ASGARI Pk__ r~tTY 4 20440 ARBELECHE LANE, SARATOGA four trees. The total root losses of individual specimens may be as much as 50% of their root systems. None of these four trees would be expected to survive the root losses that would occur by the construction of either feature (underground utilities or paving). If the utilities were to be installed by tunneling and if the paving were to be constructed on-top of the existing paving, these trees would not be at risk. This presumes that the sending and receiving pits required for tunneling would be located a minimum of 15 feet from the trunks of these trees. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees resulting in bark injuries, broken branches, or root loss. 5. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 6. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 8. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 9. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. In order to prevent significant root loss to tree # 1. I recommend that the fire trunk turnaround be redesigned as shown on the attached map. If this is not feasible or is undesirable, I recommend that an alternative plan must be explored with the city arborist. 2. ]recommend that any underground utility within 30 feet of the trunk of tree # I be installed by tunneling. In this event, the sending and receiving pits must be a minimum of 30 feet from the trunk of tree # I . 3. 1 recommend that the concrete pad and any other rubble inside the driplines of tree #9 must be removed by hand. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 9, 2W 1 ~OU~99 -'^ ~.. TREE SURVEY AND PRESr...VATION RECOMbfErIDATIONS AT THE ASGARI PR~,rERTY 20440 ARBELECHE LANE, SARATOGA 4. If the retaining walls within the existing terraced area between trees #2 and # 13 would be removed or reconstructed, a review of a grading plan would be required by our office. 5. In order to preserve trees #24-27, I recommend that all of the underground utilities must be located a minimum of I S feet from trees #24 and 27, a minimum of 8 feet from tree #26 and a minimum of 20 feet from the trunk of tree #25. If the clearance distances cannot be achieved, I recommend that the underground utilities be tunneled at a minimum depth of 4 feet. Also, the sending and receiving pits must be located outside the minimum clearances stated here. 6. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 7. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted. 8: I suggest that the shed adjacent to tree # 16 be demolished and removed by hand and without the use of heavy equipment (i.e. a tractor, a bobcat, etc.) 9. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #1, 9, and 24-27, during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose for each tree. 10. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 1 l .Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fences as noted on the attached map. For any area where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted. 12. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 13. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. 5 • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 9, 2001 (' ~~L~QQ 4 ob TitTe: As ari J g Job Address: 20 0 Arbeleche Lane Job # 08-O1-187 9 01 Measurements Condition Pruninpl Cebllnq Needs Pest/Disease Pro blems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS ; , i ` ' } j 1 1 l j I } } j I j 1 1 I } j ~, } ~ j j } ,~, } ' ~ 1 " } '"" } ~ } , 1 } } : and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ! ~ j ~ ; ; ~ ~ } o 408 3531052 ' ~ g I i ~ "' ~ ~ ,~, } ? ~ 7 .... ~ z c~ Z o ~ ~ ~ W } o } '~' ~ ~ ~ ; } H p ~ ~ ~ I ~ y } 23535fwoiio~d 1° j ~ w j I j® j _ ~- 1~ ~ ~~ z ~ } ?} ~ z l m j 3 } ~ j p 1 w }~ ' z , } Q e i~~ w ~ , } H} O ~ Ls Cola G 95030 ~ l v~i } j ~ w ; m ; z ~ -~ v i _} w ~ 1 z w °. q p O } p~ w i g l -- a m z 8a , i 1 } 1 j } i }~ i~ r f" l p ~ x !'! ~ ; V i O I~ l j p U Z } F- ~ 1 2 j 2 Z , w j Z l ;~ j fA } Z ~ fN.. O ~ U 1 3 ~ } Y J J V } U w I W ~ J a ® I x F- J 1 1 , x,= I w i x~ c7 l m ~ I~ ; p z Q ^ ~ O I 3;~ O; O 3 O O ~ z }~} m p v W } w{~ w i z p H~ F- O O N p W V) p~ O W C> ? O # Ke Plant Name o ~ ~ t o o ! ~ i a ~ ~ a j ~ d ~ } ~ } ~ ~ i ~ } v a ~ ~ ~ , z } ~ i z y i i x c i ; t .~ c i ? - p - - - rc 7 Mont Pine 10.0 } 12 } 80 20 2 3 5 ~ l 3 y 1 } } ~ } ~ I i ~ ; ~ ~ ! ~ l E i } ; . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. = S 2,120 X sp . Gass 30% _ $636 X cond. 60% _ $ 382 X loc. 50% _ $ 191 Total Value 8 Cana Island Pine 22.0 ~ ~ _ } 25 } 90 J 20 4 2 } 6 i = ~ } ~ ~ } 4 } } X } } ' Pinus canarlensis ~ j ~ } } ' . in 380 X $2715q. in. _ $ 10,258 X sp . Gass 90% _ $9,233 X cond. 45% _ $ .4,155 X loc. 30% _ $ 1.246 Total Value 9 Coast Redwood 36.0 ~ ~ ~ 140 j 90 20 1 1 1 } 2 ! ~ } } } } uoia sem 'revs ; } t l = } I ; ; . in 1017 X $271sq. in. _ $ 27,469 X sp . Gass 90% _ $24,722 X cond. 100% _ $ 24.722 X loc. 60% = S 14 833 Total Value 10 Black Walnut 25.01 x ; 17.0 } 33 j 80 30 1 3 ~ 4 ~ j Ju lens hindsii I ~ } } 1 } } ~ 31 = I . in 605 X $27/sq. in. = S 16,335 X sp. Gass 10% _ $1,634 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,225 X loc. 80% ~ : 735 Total Vafue 11 Bi Leaf M le 11.0 ` I ~ ~ 13 } 30 } 30 1 } 3 ; 4 ; I ! Ater h Ilum } } ( } l i . in 95 X $27/sq. in. = S 2,565 X sp. Gass 30% _ $789 X cond. 75% _ $ 577 X loc. 60% ~ . = 346 Total Value 12 Removed } i 1 ~ ~ } ; } } i , } i } ; i ; ; f } ~ ~ , . in 0 X $271sq. i n. _ $ - X sp. Gass = $0 X cond. _ $ - X loc. • $ Total Value 0 ~,.: G.5 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 2 of 5 Job Title: Asgari Job Address: 20440 Arbeleche Lane Job # 08-O1-187 y ul Measurements Condition PrunlnplCablinp Needs Pest/Diseaae Problems Recommend. BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES ~ D { ~ ; ~ { ~ { ' I I ~ i ~ ! ' ~ ~ { { ~ ~ o g { { '; { { { { ; _ ~ i { ~ ~ ! ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ { { { { ` ! i o { ~ tau { W ' j ' ~ ~ (408) 3531052 0 { ' I ~ ~ I w I ~ ! z ~ ! z I i I c ~ Z ~ w I p `~ ! l~ ~ v_> .o 'r' O ! `~ { ~U p ~ v { w ~ ~ w 23535 6w~ai Rood ~ ~ ~ w ' ~ t I N ! i ~ i ~ ag ; z ~ Z ~ , Z i O ! z ! ~' I W ! o I o I 4 { O z ~ v ! t i i I rr ! m ~ !~ ~ ~ lnCd°~,fA 95tn0 ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I~ ' z { ~ ~ I x~ w ~n ~ I z W W a ~ .- 3 O ~ v g l g F- I~ l W a d ~, _ } i ~ I W I 7 i ~ ~ O ~ U i H{~ ,_ { Z ? ... O v 3 w t -~ I -+ ~ ~ a I W I ~ ~ ~ { w ={~ ~ ' l o ~ ~ { 3{ 3 3 0{ W ~ v l Y = N ! N i~ K# Pl t N x { °0 { ~ ~ m l ~x x {~ m c~ {~ w a ~ ;~ F- i= t o ~ o m {oo ~ m o o: {~ {tm l w a { ~ ~ W W ~ p ~ z ~ ~;-- ! p l 0 p w 10 ~o w j w . an ame eY o ~ o n o t o x 3 y x rn ~ v x v v v ~ l rr v i ~ a ~ p ~ o: i m z z o: 13 California Ba Laurel multi x I multi 145 { 100 { 50 1 2 3 { ~ Umbellularia califomica stem {stem ± i ~ I ~ i { j { 1i ! I . In 1667 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 45,009 X sp . Gass 70% _ $31,506 X cond. 909'0 _ $ 28,356 X loc. 60% _ $ 17 013 Total Value 14 Cal'rfomia S camore 42.0 { { I { 45 ~ 100 I 50 1 ~ 2 { 3 { { { ~ _ ' { _ I I I { i { ~ ~ I i { ~ { I { I . In 1385 X $27/s q. in. = S 37,388 X sp . Bass 709'0 = . $26,172 X cond. 90°'0 = $ 23,554 X loc. 60°k $ 14 133 Total Value 15 Coast Live Qak 12.0 { ! i { 14 { 25 ~ 20 1 1 { 2 { { ~ ! { { I I ~ _ Quercus rifdia ; { { I { { ~ ~ } ; . in 113 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp . Gass 100% = S3,052 X cond. 100% _ $ 3,052 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 831 Total Value 16 Coast Live Oak 42.0 { at ` 3' t { 44 { 60 { 60 1 I 2 3 { ti 3 { , I- { { I , ~ ! ~ { ~ ~ I 0 I I . in 1385 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 37,388 X sp . Gass 100°'0 = $37,388 X cond. 90% _ $ 33,849 X loc. 85% _ $ 21 872 Total Value 17 Mont Pine 36.0 ~ { { ~ 38 { 85 = 40 3 I 2 I 5 I I ~ ~ _ { g , I ! ! i ! Pinus radiate I { I I ~ { . in 1017 X $27ls q. in. _ $ 27,469 X sp. Gass 30% _ $8,241 X cond. 60% _ $ 4,944 X loC. 509'0 $ 2 472 18 Montere Pine 31.0 ~ { { { 33 { 85 i 40 3 ~ 2 { 5 ~ { { { ~ j 3 j I I I I I I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ~ { i ~ ~ i , . in 754 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 20,368 X sp. Gass 309'° _ $6,111 X cond. 60% _ $ 3,666 X loc. 509:0 _ $ 1,833 Total Value C REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES h., 5-ga1= $36 15-gal = $120 ~ 24"box~0 36"box = $1,320 ~ 1 =BEST, ~RST 48"box 52"box = $7,000 ~, 77"t.riv = 415 fi(1(1 PaP~' 3 of S lY Job 1~e: As ari ob A ob # 0 -01-187 ddress: 20~Arbeleche Lane g J J 9n4ro~ Measurements Condition PruninStlCablin q Needs PesUDiseaae Problems Recom mend . BARRIE D. COATS ~ i ~ I I i ~ I ;. I ; i ' i i ~ i ; ; ? I ~ i~ t ~ ~ I l i ' and ASSOCIATES ~, ~ ~ 3 ' 1 1 e v i i ~ ~ ` i ; ' ~ ~' i ' i~ ' w t ' ' i W i w ' ~ `~ ~ ! Q ' > "1 d ' i ; i ~ I w ' ;~ ~ ~ o ' ; ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ! = t? I C I I~ w ~ ~ N I i I~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~ i o I~ (40813531052 ~ i ~ ~ w ? `~ ~ I u; .