Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-2023 Planning Commission Study Session PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AND STUDY SESSION 6:00 P.M. Convene -- 14500 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 (See attached map) Site Visit •6:00 P.M. Building C •6:30 P.M. Auditorium •6:10 P.M. Building B •6:40 P.M. Building A •6:20 P.M. Building D •6:50 P.M. Fitness Building 7:00 P.M. Recess 7:30 P.M. Reconvene -- Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 _____________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA 1.Application: PDR19-0023/ARB19-0039/GEO19-0013/ZOA19-0004/ENV19-0005; 14500 Fruitvale Avenue (APN’s 397-12-012 & 397-12-019 & 397-40-006); Odd Fellows of California (Applicant). Site visit and study session concerning proposal by Odd Fellows of California for approval of Master Plan for construction and operation of three new buildings with 52 new independent living units, a new meeting room, new workout room, landscaping (including removal of 65 protected trees) relocation of outdoor recreation facilities and a new Fire Department Emergency Access from Chester Drive, and discussion of story pole exception Staff contact: Cynthia Richardson crichardson@saratoga.ca.us. 2.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. 3.ADJOURN Meeting Information To enable recording of public comment and to allow remote public participation, the public will be given the opportunity address the Planning Commission during that portion of the meeting held at the Civic Theater. There will be no votes or motions on a proposed project or other matters. No comments made by the Planning Commission during a Site Visit and Study Session are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on a proposed project. Public Participation Information The Site Visit portion of the meeting, held at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue will be in person only. In accordance with Saratoga’s Remote Public Participation Policy, members of the public may participate in the portion of the meeting held at the Civic Theater in person or via remote attendance using the Zoom information below. 1. Accessing the meeting via Zoom • https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83234319864 (Webinar ID 832 3431 9864) • Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968; OR 2. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99) and calling the numbers listed above; OR 3. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish id=2 and calling the numbers listed above. Written Communication Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/pc. Written communications will be provided to the members of the Planning Commission and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in supplemental meeting materials. Written Communication Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/pc. Written communications will be provided to the members of the Planning Commission and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in supplemental meeting materials. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF AGENDA PACKET, & COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for review on September 22, 2023 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 22nd day of September 2023 at Saratoga, California, Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the Planning Commission by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us or available at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] A B C D 3 PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AND STUDY SESSION Meeting Date: September 27, 2023 Application: PDR19-0023/ARB19-0039/GEO19-0013/ ZOA19-0004/ENV19-0005 Address/APN: 14500 Fruitvale Avenue (397-12-012 & 397-12-019 & 397-40-006) Owner/Applicant: Ankrom Moisan Architects for Odd Fellows of California From: Bryan Swanson, Community Development Director Report Prepared by: Cynthia Richardson, Project Planner 4 Planning Commission Site Visit and Study Session September 27, 2023 Page | 2 SITE VISIT AND STUDY SESSION: PURPOSE OF MEETING: The purpose of this Site Visit and Study Session is to have an informative discussion regarding the project as proposed, to ask the applicant any questions and to inform the applicant of any areas of concern the Planning Commission may have. Site Visits and Study Sessions do not allow votes or motions on a proposed project or other matters. Comments made by the Planning Commission during a Site Visit and Study Session are not binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions would be taken on a proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: Review the application for a Master Plan Update for the Saratoga Retirement Community (SRC), hear comments from the applicant and the public, and provide feedback to staff and the applicant. PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: Community Facilities Sites (CFS) Zoning Existing: Residential R-1-40,000 (R-1-40) Zoning Proposed: Residential R-1-40,000 Planned Combined District (R-1-40/P-C) The Community Facilities Sites (CFS) within the General Plan cover all institutional, public and quasi-public uses. The General Plan includes private institutional uses and specifically calls out Odd Fellows Home as one of those uses. Private institutional uses are those that provide a public service but are not controlled by a publicly elected governing board. For quasi-public uses, a master plan may be required for all structures, changes of use, and improvements in the designation. This designation also allows for the height of new structures to be three stories and not measured in feet. The Saratoga City Code establishes the Planned Combined (P-C) District to provide the City the authority to modify standards of development in an underlying zone district to achieve certain objectives outlined in the City Code. The P-C District may be combined with any zoning district upon the City Council granting of a change of zone for the parcel. The P-C District allows the City Council to grant exceptions to the zoning regulations pertaining to development standards without the need for variances. SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed development sits on three adjacent parcels comprised of 37.17 acres. The project is accessed via San Marcos Road located off Fruitvale Avenue. The surrounding uses consist of single-family residences to the west, north and south, and Fellowship Plaza (a Senior affordable housing project) to the east. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Saratoga Retirement Community is proposing to construct three new apartment style buildings containing 52 independent living units. The project site currently maintains 249 units (143 independent living units and 106 assisted living units) and 94 skilled nursing beds. If approved, this would bring the total residential units to 298 (195 independent living units and 103 assisted living units) and skilled nursing beds reduced to 52. The project would also 5 Planning Commission Site Visit and Study Session September 27, 2023 Page | 3 combine existing skilled nursing rooms in the Health Center to create single occupancy rooms for a bed reduction from 94 to 52 (-42 beds). A new meeting room would be added to the west side of the existing Manor building, and a new workout room would be added to the existing fitness center. The proposed project would include a net increase of 109 parking spaces, new landscaping (including removal of 64 protected trees), relocation of outdoor recreation facilities and a new Fire Department Emergency Access from Chester Drive. Plans are included as Attachment 1. A Story Pole Exception is also requested. The applicant has submitted revised plans for the outdoor space on the south side of Building A (Attachment 2). After meeting with several residents and hearing their concerns about an undersized Bocce Ball Court, they have modified the plans to include a full-size court. This modification necessitated the removal of the circular driveway in the front of the building. Staff will be reviewing the modifications with the Fire Department to make sure they meet Fire Department requirements. The following table shows the 1996 approved units compared to the proposed project units. UNIT TABULATION APPROVED 1996 EXISTING UNITS PROPOSED UNITS Manor Building IL 30 14 14 Apartment Building 1 IL 48 44 44 Apartment Building 2 IL 48 46 46 Cottages IL 39 39 39 Apartment Building A IL 22 Apartment Building B IL 10 Apartment Building C IL 20 Assisted Living and Memory Care Building 143 88 (42 1-Bed & 46 Studio) 18 (10 Private & 8 Semi-Private) 88 (Assisted Living) 15 (Memory Care) TOTAL UNITS 308 249 298 BACKGROUND: Saratoga Retirement Community is an existing Continuing Care Retirement Community. The project site is owned by the Odd Fellows Home of California, a benevolent not-for-profit organization. The campus provides Independent Living, Assisted Living, Memory Care and Skilled Nursing facilities. The Odd Fellows Home was established in 1912 and has been under the same use on the project site since that time. The Odd Fellows obtained conditional Use Permit approvals in 1996 for the remodel of the Manor building including seismic upgrades and interior and exterior modifications, expansion of the Villa Apartments, the removal and replacement of the Health Center and the construction of two new independent living apartment buildings and 19 independent living duplex cottages. The City approved an increase of living units to 308. During the building permit process, the applicant chose to decrease the number of independent living units within the Manor Building from 30 to 14 (-16 units), decrease Apartment Building 1 from 48 units to 44 units (-4 units), decrease Apartment Building 2 from 48 units to 46 units (-2 units) and decrease the Assisted Living and Memory Care Building from 6 Planning Commission Site Visit and Study Session September 27, 2023 Page | 4 143 to 88 (-37 units/rooms) which decreased the overall units to 249 (-59 units). Even though there was a reduction in the number of units the building footprints did not change from the original approval. The current application was submitted in June 2019 and includes requests for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) to add the Planning Combined District (P-C) Overlay Zoning Designation to the project site’s existing Residential R-1-40,000 (R-1-40) Zoning Designation. If approved, the P-C overlay would allow for deviation from the zoning regulations to provide a means of guiding development, for the provision of a public benefit, and to allow innovative design in development that achieves one or more specific goals and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be attainable. In addition to the Zoning Amendment the project includes Arborist Review, Geotechnical Clearance, and Environmental Review. On November 16, 2021, the City hosted a Community Information Meeting where the applicant presented the project to all interested neighbors. Three property owners from the surrounding neighborhood provided comments along with 15 residents of the facility. On December 9, 2021, the City held a scoping meeting in preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The meeting was held via zoom and 40 people attended. Verbal and written comments were received from interested parties. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is attached (Attachment 3). On July 6, 2023, a Notice of Availably was released notifying the public that the DEIR was available for a 45-day public review period. The public comment period closed on August 21, 2023, and 440 letters were received and will be included within the Final EIR (FEIR) when completed. Zoning Ordinance Amendment The applicants request includes a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add the Planned Combined District (PC) Overlay Zoning Designation to the project site’s existing Residential R-1-40,000 (R-1-40) Zoning Designation. The purpose of the PC District is to provide the City the authority to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning district so as to achieve the following objectives: a) To provide a means of guiding development in areas of the City that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns and standards. b) To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. c) To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more specific goals and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. The Code states that “Public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings that exceed the City’s green building standards, provides community facilities that are open to the public, or 7 Planning Commission Site Visit and Study Session September 27, 2023 Page | 5 allows for innovative in-fill design.” The applicant has recently updated their public benefits for this project (Attachment 4). The inclusion of deed restricted units is now included in the project to help achieve the public benefit requirements. The applicant currently maintains a program that provides 10 studio, Assisted Living Units with financial assistance for Odd Fellows members with limited means. This is provided through an endowment benefit plan, providing financial assistance for those in need. Housing and Community Development (HCD) has reviewed photos of these existing units and has indicated to the City they meet HCD’s housing unit definition as they have their own kitchenette facilities. These units would be included in the project with an Affordable Housing Agreement to assure the program remains in place for a specific period of time. The applicant is proposing deviations from the Code that includes: • Reduced Parking • Reduced Setbacks • Increased total Site Coverage • Increased total Floor Area • Increased basement ceiling height • Basement that extends beyond footprint Design Review Under the Planned Combined District, Design Review is required pursuant to Article 15-46.040 of the City Code. The Planning Commission would need to make recommendations to the City Council on how the following Design Review findings can be made. a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. Arborist Review The City Arborist reviewed the project. The proposal includes the removal of sixty-four (64) protected trees to construct the project. Approval of the proposal would include a Tree Security Deposit of $133,300, and tree protection and tree replacement planting with a value of $214,640. 