- I? i i ~- ~ z z i z; I I o p I z i^ ~ 3 I w i o: ~ ^ I A I ~ I ~ I ; v i o ; ~ i w ' 'y w o: ~ 23535 Siwai Road ~ i ~ i ~ i W ~ ~ ~ = i ~ i N i Z W ~ ~ Z ! o i a i ~ i ~ W ' ~ ~ a LesC>da,G 95430 ~ cn 1 1 I Q: ,~ i x i z i q ~ 1 x t w =~ w o w s ~ ~ O i 0 i w i g i g a ~ w w a v > 1 i w i v '^ I O ~ U I F 1 m i I z ~ C7 . O . p p y i ® ~ ~ w i i ~ ~ ~ 1 o i ~ X 1 3 i 3 3 0~ W z i i cf-i v 3 Y ~ "!" y ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ m I m ~ u w i a ug ~ o ~ gg a ox ~ °x ! ~ oo` ~ w i a ~ ~ ~ w ~ I ~ z i ~ ~~- I~ °o i °o ^ w ^ w ~o w ~ Key # Plant Name ^ ~ ^ I o ^ x; w x rn v x ~ I ~ v ^ ~ I v I a ? f- I^ I~ i o: I o: z z o: u 19 Montere Pine 25.0 I 27 70 i 30 3 4 i 7 = i 3 ~ ~ i 1 : i i ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ' , . in 491 X $27~sq. in. _ $ 13,247 X sp. lass 30% _ $3,974 X Cond. 30% _ $ 1,192 X IOC. 50% _ $ 596 20 Montere Pine 23.0 ~ i 25 ~ 70 ~ 30 3 4 ~ 7 ~ ~ i E ~ ~ 3 ; ; I I i ! . in 415 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 11,212 X sp. doss 30% _ $3,364 X cond. 30% _ $ 1,009 X loc. 50% _ $ 505 Total Value 21 Monter Pine 37.0' ~ ~ ! 39 1 85 = 40 3 2 ( 5 1 1 ~ _ 3 3 i i s ~ i ~ ~ ~ i . in 1075 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 29,016 X sp. doss 309'0 $8,705 X cond. 80% _ $ 5,223 X loc. 60% _ $ 3 134 Total Value 22 l3i Leaf Ma le 12.0 x 25 ~ 25 ` 7.0 i 14 1 2 3 i i ' t i 1 1 ~ I ! I I . in 132 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,564 X sp. doss 309'0 = $1,069 X cond. 90% _ $ 962 X loc. 80% S 577 Tofsd Value 23 D las Fir 18.0 x ~ 10.0 I 120112'' 35 ~ 20 1 2 3 i ~ = i i I f ' I ~ i = i . in 294 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,938 X sp . Gass 50°Y° _ $3,969 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,572 X loc. 60% = S 2 143 Total Value 24 London Plane 16.0 1 i ~ 18 } 40 } 45 1 2 1 3 1 Platanus aoerifdia i ~ i I i 1 i I 1 I i . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp . Gass 70% _ $3,798 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,418 X loc. 60% _ $ 2 051 Total Value C REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES O 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box = $5.~ 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15.~ Page 4 of 5 ~l Job Title: Asgari Job Address: 20440 Arbeleche Lane Job # 08-O1-187 y t ut Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs PeaflDfaease Problems Reco mend. I ~ m BARRIE D. COATS ~ I ~ ~ t ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I _ l~ _ ~ l ~ ~ ' !~~ i and ASSOCIATES ~, , ; ~ ' ~ ' ;o ~ I ~ ip I ; ~ o 1 I ~ _ ' ~ " '~ ~ , I o I~ ~ ~ w , ; < `~ ' i ~ t ~ ~ "' (408) 3531052 ~ ~ w ~ ~ ? `" z 1 z i a4 w ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ! v ~ o ~ o w ' ~ T3S35 Saaai Roat c~ t unmo g E w , ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ® ,_ ? ~ v~ I w = ga I = ? I '' ~ i ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ? ~? o ~ o O , w , ~ '~ = Z I ~ ~ 1 o ~ } a I 1 0: , t I ~ z ~ ~ ! m , ~ 1 p , . ~ } ! ~ I vt~ lz ~ ~ ~~ I~ ~ iW Iwo a ~ to o W g ~ a ~~ z g ! I W o 3 3 3 W 1? ~ o ~ ~~ ~ 1~ ® ~ x I x ~ ~ ~~~ o: ~ ~~ Q ~ l z ! ~ ~ o o ~ o 3 o i , ~ I z ~ ~ ~ ~ w w ~ '~ z ~ r- O ti o y , 0 0 1 Key # Plant Name m o o ~ 1 m ~ o =.m 0 o w~ a x ~n W I F x I~ ~ O v x m v ~ o: m v~ v m w a ~ ~ y ? w i ce ~ ~ ~ O ~ i~ w i w V i v z v a o t s 25 Mont Pine 40.0 ! 42 F 65 ~ 45 2 t 1 3 ~ II fl ~ ~ i , : ~ . in 1256 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 33,912 X sp . Gass 30% _ $10,174 X cond. 90% _ $ 9,156 X Ioc. 60% S 5,494 Total Value 26 London Plane 10.0 ~ f 12 1 25 ~ 15 1 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 = ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ i I i t . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp . Gass 70% _ $1,484 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,335 X loc. 60% _ $ 801 Total Value 27 Coast Redwood 25.0 ~ 27 165 ~ 25 1 1 ~ 2 I 1 ~ ~ 1 } j . In 491 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 13,247 X sp . Gass 90% _ $11,922 X cond. 100% _ $ 11,922 X loc. 80% _ $ 7,153 Total Value 28 Willow 10.0 I i 12 30 ? 20 1 2 ~ 3 tt Willows 'es ( t I 1 t I ~ ~ I ~ f S . in 78.5 X $27 /sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp . Bass 30% _ $636 X cond. 90% _ $ 572 X loc. 40% S 229 Total Value 29 Willow 9.0 ` ~ 3 10 ~ 25 = 20 1 ~ 2 I 3 ~ ~ 1 ~ j ' 1 ~ ~ ~ I I ~ S ~ . in 63.6 X $2715q. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. Gass 30% _ $515 X cond. 90% _ $ 484 X loc. 40% = S 185 Total Value 30 London Plane 11.0 ! = 12 a0 ~ 25 1 ~ 2 = 3 ~ = f ~ 1 ~ i ~ ' ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ i 1 1 I 1 f ~ ~ , ~ I . in 95 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp. Gass 70% _ $1,795 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,616 X lac. 60% _ $ 969 Total Value v C REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~,,,~, 5-ga1= $36 15-gal = $120 24"box - 0 36"box = $1,320 ~ 1 =BEST, S~ORST 48"bo 52"box = $7,000 72"box - 5,000 Page 5 of 5 \' ' BARRI E D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353-105 2 April 26, 2002 Christy Oosterhous, Planner City of Saratoga, Planning Departrnent 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Asgari Property 20440 Arbeleche Lane Saratoga, CA Comments: As I peruse your request to respond to specific questions about Trees #1, 2, and 19-22, I see that there are features on this revised Grading and Drainage PIan in addition to those issues questioned by staffplanning that pose a threat to these trees. It would not seem adequate to address only the staff's questions without including the additional issues as well. Thus, I have taken the liberty to include a response to those additional issues. The lan reviewed for thi i th Pr ' p s analysis s e eltmtnary Grading and Dratnage Plan prepared by TS Engineering, Sheet 2 dated 8-21-01. This plan is a revised version of the plan, the original of which I reviewed for the evaluation that I prepared on September 14, 2001. For instance, an 8-inch drain line is now shown to pass between Trees # 1 and #2. This drain line crosses the root zones of these two trees (# 1, 2) and Trees #9, 10, and 11. A second drain of the same system would cut across the root zones of Trees #13, 14 and 15. All of these trees would suffer significant (or severe) root damage, by the construction of this drainage swale, which is also shown across the root zones of Trees # 13-22, depending on the depth of the cut and the width of the grading to create this drainage swale. The plan does not show whether or not any grading cuts for a swale would be required to direct surface run offtoward the catch basin between Trees #1 and 2. At this point, the risk to these two trees by this feature is unknown. This plan now shows the locations of sewer drain lines from the proposed buildings. For purposes of clarity, I have iabeled these two sewer lines "A" and "B". The trenching of the "A" line would result in significant root damage to Tree #1, but the root damage to Tree # 1 by the trenching of line "B" would be fairly minor. 1 ~~U3.o~ In response to your questions about specific distances of proposed features in relation to trees, I must preface the "safe" distances that I recommend here by comparing them to a . bean bag chair. When you push on one side of the chair a bulge appears on the other side. Then if-you were to push on the side with the bulge, another bulge would appear on another side. The same principle applies to tree protection. When a "safe" distance on one side of a tree is established, this affects the "safe" distances that would be acceptable on the other sides of the tree. Depending on the features proposed, the "safe" distances are not always the same on all sides of the tree. I hesitate to provide "safe" distances where there are several competing features (as observed here), because of the tendency for a single "safe" distance to be accepted as fixed, despite the fact that other features may change the effects on the trees root. system. With regard to the Trees # 19-22., the relocation of the footprint of the building an additional 10 feet toward the south would be sufficient to retain Trees # 19-22. However, this would pose a major risk to Tree # 1, which is being threatened on all sides. Instead I suggest the following; during review of my first evaluation dated August 4, 1998 of the trees at this site, I discovered that I had noted that Tree # 13 a California bay laurel, (Umbellularia califorrico) has the severely damaging disease of Artist's conk, (Ganoderma applanatum). I remember describing this disease to the previous owner. This disease destroys the internal structure of the wood, which will cause the tree (or parts of it) to fall. It is not a question of whether or not this will happen, it is a question of when. There is no way of estimating this accurately. I had observed a large fruiting body of this disease at the base of Tree.# 13 in 1998. I did not notice this fruiting body during my evaluation of September 14, 2001. Last week I stopped by to inspect this again. There is presently no fruiting body present (i.e., no outward indication that the disease is present). I must conclude that someone has removed the fruiting body. However, this disease does not diminish or slow its destructive activity with the removal of the fruiting body. I did not recall this at the time of my evaluation of September 14, 2001 but was reminded upon review of my notes of 1998. Because of this finding, I must change my assessment of Tree #13. I consider it hazardous. Its condition is, therefore, Poor. For safety reasons, I recommend the removal of Tree # 13. As a result of this discovery, I recommend that the footprint of the Building A be relocated as shown on the attached map: 1. A minimum of 20 feet from the trunk of Tree # 14; 2. A minimum of 18 feet from the trunk of Tree #20; 3. A minimum of 30 feet from the tnuik of Tree # 1; 4. Trees # l 3 and 22 would be sacrificed. With regard to Tree #1, I recommend the following minimum clearance distances (from the trunk): 1. Any part of the driveway turn around - 25 feet from the trunk as shown 2. The gas line -Put in same trench with sewer line B - 40 feet from the trunk 3. Sewer line A -Relocate as shown ~JDU~.®8 4. Sewer line B -Okay as proposed 40 feet from trunk 5. The 8 inch PVC drain line -redesign as shown requiring 2 energy dissipators 6. The catch basin of the 8 inch PVC line - a minimum of 35 feet from trunk 7. The foot print of the building on Lot A - a minimum of 30 feet from trunk With regazd to Tree #2, the 38-inch diameter California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), the footprint of the building for Lot B must be a minimum distance of 15 feet from the trunk. This also means that there must be no trenching or excavation (i.e., for drainage or landscape irrigation) between the trunk of Tree #2 and the footing of the building. However, it is possible to locate this building closer to Tree #2, if a root excavation were done by an air spade in advance; of final decisions about that location. This would have to be done by a specialist under the supervision of the city arborist. This would locate significant roots and their depths which would allow better decisions about the amount of root removal which would occur. I hope these comments are helpful. Of course, if you have any questions, please call. Encl: Map Tree Data Chart Tree # 13 MLB/s. Respectfully sub ~ ed, Michael L. Bench, Associat~e•_ • ~~ ~~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal ~i~Vi~9 Job Title: Asgari Job Address: 20440 Arbeleche Lane Job #08-01-187 A rit 26 2002 Measurements Condition PruninplCablinp Needs Pest/giseaae Problems Recommend. BARRIE D. COATS I o ~ ~ ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ! , ~ , ~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ W N (408) 3531052 ~ ~ I I w I ~ ~ Z I ~ z ~ I ~ u~ ~ ~ vii I r? ~ _~ ~ I f 23535ftsamdRoad $ ~ I I .~ I v 1 F 1 Z Z Z ~ Z 3! p ~~ 1 b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W 1 las Giles, U 95030 ~ N I ~ ~ ~ t ~ p ~ ~ U ~ ~ R4 W ~ Z p_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ w ~ ~ I w ~ ~ ~ ~ I U F ~ > N ~ Z ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL ~ ~ a F ~ 4~~~~~o ~~~~~m~WWOZ~~ ~~> Key / Plant Name p ~ o 0 0 = ~ i ~ U ~ U U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~' 13 Celifomia F3a Laurel multi x ~ multi I 45 ~ 100 50 1 ~ 5 6 ~ ~ Umbellularia calHomica stem stem ! ~ 1 . In 1687 X S27/sq. In. ~ ; 45,009 X sp. class 70% ~ ;31,508 X cond. 45% ~ ; 14,178 X loc. 60% ~ ; 8 Sp7 Total Value l! I I I I I I ! In 0 X i27/sq. In. - ; X sp. class ;0 X cond. S X loc. ; Total Value Revision to tree value for tree #13 from original report of 9/14/0] O C ~.-.~~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 0 24"box = 0 36"box = $1,320 48"box 52"box = $7,000 72"box ,000 1 =BEST, 5 - ORST Pa e 1 of ~' BARRIE D. CO;~TE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353-1052 October 24, 2002 Christy Oosterhous, Assistant Planner City of Saratoga, Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Asgari Property, 20440 Arbeleche Lane Comments: At your request, I have made a site visit to review the row of coast.redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) on the west side of this property. It appears that these trees had been planted as a privacy screen between this property and the two story commercial building on the adjacent property. There are 22 of these coast redwood trees in this row. They have trunk diameters ranging from 4-inches to 9-inches in diameter at 2 feet above grade. Thus, all of these trees are under the size requirement of the Saratoga City ordinance to be protected. This is why these trees were not included in the survey of trees for this site. As you observed, it appears that most of these redwood trees would be lost by proposed construction. I have reviewed the revised Grading and Utility Plan prepared by TS Civil Engineering, Sheet 2, dated August 2002. With one exception, this revised plan complies with all of the mitigation recommendations described in my letter dated Apri125, 2002 concerning the previous Grading and Drainage plan prepared by TS Civil Engineering. The one item that this plan has not improved on is the proposed Drainage Swale, which would cut across the root zones of Trees #2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and l6. The detail drawing shows that the depth of the soil cut would be 9-12 inches in depth. This would result in severe absorbing root loss for most of these trees, because the overwhelming majority of absorbing roots are located in the top 12-15 inches of soil. In the 4-25-02 letter, I recommended two energy dissipators as an alternative in order to reduce the potential root loss from the proposed drainage Swale. The other reason was to reduce the root loss by changing the location of the underground drain, which has been done on this proposed new plan. However, the drainage swale has not been altered on this plan. A new item is introduced on this proposed plan - a drain field within approximately 5 feet of Tree #23. This drain field is proposed to be 4 feet in depth and 10 feet wide. Avery large percentage of the root system of Tree #23 would be removed, and Tree #23 would not be expected to survive. If this drain field could be relocated ] 0 feet from the trunk of Tree #23, this tree would survive in good condition. • Asgari October 24, 2002 ~00~.11 Recommendations 1. I recommend that the proposed drainage Swale across the root zones of Trees #2, 8, 9 10, 11, l4, 15, and 16 be revised to utilize two (or more) energy dissipators. I recommend that one of these be located on the east side of the proposed new residence on Lot B. I recommend that the other drain dissipator be located between Trees # I 1 and # 15 east of the proposed new residence on Lot A. 2. I recommend that a berm be considered as an alternative to direct the surface runoff toward the two drain dissipators, if the surface runoff must be controlled in the area inside the driplines of Trees #2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16. I recommend this in order to avoid a soil cut and, thus, possible severe root loss: 3. As an alternative, I recommend that the Swale be excavated with an air spade. If roots 2-inches in diameter or larger are encountered in the swale, they must not be severed. In this event, the swale would have to be relocated under the supervision of the city arborist. It is conceivable that the swale would have to be relocated on the basis of root location. This would likely result in the need to construct at least two but possibly more than two energy dissipators. 4. I recommend that the proposed drain field be relocated a minimum of 10 feet from Tree #23 and outside the dripline of any other tree. 5. If these mitigation procedures can be achieved, I recommend that the plan proceed. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench Associate MLB/sl... • Asgari ~ October 24, 2002 ` ~OU~.1~ F Barrie D. Coate I Tree Survey And Preservatio Et Associates Recommendations At The (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Rd Asgari Property, 19369 Arbeleche Lane Los Gatos, CA 95033 Prepared for: City of Saratoga, Planning Division HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: Se t. 14, 2001 CONSULTING ARBORIST ,Job #08.01-187 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. `~, ~ ~N3nEV3 ~Jbio NNi tl'JQ1tlbtl$ uti } ~, ~ ~\ szos 1Jtla1 ^~ « ~ ' .fie, ~---- ~ ~ 3 ~ -a.