8 Planning Commission Site Visit and Study Session September 27, 2023 Page | 6 According to the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made, and specific tree removal criteria met. The City Arborist has been able to make all the necessary findings for the removal of the trees (Attachment 5). Geotechnical Review The City Geotechnical Consultant reviewed and cleared the project with conditions. Environmental Determination Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) this project requires environmental determination. As part of the project review, the applicant requested the preparation of an EIR. The City hired AECOM, an independent firm, to prepare the DEIR for the project. Topics discussed in the DEIR include Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Each of these topics has been discussed and analyzed in the DEIR which was released on July 6, 2023. A Draft EIR meeting was held on August 2, 2023, for the purpose of receiving public comment on the Draft EIR. The City received 17 verbal comments and 440 comment letters. The public comment period for the Draft EIR closed on August 21, 2023. AECOM is working on the responses to the public comments which will be available in the Final EIR at the formal Planning Commission hearing. As part of the DEIR, the document describes a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the proposed project’s significant effects. Additionally, a “No Project” alternative is analyzed. The DEIR evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives. In March 2022, during the scoping period for the DEIR, residents of the campus submitted an alternative plan that would replace proposed Building C with a Skilled Nursing Facility instead of the independent living units. As part of the proposal the existing Health Center would be demolished and replaced with a new building that would accommodate 52 independent living units, a new meeting room and underground parking garage with 90 parking stalls. Under the alternative plan submitted by the residents, the proposed project’s Buildings A and B and the meeting room would not be constructed. The alternative plan submitted by the residents was used as the basis of Alternative 1 – Residents’ Alternative, which was analyzed in the DEIR as one of the range of alternatives considered. In April 2023 the applicant was informed that the project as proposed would have a significant unavoidable impact to historic resources because of proposed Building B which sits in front of the Manor Building. The location of the building would destroy character defining features of the setting of the Manor Building (an historic resource) and would create a significant unavoidable impact on the environment. Based on this information the applicant developed an alternative (Alternative 3 – Applicant’s Alternative) that was analyzed within the DEIR. The applicant’s alternative eliminates Building B from the plan and shows a new Building D in the location of the north-west employee parking lot. In addition, the alternative would require removal of the first duplex cottage along West Cottage Way to make way for the building and 9 Planning Commission Site Visit and Study Session September 27, 2023 Page | 7 would construct a new single cottage across from the fitness building. Building D would have 11 Independent Living Units and an underground parking garage for 32 spaces. The DEIR examined this alternative as one of the range of alternatives. On September 20, 2023 the applicant submitted revised drawings for Building D after discussions with the adjacent neighbor. Modifications were made to pull Building D away from the property line and to limit the second story privacy concerns that the neighbor has. None of these changes affect the DEIR analysis (Attachment 6). AECOM prepared an additional alternative (Alternative 2 – Reduced Development Alternative). Alternative 2 would be identical to the proposed Project except that Building B and the associated improvements to the north of the Manor Building would not be constructed. Building A and/or Building C would be internally reconfigured to allow for 10 additional living units and increased underground parking. The DEIR found this to be the superior alternative with the least number of environmental effects. All public comments submitted on the DEIR will be responded to in the Final EIR. The Final EIR would be reviewed by the Planning Commission who would make a recommendation to the City Council for final adoption. It is not the intent to discuss specifics of the DEIR at this Site Visit and Study Session. Specific questions related to the DEIR can be made at the Planning Commission hearing later this year. Story Pole Exception The applicant is seeking an exception from certain requirements due to safety concerns and impairment of the use of existing structures, parking areas and roadways on the site. Story poles and netting would be installed in required locations with the exception of locations that would pose safety or access issues. The applicant has chosen to stake the parameters (no story poles) of the buildings for this Study Session. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project, the applicant would install the story poles and would provide marks on the pavement at locations where poles would be in conflict. The applicant has provided drawings that show the story poles and the type of conflicts for each building. In some cases, it is due to trees, sidewalks, activity areas or parking lots. Note that there are instances where the netting would not connect to completely depict the exterior walls. The story pole plans are attached (Attachment 7). As part of the exception request, the applicant has asked that no story poles be installed for Building B as they would like the Planning Commission to consider the DEIR Alternative 3, Applicant’s Alternative. The applicant has also provided a virtual walk through that provides an additional method of viewing the project (Attachment 8). Pursuant to City Code Sections 15-16.070 and 15-45.075 the Community Development Director may consider unique and/or special circumstances where an alternate method, tool or technology may be used in lieu of story poles to satisfy the requirements. The Community Development Director has referred this request to the Planning Commission for consideration. Staff considers the request reasonable due to the property’s physical constraints. A formal public hearing on the Story Pole Exception request will be held prior to the overall project Planning Commission hearing. Based on the outcome of the hearing the Story Poles will be installed 15 days prior to the Planning Commission formal hearing on the Master Plan Update project. 10 Planning Commission Site Visit and Study Session September 27, 2023 Page | 8 Public Comment Staff has received public comments which can be found in Attachment 9. The following is a timeline of the project as it progresses through the entitlement process. MILESTONE/HEARING TIMING Community Information Meeting November 16, 2021 Notice of Preparation Scoping Meeting December 9, 2021 Preparation of Draft EIR and Response to Scoping Comments December 22, 2021 to July 6, 2023 Notice of Availability (45-day Comment Period) July 6, 2023 to August 21, 2023 Planning Commission Site Visit and Study Session September 27, 2023 Story Pole Exception Hearing TBD Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting TBD Planning Commission Hearing TBD City Council Hearing TBD ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Master Plans 2. Revised Bocce Court 3. Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Applicant’s Public Benefit letter 5. City Arborist Memo 6. Revised Applicant’s Alternative Building D 7. Story Pole Exception Request and Plan 8. Virtual Walk Through 9. Public Comment 11 PROJECT NUMBERDATE SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_sashaf.rvt6/14/2019 2:05:20 PM963117 SCHEMATIC DESIGNSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSIONPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.14.2019 TITLE SHEET 00 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 1CS - SARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INDEPENDENT LIVING & CAMPUS EXPANSION ODD FELLOWS HOME OF CALIFORNIA TSSARATOGA CCRC - INDEPENDENT LIVING &CAMPUS EXPANSIONPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES-14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 95070DATE 03.30.2020 1 of 146 PLANNING SUBMITTTAL ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 04.05.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 12 NET SITE AREA DATA PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_joet.rvt9/14/2021 1:06:50 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING APACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 COVER SHEET CS-0.0CS-0.0 ARCHITECTURAL ANKROM MOISAN 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 CHRIS DALENGAS, AIA, LEED AP JOE TUCKER, NCARB FAX: 503-245-7710 www.ankrommoisan.com chrisd@ankrommoisan.com joet@anrkommoisan.com PH: 503-245-7100 503-977-5218 503-892-5344 CIVIL UNDERWOOD & ROSENBLUM, INC. 1630 OAKLAND ROAD SUITE A114 SAN JOSE, CA 95131 MARK E. SORENSON, PE, QSD BINH HUYNH FAX: 408-453-1207 www.uandr.com mark@uandr.com binh@uandr.com PH: 408-453-1222 408-453-1222 ext. 14 408-453-1222 ext. 23 LANDSCAPE ROBERT H. FOSTER CONSULTANTS 431 ASH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 ROBERT FOSTER wwwroberthfoster.com fosterco@teleport.com PH: 503-635-6190 503-635-6190 PROJECT TEAM DEVELOPER/OPERATOR PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES, INC. ONE WEST MAIN STREET SUITE 303 MEDFORD, OR 97504 JOHN TAMMINGA, DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION 541-200-9377 PH: 541-646-3422 jtamminga@retirement.org ARBORIST ARBOR RESOURCES P.O. BOX 25295 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 DAVID L. BABBY FAX: 650-240-0777 arborresources@comcast.net PH: 650-654-3351 650-654-3351 OWNER ODDFELLOWS HOME OF CALIFORNIA 14500 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 JOHN TAMMINGA jtamminga@retirement.org 541-200-9377 VICINITY MAP: NEW BUILDING HEIGHT TABLE NEW BLDG DATA NEW SITE COVERAGE DATA HISTORIC PRESERVATION URBAN PROGRAMMERS 10710 RIDGEVIEW AVENUE SAN JOSE, CA 95127 BONNIE BAMBURG FAX: 408-254-0969 bbamburg@USA.net PH: 408-254-7171 408-254-7171 TRAFFIC HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 4 NORTH SECOND STREET SUITE 400 SAN JOSE, CLIFORNIA 95113 OLLIE ZHOU OZHOU@HEXTRANS.COM PH: 408-971-6100 408-971-6100 GEOTECHNICAL TRC LOWNEY ASSOCIATES 405 CLYDE AVENUE MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043 SCOTT LECK, PE, GE sleck@trcsolutions.com PH: 650-967-2365 650-967-2365 Saratoga Retirement Community is an existing Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga, California. The project is owned by the Odd Fellows Home of California, a benevolent not-for-profit Organization. This proposed expansion to the campus will add 52 new Independent Senior Housing Units, a new Meeting Room, and a small Fitness Facility. The project will also include 188 new structured parking spaces. The current campus already provides Independent Living, Assisted Living, Memory Care, Skilled Nursing, and Common Areas with amenities. New Master Site Plan. This proposed design will add 5 new buildings to the Campus. Three of the buildings will provide Independent Senior Living Units, with structured parking. Additionally, there will be a new Meeting Room Building attached to the original Odd Fellows Manor, and a small new Fitness Center adjacent to the existing Pool Building. The Master Plan also requires several Site adjustments. The changes include vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation, and utility revisions. The revised site layouts will also require some new easements and right-of-way changes at the private roads. Proposed Zone Change. There was a major campus upgrade on this site, that was completed in 2005. Ankrom Moisan Architects also provided architectural services for that project, and we are very pleased to be working on this fine campus again. The last major upgrade built- out all the facilities allowed by the approved Conditional Use. To add these new Master Plan changes, we are proposing re-zoning the campus to a PC Combined District. We believe providing these new Senior Housing units provides a great public benefit which justifies the zone change. For an easy understanding of the project scope, please refer to our colored Master Plan Concept sheet for an overall view of the project. Design Concepts. New Residential Buildings A and C, and the new Fitness Building are designed to blend with the Independent Living Buildings and Cottages that were completed in 2005. These new buildings are also primarily stucco, utilizing a similar color scheme, roof materials, and window systems. Residential Building B and the Meeting Room addition follow a different aesthetic. These new buildings are in close relationship to the original Manor Building that was completed in 1912, in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. These new buildings have been designed to respect and be sympathetic to the Manor Building, without copying or imitating the rich detail of the Manor. We have provided renderings demonstrating how these buildings relate to the Manor. The new Entry Plaza we have created, services the main entry of the Manor Building, as well as Building B. Building B has been designed to be very low profile, with only one story above grade at the Plaza level, and much smaller than the scale of the Manor. We've depicted that relationship in our renderings. The parking garage component for Building B is also below grade and designed to have minimum impact. The New Meeting Room addition has been designed with a very minimal connection to the Manor Building. The internal circulation of the Meeting Room aligns with existing corridors in the Manor. The only connections through the Meeting Room occur where there are already openings in the existing Manor wall. This addition also creates a parking garage on the lower level that will provide spaces for the residents living in the Manor who currently do not have parking nearby. These buildings that are in close relation to the Manor will also primarily be stucco, utilizing a similar color scheme as the Manor, and will also feature tile roofs. Landscape Design. The objective of the landscape design and plantings for this project is to create a lush and colorful year-round visual setting of seasonal color and change. The landscape will add visual diversity but will also soften the building mass with ample foundation plantings. Intimate seating areas along paths have been created for passive activities. Active recreation has been addressed with a Bocce court and