~ ~ •~ ~ . o~ ~ ~+ ~ ,o~ ~ i '~ ~~ ~ ~~, V ~ v ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ 1 \L!S L 9t •~ /~ / • l ~EOaDaa" ~ a;_r~ ;; ~ . ~ 1 it '. _ ~ r w? ~.~ .. . J I C ~ ._~~ ~ L i r ~ , ~~ v i -- I 000.13 . „/: ~,/ ~ . -'- +j" !'~ I ° / - ~ ~, _`+~ r ' ` _ ~.~~; _ • ' ~ _... s~ ~ ~)~ ~ ~ ~ ~' - ~' ~ ~ ,.rc _ 1 ~ ~ . , _ ~ .. ~~ ~ 1 J ~-~/E1r~i. ~ l - ':~ ~/' ' P ` ~ --~ ~ iE~ ' // - ~ ? _ / _ r /, ~ / / ! BS& / `\ / _' / - ' )1 ~ ~ ~. 1 / _ ~ ~ ~ /, \~~yyy ~ BSB~Q / . ~ ~~~~,,,,yyyy \ • ~ ~ ~, 1 ~rf ~g ,,a,,,~~.>m~,,aoo~Rnmm~„~a,~ _ .~r ~ - [NRRIED.COATE -- ---- . .~ y ' ~---------~----- --~--~--~--- ~~ bf,' ) end ASSOCIATES -- „aa" Rms. !~Na~~ n~eeiare lane / \ '~Y ~~ / ~Mfor ~ >\ 1 ~ / W`7 ._ _ Can o15. o.Ci PLwunR ~T'umxnl__ . - ~~~-i~ ~o NURTIRI[,71JRAL ('()NSI;LTANT ~ Uate ~ - _1pn1 M_:IXI? . • X. ? f~ONSUi.T7NG MBf]RIST ~1M~i~:•iR.IMta~_ ------ ~-- ~ / ~ ~ Trs iwrops mnepoM b nalmim Uu' ns r,-'_-; ~~ i ti)dmmumsamaaelooum, %~ ~_~ . \ ~ r ` GRAPHIC SCALE i .~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ \ i f ~\ i ~e~ m n ~ I • • • ' 000.14 .. ., ._~,...r-~. ;..,.Y-r,?~,z,~iKrT: y'3~... -..~C`~..w.;M`_..`s.. ~e~~`.eare::~..,,~...n.~•.~iw'..~.-~~:-c~.~:.:i%~~`e-'~i-ii_ TREE SURVEY AND PRESrrtVa PION RECOMIvIENDATIONS AT THE ASGARI PRvYERTY 6 20440 ARBELECHE LANE, SARATOGA Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, l 992. Tree #2 is to be removed by this plan. Trees #22, 19, 20, and 21 would not be expected to survive and, in this sense, are planned to be removed. These five trees have a total value of $18,315. This value is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed, two 36 inch boxed, and two 24 inch boxed native specimens. There are other equivalent alternatives. One alternative is forty-three 24 inch boxed native specimens. However there is not a great deal of open space for a number of small specimens. Nevertheless, replacements are suggested. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus iobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye -Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. The value of tree #] is $14,362. The combined value of the retained trees is $105,712. A bond equal to 50% ($7,181) the value of tree # 1 combined with a bond equal to 25% ($26,428) of the value of all. of the other retained trees is suggested to assure protection. Respectfully submitte , ..----:•-~g Michael L. Bench, A o ate ~~~ Barri oate, nn~pa MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Map • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 9, 2001 OOU~.01 Job Title: Asgari Job Address: 20440 Arbeleche Lane Job # 08-01-187 y u1 Meaaurementa Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs PestlDiaeaae Problems Recommend. l i i ! i ? i i i i l i l l BARRIE D. COATS ~ i ~ ! ? ~ ~ ! I i I i ~ I i ; i i ~; i i I i ; v ' ~ , ' ; and ASSOCIATES ~ ! ~ N ' ~ ; ° ; ; _ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N f '' (108) 3531052 0 ~ i ~ w I ? j ~, ~ i ~ c7 i ~ f ~ w i ~ ~ ~ I ~ i ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ , ~ ~ ~ o m i w , f " ,,; ~ i '- i z z i Z l o i? 3 I w i~ ° ~ ~ ~~ I° " i° ~ ; ~ ^ t W 23Si5 Scut Rand + l ' ® i w i aq F- ~ I z ? ~ ~ v ~ 1 d l ° I 4 ~ Z ~ ! ¢ i o: x w - I ~ ~ lrc~,U95a~o ~ ~ t ~- } ~ ~w i ,~, ~ ~~ ~o ~ v ~~ _ l g w w lz a = o ~o w ig is Q Iw w a l i l F- ° C i 2 i Z~ Z a i Z ~~ h Z F ° ~ ~ i J i ! = i ~ F I U ° _ I ° ~ ~ 3 1 3 3 l o ~ w U ~ l x U U I i N N ~ = m = = m ~ D i ~?~ ~ ,~ I ~ o lolo o ~ m ~ W w ~ ;Z ;''i'- ° ~° o 0 Ke # Plant Name Y ° ~ o ° °° w a x v~ x I ~ y o U x ~ U l ~ ~ ~ U i U x i w U o: Q o: U a i ~ ° rr ~ € ~ i i z ~ 1 Dou las Fir 44.0 I ~ ~ 47 ~ 100 ' 55 1 i 1 2 = ~ _ ~ ~ ~ Pseudotsu a menziesii l ~ i l ~ l . in 1520 X $27/s q. in. = S 41,034 X sp, doss 509'0 = $20,517 X cond. 100% _ $ 20.517 X loc. 70% _ $ 14 362 Total Value 2 California S camore 38.0 ~ 40 90 55 1 ~ 2 3 ~ t = ~ Plafanus racemosa = I ' i i ~ l i . in 1134 X $27/s q. in. = S 30,606 X sp. Gass 709'0 $21,424 X cond. 90% _ $ 19,282 X loc. 70°~ _ $ 13 497 Total Value 3 California S camore 27.0 ~ ? 45 i 29 80 1 2 3 3 I 1 2 t i i i l~ l 1 i ! I I ~ I ~ i i ~ s . in 572 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 15,451 X sp . Gass 70% _ $10,816 X cond. 90% _ $ 9,734 X loc. 60% _ $ 5841 Total Value 4 Mont Pine 26.0 ~ j ~ ~ 28 1100 i 25 1 i 2 3 I ~ ~ I _ ~ I i Pinus radiate i ! I i I i i I , j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . in 531 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 14,328 X sp . Gass 309'0 = $4,298 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,869 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 934 Tonal Value 5 Monte Pine 20.01 ~ ~ ~ 22 j 100 i 25 1 2 3= I i , l I I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ i , i . in 314 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 8,478 X sp . Gass 30% _ $2,543 X cond. 909'° _ $ 2,289 X loc. 509'° _ $ 1 145 Total Value 6 Mor>ter Pine 21.0 ~ ~ 23 100 25 1 2 3 I i ~ I ; , i ~ i ~ I t I ~ ~ i i I i i ~ i l ' . in 346 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 9,347 X sp. Gass 30% _ $2,804 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,524 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 282 Total Value i'J REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~ 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 O 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 = ORST 48"box 52"box = $7,000 ' 7Z"box ,000 1 of 5 'l Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated B) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project is located adjacent to the Saratoga Creek. Waterways, including streams and creeks were often places where Native Americans (California Indians) lived or carried out activities. Mitigation: If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within a 50 meter radius of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented. (Source: Northwest Information Center) C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X No impact. Discussion: The project site has not been identified as containing any unique paleontological or geological features (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan) D) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 4 b. (Source: Northwest Information Center) 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: A) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The San Andreas Fault is the only area within the City and its Sphere of Influence that the State has designated as a Special Studies Zone. When development for human occupancy is proposed within these zones, special studies relating to seismic hazards are required and must be submitted to the City Geologist for review. The project site is not located in the San Andres Fault Zone (I). The project site is located in the Valley Floor Zone (V). Zone V can support urban residential development. Geological investigation is not necessary, but soils analysis should be required. 8 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City of Saratoga, CA ~JOU+~~4 Mitigation: The existing wire mesh fence at the top of bank shall be removed and replaced by awildlife-friendly split-rail fence that is setback from the top of bank by 10 feet. This will allow wildlife to better utilize the riparian corridor while discouraging human intrusion into the Saratoga Creek. The proposed buildings when submitted for design review approval shall be reduced in size to a maximum of 22 ft in height and approximately 3,000 sq ft (parcel A) and 3,200 sq ft (parcel B). The project biologist shall review the design review applications to ensure the height and size of the proposed buildings will not significantly impact wildlife. Refer to sections 1 b and 3 b & c. (Source: Impact Assessment, H.T. Harvey & Associates, Ecological Consultants) Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated E) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: A creek protection easement shall be established at the edge of the Riparian Corridor. The setbacks for the proposed project were measured from the top of the creek bank. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposed project. Mitigation: A creek protection easement shall be filed with the County Recorder. The easement boundaries shall reflect the edge of the riparian corridor as indicated on Figure 2 of the Biological Assessment date April 11, 2002. Restrictions on the easement shall include those prescribed by MCS 14-25.065(d). All conditions of the Arborist Report shall be implemented. Refer to section 1 b. (Source: Ordinance No. 71-184, Saratoga General Plan, Tree Protection Handbook, Arborist Reports, MCS 14-25.065(d)) F) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 4 a-e. (Source: Ordinance No. 71-184, Saratoga General Plan, Tree Protection Handbook, Arborist Reports, Impact Assessment, H.T. Harvey & Associates, Ecological Consultants, Saratoga Municipal Code 14-25.065(d)) 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X No impact. Discussion: No structures on the subject site or surrounding areas are listing on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. (Source: Saratoga Historic Resources Inventory) • 7 Initial Study 20440 Arbeleche Lane City ojSaratoga, CA OODU43 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . ~JOUO~O BAAQNID CEQA GUIDELINES ATTACHMENT 8 FEASIBLE CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF PMIo • • ~as~c~C©atr'ol '~~ ur~e~ ;The'o"11©,nag controls should ~~ei~ ~ , ~:canstrucnon sites ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~, ~~: ~ , ~. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. , • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboazd. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking azeas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking azeas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. =Enhanced Central M`.-. r ~z ,.~.~ .-~~. • ~ ~ ~ ~.~,~~s~~u„t~~t~'lem~een#e~;at ronstructtan srtes~gre'~ on~-~~' ,~;- 7 ~ ~ t ~ ~' •All "Basic" control measures listed above. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed azeas as quickly as possible. Opttonal~. Control Meas~i es~` Tie ~ffl~low~ng {~onir=c~1 measu~-es ~' ` ~~str.ort~~% encouraged'' at~~construction ~~sites thatare large in- area; located~.a~ar-~sensifive~ receptors or which for an~~ other Treason; may warrantRs:~a~ddi6onal~, emissions. reductions. ~~ ~ ~ ~ $~'~°"-" • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windwazd side(s) of construction azeas. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. ~JODU89 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~OOa94 ATTACHMENT 10 MODIFIED MERCAIIJ INTENSITY SCA-[E I Not felt. Marginal and long-period affects of lazge earthquakes. II Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed. III Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks. Duration estimated. May not be recognized as an earthquake. N Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks; or sensation of a jolt like a ball striking walls. Standing motor cars rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. Glasses clink. Crockery clashes. In the upper range of N wooden walls and frames creak. V Felt outdoors; direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset. Doors swing, close, open. Shutters, pictures move. Pendulum clocks stop, start, change rate. VI Felt by all. May frightened and tun outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken, knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overiumed. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shaken (visible, or heard to rustle). VII Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices (also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments). Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving along sand and gravel banks. Lazge bells ring. • Concrete irrigation ditches damaged. Vlll Steering of motor cars affected. Damage to masonry C; partial collapse. Some damage to masonry B; none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twistirug, fall of chimneys, factory stacks, montunents, towers, elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundation if not bolted down; loose panel walls thrown out. Decayed piling broken off. Branches broken from trees. Changes in flow or temperature of springs and wells. Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes. IX General panic. Masonry D destroyed; masonry B seriously damaged. (General damage to foundations.) Frame structures, if not bolted, shifted off foundations. Frames racked. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks in ground. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected, earthquake fountains, sand craters. X Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures I and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks to canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly. XI Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service. XII Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into I the air. Source: Richter, C.F., Elementary Seismology, San Francisrn, CA: W.H. Freeman Co., 1957. Note: To avoid ambiguity, the quality of masonry, brick, or other material is specified by the folbwing lettering system. (This has no I connection with the conventional classes A, B, and C constriction.) Masonry A. Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced, especially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, etc; designed to resist lateral forces. Masonry B. Good workmanship and mortar, reinforced, but not designed to resist lateral forces. Masonry C. Ordinary workmanship and mortar, no extreme weaknesses, like failing to tie in at comers, but neither reinforced nor designed to resist horizontal forces. Masonry D. Weak materials, I such as adobe; poor mortar; bw standards of workmanship; v~ak horizontally. - - - tJOUc793 ~ ~ r Z / / ~; a GRAPHIC SCALE /~~~/ ' I Tx ~"~ To ~ ,~ ~• r aEMdAEO w/0 THE usE a , p \ y j NEAW MAE}ANANY p N y~ arNAxo~, ~ r\',, ,A 1 q PHS'I) LL 1 inch ~ 2D IL / ~ t ~ fY'RRU~" IT Ut10 / + 0~ ', TREE ~!''~ .' ','JNf APEA 8 V , --1. S 39'..17 30 ( ~'"'' ,A~" '' ;, .~. !/ ~ ~: w InIJD~ OF MLiHf+ISON / IRAP7111WAAOOR n ~ -lil- 1° 2s`sR.~ ' ~./ ~ ~~. a 1 Opl C P ~I i - °ri, ST9ry 1A '~~ .TREE' / .r~i. " / ' S P ~ 'd- 1AEE d71 - ~ 1, i t REM i W ~ Fi LIE ~ t~eM sF 1 e ' ~ ;'~ rc ~ I ~Cr~ /~F /. T~'•?~.~ 1 _.r .r- ~~.. 1:~-~0~.°rPTM ,r F" fir'. ~ 'x. , YA o ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~!,/'~ ' ~ a 1 1 ! Y ~ , ~ .~ ''I / . a 1 '` I ~%~,':j I a 1 I( 1 °~ ( 1 LAWUS OF' IJf.ALF , ~ Lvu S ;,e~ , 1 ` i ~^ h~ ' ! ~ Jury \ r !'' } 1, ~V 1 ~~ 'PROPOSED FViC I ~(" ~~ nmNARaho ~1 i 1 ~, I r ` ~ '' 1.`\ , ~E t ~ 1~ . d~"J .. 1 ,1 7 ~1I ~1 I '. ~ ', ,5;~ ~~~ 'y ~~(-, 'i / .. RPAIINI COARDON I ~Q ~~'. ~~ I. MOPOINI I AEAA " " ,:~' 'N/~/ iASEwm ' 7~ORIC fL f OF CREEK FROU F-1 ' I ~AAP PC 1 ' i; ,' U _..~ ~ i I LOT TABULATION __ I GROSS NET PARCEL A 0.416 0.371 PARCEL B 0.381 0.324 TOTAL 0.797 0.695 Y ~. PROJHCI'DKFORMATIUN OWNER: CIIOLAAOlE2A JAVANMARD E2AT LOUE2dDEH 1510 WALTHRS AYE CAMVAEL4 CA.95000 ENGINEER: TSlCIVd ENGINEERING, INC. 90 NGRTH FIRST STREHT, SUITE 101 SANJOSR, CA 951ll PROPERTY ADDRESS: JOHO ARBELECHE LANE SARATOGA,CA 95010 A.P.N 1: 797.17AS! 7ANMC: Rml LAND US@ 01 Rn,Sk~k FvIdlY ResMena ACREAGE: 080 ~vn PROPOSED USE: II Rn, Shgk FamilX Rnidentt (TWU~LUTSUBDIVLSON) WATER SUPPLY: SANlOSE WATER COMPANY SANRARYSEWER: WESTVALLY SANITATIONDISTRICf SfORM SEWER: CR'i OF SARATOGA POWER &'CAS: PACIFIC GAS&BLECFRIC(PCb.EI THLEPRONE: PACFIC DELL STREEf IMPROVFJNENTS : NO SIAEET IMYROVEMENfB q ,"d I AIdO IF !1FALE ATTACHMENT 12 ~ ~ ,A A 1 0 U\ ~. Y~,C E hPPP1 SITE ~'E S~R4l 0P~ 9XOS Oqr 9 OS RD VICINITY MAP NO SCALE LEGEND - - EX. CONTWR MINOR .~~ ~ ~ EK, CON LOUR MAJOR - - - - -SET BACK LWE PROPOSED BURDING ~ PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED PROPERTY L01 TINE - - - - -EASEMENT -- - --- CENTER UNE ----- '~ - - EX, B18LOINC k AREA EX. WALL -~ ~---- ~ ~ WOOD FENCE ' -~ TOP Of BANK ' - - - ~'-- - ~ SANI fARY SEVER •. -... ,...' ~_ •• , • E%. CURB & GUTffA - - E%. TOE OF BANK/CREEK'S CEIERLINE - E% ADJACENT PROPERTY E%, HATER MC TEA C1 EK TREE TRUNK ~aa ( EN SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ' EX. SANITARY SEWER CLEAN-OUT E%. FIRE HYDRANT n~dY:l EX. BACK FLOW PREVENTER EXISTING iflEE 10 BE REMOVED ~o EXISUNC WEE f0 REMAIN ~ ' /, j~~ F100R ZONE AREA r - -:I RIPARIAN CORRIDOR ,(, °- a 1 - E%. GRAVEL DRIVEWAY s: rf i E////X.~~VV ACEF~~PAVIEIIMENT 11L~- FIIEPONSD DitIV~1AY 117 SE''VVP' L177 21YI 217002 ~ 2 , ~ TS SETBAfX , - mEE ~ / V.r ~ I Y 1 R ~ I 1 1 LAiIUS OF fFff iJF ! Ep f" .~ 1)'_.St 17 ~ J (1 /1 1?. V. Yv '7 / ,F ;P z ;ARATiJGA ~ 1 / `~a ~ TRA'I i[119 O ` b' R~ADWAY ~'~} a ~ MDn+ ~ % l * ~ y ,~ ~"~ y' ~I SARA NSA INM Pl ACE ~ il; a I I ,: ` - i ;•/ i 1 ~~ P ~; ~ 1 ~ I~`s ~ I i ;~~~ ~ ~!~' ~ 4 1 a , . ~ R } L A;' atll I L IN M1YR . ANI ( IGN(1411U III]I LI A11011 ~ - W1 , ~'v f ~ ~ , ~V ~ ..., ~ N fy~ ';,1 ' / • 1 ( ~;~ , .' ~ ~ e' , 1 RA ~\ ' \~~, 1 ,I I N 1 :r 'II , y~ ~ /.~, I p~ ~ p ,, a '~ ~:• 1 L ~ ~ 11 ` VIIiF ~ ,1 „ O lr NEVI ENR RIt,Rtl:: +I ~ •'.~ ,. "TuRO EGRO, nlln mielc: i I ~~ >'''G• ~ . '~? " 1~s 1 li.u EVa.. ~ urv7EC.