putting green. -Trees removed. There are a total of 149 trees in close proximity to the areas being developed. We propose a total of 124 trees be removed and 3 trees to be relocated (no charge). The value of replacement trees being provided is $223,340. All trees were surveyed and numbered. Please see the Arborist Report for the description, species, and photos of all trees. Tree Removal and Protection Plans have been provided. The Landscape and Civil Plans also show trees to be removed, to be relocated, or to remain in place. -Assessor's Parcel Numbers are 397-12-012, 397-12-019 and 397-40-006. -Zoning District is R-1-40,000. However, this land Use action seeks a Zone Change to a PC Combined District. -Gross lot Area is 37.19 Acres. A portion of the site has an Open Space Easement of 10.60 acres. An R-1-40,000 Zone would allow a maximum lot coverage of 35% and a maximum floor area of 8,000 SF for a single family home. -Age of existing structure to be modified. The original Manor Building dates from 1912. The only modification proposed is the connection of the new Meeting Room to the Manor Building. -Slope at the Building Edge. There are different conditions at each of the five proposed new buildings. Please refer to the Grading Plans for the slope at the edge of each building. - The Average Slope. We have provided the required formula. This slope is for the overall net site area of 31.25 acres (37.19 acres gross). The calculation was provided by our Civil Engineer, and the average slope is 15.8%. If each site where new buildings are roposed is reviewed separately, with regard to the prevailing slope on each site, only one of the 5 sites has a slope over 10%. - Allowable Floor Area. the allowable Floor Area for a single family residence in a R-1-40,000 Zone is 8,000 SF. -Floor Area Table. A Floor Area Spreadsheet has been provided for the proposed new Buildings, as well as the Existing Buildings on the campus. -Impervious Coverage Table. An Impervious Coverage Table has been provided. All new impervious surfaces drain to biofiltration areas. -Height Information Table. Height information tables have been provided on the Exterior Elevation Drawings for each new Building. -Setback Table. This is a campus site, and all proposed new Buildings are a considerable distance from any property line. The closest setback to a property line occurs at Building C, where a portion of that building is 45 feet from the northern property line. The required setback there is only 30 feet. Dimensions and the setback lines have been added to the General Development Plan showing the conditions at Buildings B and C. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NARRATIVE AVERAGE SLOPE CALCULATION I = 5' L = 43,000' A = 31.25 ACRES S = = 15.8 0.00229 (I)(L) A EXISTING SITE AND BUILDING DATA DENSITY & INTENSITY CALCULATION EXISTING PARKING SUMMARY DENSITY EXISTING UNITS: 301 NEW UNITS: 52 ACRES: 37.19 52+301 37.19 DENSITY = = 9.49 UNITS PER ACRE INTENSITY EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 423,813 SQ FT NEW FLOOR AREA: 118,988 SQ FT SITE AREA: 1,361,376 SQ FT 118,988+423,813 1,361,376 SQ FT INTENSITY = = 0.39 FAR REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE NOTE: TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS IS BASED ON ALL UNIT TYPES, INCLUDING ASSISTED LIVING, MEMORY CARE AND SKILLED NURSING NOTE: TOTAL BUILT NUMBER OF EXISTING UNITS (301) NOTED BELOW IS LESS THAN THE PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DATED 02/22/1996. THE NUMBER OF APPROVED UNITS WAS 359 ( 307 LIVING UNITS, PLUS 52 AT THE HEALTH CENTER). 2 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-000401.06.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 13 PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_joet.rvt6/4/2021 6:19:09 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING APACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 SHEET INDEX CS-0.1CS-0.1 SHEET INDEXDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON SPREADSHEET REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 3 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 14 PROJECT NUMBERDATE SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_sashaf.rvt6/14/2019 2:05:20 PM963117 SCHEMATIC DESIGNSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSIONPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.14.2019 TITLE SHEET 00 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 2CS - EXISTING CAMPUS FLAVOR SARATOGA CCRC - INDEPENDENT LIVING &CAMPUS EXPANSIONPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES-14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 95070DATE 03.30.2020 4 of 146 EXISTING CAMPUS FLAVOR & EXISTING MASTER PLAN ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTTAL CS-0.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 15 PROJECT NUMBERDATE SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_sashaf.rvt6/14/2019 2:05:20 PM963117 SCHEMATIC DESIGNSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSIONPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.14.2019 TITLE SHEET 00 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 3CS - PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING B 10 new IL units with 10 garage parking spaces. 56 additional garage spaces and 14 main entry spaces provided. 22 Existing on-grade spaces and 12 main entry spaces removed. BUILDING A 33 New IL Units pro- vided with 34 Garage parking spaces. NEW MEETING ROOM New 3300 SF Auditorium provided with 16 Garage park- ing spaces below. 3 Parallel parking spaces removed. BUILDING C 30 New IL Units provided with 30 Garage parking spaces. 50 additional New Garage spaces provided for AL Building. 50 exist- ing on grade parking spaces for the AL are removed. EXISTING MANOR BUILDING Dining Program captures Bar. Bar moves to Existing Audi- torium. NEW FITNESS SPACE 1,000 SF Ankrom Moisan Architects, PRS, and IOOF Saratoga Retirement Community Independent Living Expansion 5 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN BUILDING B 10 new IL units with 10 garage parking spaces. 56 additional garage spaces and 14 main entry spaces provided. 22 Existing on-grade spaces and 12 main entry spaces removed. BUILDING A 33 New IL Units pro- vided with 34 Garage parking spaces. NEW MEETING ROOM New 3300 SF Auditorium provided with 16 Garage park- ing spaces below. 3 Parallel parking spaces removed. BUILDING C 30 New IL Units provided with 30 Garage parking spaces. 50 additional New Garage spaces provided for AL Building. 50 exist- ing on grade parking spaces for the AL are removed. EXISTING MANOR BUILDING Dining Program captures Bar. Bar moves to Existing Audi- torium. NEW FITNESS SPACE 1,000 SF Ankrom Moisan Architects, PRS, and IOOF Saratoga Retirement Community Independent Living Expansion 5 Existing Site Plan Conceptual Master Plan SARATOGA CCRC - INDEPENDENT LIVING &CAMPUS EXPANSIONPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES-14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 95070IL APARTMENT 1H E A L T H C A R E ASSISTED LIVING WEST COTTAGES FITNESS CENTER FITNESS CENTER ADDITION MEETING ROOM MANOR BLDG B BLDG C BL DG AODD FELLOWS DRIVE COLFAX LANEW COTTAGES LANEPAVILLION CIRCLE McLAREN LANEMcLAREN LANEBUILDING B 10 new IL units with 10 garage parking spaces, 54 traditional garage spaces and 12 main entry spaces provided. 22 existing on-grade spaces and 12 main entry spaces removed. BUILDING C 20 new IL units provided with 30 garage parking spaces. 47 additional new garage spaces provided for AL Building. 50 existing on-grade parking spaces for the AL are removed NEW MEETING ROOM New 3300 SF Auditorium provided with 16 garage parking spaces below. 3 parking spaces removed. NEW FITNESS SPACE 1,000 SF BUILDING A 22 new IL units provided with 31 garage parking spaces and 3 main entry spaces provided. 3 parallel parking spaces removed. . BUILDING B 10 new IL units with 10 garage parking spaces, 54 additional garage spaces and 12 main entry spaces provided. 22 existing on-grade space and 12 main entry spaces removed. DATE 03.30.2020 20 new IL units provided with 20 garage parking spaces. 57 additional new garage spaces provided for AL Building. 50 existing on-grade parking spaces for the AL are removed. Note: See CS-0.5 General Site Development Plan for overall view. PLANNING SUBMITTTAL CS-0.3 PLANNING SUBMITTTAL EXISTING SITE PLAN & CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-000401.22.2021 5 of 146 20 new IL units provided with 20 garage parking spaces. 57 additional new garage spaces provided for AL Building. 50 existing on-grade parking spaces for the AL are removed. Note: See CS-0.5 General Site Development Plan for overall view. WAY T COURT 19271 SAN MARCOS ROAD 19227 SAN MARCOS ROAD 14505 CHESTER AVENUE ODD FELLOWS DRIVE W COTTAGES LANECOLFAX LANEMcLAREN LANEMcLAREN LANEPAVILLI O N C I R C L E NEW FITNESS SPACE 1,000 SF FITNESS CENTER BUILDING A 22 NEW IL UNITS PROVIDED WITH 31 PARKING SPACES AND 3 MAIN ENTRY SPACES PROVIDED. 3 PARALLEL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED NEW MEETING ROOM NEW 3,300 SF AUDITORIUM PROVIDED WITH 16 GARAGE PARKING SPACES BELOW. 3 PARKING SPACES REMOVED WEST COTTAGES BUILDING B 10 NEW IL UNITS WITH 10 GARAGE PARKING SPACES, 54 ADDITIONAL GARAGE SPACES AND 12 MAIN ENTRY SPACES PROVIDED. 22 EXISTING ON-GRADE SPACES AND 12 MAIN ENTRY SPACES REMOVED. BUILDING C 20 NEW IL UNITS WITH 30 GARAGE PARKING SPACES, 47 ADDITIONAL NEW GARAGE SPACES PROVIDED FOR AL BUILDING. 50 EXISITNG ON-GRADE PARKING SPACES FOR THE AL ARE REMOVED. HEALT H C A REIL APARTMENT 1ASSISTED LIVING BLDG CBLDG B MANOR BLDG APLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 16 PROJECT NUMBERDATE SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_sashaf.rvt6/14/2019 2:05:20 PM963117 SCHEMATIC DESIGNSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSIONPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.14.2019 TITLE SHEET 00 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 4CS - Building B Front Entry PERSPECTIVE VIEWS OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE ORIGINAL MANOR BUILDING Building B and Manor Approach at Ground Level Building B and Manor Approach View From Above Meeting Room Rendering SARATOGA CCRC - INDEPENDENT LIVING &CAMPUS EXPANSIONPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES-14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 95070DATE 03.30.2020 6 of 146 DESIGN IMAGES ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTTAL CS-0.4 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 17 0 3201608040 OPEN SPACE EASTMENT PER INST. 15138849 OPEN SPACE EASTMENT PER INST. 15138849 OPEN SPACE EASEMENT PER INST. 15138849SEE CS-1.4 TREE REMOVAL PLANSEE CS-1.3 TREE REMOVAL PLANSEE CS-1.2 TREE REMOVAL PLAN SEE CS-1.3 TREE REMOVAL PLAN ENTRY PLAZA OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE /2 A4.01 /4A4.01/2 A4.02 /1A4.01/1A4.02/2A4.03/1A4.03/3 A4.03 /3 A4.02 SETBACK30' - 0"SETBACK30' - 0"19471 BURGUNDY WAY 19459 BURGUNDY WAY 19437 BURGUNDY WAY 19411 BURGUNDY WAY 14622 GRANITE WAY 19303 CHABLIS COURT 19300 CHABLIS COURT 19305 ZINFANDEL COURT 19308 ZINFANDEL COURT 19353 PINNACLE COURT 19301 PINNACLE COURT 19458 PINNACLE COURT 14553 VIA DE MARCOS 14577 VIA DE MARCOS 14595 VIA DE MARCOS 14577 VIA DE MARCOS 14470 FRUITVALE AVENUE 19401 SAN MARCOS ROAD 19361 SAN MARCOS ROAD 19315 SAN MARCOS ROAD 19271 SAN MARCOS ROAD 19227 SAN MARCOS ROAD 14505 CHESTER AVENUE /3A4.01LEGEND LOADING SPACE -12'x45' CS-0.5 2 GENERAL NOTES A. THE TOTAL BUILT NUMBER OF EXISTING UNITS (301) IS LESS THAN THE PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE ORIGNAL APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DATED 02/22/1996. THE NUMBER OF APPROVED UNITS WAS 359 (307 LIVING UNITS, PLUS 52 AT THE HEALTH CENTER). B. THE NUMBER OF NEW UNITS (52) WITHIN THIS PROPOSAL WILL RESULT IN A TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS (353) THAT IS ALSO LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL APPROVED NUMBER OF UNITS (359). C. THE HEALTH CARE BUILDING IS A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY AND NOT AN URGENT CARE HOSPITAL. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THE SAME SERVICES AS A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY CENTER. IF ANY RESIDENTS ARE IN THE NEED OF EMERGENCY CARE, THEY UTILIZE THE 9-1-1 SYSTEM AND ARE TRANSPORTED TO THE APPROPRIATE URGENT CARE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY CENTER. EXISTING MANOR BUILDING EXISTING OVERHEAD TRELLIS RECYCLING DUMPSTERS CART WASH AREA RECYCLING CARTS TRASH DUMPSTERS TRASH DUMPSTERPAVILLION CIRCLE (ONE WAY)LOADING SPACE (12'x45')24' - 9"PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga-Site_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_joet.rvt6/27/2023 10:06:46 AM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA04.05.2022 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CS-0.5CS-0.5 NORTH IL APARTMENT 2 IL APARTMENT 1H E A L T H C A R E ASSISTED LIVING SOUTH COTTAGES WEST COTTAGES FITNESS CENTER FITNESS CENTER ADDITION MEETING ROOM MANOR BLDG B BLDG C BL DG AODD FELLOWS DRIVE COLFAX LANEW COTTAGES LANEPAVILLION CIRCLE E U C A L Y P T U S L A N E SOUTH COTTAGES LANEMcLAREN LANEMcLAREN LANEFRUITVALE AVENUE1" = 80'-0"1 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN VIA DE MARCOSCHESTER AVE. 1/16" = 1'-0"2 LOADING - ENLARGED PLAN REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 7 of 146PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-000418 79 81 82 83 84 85 86 100 91 90 88 89 111 112 116 115 114113 118 119 120 121 122 123 87 110 109 101 103 104 107 108 105 94 93 129 133 132 99 9698 92 97 95 124 125 126 117 102 106 135 134 131 130 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX XX XX X X X X XX RE XW COTTAGES LANEPAVILLION CIRCLE BL DG AWEST COTTAGESFITNESS CENTER ADDITION FITNESS CENTER 80 X X X X X X X 127 128 X TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE TO REMAIN LEGEND XX PROTECTED TREE TREE PROTECTION FENCING RE TREE TO BE RELOCATED XX RELOCATED TREE - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR RELOCATED TREE PLACEMENT X A. SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION B. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION C. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING SPECIFIC INFORMATION GENERAL NOTES PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga-Site_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_joet.rvt6/4/2021 10:19:46 AM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA06.01.2020 TREE PROTECTION, RELOCATION AND REMOVAL PLAN CS-1.2CS-1.2 1" = 20'-0"1 TREE PROTECTION, RELCOATION AND REMOVAL PLAN - BUILDING A & FITNESS CENTER NORTH 0 80402010 PROPOSED DISPOSITION FOR PROTECTED TREES REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 68 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 64 65 66 69 67 68 72 73 74 63 62 78 77 76 75 71 70 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X RE X X RE X X X X X X XX X PAVILLION CIRCLEW COTTAGES LANEODD FELLOWS DRIVE COLFAX LANEMANOR BLDG B MEETING ROOM WEST COTTAGESX X X 136 137 138 X X REMOVE TREE AND CURB 139 TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE TO REMAIN LEGEND XX PROTECTED TREE TREE PROTECTION FENCING RE TREE TO BE RELOCATED XX RELOCATED TREE -SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR RELCOATED TREE PLACEMENT X A. SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION B. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION C. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING SPECIFIC INFORMATION GENERAL NOTES PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga-Site_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_joet.rvt6/4/2021 10:24:38 AM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA06.01.2020 TREE PROTECTION, RELOCATION AND REMOVAL PLAN CS-1.3CS-1.31" = 20'-0"1 TREE PROTECTION, RELOCATION AND REMOVAL PLAN - BUILDING B & MEETING ROOM NORTH 0 80402010 1" = 20'-0" ENTRY ROUNDABOUT PROPOSED DISPOSITION FOR PROTECTED TREES REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 69 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 20 13 14 15 16 17 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 35 36 48 34 33 32 44 31 30 29 28 27 45 26 19 24 22 21 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 23 2560 61 57 5859 18 46 20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X ODD FELLOWS DRIVE McLAREN LANECOLFAX LANEBLDG C ASSISTED LIVING X X X X 47 X 140 X 141 X 142 X 143 145 X 144 X 147 X 146 X 148 X 149 X TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE TO REMAIN LEGEND XX PROTECTED TREE TREE PROTECTION FENCING RE TREE TO BE RELOCATED XX RELOCATED TREE - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR RELOCATED TREE PLACEMENT X A. SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION B. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION C. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING SPECIFIC INFORMATION GENERAL NOTES PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga-Site_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_joet.rvt6/4/2021 10:28:13 AM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA06.01.2020 TREE PROTECTION, RELOCATION AND REMOVAL PLAN CS-1.4CS-1.4 1" = 20'-0"1 TREE PROTECTION, RELOCATION AND REMOVAL PLAN - BUILDING C NORTH 0 80402010 PROPOSED DISPOSITION FOR PROTECTED TREES REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 70 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 21 W/DW /DUP UP UP W /DW/D W /DW/DA 1 4 5 8 2 6 7 B DEFG A3.11-a 3 1.8 A3.12-a 1 A3.12-a 2 A3.11-a 4 4 3 ' - 4 "3 7 ' - 0 "37' - 0"6' - 4"37' - 0"41' - 0"41' - 0"9' - 8"43' - 4" 30' - 0 1/8" 43' - 4" 8 0 ' - 4 "5 ' - 0 "1 9 ' - 4 "1 5 ' - 1 0 "3 ' - 2 "1 2 ' - 8 "1 9 ' - 4 "5 ' - 0 "13' - 0" 26' - 4" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 22' - 4" 13' - 4 1/4" 9' - 4 3/8" 30' - 0" 12' - 11 3/8" 1' - 0" 1' - 0"18' - 5"5' - 4"12' - 8"15' - 8"12' - 8"12' - 8"15' - 8"12' - 8"9' - 8"13' - 0"22' - 4"4' - 0"4' - 0"80' - 4"5' - 0"19' - 4"12' - 8"3' - 2"3' - 2"12' - 8"19' - 4"5' - 0"12' - 8"15' - 8"12' - 8"12' - 2 5/16"16' - 7 3/8"12' - 2 5/16"22' - 8"22' - 4"4' - 0"4' - 0" 41' - 0"41' - 0"53' - 0" 141' - 9 3/4" M AIL B O X E S ELEC ELEC 6'-0" X 7'-8"6'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0 x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" X 7'-2"6'-0" X 7'-2"6'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2" 6'-0" X 7'-2 " 6'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-8" 9'-0" X 7'-8"9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2 " 9'-0" X 7'-8" 3'-6" x 3'-6" 6'-0" X 7'-8"6'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2"6'-0" X 7'-2"6'-0" X 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2"6'-0" X 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2" 6'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-8"9'-0" X 7'-8"6'-0" X 7'-2"6'-0" X 7'-2"9'-0" X 7'-8"9'-0" X 7'-8"6'-0" X 7'-2"6'-0" X 7'-2"9'-0" X 7'-8"3'-0" X 7'-8"3'-0" X 7'-8"3'-0" x 7'-8"3'-0" X 7'-8"3'-0" X 7'-8"PUTTING GREEN BOCCE COURT W E S T C O T T A G E D RIV E 10' - 3 5/8"20' - 0"14' - 0" ELEV. 156 SF STAIR 196 SF STAIR 1349 SF 2-BED 1298 SF 2-BED 1127 SF 1-BED+ 1408 SF 2-BED+ 1585 SF 2-BED+ 1295 SF 2-BED 1298 SF 2-BED 961 SF 1-BED 1409 SF 2-BED 1406 SF 2-BED 962 SF 1-BED 3'-0" X 7'-8" 3'-0" X 7'-8" 1 A4.03 2 A4.03 3 A 4.0 3 EXISTING POOL BUILDINGKEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_joet.rvt8/12/2020 1:27:32 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING APACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN A2.01-aA2.01-a RETAINING WALLS TO PROVIDE LADDER PAD AREA 3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING A - LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 107 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 22 W /DW/D W /DW/DDN UP DNW/DW /DA A 1 4 5 8 2 6 7 B B D D E E F F G G A3.11-a 3 1.8 ELEC ELEC A3.12-a 1 A3.12-a 2 A3.11-a 4 6'-0" x 7'-8"6'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0 x 7'-2"6'-0" X 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-8" 9'-0" X 7'-8"9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-8" 3'-6" x 3'-6" 6'-0" x 7'-8"6'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" X 7'-2" 6'-0" X 7'-2" 9'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-8"9'-0" X 7'-8"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"9'-0" X 7'-8"9'-0" X 7'-8"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"9'-0" x 7'-8"3'-0" x 7'-8"3'-0" x 7'-8"3'-0" x 7'-8"3'-0" x 7'-8"3'-0" x 7'-8"6'-0" x 7'-8" 3'-0" x 7'-8" ELEV. 196 SF STAIR 156 SF STAIR 1406 SF 2-BED 1349 SF 1-BED 1295 SF 2-BED1585 SF 2-BED+ 1130 SF 1-BED 1297 SF 2-BED 1298 SF 2-BED 962 SF 1-BED 961 SF 1-BED 1409 SF 2-BED 1408 SF 2-BED+ 3'-0" X 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 3'-0" X 7'-8"3'-0" x 7'-8"1 A4.03 2 A4.03 3 A 4.0 3 KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_joet.rvt8/12/2020 1:27:36 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING APACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN A2.02-aA2.02-a 3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING A - LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 108 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 23 UP UP A A 1 4 4 5 8 2 6 7 B B DEFG 14137 SF PARKING P101 383 SF TRASH P115 318 SF ELECTRICAL ST24 152 SF STAIR ST1P1 5 ' - 0 "1 8 ' - 9 "3 2 ' - 1 0 "2 3 ' - 9 "56' - 7"43' - 4" 36' - 0 5/8"41' - 0"41' - 0"53' - 0" A3.11-a 3 1.8 146 SF DW/FR RISER 31 PARKING STALLS 24' - 1"A3.12-a 1 A3.12-a 2 A3.11-a 4 373 SF GENERATOR ELEV 2 7 ' - 3 "2 9 ' - 9 1 /4 "197 SF STAIR 20' - 0" 109 SF GARAGE EXHAUST 5' - 0" 82 SF ELEV. LOBBY 1 A4.03 2 A4.03 3 A 4.0 3 KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_joet.rvt8/12/2020 1:27:41 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING APACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN A2.P1-aA2.P1-a 3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING A - LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 110 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 24 LEVEL 1 448' -0" LEVEL 2 459' -0" ROOF 470' -0" LEVEL P1 437' -0" AB 33' - 0"9' - 5 3/8"PROPOSED GRADE EXISTING GRADE 99' FROM WEST FACADE 11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"STUCCO WALLBLACK RAILINGWHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME TILE ROOF STEEL BRACKET ROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW 1' - 0"6"HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 450.5' LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 434.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 442.5'HEIGHT ABOVE AVG (NATURAL) GRADE36' - 11 3/8"479'-5 3/8" LEVEL 1 448' -0" LEVEL 2 459' -0" ROOF 470' -0" LEVEL P1 437' -0" 5867 PROPOSED GRADE 56'-6" FROM NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING GRADE 11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"9' - 5 3/8"33' - 0"STUCCO WALL BLACK RAILING WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME TILE ROOF STEEL BRACKET ROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 450.5' LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 434.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 442.5'HEIGHT ABOVE AVG (NATURAL) GRADE36' - 11 3/8"479'-5 3/8" KEY PLAN 4 3 BUILDING A PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_joet.rvt12/18/2020 1:12:33 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING APACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.11-aA3.11-a 3/32" = 1'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"3 NORTH ELEVATION 0 4 8 16 32 0 4 8 16 32 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 111 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 25 LEVEL 1 448' -0" LEVEL 2 459' -0" ROOF 470' -0" LEVEL P1 437' -0" 1 421.8 PROPOSED GRADE 16' FROM SOUTH FACADE EXISTING GRADE 11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"9' - 5 3/8"33' - 0"TILE ROOFSTUCCO WALL BLACK RAILING WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME STEEL BRACKET ROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 450.5' LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 434.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 442.5'HEIGHT ABOVE AVG (NATURAL) GRADE36' - 11 3/8"479'-5 3/8" LEVEL 1 448' -0" LEVEL 2 459' -0" ROOF 470' -0" LEVEL P1 437' -0" D E F G PROPOSED GRADE 11'-9" FROM EAST FACADE EXISTING GRADE 7' - 2"11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"9' - 5 3/8"33' - 0"TILE ROOF STEEL BRACKETSTUCCO WALLWHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAMEBLACK RAILINGROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW EMERGENCY GENERATOR INTAKE LOUVER EMERGENCY GENERATOR EXHAUST HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 450.5' LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 434.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 442.5'HEIGHT ABOVE AVG (NATURAL) GRADE36' - 11 3/8"479'-5 3/8" KEY PLAN 1 2 BUILDING A PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building A_joet.rvt12/18/2020 1:14:06 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING APACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.12-aA3.12-a 3/32" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION 0 4 8 16 32 0 4 8 16 32 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 112 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 26 UP A3.12-b 2 A3.11-b 4 A3.11-b 1 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.13 A3.12-b3 2' - 0" 5' - 0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"6'-0" x 7'-0"6'-0" x 7'-0"6'-0" x 7'-0" 6'-0" x 7'-0" 6'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0"6'-0" x 7'-0"6'-0" x 7'-0"3'-0" x 7'-0"2092 SF 2-BED+1639 SF 2-BED 1639 SF 2-BED 1639 SF 2-BED 2184 SF 2-BED+ 217 SF LOBBY 429.25 23' - 0"23' - 0"24' - 0"23' - 0"19' - 0"4' - 0" GOLF CART PARKING GOLF CART PARKING4' - 6"4' - 0"30' - 0" SETBACK1 A4.01 3 A4.01 STEPS EXISTING ACCESSIBLE RAMP TO MANOR MAIN ENTRY24' - 4 1/8"5' - 0"47' - 0 1/2"5' - 0"26' - 11 3/4"60' - 0" RIGHT OF WAY55' - 0" RIGHT OF WAYODD FELLOWS DRIVE30'-0" SET BACK RIGHT OF WAY KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_joet.rvt1/28/2021 6:17:48 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING BPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN A2.01-bA2.01-b3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING B - LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 116 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 27 UP UP 11 STANDARD PARKING STALLS 7 COMPACT PARKING STALLS A3.12-b 2 A3.11-b 4 A3.11-b 1 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.146' - 0"A3.12-b3 296 SF STORAGE 18 PARKING STALLS TOTAL 21' - 0"19' - 0"28' - 6"28' - 6" 330 SF STORAGE 328 SF GENERATOR 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0" 9'-0" x 7'-0"6'-0" x 7'-0"6'-0" x 7'-0"9'-0" x 7'-0"6'-0" x 7'-0"1639 SF 2-BED 1639 SF 2-BED 1639 SF 2-BED 2017 SF 2-BED+ 2184 SF 2-BED+ 1244 SF CORRIDOR 2.0%4.0%416'-8 7/8" 416'-6 1/8"4' - 4"4' - 4"24' - 11"22' - 8"6' - 0"1 A4.01 3 A4.01 STEPS 30' - 0" SETBACK9.5% ODD FELLOWS DRIVE 60' - 0" RIGHT OF WAY55' - 0" RIGHT OF WAYFLOOR AREA = 67% 16,495.22 SQ FTEL = 425' - 9"EXCLUDED FLOOR AREA 30'-0" SETBACK RIGHT OF WAY COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTKEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_joet.rvt1/28/2021 6:17:53 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING BPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN A2.P1-bA2.P1-b1BUILDING B - LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 118 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 28 UP UP A3.12-b 2 A3.11-b 4 A3.11-b 1 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 A3.12-b3 20' - 0"37 STANDARD PARKING STALLS 9 COMPACT PARKING STALLS 46 PARKING STALLS TOTAL38' - 0"38' - 0"24' - 9 7/8"24' - 11 7/8"ODD FELLOWS DRIVE 5' - 0"DNDN9.5%9.5% 407'-1 5/8"407'-1 5/8"2.0%18' - 9" STEPS 1 A4.01 3 A4.0130' - 0" SETBACK60' - 0" RIGHT OF WAY55' - 0" RIGHT OF WAYE L = 4 1 4 ' -9 "BASEMENT AREA < 20%BASEMENT AREA > 80% (NO FLOOR AREA)30'-0" SETBACK RIGHT OF WAY COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTKEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_joet.rvt1/28/2021 6:17:55 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING BPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL P2 FLOOR PLAN A2.P2-bA2.P2-b3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING B - P2 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 119 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 29 LEVEL 1 429' -3" ROOF 440' -3" LEVEL P1 418' -3" LEVEL P2 407' -9" PROPOSED GRADE 21'-8" FROM NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING GRADE WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME STEEL BRACKETTILE ROOFBLACK RAILINGSTUCCO WALL 32' - 6"7' - 4"10' - 6"11' - 0"11' - 0"29' - 9 5/8"LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 413.25' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 427.1' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 420.175'HEIGHT FROM AVG (NATURAL) GRADE27' - 4 7/8"447'-7" LEVEL 1 429' -3" ROOF 440' -3" LEVEL P1 418' -3" 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.121.13 1.14 LEVEL P2 407' -9" EXISTING GRADE 33' -2" FROM WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED GRADE EMERGENCY GENERATOR