(xn, D') 1 1; ~` ` ~ ~ `1 0 ~- ~ _ Z '~ . i ~1 SETBACKS _ SLOPES _ PRONGED k PROVIDED k FRONDED REQUIRED HEAR SLOPf AT SroE TOR Of 25' FROM )NE REOUlFED AVERAGE BUIL01riC LOT DEP7N WOTH FRONT FRONTAGE SITE INO1H TOP Of HANK SETBACK SITE SJOPf FOO7PRMi A 100' 100' 23' 70' fl' 25' 10' 9R 8R- D f50' 120' 25' 130' U' 25' ~ ;1' 22R SR nl r~ ~ 1 7 I .. ~ / REFER 10 illf ARBORi51 R[YUR1 TOR Apd110NA1. WEppyAipll A w 1 M' ~~ a 1 I I ~ - M RK TS CIViL ENGINEERING INC GATE'. N1C USi 2002 SHEET N0, I BASIS Of BEARINGS E A BENCH H MARK FOR THIS PRO [CT IS CITY BENCH 1HE BENf B - , . ~ 90 N FIRST ST STE 101 TEN TA TI UE MAP I _ - SCALE: -_ - I'=20' I W 171E BEARING, SWM OF THE f,EHfF'LIN SARA(OGA-SUNNri'ALE ROAD AS SeOWN ON . , MARK }5. USC & CS J-LBO O SARATOGA POST 5 . „ . SAN JOSE CA 95113 _ LANDS OF A::GARI cj 'MAP CF IFIE MANY PARKER HOMESTEAD; OFFlGE 90 YARDS EAST OF INE WIERSECiION OF ~ _ , - 29 I1pAWN BY' _ M$ _ RECORDED IN VOLUME F-I OF MAPS, PAGE JI, SARAIOGA AVE AND $ARATOCA-SUNNYVALE RD. } MS INSEAIEO NE1Y ODUDWG FOO7PPoNT FOP BOTH IDiS R 21 UZ Z CIUI~ ~NGIN~~~ING APN 397-27- - s(Ilzv BY: $R - DF 2 SHFI7S SANTA CWRA CDI1N?Y RECORDS, WAS TAKEN S ' NORTH fACE W NORTH CONCRETE BLOCK WALL OF POST OFFICE BUILDING AND 3 6' ABOVE SIDEWALK Z MS DEVISED PUN PER COMMENTS FROM Alt oFPMNENIS Bf21/02 ~ SAPAATOGA-SUNNYVALE .ROAD ACID ARBFLEGI~iE LANE -- FROJ ENCR ___ _ : MS -----~--- JO AN ON THI Ai THE BASIS OF AEAkINCS $HO MAp . . EL=A74.60 1 MS PROPERLY TINE PER WATER DISTRICT REGUEST 2-18-01 ' CAIJFOR~dI/', CITY OF SARATOGA ---- - - g NO ' , BY RE\nsTOks DATE I'H: 408.993.1000 TOLL FREE: 888.321.7070 EA%: 408.993,066 , rutGK Br: AA o1- 19T a 7 - orp xAw.'Ra-m>reuxs ARE CESfAIP71ON5 PIA(,~[BMIU~!lAAIRA~fOGA • • C 9 // / - ;r / Ex sxD ro eE I / REMy1ID a/0 iNE USE OF ~', XCAYf WIRANARY d I i r\ ,l , ..,,, n 480 ___ ..:: :. ..... ~.' ..::'. _L / / .,'~ T PRaPOSto •wax ~' 7 440 .. ._. ...... _ / / J I+ T rnNmgt m~nrr\rgl N e ~\ /~~, J ..,. E ~ .- ... / F/ .. II' SBl ~ 15' SBL ~ ,30 ~ ~ ... ~ ._ .. - LANDi i1F MJHEISON f/ _ _ _ r, EE:PR ~ , ~ /~~\ ~. o o AREA DAMN DATUM ELEV _ ' ' .. . - ~: EE Fm ,' o ar.uxu e ~ / ~ e '1 4~ a20 .- / ,P. ~ '/ ` 4 ' uiN I Nv.,w, l ~/•~ / / ~ i GRauP Exlsnxc SECTION B-B >acEn9y' 1S '~, , SECTION B-B 7D' ~E ~ ' ~ ~ SCREE r' . / / Tg'~ ,r / , / ~ ,.7 55vv++ , i I 1 I ) L r - { ~ ~'~ P5 P~~ ,A iNEE Azl ' ~ ,' 1: r Y / ' ~ / ~ I~ ,Sol 1 ~ ~_~~ ~ ' ~ ~= i ~l I ~~J ~ i;' ~ d ~DS~ ~'~ l0 A ~ ~. >r~ 1'.~'~ e-s VICINITY MAP ? r: ! ~' f = I 440 ~ ~ ~ ~- I I ~ ~ i r i'. 1 ~,, 564y ~ / I D _ I / ~ ~I l > ~ ~~~ NO SCALE 4 1 y ~ ,30{ i X t ~ ~ t. l ~~ I I ~ f ' ~' //dtAIN, ~ ~~ 'ti , mEEF ,' r LEGEND r ~ ~ ; e ~ FF.,10.5 ~ \ ~, i 1 DATUM ELEV 420 ~ ~. f 1'_:I I T ,' ~ . { {, .. a'.~'~ ~ ~'~ ~a 1 1 1 ~ P~ k !! ~ ~ / ~ ~ / ~~ ~ . E% CONTOUR MAJOR 420.00 f ~ ro~x~ tl'` y ,...,:'Pw• a 5, . 1a' f' /j c,rv,: ~ - - -SET BACK LINE ~ , GROUP ExISTING I ~ 9 ' ~ rv •• y11 E -~ PROPOSED BUILDING y SECTION A-A / , / pm ~'~'^` .. ~ y, ~ ` I I/(f ~~ / ~ ~ ~~ PADPEfl7Y LINE / 7 AAAIII 3uii.r z ~ SECTION A-A A~ I ; /''1 / (4G'~.,c~~ / / ~ ~r "Y1asro,D ioSERS ~ 3 '3 I ~ : !' ' ' / / -. ROPOSEO PROPERTY LD7 UNE 1, scAtr r • m' /Y ~A c;a' TE ~ m eE nEUDYm ~--'^~, " ;' i _ - EASEMENT >: ~ ~ % caaF ro snN r 9Y xAxD j ' ~~ e~° o \ ' ., r 1 A rT ~~. o'. mE,~ ~, ~' •. ~".•' ~ ~ ~'r. _ YDROLO -CENTER LINE ~ : `/fix ~_-,_._-~.' ~ ,' GY RESULT: _ l ~ ~ ~ ~~ / AE ~ I ' a ~ i / %~ ~ ¢~-^a-v"~ E% WALL INC Q AREA i ,1 `". ,'~ ~~ ~" ~o'~ ~, t 1 ~~ --- __~~ ' ~ ~ ~ / 0.072 cfs OF STORM DRAINAGE WILL L '~ J~ :NN J:,,p ~+;s J, ,,/,~~ ,~r '~ E;~~ ~bExEN„ED ~ i' /' ENTER THE ENERGY DISSIPATOR FROM_-+ - WooDFENCE ` 10P OF BANK 11 1 ` : ; NN, , I as . ' ` , . 55 ~ ~ + ~ ~,, ~ ~ k1;' THE EARTH SWALES. sANIraRY ~wER n ', ~ I~ixv, a7 ,r. ~~ti o g z.. .. ,. ~^~ " E%. CURR & GUTTER r s-` p TaEs '~ q -~.. n '" r~ ~'x ~ --- E%. TOE OF BANK/GREEN'S CETERLIN 1 ~ r ._.~ +~" ~ . " . 1 ~"~~~ ~~ ' ' ,' , ~ TPQ I n ~ -- - -- "-- EK. ADJACENT PROPERTY a 1 In ~ er'Y 0 P 4 1 Y~ N 1S' sBL ~ J /~ 2 N~ ~' a r, EK. WATER METER 3 1 ° ~ ~ I iG ~r" ~ ' ~ I ~ '..~ + irt~€'rlo - / I E%. 1REE TRUNK 1 ~ f I ¢g,,TCx ersm ~s ~L (I in i I EK SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE o I1 7AN~, ~¢.,/ST .p?°Rlu•a9P \ PROPOSED TI~ W~'p f ~ '" ~ EX. SANITARY SEWER CLEAN-Wi [A: D1Rrlr I.P.C r10 ~ ~ ~` ~J 6~7~~ Mtl•/STS" NRNAAWlW 1 EDNFES~A rn N nns I-'. }~ ~ / Z{a J/ $ . ~/ ~ / . y~r. E%. FIRE HYDRAIJT a x,Plh ni L'.ILJX 1 `r t ,.. 'rJ ~ . ----- I / O ~ % -rl r~L'I E%. BACK FLOW PREVENTER m r7'w LI•rv GE .r+, A ~ ~~ ~ K ~ '' I~NNEti DSE9 55 LATERAL m EA ~- a '. (. ^ ~ - TREE MUST BE KEPT yl ` / /,; SSIW SgpLa4D7PER/1 i0 BE IN5T4~lCR ~::. ® / TRCE I] z ~,y~ ct.-. TuNNEIMc wN DEPTN~F~4', ' \ TREE l1 / ~, JO k Q TREE TO BE KEPT IF,POSSIBLE 1 '. ' 'I } 1 ,',a* ~q; ~'B' P`c so ON / F -/ T' , . FLOOR Z@1E AREA ~ ~ / ,- ~ ~ .' ~ ~ ~. L•1T, S.ra l ' ~ ~. .. A h 15 /L'~(1 / r ORIG ~. il. / . -r,~ a 1 1 I .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ' LAG DRAW 0~ ~i.11 ~ ! ' 1 ~~ / / i OF CREEP, -/ D i , 'P'ly / ~ 'r1 MM-470.5 GRACE ~ b'P ~ , C. /~ FROM F-1 ,{ •~. ~~ ~ z ~ rv-,7eas rr•Nao' I A~ r MAP PG 11 _ L~ ~ RIPARIAN CORRIDOR ._ /.' . ' ~ . ~, ~ Pj~E~. PAD•/79.1' ., ~"~ oal •~ I y i4 ~ I 7 Paoaoscp ~ % 7 ~~' ~ Gcl ---~_ - A ~ t'.f Jl u ~, ~ ~ ~',• - sscD T B . ~ ~ I/ / (u ~ ~\ -- ~ ~ ao u0 1; E%, GRAVEL DRIVEWAY ~ 1 ,-" /'~ -''/' rt, . \ , ~T'' ~ ~ e 162,8 Sf '.r ,~. / ' ~ '~=="_-- - E%. AC PAVEMENT + / ~ N* I ~ ~' , . ~ _ ''1 ~ '`'/ \ . ...\` 1 ~'~ W F~µ y~ 1 k ! Jl ' ~~~r~ 7 i:~ _ 3 5"~ PROPOSED DRIVEWAY z ~ 1 it r, ~ VEGATAnVF SWALE S , 5 ~ ~ ~ A-A ppRABOLIC CROSS-SECTION a ~ , ~'% `r', 1 g 1 . ~ Q SEEDING GPEtlFSG710N5: a 1 ~ `~ ~ , „ .%' ,~~ 1 '/ / !/J ~ ALL SEE SHALL CONFORM WRH ALL UWS AND RC6UlATI0N5 ~. 7 YA. PERTAINING TO THE SALE P1JD SHIPMEM OF SEED AEQIBAED BY THE ~" ~ ~ ~ I kx' r r~R t: E r 1 Il / 17' Slt :' 27' sa~E ~i / ~ ~ CAUFOANN FOOD AND AGAIOJLTURAL CODE OF 1982, AEGIAATIONS o 1 'D r, c it 71 ~ s 1 ~ . r,;, ,,,M ., ... ,: ; 1 ~ is ' - OF I9B3 AND FEDERAL SEED ACT. ~E SHALL BE DELiVEAED TO THE e I, J . ~' 'r ~ `; y ~ / ~' SI1E TAGGED AND LABF]ED iN AUDROANCE WITH 1HE STATE Z , Y 'AO ~~ , k .,.r/ ~, 11 .TM 1 /~,„°l ~f AGRICU.IURAL COOEAND SHALL BE ACCEPfABIE TO THE COUNTY ~ I ~ 1 / ? ~ , . ' ?r' AGRIdAIURAL COMMISSIONER, ~^ ~Q G 1 ~ I ~ rl ! rf ~ ~} ~ C % / ~ '~ - SEED SHALL BE OF QUAIlTY WTBCH HAS A MINIMUM PUpf LLVE $E{D ~ ZZ 1 i `~ ~ ~ E , / i ~ ua~ rw u,r AS SPE~IFD. WEE SEED SHALL NOT EfOEED 0.5 PERCENT OF THE q11 1 , / 71:..~'' D /,'.f'? ~; :'~ ie E, FORE INE SEED AND INERT M47FRIAL. ALL SEW 65UBIECT TD a 1 1 ~ AAA '~.. I.. ~~ I j5' IFSPECIION AND TAGS SHALL GE SUBMITI~TO THE EHGLNEER FOR ,~ y / / // '~ ' ea : ~, ~ ,~,• ar aw rx. APPROVAL AND ACTEPfANLE. SPE4E5 ANDfOR VARIETIES NAY EE in ew rr R¢. 0 1 1 ~ ~ / +~ ~ I -rr- _ ^x A etA°" SUBSTITUTED UPON APPROVAL OF ENGINEER w / ~ I ~ i ~ I l ~- IT IS AECOMMENDEDTHATINECOUNttfARMPDVISORBE p 11 )9) ~ 01 ` ' ~ , .' raj.-.II x 1 I I•I(1`~~ ,F' IY Or ' 41 Gl ~ CONTACTED TO CHEQf WHICH SPEQE$ARE ~Si ADAP1Ela TO THE ~. •~ } / ~ i ru r ' u ~, ax ,rm am Ar a w, LOflrL MfA. o x ~ ,, ;~ i;'l,~,i- D T.fl r.avraaaamm ¢ .`,'~Ar'A fl,!•". 'i.- /~ °' r ~ ra,,axn rxu I SEED AHDfERTILIIEA WILLBE APMJED HIDMWCALLY OR BY HANG J ~ 1 ~,. ~ °j A ~ SR'n T;LAA ~.ii P' „f.F, aan ru ; z 1 ,1 I ~ , n wowm wr ,, 0 1` ~ i ~'.. ~ J AT THE RATES $PE4FlED BELLOW. ON ROPES, STRAW SHAH BE 1 " ~. ~ ~1. ~ ~ J i° .. `• x ~~ raw c rn APPLIED BY BONER OR BY HAND ANO ANCHORED IN PLACE BY i 1 i . , " ~ °xAM,~ra as rna PUNCHING. ~', / ~ r. , /'~ B ~ 1 / ' / r M ~ ~„ sccnoN r ITEM POUNDS PER ACRE: z xra , 1 aAr m 1 .'/r.... ~ ''~, ,; ~/,:' ---r= A aaaxt r,ma Tait u:N: ma"-° SEED POUNDS rGntttrar z - ~1 1, 39i-2%~2ri I ~, A ~'D, aax poa ~ BLUE WBDRYE 11 14 3 1 LAFIDS (iF INEALE .'' ,re.u , / ~;' ,W r 7 „~xr~aan°.'v' ¢Lrwase+uae7 1 1 ~ i~~,U.uEw I. w GRAPH SCALE 1 /,' ~\, ?;m a 1• i lo' ~~~~Itv~ ~amoms rr«c o o .i:IL Iroa~ANLA~M DF SOW BAPLFY IB Sl 't~ i %,,. ~ ,.. ,7 ' a ! ,aP~~ Nry ~1 rr ENERGY DISSIPATCR DETAILw~r°r~ir"°O4 $L%LkEEl6F{SCIIE 6 7 ~ < 4 :h ~pEl Sj~. ~ I'..,~``,,~~~~~ \ ~ rxxa TNOMCA7404T:R ACFIYUS) 6 2 Er l Ix Pe I . L IA~n • zolR 1 1'' ~ ~ ~ `/ / DRAIN FIELD o w oFi~owERS B 9 N, i.S. m ~ I ILA' ° A L TS CINL ENGINEERING, INC. IWTE: wc., Poo2 sHEET No. ~AStsoFeEARwcs BENCHMARK 6 _ _~ 9oNFIRSTST.,sTE.,o, PRELIMINARY GRADING & UTILITY PLAN $~A~_E;__,_•.zG_'~ 1HE BEFRINC, SOU1H OF THE CENTERUNE OF THE BENCH MARK FOR MI5 PROJECT IS CIS! BENCH LANDS OF ASGARI ~ ~ 2 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD A$ Sf10WN ON MARK }5. USC ra GS J-180 0 SARATOCA POST 5 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 L`RA'!IF BY; MS "MAP Of iliE MARY PARKER HOIAESIEAD,' OFFICE 90 YARDS EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF a APN 397-27-29 ~ ~ ~~ RECORDED IIJ VOLUME F-1 OF MAPS, PAGE Ii, SARATOG0. AYE AND SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE R0. 3 MS INSEnTEO xEw BUILDING fOD1PAINi FDR BOM LO15 8 21/02 `Z-CIUI~ ~NGIN~~pING SUR'1 BY__ SR - OF 2 SHEE(5 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, WP.S TAKEN NORDI FACE OF NORTH CONCRETE BLOCK WALL of 2 MS DPW, PFR EDMMENIS FROM Ill DEPARIMENIS B 21 02. ~ SARATOGA'-SUNNYVALE ROAD AND ARBELECHE LANE -- AS THE BA?.IS CA OEARINC$ SHOWN ON nIIS POST OFFICE BUILDING AND }.6' ABOVE SIDEWALK. 1 MS 70RM pRAIN SYSTEM PLR WATER DIS71tICT T2-18-0 CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA PROJ ENGn: MS JOB N0. MAP. EL=47468 CI ICCK BY; AA OI-241 BY HEYiGI0N8 DATE PH; 408.993.1800 TOLL FREE: 888.327.7070 FAK: 408.993.066 - oxs xwe. Re-vtmoa; a" z G Afi Y ~ 2 3 1<Q~k. at _.. /~Pk ~` r g"~; ~ ie,.~, ' ~ i~ .~ r _. ~ ~; ~ ,~~ ~ ~~ 1: . "~y jN~l~ 'y F,~aw i 'YF: ~' ~.r" ~.ti: R ~, ~~tir t~ r "r - `~°i,' .. LOT A 1 SARAT®GA, CA. .~ SAI~ATO~GA SUNNYVALE RD. & ARBELECHE LANE ~~ „ Iz.I~NT..:51D~ ~LEVA'I"I©N ,b. . ~ U Fsd,11~Y ~ ~ ate. I~-=-r --- E:WLLY , . ~~ ~' TM . uvl•ty dw I o~ ~ \~ 2 Gz v~ r -- X125 I FL:C~~ i°1~.~ kA~ PROJECT DATA/LOT"A" LOTSI2E. .........................................13,841 SOF L07 COVERAGE .....................................28 % BUILDBJG: ALLOWABLE ..............................................3,880 SOF PROPOSED ...............................................3,800 SOF BUILOWOIPROPOSED: FIRST FLOOR ...........................................1,860 SOF SECOND FLOOR .....................................1,415 SOF GARAGE .....................................................465 SOF PRIVATE ACCESSCROAD FOR LOT'A' 8'B' ..................................3,873 SOF PARKING SPACES ..............................2 COVERED TYPE OF CONTRUCTK)N ......... Vd'! OCCUPN4CY GROUP: ................. R3 NO.OF 5fORIEB .............................2 ZONING DISTRICT:.....~ ..............APD APPLICABLE CODE:1997 UBC, UMC,UPC,18B8 CBC, 1988 NEC, AND CIiYOROMrWCES R.EAIZ. E~EVIs.T l©N 'A'~ ..__>~~oN.T ~~v~,-nog. .rA, ~8 ~~~ ~~ y ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ 3W ~~~~a~~~ ~"~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~a~ ~~~~ ~~ W~ o~ ~ W _~ ~~LL 0 ~~ ~~ N~ a ~W~ v~~~~~ ON~WN ~.., . c"ec"eo G C, oan hUG,ot. ecae ~p =la-n" me no. Asweer .' •u~A ca erreere ,_ _ __ SARATOGA SiJNNYVALE RD. & ARBEL~CHE LANE LOT "B" l SARA1'UGA, CA. A ----... ~~ ~i rzic~I~T ~u~ ~L.~y~.7ioN. ~~'\ „~ ~•, ,~,..~' , iT /%%/ !~ m i ~ o, ~~~. e~.~, ~. ...~¢ ~1 ;._. 0 i J_.: ._i ' I ~'M~~ Mz _ ~'~ f-__ - - .~.'~~T ___. i.. C10r ~; ~~~' ~~~ ~ i ~ ~'n„a v. ,i I ~~rn~ ' 1 ~.-,. r y,GOND FLvofR PLAN PROJECT DATAILOT"B" I LOT SIZE ...........................................18,248 SOF LOTCOVERAGE............. .........................25% i BUILDING ~~ ALLOWABLE .........................................:....4,128 SOF j PROPOSED ...............................................3,995 SOF i ~ BUILDING/PROPOSED: FIRST FLOOR ..........................................2,380 SOF ~~ SECOND FLOOR ......................................1,815 SOF + GARAGE .............................................:........447 SOF it PRNATEACCEBSCROAD FOR LOT "A' 8'B'... .............................3,873 SOF '~ PARKING SPACES ............................2 COVERED TYPE OF CONTRUCTION......... Y•N OCCUPANCY GRDUP :.................R-3 l NO.OFSTORIES ............................1 ZONING DISTRICT ......................APO APPLICABLE CODE:1997 UBC, UMC,UPC,1998 CSC, 1998 NEC, AND CRY ORDNANCES (~ 200 ~ . ~:~Q. ' o ~ ,. j Eumr '~NreW~. ~ ~ o~U~ R~'- u~ PBRCiF s ~, ~Q~~_, 6r 2 CAL ~ 2ATil .W FMA~Y I 6bbH [~ "JFJ ~ ,s r. as ~ r~RSI" FLl~c7z r~A.r•1 ''(3" ¢ - __ I' ~~i Q p O'+! fAjl 3g, ZI,I~~~ C71I ~~ ~ W~~ ~~ ~ a~ ~~ JIB ~~ (~;I ~~~ ~~ [~ _~'r. '®!i ~~(„ :ji1^;; 3 m ~~~~~ a~b~ V1 ZiW Zp~ y~y<yty~ U WOW~` OV~3~Z~~O ~~$~~a~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ aOaO~NY~F~f <~4 Q 6~~~ ~~~~ ~~a~ ~~~ ~~~~ 0 W~ ° ~~ ~ g Z o' ~W 8 I ~ ~° ~~~ 0~ ~~ ~~ ~W~ W~ ~~~~~~ OMWN 6.p, CM[CI(BO r, P, WT[ AU4. b L [CPL[ I'I = id-v~ JOY NO. /~,f/''~}'~j[N[[T L' •[ I'` Of 6N[6T[ --°-+.~'_'._~r.'~:i-.R'I~"J. ~.-..s l~T"{? RR-r.: ~. G.:]r.Jt -T„y~.+,f-s..~-~'Y Y.:~w~.a::: -~'.~Z - R~wror ~~ _ ....~EA~. >L~Y~rIoN i .. f=120NT ~L_~y/~T~C~N. MINUTES Saratoga City Council Adjourned Meeting/Joint Session Saratoga City Council Public Safety Commission Saratoga, Cupertino & Campbell Union School District St. Andrew's, Sacred Heart Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District Saratoga Arts Commission September 24, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Adjourned City Council Meeting on September 24, 2002 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Mayor Streit called the Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and requested Bridgett Ballingall, Chair/Public Safety Commission, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, John Mehaffey, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Lori Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 24, 2002 was properly posted on September 20, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None JOINT MEETING WITH PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS Mayor Streit noted that the purpose of this meeting was to hear how the various schools have been working with Commissioner Ballingall to implement the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), Safe Ride to School Program and the School Traffic Calming Program. 1. INTRODUCTION Bridgett Ballingall, Chair/Public Safety Commission, stated that the School Traffic Task Force Subcommittee members were made up of three Public Safety Commission members Jim Schindler and Isabel Tennenbaum and herself, and a representative from every school that serves Saratoga. Commissioner Ballingall introduced the following representatives that were able to attend tonight's meeting: Libby Russo, Interim Principal, Saratoga Elementary Malcolm Broderick, Dean of Administrative Services/West Valley College Toby Smith, Cupertino Union School District Dan Fowler, Saratoga High School Maya Baba, Parent/Traffic Task Force Member, Argonaut School Cindy Chang, Parent/Traffic Task Force Member, Redwood Middle School Tom Marantette -Foothill School Chair Ballingall explained that the first year the Task Forced identified common problems and came up with some short-term solution for some of the more dramatic problems and the second year the Task Force discussed how to go forward and tackle some of the common problems. Chair Ballingall noted that this year the Task Force has addressed each school's problems and prioritized the schools on need. Chair Ballingall noted the following goals of the Task Force: • Establish a philosophy how they see the Task Force working with the city on a long term basis • Establish goals and objectives • Develop marketing tools for parents • Establish a line of accountability within the groups • Foster school and community communications • Develop strategies for schools to recruit traffic management • Continue lobbying for a joint bussing program Chair Ballingall explained the schools the Task Force have identified as priority: • Marshall Lane • Blue Hills (starting Phase I) • .Foothill • Saratoga High School • Redwood Middle Mayor Streit stated the Phase I is part of a multi phase process and asked Chair Ballingall to explain what Phase I would consist of at Blue Hills School. Chair Ballingall explained that Phase I is probably the highest impact now to make the situation better. Phase I will help alleviate the impact on the neighborhood and increase the safety of the students. • • • City Council Meeting 2 September 24, 2002 Councilmember Waltonsmith asked what the various schools were doing to promote and implements the changes. In regards to Blue Hills, Toby Smith/Cupertino Union School District, stated that as part of Phase I they installed a no left turn out of the main parking lot and coned off and narrowed down the exit from the main parking lot. Also, Mr. Smith stated that they have posted signs and controlling the time frames on the morning drop off. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he feels bussing is a good answer if we could convince the parents to participate in it. Councilmember Mehaffey asked if the Task Force had any ideas how to market a bussing program in Saratoga. Chair Ballingall responded that she does not thinks it would be that difficult to market a bussing program to parents if it was safe and affordable. A year ago Saratoga Union School District tried to start a pilot program at Redwood Middle School and had 50 families signed up at a cost of $1,000 per student. But because of the variety of schedules needed to accommodate schedules it would of cost too much and the program would not be cost effective. Chair Ballingall noted that many school districts in the Bay Area do have functioning bussing programs but they are funded by bond measures between the schools and the City. Until that happens in Saratoga, Chair Ballingall stated she does not feel any single school would fund such a program themselves. Vice Mayor Baker asked how Moreland School District runs their bus program Chair Ballin all res onded that their ro am is ve restricted and serves less than 25% of g p p ~' rY the student population; most of the users are in the special education programs. Chair Ballingall noted that Moreland District officials have stated in the past that it is difficult to keep their program going. • Mayor Streit asked if we have learned anything from the programs implemented at Saratoga School Libby Russo, Interim PrincipaUSaratoga Elementary, responded that although she was not at the school when the program started the improvements seem to be working well. Principal Russo stated that every morning she directs cars into the circle (which can hold up to six cars) and student escorts open the car doors and close them. Principal Russo stated that she would be sending a letter to the parents asking them to have their students backpacks in their laps so when they arrive at school they can just get out of the car and not disrupt the flow of traffic if the parents do not have to get out and get the backpacks out of the trunk. Also, Principal Russo stated that her plea to all the parents is to amve at school between 8:10 and 8:20 a.m. Councilmember Bogosian stated that a resident of the neighborhood around Saratoga Elementary he compliments them for the improvements he has seen over the year. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked how the schools felt about staggered start times. City Council Meeting 3 September 24, 2002 Responding to Councilmember Waltonsmith inquiry, Cindy Chang, Parent/Traffic Task - Force Member, Redwood Middle School, noted that their Task Force and the PTA have discussed it and felt staggered times would cause problems for the academic programs and to the families. Chair Ballingall stated that they have had two meetings at Redwood Middle School in the beginning of the year. Chair Ballingall noted that tonight at the School Board's meeting they are considering changing the start time next year for sixth graders. Also they are considering forbidding parents to arrive early for pick up and sitting in the parking lots blocking space. Malcolm Broderick, Dean of Administrative Services/West Valley College, stated that the first class starts at 7:45 a.m., although the majority of students start at 9:00 a.m. Mayor Streit suggested that Mr. Broderick provide the Task Force with the class schedules and maybe the Public Works Department can change the timing of the lights. Mayor Streit asked how Foothill School's drop off is working. Tom Marantette, Foothill School, stated that the new drop off area has been working well, especially since Seaton Avenue has been opened. Chair Ballingall stated that she recently talked to the principal and he stated that with the two drop off areas and two parking lots they eliminate-a lot of back up on Reed Lane. Commissioner Tennenbaun noted that the only problem around Foothill Scholl is the ~~ speeding. Ideally Commissioner Tennenbaum stated she would like to see a stop sign installed at the corner of Tamworth and Seaton. Chair Ballingall noted that the District's have worked hard on redesigning their parking lots. Commissioner Schindler noted that there are a few model schools such as Oak Street School. Maya Baba, Parent/Traffic Task Force Member, Argonaut School, noted that they do not have much of a traffic problem. Ms. Baba stated they are continually educating the parents. They also use students and teachers as safety monitors. Dan Fowler, Saratoga High School, stated that Saratoga has 1287 teenagers trying to get out of the building at the same time along with some parents trying to pick ups some students. 1VIr. Fowler stated Saratoga High allows Junior and Senior to drive. Mr. Fowler stated that he looks forward to working with the Task Force to try and come up with some ideas to alleviate some of the traffic. Mr. Fowler stated Saratoga High does have staggered start and stop times. Mr. Fowler stated that the biggest problem is speeding. Mayor Streit thanked Chair Ballingall and the representatives from the various schools for attending tonight's meeting. Mayor Streit declared a recess at 7:50 p.m. City Council Meeting L~ September 24, 2002 Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 7:55 p.m. and welcomed the Saratoga Arts Commission. JOINT MEETING WITH SARATOGA ARTS COMMISSION 2. INTRODUCTION Lisa Pontier-De Mattei, Vice Chair, introduced the members of the Arts Commission as follows: Tracy Halgren Mary Lou Taylor, Mar Ann Henderson, Sylvia Wohlmut, Betty Peck. Vice Chair De Maffei noted that Lee Murray, Chair/Arts Commission, was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Vice Chair Pontier-De Mattei described the Arts Commissions recent accomplishments and projects as follows: • Completed Mission statement • Established Arts Commission budget • Youth Science Institute Art Contest Judges • Participated in the Gateway Task Force Committee • Pursued implementation of ordinance in conjunction with Planning Commission for Percentage for Arts for development/redevelopment • Calendar of Events Committee • Attended the California Assembly of Local Arts Agencies • Developing polices and procedures for acquiring, accepting, and caring for public art in the City of Saratoga • Art in the Park -first event • Blaney Plaza Memorial Arch Task Force • Promoting poetry in the community Vice Chair Pontier-De Maffei stated that each Commissioner would like to present Council with an update on each of their committees they are on. Commissioner Halgren stated that in regards to the Gateway Task Force, the Arts Commission has been working closely helping to create the design guidelines, which will be going to the Planning Commission tomorrow evening. In terms the Library, Commissioner Holgren noted that the Arts Commission has met with Dolly Barnes from the SCC Library to discuss the areas in the library where art wok could be displayed. The Arts Commission's task is how should public art be displayed in the library. City Manager Anderson suggested that the Arts Commission should be invited to the next tour of the library. Commissioner Taylor discussed the Arts Commission role in the Master Plan for the Memorial Arch. Commissioner Taylor noted that she has attended two meeting to discuss the Arch. Also, Commissioner Taylor noted that she talked to the Landscape Architect about displaying public art in the plaza. City Council Meeting 5 September 24, 2002 Commissioner Henderson discussed the Arts Commission first event "Art in the Park" in conjunction with Celebrate Saratoga. Commissioner Henderson noted that the artists are not charged nor are they charged a percentage of sales.. Commissioner Henderson explained that not only would they have art but also live entertainment. Commissioner Henderson noted that the Heritage Preservation Commission would be selling their calendars and the Youth Commission would be selling drinks. Commission Wohlmut discussed establishing a "Calendar of Events". Currently they have had advertisements in the Saratogan and the City's Recreation Activity Guide. Hopefully in the future Commissioner Wohlmut noted that the Arts Commission hopes to work with the Chamber of Commerce, West Valley College, and KSAR. In regards to the Saratoga Preschool mural, Commissioner Wohlmut noted that the Arts Commission approved the project. Commissioner Peck discussed the Arts Commission appointing a City Poet Laureate. Commissioner Peck noted that the high school and the college have poetry programs. Commissioner Peck stated that Saratoga has some beautiful gardens and hopefully in the future the Arts Commission would like to establish a Garden Tour in and recognize the great gardens in our City. Commissioner Taylor noted that the Arts Commission would like to co-sponsor the Mustard Walk with the Heritage preservation Commission. Commissioner Halgren noted that the Arts Commission is currently working on a Public Arts Policy. The Council all thanked the Arts Commission, congratulated them on their accomplishments, and mentioned that they are glad to see such a motivated group. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian Received a fax from the City of Sunnyvale that includes the documentation that SAVACA provided them on shelter costs and also a proposal from Palo Alto and the events that are taking place in Sunnyvale tonight with decide the fate of the JPA. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that the Rotary Club has volunteered to paint the North Campus and is looking for volunteers. • City Council Meeting 6 September 24, 2002 OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk • • City Council Meeting '] September 24, 2002