EXHAUST LOUVER EMERGENCY GENERATOR INTAKE LOUVER 11' - 0"11' - 0"10' - 6"32' - 6"BLACK RAILING STEEL BRACKET WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME TILE ROOF MANOR OUTLINE EAVE HEIGHT 455.70' LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 413.25' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 427.1' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 420.175'7' - 3 5/8"KEY PLAN 4 1 TRUE BUILDING B PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_joet.rvt12/18/2020 1:44:06 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING BPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.11-bA3.11-b 3/32" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION 0 4 8 16 32 0 4 8 16 32 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 120 of 1467'-4"447' - 7"ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 30 LEVEL 1 429' -3" ROOF 440' -3" LEVEL P1 418' -3"PROPOSED GRADE 19' -2" FROM SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING GRADE 11' - 0"11' - 0"WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME STEEL BRACKET TILE ROOF PLANTERSTUCCO WALL CANOPYSTEEL RAILING 7' - 4"22' - 0"LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 413.25' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 427.1' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 420.175'HEIGHT FROM AVG (NATURAL) GRADE27' - 4 7/8"447'-7" LEVEL 1 429' -3" ROOF 440' -3" LEVEL P1 418' -3" 1.91.10 1.13 LEVEL P2 407' -9" EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE 27' FROM EAST ELEVATION STUCCO WALLSTEEL BRACKET BLACK RAILING WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME CANOPY 11' - 0"11' - 0"10' - 6"7' - 4"32' - 6"LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 413.25' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 427.1' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 420.175'HEIGHT FROM AVG (NATURAL) GRADE27' - 4 7/8"447'-7" KEY PLAN 2 3 TRUE BUILDING B PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building B_joet.rvt12/18/2020 1:45:14 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING BPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.12-bA3.12-b 3/32" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"3 EAST ELEVATION 0 4 8 16 32 0 4 8 16 32 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 121 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 31 W/D W/D W/DW/D 1 A 1.2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13.1 13.2 B D G H J B.1 C.1 E.1 H.1 54' - 6 1/2"16' - 7"16' - 8"28' - 6"57' - 0"5' - 0"14' - 0"4' - 10"12' - 2"12' - 2"4' - 10"14' - 0"5' - 0"72' - 0"STAIR 39 SF MECH 173' - 3 1/2"12' - 5 1/8" 13 54' - 6 1/2"36' - 0"36' - 0"A.1 J.1 7.7 5' - 0"14' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"14' - 0"5' - 0"4' - 3"4' - 0" 4' - 3" A3.11-c 4 A3.12-c 1 A3.11-c 2 A3.12-c 3 9'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" x 7'-8" 9'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" x 7'-8" 9'-0" x 7'-8"8'-0" x 7'-8"8'-0" x 7'-8"8'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-2"9'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 4'-0" x 7'-2" 8'-0" x 7'-8"8'-0" x 7'-8"9'-0" x 7'-2"8'-0" x 7'-8"ODD FELLOWS DRIVE 7 C F G.1 E 2 10' - 4 1/2" 28' - 6" 13' - 0" 4' - 0" 9' - 0 3/4" 104' - 4 1/2" 4'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-2"9'-0" x 7'-2"9'-0" x 7'-2"9'-0" x 7'-8"9'-0" x 7'-8"9'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2" 34 SF MECH 1569 SF 2-BED 1593 SF 2-BED+ 1593 SF 2-BED+ 1568 SF 2-BED 1561 SF 2-BED 1190 SF 2-BED 1189 SF 2-BED 1338 SF 2-BED 1558 SF 2-BED+ 1704 SF CORRIDOR 4'-0" x 6'-0" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-2"36' - 0"36' - 0"30' - 0" SETBACK3 A4.01 2 A4.0126' WIDTH, TYP.OVERALL BUILDING LENGTH 286' - 6" ASSISTED LIVINGRIGHT OF WAY55' - 0"RIGHT OF WAY40' - 0" MIN.30'-0" SETBACK RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY 30'-0" SETBACK LINE OF GRADE DEFINNING BASEMENT AREA AT LEVEL P2 E.2 KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B BL DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building_C_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building C_joet.rvt6/7/2021 1:28:04 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING CPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN A2.01-cA2.01-c3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING C - LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 124 of 146PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 32 W/D W/D 1 A 1.2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13.1 13.2 B D G H J B.1 C.1 E.1 H.1 4' - 3"50' - 3 1/2"16' - 7"16' - 8"28' - 6"28' - 6"28' - 6" 173' - 3 1/2"5' - 0"18' - 10"29' - 2"14' - 0"5' - 0"72' - 0"30' - 4 1/2" 28' - 6" 28' - 6" 13' - 0" 4' - 0" 13 A.1 J.1 7.7 A3.11-c 4 A3.12-c 1 A3.12-c 3 7 11 C F G.1 E 2 5' - 0"14' - 0"4' - 10"12' - 2"12' - 2"4' - 10"14' - 0"5' - 0"72' - 0"180 SF STAIR 39 SF MECH 72' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"14' - 0"5' - 0"4' - 3" 37 SF MECH 9'-0" x 7'-8" 4'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" x 7'-8" 9'-0" x 7'-2"6'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 8'-0" x 7'-8"8'-0" x 7'-8"9'-0" x 7'-2"8'-0" x 7'-8"2' - 3 1/16" 102' - 1 7/16" 6'-0" x 7'-2"9'-0" x 7'-2"9'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" x 7'-8" 4'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 1189 SF 2-BED 1193 SF 2-BED 1593 SF 2-BED+ 1593 SF 2-BED+ 1568 SF 2-BED 1569 SF 2-BED 1561 SF 2-BED 4'-0" x 6'-0" 3'-4" x 6'-0" 4' - 5 163/256" 3 A4.01 2 A4.01 ASSISTED LIVING LINE OF GRADE DEFINNING BASEMENT AREA AT LEVEL P2 E.2 KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B BL DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building_C_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building C_joet.rvt4/22/2021 11:05:26 AM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING CPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN A2.02-cA2.02-c3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING C - LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 125 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 33 W/DW /D 1 A 1.2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13.1 B D G H J B.1 C.1 E.1 H.1 4' - 3"30' - 7 1/2"19' - 8"16' - 7"16' - 8"28' - 6"57' - 0" 185' - 6"5' - 0"14' - 0"4' - 10"24' - 4"4' - 10"14' - 0"5' - 0"72' - 0"5' - 0"14' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"14' - 0"5' - 0"20' - 0" 28' - 6" LEVEL P1 PARKING COUNT = 30 LEVEL P2 PARKING COUNT = 47 TOTAL PARKING = 77 10579 SF PARKING P101 191 SF LOBBY P102 190 SF STAIR ST1P1 184 SF STAIR ST2P1 72' - 0"A.1 J.1 7.7 A3.11-c 4 EXIT ACCESS 10' - 4 1/2" A3.12-c 1 MECH30 PARKING STALLS A3.11-c 2 A3.12-c 3 6'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" x 7'-8"8'-0" x 7'-8"9'-0" x 7'-2"9'-0" x 7'-2"8'-0" x 7'-8"8'-0" x 7'-8" 6'-0" x 7'-2" 9'-0" x 7'-2" ODD FELLOWS DRIVE 7 11 C F G.1 E 2 9'-0" x 7'-8" 9'-0" x 7'-2" 3'-0" x 7'-2" 3'-0" x 7'-2" ELEVATOR ASSISTED LIVING 1190 SF 2-BED 1288 SF 2-BED 1338 SF 2-BED 1305 SF 2-BED30' - 0" SETBACK3 A4.01 2 A4.01 RIGHT OF WAY40' - 0" MINIMUM115' - 2 1/4" 97' - 10" 188' - 5 1/2"EL = 410' -6" FLOOR AREA = 56.4% 10,443.81 SQ FT EXCLUDED FLOOR AREA 30'-0" SETBACK 30'-0" SETBACKRIGHT OF WAY55' - 0"RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GRADE DEFINNING BASEMENT AREA AT LEVEL P2 KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B BL DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building_C_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building C_joet.rvt9/14/2021 10:43:28 AM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING CPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN A2.P1-cA2.P1-c3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING C - LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 127 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 34 1 A 1.2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13.1 13.2 B D G H J B.1 C.1 E.1 H.1 4' - 3"30' - 7 1/2"19' - 8"16' - 7"16' - 8"28' - 6"28' - 6"28' - 6"4' - 2 23/32"173' - 3 1/2"5' - 0"14' - 0"4' - 10"29' - 2"14' - 0"5' - 0"72' - 0"5' - 0"14' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"14' - 0"5' - 0"15' - 8 31/32" 30' - 4 1/2" 28' - 6" 28' - 6" 13' - 0" 4' - 0" LEVEL P2 PARKING COUNT = 47 LEVEL P1 PARKING COUNT = 30 TOTAL PARKING = 77 13 A.1 J.1 A3.11-c 472' - 0"18' - 4"1' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"104' - 4 1/2" A3.12-c 1 42 STANDARD PARKING STALLS 5 COMPACT PARKING STALLS 47 PARKING STALLS TOTAL A3.12-c 3 244 SF MECH 274 SF GENERATOR 72 SF ELEV 191 SF LOBBY STAIR 72 SF ELEVATOR 15905 SF PARKING 1333 7 11 C F G.1 E 2 62' - 0"24' - 2"12' - 0"12' - 2"3 A4.01 2 A4.01 LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACEEL = 399' -6"BASEMENT AREA < 20% BASEMENET AREA > 80% (NO FLOOR AREA OR STORY) ASSISTED LIVING EL = 399' -6"E.2 KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B BL DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building_C_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building C_joet.rvt9/14/2021 10:44:17 AM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING CPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL P2 FLOOR PLAN A2.P2-cA2.P2-c3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING C - LEVEL P2 FLOOR PLAN 0 4 8 16 32 GENERAL NOTES -FLOOR PLANS 1.REFER TO CIVIL STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR ACTUAL PLANTER BOX LOCATIONS. LOCATION WILL VARY BY LEVEL IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AS CUT PLANE CHANGES. REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 128 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 35 LEVEL 1 414' -0" LEVEL 2 425' -0" ROOF 436' -0" 1 LEVEL P2 392' -0" LEVEL P1 403' -0" 1.23456872 11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"44' - 0"7' - 2 3/4"TILE ROOF ROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW STEEL BRACKET BLACK RAILING WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME PROPOSED GRADE EXISTING GRADE 22'-6" FROM NORTH ELEVATION LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 389.5' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 415.9' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 402.7'HEIGHT ABOVE AVG (NATURAL) GRADE40' - 6 3/8"LOCATION OF GRADE DEFINNING BASEMENT AREA AT LEVEL P1 LOCATION OF GRADE DEFINNING BASEMENT AREA AT LEVEL P2 (ENTIRE LEVEL P2 IS CONSIDERED A BASEMENT AND NOT A STORY - SECTION 15-06.090) 1011121313.113.2 443'-2 3/4"7' - 2 3/4"3' - 6"LEVEL 1 414' -0" LEVEL 2 425' -0" ROOF 436' -0" LEVEL P2 392' -0" LEVEL P1 403' -0" B.1C.1E.1H.1 A.1J.1 G.1 11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"7' - 2 3/4"44' - 0"TILE ROOF STUCCO WALL STEEL BRACKET ROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW BLACK RAILING PROPOSED GRADE 21' -9" FROM EAST ELEVATION EXISITNG GRADEINTAKE LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 389.5' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 415.9' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 402.7'HEIGHT ABOVE AVG (NATURAL) GRADE40' - 6 3/8"443'-2 3/4" KEY PLAN 2 4 BUILDING C PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building_C_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building C_joet.rvt4/12/2021 10:44:33 AM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING CPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.11-cA3.11-c 3/32" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"4 EAST ELEVATION 0 6432168 0 6432168 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 129 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 36 LEVEL 1 414' -0" LEVEL 2 425' -0" ROOF 436' -0" A LEVEL P2 392' -0" LEVEL P1 403' -0" B D G H J EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE 3' FROM WEST ELEVATION C FE 11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"33' - 0"BLACK RAILING TILE ROOFROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW STEEL BRACKET WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 389.5' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 415.9' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 402.7'HEIGHT ABOVE AVG (NATURAL) GRADE40' - 6 3/8"7' - 2 3/4"443'-2 3/4" LEVEL 1 414' -0" LEVEL 2 425' -0" ROOF 436' -0" 1 LEVEL P2 392' -0" LEVEL P1 403' -0" 1.2 3 4 5 6 872 11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"EXISTING GRADEPROPOSED GRADE 23' -2" FROM SOUTH ELEVATION 44' - 0"7' - 2 3/4"STEEL BRACKET BLACK RAILINGTILE ROOFROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME EXHAUST LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 389.5' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 415.9' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 402.7'HEIGHT ABOVE AVG (NATURAL) GRADE40' - 6 3/8"443'-2 3/4" LOCATION OF GRADE DEFINNING BASEMENT AREA AT LEVEL P2 (ENTIRE LEVEL P2 IS CONSIDERED A BASEMENT AND NOT A STORY- SECTION 15-06.090) KEY PLAN 1 3 BUILDING C PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building_C_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building C_joet.rvt9/14/2021 10:45:44 AM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING CPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.12-cA3.12-c 3/32" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 6432168 0 6432168 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 130 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 37 36' - 6"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"A3.13-f4 A3.13-f 29'-0" X 8'-0"9'-0" X 8'-0"9'-0" X 8'-0"6'-0" X 8'-0"6'-0" X 8'-0" 6'-0" X 8'-0"6'-0" X 8'-0"EXISTING POOL BUILDINGFITNESS 2 A4.01-f 2' - 0"28' - 6"9' - 6" 20' - 0"11' - 2 1/2" 1 A4.01-f A3.13-f 3 A3.13-f 1 A3.13-f4 A3.13-f 2 2 A4.01-f 1 A4.01-f KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Fitness Space_Central\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Fitness Space_joet.rvt8/12/2020 5:22:15 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - FITNESS SPACEPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 FLOOR & ROOF PLAN A2.01-fA2.01-f 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 1 PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 ROOF PLAN 0 321684 0 321684 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 134 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 38 PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Fitness Space_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Fitness Space_joet.rvt12/18/2020 3:19:28 PM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - FITNESS SPACEPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.12-fA3.12-f COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME STUCCO WALLS LEVEL ROOF 467' -6" LEVEL 1 456' -6"LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 455.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 456.75' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 458' LEVEL ROOF 467' -6" LEVEL 1 456' -6"LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 455.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 456.75' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 458' LEVEL ROOF 467' -6" LEVEL 1 456' -6"LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 455.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 456.75' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 458' LEVEL ROOF 467' -6" LEVEL 1 456' -6"LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 455.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 456.75' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 458'AVG (NATURAL) GRADE16' - 0 3/4" HEIGHT ABOVEAVG (NATURAL) GRADE16' - 0 3/4" HEIGHT ABOVEAVG (NATURAL) GRADE16' - 0 3/4" HEIGHT ABOVEAVG (NATURAL) GRADE16' - 0 3/4" HEIGHT ABOVE0 321684 0 321684 0 3216840321684 EXISTING POOL BUILDING FITNESS REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 472' - 9 3/4"472' - 9 3/4" 472' - 9 3/4"472' - 9 3/4" 135 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 39 FECDN6230 SF PARKING 161 SF STAIR D105 A3.12-m 1 A3.12-m 2WEST COTTAGES LANEEXISTING MANOR BUILDING PLANTER BOX, TYP. 2 A4.02 2 A4.02 KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Auditorium_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Auditorium_joet.rvt12/18/2020 4:53:43 PM363117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - MEETING RMPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 PARKING LEVEL A2.00-mA2.00-m1/8" = 1'-0"1 MEETING ROOM - PARKING LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 0 321684 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 138 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 40 $AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK $AUDIT_BAD_BLOCK$AUDIT_BAD_BLOCKFECUPSTAIR 69 SF ELEV 3259 SF MEETING ROOM 1017 SF BREAKOUT 107 SF A/V 107 SF STORAGE 703 SF LOBBY A3.12-m 1 A3.12-m 2 10' - 6"78' - 8"18'-" X 10'-0"7'-6" X 11'-0"7'-6" X 11'-0"7'-6" X 11'-0"7'-6" X 11'-0" 7'-6" X 11'-0" 7'-6" X 11'-0"7'-6" X 11'-0" 7'-6" X 11'-0" EXISTING MANORWEST COTTAGES LANEA3.12-m 3 PLANTER BOX, TYP. DECK RAMP DOWN2 A4.02 2 A4.02 EXISTING MANOR BUILDING15' - 0 1/2"8' - 8 3/4"31' - 8"8' - 8 3/4"8' - 0"24' - 5 1/2"7' - 7 1/2"PLANTER BOX KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Auditorium_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Auditorium_joet.rvt12/18/2020 4:53:45 PM363117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - MEETING RMPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN A2.01-mA2.01-m1/8" = 1'-0"1 MEETING ROOM - LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 0 321684 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 139 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 41 2 A4.02 2 A4.02 KEY PLAN PROJECT BLDG CBLDG B B L DG A MEETING ROOM FITNESS MANOR ASSISTED LIVING / MC HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTLIVING INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER NORTH C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Auditorium_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Auditorium_joet.rvt12/18/2020 4:53:46 PM363117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - MEETING RMPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 ROOF PLAN A2.02-mA2.02-m1/8" = 1'-0"1 MEETING ROOM - ROOF PLAN 0 321684 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 140 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 42 PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Auditorium_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Auditorium_joet.rvt12/18/2020 3:34:37 PM363117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - MEETING RMPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.11-mA3.11-m BLACK RAILING WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME STUCCO WALLS TILE ROOF EAVE HEIGHT 455.70' ROOF 452' -6" LEVEL 1 434' -2" LEVEL 1 434' -2" ROOF 452' -6" LEVEL 1 434' -2" ROOF 452' -6" HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 431.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 424.75' LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 418' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 431.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 424.75' LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 418' HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 431.5' AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 424.75' LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 418'AVG (NATURAL) GRADE40' 3 5/8" HEIGHT ABOVEAVG (NATURAL) GRADE40' - 3 5/8" HEIGHT ABOVEAVG (NATURAL) GRADE40' - 3 5/8" HEIGHT ABOVE0 16842 0 16842 0 16842 OUTLINE OF MANOR BUILDING MEETING ROOM REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 465' -0 5/8" 465' -0 5/8" 465' -0 5/8" 141 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 43 ENTRY PLAZA ODD FELLOWS DRIVE BUILDING B EXISTING MANOR BUILDING 145' - 3" 119' - 3" 113' - 1" COLFAX LANE T O E N T R Y P L A Z A BUILDING C BUILDING B 86' - 2" ODD FELLOWS DRIVE BUILDING C 54' - 11" EXISTING ASSISTED LIVING ENTRY PLAZA ODD FELLOWS DRIVE BUILDING B EXISTING MANOR BUILDING145' - 3" 119' - 3" 113' - 1" BUILDING A KEY PLAN PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_joet.rvt8/28/2020 1:37:09 PM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA06.01.2020 SITE SECTIONS A4.01A4.01 1/16" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING B TO MANOR LOOKING EAST 1/16" = 1'-0"2 BUILDING B TO BUILDING C LOOKING SOUTH 1/16" = 1'-0"4 BUILDING C TO ASSISTED LIVING LOOKING EAST 1 1 4 4 2 2 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 1" = 20'-0"3 BUILDING B TO MANOR TO BUILDING A 3 3 143 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 44 EXISTING COTTAGE W COTTAGES LANE MEETING ROOM 27' - 0" EXISTING MANOR BUILDING PAVILLION CIRCLE MEETING ROOM EXISTING POOL BUILDING FITNESS BUILDING 11' - 6" KEY PLAN PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_joet.rvt5/28/2020 10:31:08 AM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA06.01.2020 SITE SECTIONS A4.02A4.02 1/16" = 1'-0"2 MEETING ROOM TO MANOR LOOKING SOUTH 1/16" = 1'-0"1 MEETING ROOM LOOKING EAST 1/16" = 1'-0"3 FITNESS CENTER TO POOL BUILDING LOOK SOUTH 3 3 1 1 2 2 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 144 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 45 PAVILLION CIRCLE BUILDING A BUILDING A OPEN SPACE EXISTING INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENTS BUILDING A PUTTING GREEN & BOCCE COURT PAVILLION COURT W COTTAGES LANE 126' - 0" KEY PLAN PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_joet.rvt5/28/2020 10:31:12 AM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA06.01.2020 SITE SECTIONS A4.03A4.03 1/16" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING A TO PAVILLION CIRCLE LOOKING NORTHEAST 1/16" = 1'-0"2 BUILDING A GARAGE TO PLAZA LOOKING SOUTHEAST 1/16" = 1'-0"3 BUILDING A TO IL APARTMENTS LOOKING SOUTH 3 3 2 2 1 1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 145 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 46 KEY PLAN PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site\963117.18-17-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_joet.rvt5/28/2020 1:39:17 PM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA06.01.2020 BUILDING C - SITE SLOPE A4.04A4.04 1 SECTION THROUGH BUILDING C LOOKING SOUTH 1 1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 146 of 146BUILDING BENDGARAGE GARAGE 1 0 0 4020105 ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN.APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 04.05.2022 04.05.2022 47 48 149438810.3 LEIGH F. PRINCE Direct No: 704.384.2617 Email: LPrince@FoxRothschild.com 101 N. Tryon Street Suite 1300 Charlotte, NC 28246 Tel 704.384.2600 Fax 704.384.2800 www.foxrothschild.com 345 California Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104-2670 Tel 415.364.5540 Fax 415.391.4436 www.foxrothschild.com September 20, 2023 VIA EMAIL: CRICHARDSON@SARATOGA.CA.US Cynthia Richardson Project Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Retirement Community Project Public Benefits Dear Cynthia: Thank you for the opportunity to provide information to the Planning Commission for the upcoming study session regarding the Saratoga Retirement Community Project (“Project”) located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue. This letter will provide a basic understanding of the operational framework of the Saratoga Retirement Community (“SRC”) as a licensed continuing care retirement community. It will also provide a discussion around current public benefits and those planned in association w ith the Project. Continuing Care Retirement Community A continuing care retirement community (“CCRC”) is a community that offers long-term housing, residential services (e.g., meals, housekeeping) and nursing care (e.g., skilled nursing, memory support) for a resident’s lifetime. All units at the SRC are licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services as Residential Care for the Elderly. To obtain the housing, services and care, residents pay both an entrance fee and a monthly fee. Much of the entrance fee is returned when a reside nt no longer resides in the community and the monthly fee pays for not only housing, but also guarantees access to services and healthcare. A community that allows seniors to age in place and receive the services and care they need is in and of itself a public benefit. Accordingly, the housing element of the city’s 49 2 149438810.3 general plan (page 13) describes the SRC as an institutional use that provides a public service. With this Project, the SRC will expand and improve the residential and health care services and the public benefits it provides to the community. History of Public Benefits The SRC, owned by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (“Odd Fellows”), has a long history of serving others and has served seniors in the Saratoga community since 1912. Providing a community where seniors can age in place is a tangible expression of the Odd Fellows commitment to service. In addition, the Odd Fellows aids residents through programs such as the “Adopt-a-Resident” program that provides cards and gifts to commemorate birthdays, anniversaries and holidays. The Odd Fellows also has a program to provide financial aid to members in need and does not evict residents who are struggling financially. Further, the Odd Fellows owns and developed the neighboring Fellowship Plaza with 150 one- and two-bedroom independent living rental units for low- income seniors. Thus, even without a city-imposed mandate, the Odd Fellows are providing public benefits and serving Saratoga’s lower income seniors. Public Benefits Provided with the Project With the Project, the SRC is proposing additional public benefits both in furtherance of their organizational mission and to meet the requirements for the planned combined (P - C) district. The enclosed list identifies these benefits. The purpose of the planned combined district is to achieve the following objectives: (a) To provide a means of guiding development or redevelopment of properties in areas of the city that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns and standards. (b) To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not o therwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings that exceed the city's green building standards, provides community facilities that are open to the public, or allows for innovative in-fill design. (c) To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more specific goals and policies of the general plan that would otherwise not be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. To approve the planned combined district, Municipal Code Section 15 -15.060 requires, in relevant part that the Planning Commission and/or the City Council make the finding that the application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes contained within Section 15-16.010. As will be discussed below, this Project furthers all the purposes of the planned combined district. First, the SRC is uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns and standards based on the location, property size and existing use . The SRC campus is a private residential community for seniors tucked away off Fruitvale Avenue in a predominantly residential neighborhood. The SRC is located on three contiguous parcels 50 3 149438810.3 totaling approximately 37 acres and has ample room to for redevelopment to respond to the changing needs of modern seniors. Second, the planned combined district would provide flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. As described above, by its very nature the Project provides a public benefit in that its innovative in-fill design provides additional senior housing opportunities. The Project would also improve the health center to better serve the seniors of Saratoga, including Medicaid patients from the community. Further, the Project buildings would exceed the city’s green building standards by designing the Project to the “Build It Green” program targeting the gold classification through the sustainability point system. The proposed Meeting Room that is part of the Project would not only be available for SRC resident use but would also be made available for public use. Finally, the Project results in the creation of a public trail connection. All of these, without more, satisfy the requirement to provide a public benefit that “could include, but is not limited to, buildings that exceed the City's green building standards, provides community facilities that are open to the public, or allows for innovative in -fill design.” Third, the Project has a design that achieves one or more specific goals and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. The Project furthers Housing Element Policy 4-4 to provide access to housing opportunities for all persons, including meeting the needs of elderly households and persons with disabilities. The Project meets Land Use Goal 12 to recognize the heritage of the city and Policy 12.1 to encourage the compatibility of architectural styles that reflect established architectural traditions. This Project is designed to complement and be compatible with the Manor building and the architectural style of the existing buildings on campus. The Project furthers the Open Space/Conservation Goal 5 to provide a system of trails within the community and Policies 5.4 to develop a trail consistent with the Parks and Trails Master Plan and Policy 5.9, whenever feasible to design and develop the trail to meet the accessibility needs of all segments of the population. For all the foregoing reasons, the Project without more meets the requirements for approval of the planned combined district. Nevertheless, the Odd Fellows are working to identify a way to provide an additional affordable housing benefit to the community. Affordable Housing As described above, the Odd Fellows provide affordable housing at the neighboring Fellowship Plaza. The Odd Fellows also provide financial support for residents in need. Nevertheless, understanding the need for affordable housing opportunities and desiri ng to provide the greatest public benefit possible, the Odd Fellows is committed to working with city staff and enter into an agreement to provide affordable housing. The Odd Fellows are proposing to make up to 10 assisted living units (each a studio with a private bath and small kitchenette) available for those with lower incomes who qualify for assisted living services, with a preference for Odd Fellows members and residents of Saratoga. The details of this affordable housing public benefit acceptable to both the city and the 51 4 149438810.3 Odd Fellows have yet been determined but will continue to be refined as the Project moves through the entitlement process. The Odd Fellows looks forward to continuing to work with the city and the community to approve this important Project that expands the public benefit to the senior community in Saratoga. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Leigh F. Prince cc: Brian Swanson (bswanson@saratoga.ca.us) Chris Dalengas (ChrisD@ankrommoisan.com) Brian McLemore (brian@mclemoredevelopment.com) Sarah Stel (sstel@retirement.org) 52 Architecture Interiors Planning Brand Portland Seattle San Francisco ankrommoisan.com 1 | 2 Ankrom Moisan Architects, Inc. Saratoga Retirement Community Proposed Public Benefits 1. Unique Infill This project takes advantage of the special opportunities that this 37.17acre property affords. The size of the campus allows the unique infill that is proposed, and it provides a public benefit through the new senior housing units that will be built. One of the goals outlined in Article 15- 81.010 is “to provide increased residential densities for projects that guarantee at least a portion of the housing developed, will be restricted to Senior Citizens.” This design proposes all the new units will be for Senior Citizens. Clearly, providing additional senior housing is a goal of the General Plan, and a public benefit. 2. Affordable Housing The Odd Fellows organization has provided a form of “affordable housing” for many years. The land for the SRC Campus was first purchased in 1908. The existing Manor Building was constructed in 1912 to provide Senior Housing for the “aged and infirm” Odd Fellows members. The organization has always provided financial assistance for members with limited means and continues to provide these benefits today. As a non-profit fraternal organization, Odd Fellows is committed to serving their members. The Odd Fellows organization maintains an endowment benefit plan, that provides financial assistance for those on the campus in need. Currently, there are residents in the Assisted Living Building that receive these benefits. As the need arises, there are 7 existing Assisted Living Units that are available for members with limited means. The 7 Assisted Living Units are studios, with private baths, and small kitchenettes. The applicant proposes to maintain this policy and form of “affordable housing” for the SRC Campus and would agree to include this requirement in a Development Agreement with the City for this project. 3. Exceeding the City’s Green Building Standards The current Saratoga City Standards require meeting Cal-Green requirements, as well as WELO requirements which minimize water used for site irrigation. The applicant proposes to increase the standards and design the project to the “Build It Green” GPR program targeting the Gold Classification through the sustainability point system. This design would exceed the City’s green building standards. 4. Community Facilities open to the Public – Meeting Room The proposed Meeting Room would be made available for public use, as well as for SRC resident use. The Meeting Room would be scheduled in advance for groups up to 45 attendees. Meetings could be scheduled between 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM on weekdays and during daytime hours on weekends. Visitor parking would be provided in the lower level of Building B, which is closest to the Manor Building and the Meeting Room. There are 46 parking stalls there, and visitors would then enter through the Main Entry to the Manor. Building B is also closest to the main vehicular entry from Fruitvale, so this would minimize the visitor traffic through the campus. No additional employees would be required for the Meeting Room since the administrative staff is located at the Manor. 53 Portland Seattle San Francisco 2 | 2 5. Extending the Public Trail for Public Benefit Zoning Article 15-16.010 encourages “innovative design in a development that achieves one or more specific goals and policies of the General Plan that otherwise would not be attainable.” The article also provides “greater flexibility for innovative in-fill design.” We believe the innovative infill additions of this project are the key to making this project viable, and thus to achieving this specific Public Trail goal. Infill projects are also very sustainable solutions since they can utilize properties that have already been developed. The Public Trail connection shown on our submittal is a goal of the General Plan and would not be attainable unless this project is approved. There are significant costs involved to provide new sidewalks, signage, and the easements required to create the trail connection, and those elements would simply not occur if the project does not move forward. If the project is approved, the result would be a trail connection, and thus would provide a benefit to the public, as the purpose of the article allows. 6. Senior Housing Zoning Article 15-81.010 allows developments in Saratoga to “provide increased residential densities for projects that guarantee at least a portion of the housing developed, will be restricted to Senior Citizens.” This is clearly a bonus developed to strongly encourage the development of more senior housing, as an important goal for the City. The project we have submitted proposes that all the new living units on the campus will be for Senior Citizens. We believe this project clearly meets the intent of this zoning ordinance that encourages senior housing, and it provides a necessary and important public benefit. This project will make sustainable for the long term the only Life Plan Community in Saratoga, for the citizens of Saratoga to retire in. 7. Health Center The project would improve the Community Nursing Facility (the Health Center) to better serve the seniors of Saratoga. The Nursing Facility accepts Medicaid patients from the community, which is essentially non-market rate housing which provides a public benefit. 54 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/171/trees 408.868.1276 CITY OF SARATOGA ARBORIST APPROVAL Conditions of Approval and Tree Protection Plan Application No. ARB19-0039 Address: 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Owner: Oddfellows Home of California APN: Date: 397-12-012 June 28, 2020 Prepared by Christina Fusco, City Arborist Phone: (408) 868-1276 Email: cfusco@saratoga.ca.us REPORT HISTORY: Report 1: Report 4: This report replaces previous reports for this project. November 25, 2020 July 10, 2023 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to build five new structures on the campus. They include three buildings with independent living units, an auditorium, and a fitness building. A total of 64 protected trees are requested for removal to construct the project. They include trees 1 – 9, 11 – 15, 17 – 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 24, 46, 48, 53, 72, 75, 79 – 81, 89 – 100, 109 – 111, 115 – 122, 136 – 139, 141-142, 144, 148, and 149. Tree 112 fell during the 2023 storm season. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree security deposit – Required - $133,300 Tree protection – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – Trees listed above are approved for removal once building permits have been issued. Replacement trees – Required = $214,640 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Findings and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Maps Showing Tree Protection 1 of 16 55 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 1 FINDINGS: Documents Reviewed Saratoga CCRC Independent Living and Campus Expansion plan set dated April 4, 2022. The arborist report by David L. Babby written February 22, 2019 and revised May 27, 2021. Tree Removals According to Section 15-50.080 of the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Sixty five (65) trees protected by City Code are in conflict with the project, and meet the City’s criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. They include trees 1 – 9, 11 – 15, 17 – 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 24, 46, 48, 53, 72, 75, 79 – 81, 89 – 100, 109 – 111, 115 – 122, 136 – 139, 141-142, 144, 148, and 149. Tree 112 fell during the 2023 storm season. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final sets of plans: 1)The tree information, recommendations and maps showing tree protection from the revised arborist report dated May 27, 2021; 2)The Project Data in Brief and the Conditions of Approval from this report May 16, 2022. 2 of 16 56 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 1 Table 1: Tree Removal Criteria that are met from May 27, 2021 report. 3 of 16 57 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 1 Table 1 continued: Tree Removal Criteria that are met from May 27, 2021 report. 4 of 16 58 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 1 Table 1 continued: Tree Removal Criteria that are met from May 27, 2021 report. TREE INFORMATION: Project Arborist: David L. Babby, Arbor Resources Date of Report: February 22, 2019, revised March 18, 2020 and May 27, 2021 Table 2: Tree information from May 27, 2021 arborist report. 5 of 16 59 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 1 Table 2 continued: Tree information from May 27, 2021 arborist report. 6 of 16 60 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 1 Table 2 continued: Tree information from May 27, 2021 arborist report. 7 of 16 61 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 1 Table 2 continued: Tree information from May 27, 2021 arborist report. 8 of 16 62 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1)The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2)The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. (3)The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. (4)The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5)The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6)Whether or not there are any feasible alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7)Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8)Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9)The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10)The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. (11)The necessity to remove a tree following the creation of defensible space within 100 feet of a structure located within the Wildland Urban Interface, in accordance with defensible space standards established by CAL FIRE or as determined by Santa Clara County Fire Department, and that risk of increased wildfire cannot reasonably be addressed through maintenance or without tree removal. 9 of 16 63 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.Owner, Architect, Contractor: It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2.Permit: a.Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. b.No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 3.Final Plan Sets: a.Shall include the tree information, protection recommendations, and the maps showing tree protection from the arborist report by David L. Babby dated May 27, 2021 copied onto a plan sheet. b.Shall include the Project Data in Brief and the Conditions of Approval sections of the City Arborist report dated May 16, 2022. 4.Tree Protection Security Deposit: a.Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b.Shall be $128,500 for tree(s) 10, 38-43, 67, 73, 101-108, 126, 129, 133 and 143. c.Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d.May be in the form of cash, check, or a bond. e.Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f.May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 5.Tree Protection Fencing: a.Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b.Shall be shown on the Site Plan. c.Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. d.Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. e.Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, CHRISTINA FUSCO (408) 868-1276”. f.Wherever protection is needed outside of fences, unprocessed wood chips, or approved equivalent, shall be placed to the edge of the tree’s canopy and to a depth of 6 inches. g.Call City Arborist, at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. h.Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 10 of 16 64 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 3 6.Construction: All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing unless permitted as conditioned below. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching for utility installation, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7.Work inside fenced areas: a.Requires field meeting with City Arborist before performing work. b.Requires City Arborist approval prior to performing work. c.Requires Project Arborist on site to monitor work. 8.Project Arborist: a.Shall be David L. Babby, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. b.Shall visit the site every two weeks during grading, trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. c.Shall provide a letter/email to the City after each inspection. The letters/emails shall document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and provide information on the condition of the trees during construction. d.Shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 9.Tree removal: a.Trees 1 – 9, 11 – 15, 17 – 19, 21, 23, 24, b.26, 31, 32, 24, 46, 48, 53, 72, 75, 79 – 81, 89 – 100, 109 – 111, 115 – 122, 136 – 139, 141-142, 144, 148, and 149 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed once building division permits have been obtained. c.Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 d.No trees are requested or approved for removal to construct the project. e.Should any tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. 10.New trees: a.New trees equal to $214,640 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species. b.Trees shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices, and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. c.Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 11 of 16 65 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Attachment 3 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 d.The rest of the replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. 11.Damage to protected trees that will be retained: a.Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 b.Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 12.Final inspection: a.At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. b.Before scheduling a final inspection from the City Arborist, have the project arborist do an inspection, prepare a letter with their findings and provide that letter to the City for the project file. 12 of 16 66 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:&277$*(6/$1(3$9Ζ//Ζ21&Ζ5&/(%/'*$:(67&277$*(6)Ζ71(66&(17(5$''Ζ7Ζ21)Ζ71(66&(17(5;;;;;;;352-(&7180%(5k$1.52002Ζ6$1$5&+Ζ7(&76Ζ1&1257+:(67'$9Ζ668Ζ7(3257/$1'2577+$9(68Ζ7(6($77/(:$7+2:$5'675((76$1)5$1&Ζ6&2&$7'$7(127)25&216758&7Ζ216+((7180%(56+((7180%(5&?B5HYLW3URMHFWV?3566DUDWRJDΖ/)6LWH?3566DUDWRJDΖ/)6LWHBVDVKDIUYW$06&+(0$7Ζ&'(6Ζ*16$5$72*$5(7Ζ5(0(17&20081Ζ7<3$&Ζ)Ζ&5(7Ζ5(0(176(59Ζ&(6)58Ζ79$/(6$5$72*$&$/Ζ)251Ζ$75((5(029$/3/$1&6&6  75((5(029$/3/$1%8Ζ/'Ζ1*$ )Ζ71(66&(17(5;75((72%(5(029('5(9Ζ6Ζ21 '$7( 5($621)25Ζ668(75((725(0$Ζ1/(*(1'1257+;;3527(&7('75((75((3527(&7Ζ21)(1&Ζ1*removeTREE PROTECTION FENCINGTREE PROTECTION FENCINGAdd squares around numbers of 115-122 (to indicate protected trees)13 of 16Attachment 4 67 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;3$9Ζ//Ζ21&Ζ5&/(:&2 7 7 $*(6 /$1 (2'')(//2:6'5Ζ9(&2/)$;/$1(0$125%/'*%0((7Ζ1*5220:(67&277$*(6;;;;5(029(75(($1'&85%352-(&7180%(5k$1.52002Ζ6$1$5&+Ζ7(&76Ζ1&1257+:(67'$9Ζ668Ζ7(3257/$1'2577+$9(68Ζ7(6($77/(:$7+2:$5'675((76$1)5$1&Ζ6&2&$7'$7(127)25&216758&7Ζ216+((7180%(56+((7180%(5&?B5HYLW3URMHFWV?3566DUDWRJDΖ/)6LWH?3566DUDWRJDΖ/)6LWHBVDVKDIUYW$06&+(0$7Ζ&'(6Ζ*16$5$72*$5(7Ζ5(0(17&20081Ζ7<3$&Ζ)Ζ&5(7Ζ5(0(176(59Ζ&(6)58Ζ79$/(6$5$72*$&$/Ζ)251Ζ$75((5(029$/3/$1&6&6  75((5(029$/3/$1%8Ζ/'Ζ1*% 0((7Ζ1*52205(9Ζ6Ζ21 '$7( 5($621)25Ζ668(;75((72%(5(029('75((725(0$Ζ1/(*(1'1257+;;3527(&7('75((  (175<5281'$%28775((3527(&7Ζ21)(1&Ζ1*identify as removalTREE PROTECTION FENCING139136137138Example: circles representing trunk diameters should be to scale for "protected trees"14 of 16Attachment 4 68 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;2'')(//2:6'5Ζ9(0F /$5(1 /$1 (&2/)$;/$1(%/'*&$66Ζ67('/Ζ9Ζ1*;;;;352-(&7180%(5k$1.52002Ζ6$1$5&+Ζ7(&76Ζ1&1257+:(67'$9Ζ668Ζ7(3257/$1'2577+$9(68Ζ7(6($77/(:$7+2:$5'675((76$1)5$1&Ζ6&2&$7'$7(127)25&216758&7Ζ216+((7180%(56+((7180%(5&?B5HYLW3URMHFWV?3566DUDWRJDΖ/)6LWH?3566DUDWRJDΖ/)6LWHBVDVKDIUYW$06&+(0$7Ζ&'(6Ζ*16$5$72*$5(7Ζ5(0(17&20081Ζ7<3$&Ζ)Ζ&5(7Ζ5(0(176(59Ζ&(6)58Ζ79$/(6$5$72*$&$/Ζ)251Ζ$75((5(029$/3/$1&6&6  75((5(029$/3/$1%8Ζ/'Ζ1*&5(9Ζ6Ζ21 '$7( 5($621)25Ζ668(;75((72%(5(029('75((725(0$Ζ1/(*(1'1257+;;3527(&7('75((75((3527(&7Ζ21)(1&Ζ1*TREE PROTECTION FENCINGadd #47 - see Exhibit B of prior reportOmit square 15 of 16Attachment 4 69 149148147146145144143142141140xxxxTREE PROTECTION FENCING16 of 16Attachment 4 70 71 0 3201608040 ENTRY PLAZA OPEN SPACE 14622 GRANITE WAY 19303 CHABLIS COURT 19271 SAN MARCOS ROAD 19227 SAN MARCOS ROAD 14505 CHESTER AVENUE PROPOSED 15 PARKING SPACES 2/A0.03 2/A0.03 22 EXISTING PARKING SPACEScc 29' - 0" 21' - 0" ASSISTED LIVING H E A L T H C A R EIL APARTMENT 1BL DG AFITNESS MANOR COLFAX LANEW COTTAGES LANEODD FELLOWS DRIVE BLDG C PROPOSED BUILDING D PROPOSED LOCATION FOR NEW COTTAGE - 2,200 SF SINGLE STORY (INCLUDING GARAGE) ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE BUFFERING BUILDING D 1 NEW IL UNITS WITH 32 GARAGE PARKING SPACES. 22 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING STALLS REMOVED AND 15 NEW ANGLED PARKING STALLS ADDED. 0 3201608040 OPEN SPACE 19271 SAN MARCOS ROAD 19227 SAN MARCOS ROAD 14505 CHESTER AVENUE ASSISTED LIVING H E A L T H C A R EIL APARTMENT 1BL DG AMANOR BLDG C BUILDING B 10 NEW IL UNITS WITH 10 GARAGE PARKING SPACES, 54 ADDITIONAL GARAGE SPACES AND 12 MAIN ENTRY SPACES PROVIDED. 22 EXISTING ON-GRADE SPACES AND 12 MAIN ENTRY SPACES REMOVED. BUILDING C 20 NEW IL UNITS WITH 30 GARAGE PARKING SPACES, 47 ADDITIONAL NEW GARAGE SPACES PROVIDED FOR AL BUILDING. 50 EXISTING ON-GRADE PARKING SPACES FOR THE AL ARE REMOVED. BLDG B WEST COTTAGES COLFAX LANEW COTTAGES LANEODD FELLOWS DRIVE NEW MEETING ROOM NEW 3,300 SF AUDITORIUM PROVIDED WITH 16 GARAGE PARKING SPACES BELOW. 3 PARKING SPACES REMOVED BUILDING A 22 NEW IL UNITS PROVIDED WITH 31 PARKING SPACES AND 3 MAIN ENTRY SPACES PROVIDED. 3 PARALLEL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED. FITNESS CENTER NEW FITNESS SPACE 1,000 SF PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga-Site_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_scotts.rvt9/18/2023 10:46:38 AM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA04.05.2022 ALTERNATE SITE PLAN A0.02A0.02 1" = 80'-0"1 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ALTERNATE REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 1" = 80'-0"2 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN BUILDING D 11 NEW IL UNITS WITH 32 GARAGE PARKING SPACES. 22 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING STALLS REMOVED AND 15 NEW ANGLED PARKING STALLS ADDED. 72 0 3201608040 ENTRY PLAZA OPEN SPACE 14622 GRANITE WAY 19303 CHABLIS COURT 19271 SAN MARCOS ROAD 19227 SAN MARCOS ROAD 14505 CHESTER AVENUE PROPOSED 15 PARKING SPACES 2/A0.03 2/A0.03 22 EXISTING PARKING SPACEScc 29' - 0" 21' - 0" PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY RELOCATION EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LOCATION TO BE ADJUSTEDPROPOSE D ROW55' - 0"EXISTING ROW60' - 0"FACE OF WALL4' - 7"ASSISTED LIVING H E A L T H C A R EIL APARTMENT 1BL DG AFITNESS MANOR COLFAX LANEW COTTAGES LANEODD FELLOWS DRIVE BLDG C PROPOSED BUILDING DPROPOSED LOCATION FOR NEW COTTAGE - 2,200 SF SINGLE STORY (INCLUDING GARAGE) ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE BUFFERING BUILDING D 1 NEW IL UNITS WITH 32 GARAGE PARKING SPACES. 22 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING STALLS REMOVED AND 15 NEW ANGLED PARKING STALLS ADDED. PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga-Site_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_scotts.rvt9/18/2023 10:46:43 AM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA04.05.2022 ENLARGED SITE PLAN A0.03A0.03 1" = 50'-0"1 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ALTERNATE REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE BUILDING D 11 NEW IL UNITS WITH 32 GARAGE PARKING SPACES. 22 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING STALLS REMOVED AND 15 NEW ANGLED PARKING STALLS ADDED. 73 LEVEL 1 421' -0" ROOF 432' -0" LEVEL P1 410' -0"11' - 0"11' - 0"22' - 0"STUCCO WALL BLACK RAILING WHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAME TILE ROOFSTEEL BRACKET ROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 420'-4" LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 410'-0" AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 415'-2" DECORATIVE OPENING VENT LEVEL 1 421' -0" ROOF 432' -0" LEVEL P1 410' -0"11' - 0"11' - 0"22' - 0"TILE ROOF STEEL BRACKETSTUCCO WALLWHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAMEBLACK RAILING ROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW STOREFRONT HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 420'-4" LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 410'-0" AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 415'-2" EXISTING COTTAGE 11' - 6"LEVEL 1 421' -0" ROOF 432' -0" LEVEL P1 410' -0" TILE ROOFSTEEL BRACKET STUCCO WALLWHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAMEBLACK RAILING ROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW DECORATIVE OPENING VENT HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 420'-4" LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 410'-0" AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 415'-2" KEY PLAN 3 2 1 BUILDING D PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building D Alt\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Building D Alt_scotts.rvt9/18/2023 10:39:55 AM963117 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA CCRC - IL EXPANSION - BUILDING DPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALE AVESARATOGA, CA 9507006.01.2020 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.11-aA3.11-a 3/32" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING D - NORTH ELEVATION - FROM ODD FELLOWS DRIVE 0 4 8 16 32 0 4 8 16 32 3/32" = 1'-0"2 BUILDING D - EAST ELEVATION - FROM WEST COTTAGE LANE 0 4 8 16 32 3/32" = 1'-0"3 BUILDING D - WEST ELEVATION REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE LEVEL 1 421' -0" ROOF 432' -0" LEVEL P1 410' -0" TILE ROOFSTEEL BRACKET STUCCO WALLWHITE VINYL WINDOW FRAMEBLACK RAILING ROOF CANOPY OVER DECK BELOW DECORATIVE OPENING VENT HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT 420'-4" LOWEST ELEVATION POINT 410'-0" AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT 415'-2" 74 ODD FELLOWS DRIVE EXISTING MANOR BUILDING 20' - 6"18' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"33' - 6"32' - 2" ENTRY PLAZAMANOR CIRCLELANDSCAPING ADDED PARKING STALLS 3.5% SLOPE 3' - 0"9' - 0"3' - 9"3 4 .9 % 410'-9"17' - 5"428'-1 3/4" BUILDING D W COTTAGES LANE KEY PLAN PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 T 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 T 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 T 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga-Site_Central\963117.18-20-PRS Saratoga ILF-Site_scotts.rvt9/18/2023 1:23:24 PM963117.8 PLANNING SUBMITTALSARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITYPACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES14500 FRUITVALESARATOGA, CALIFORNIA04.05.2022 PARKING SITE SECTIONS A0.04A0.04 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SECTION THROUGH ADDED PARKING TO MANOR LOOKING EAST - ANGLED PARKING 2 2 1 1 1/16" = 1'-0"1 ALTERNATE BUILDING D NORTH ELEVATION REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 75 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS URBAN DESIGN IDENTITY Ankrom Moisan Architects PORTLAND 38 NW Davis Street Suite 300 Portland, OR 97209 503.245.7100 SEATTLE 1505 5th Avenue Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 206.576.1600 SAN FRANCISCO 1014 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94103 415.252.7063 ankrommoisan.com September 12, 2022 Cynthia Richardson Saratoga Community Development 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 14500 FRUITVALE, SARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION, AND NEW MASTER PLAN. APPLICATION NUMBER: PDR 19 - 0023, ARB 19 -0039, GEO 19 -0013, AND ZOA 19 -004. Dear Cynthia: We are Updating this letter which requests an Exception, to the full zoning requirement for “Story Poles” to be placed on the site as a part of this Entitlement process. These poles typically need to show the outline of the building, building corners, and roof shape as depicted in the Zoning Code, 15-45.075. For this project, there are some serious issues inherent with this requirement. Installing a full group of story poles may be appropriate for sites that are open and unobstructed. However, in the case of this development, we have an existing campus site that is in constant use. We clearly have some locations where installing poles would have a serious effect on safety and operations, causing an unreasonable hardship for this campus. Also, we have heard the community with regard to the location of Building B in front of the Manor, and are now pursuing our Alternate plan utilizing Building D. As such, we will not be staking Building B or indicating trees to be removed in that area. Our plans have shown installing 69 Story Poles and marking 8 locations on pavement where poles would be in conflict. Since we will no t stake Building B, the installation will be reduced to 54 Story Poles and 3 markings on the pavement. We first requested an Exception to the Story Pole r equirement from Community Development, by providing a Virtual Model and Walk-though of the Campus depicting the proposed new buildings, in lieu of in stalling the story poles. The Community Development department reviewed our reque st and would not approve that method as an Exception to the requirement. Instead, they directed our team to install Story Poles where possible, and where they would not conflict with safety requirements, operations, or access for the campus. Following those directions from Community Development, we are now requesting this Exception to the full Story Pole Requirement. We are proposing to provide two main elements: 1. The installation of Story Poles where they do not conflict with safety requirements, operations, and access. 2. The provision of a Virtual Model of the project that can demonstrate a Virtual Walk-through of the campus, showing how the proposed buildings will fit into the site. We’ve prepared Site Plans showing the pole locations that would be needed at the corners and perimeter of the new buildings, to outline the building forms. We’ve also shown the roof outlines that would be needed on the Plans. The roofs are typically 76 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS URBAN DESIGN IDENTITY SARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY / 09.12.2022 ANKROM MOISAN 2 hipped roofs that terminate at roof wells. Showing the complex roof geometry is challenging, and also requires additional poles. Buildings C. This proposed building along Odd Fellows Drive has the most critical site conditions. If all the required story poles were installed, there would be poles placed in existing access roads, parking areas, and sidewalks making them unusable, and blocking required fire access routes. Effectiv ely, this building would need to be closed to do that, creating a hardship for the Owner. Instead, we have shown placing story poles where they can be installed without effecting safety and operations. Additionally, we will mark locations showing where poles would cause conflicts, if installed. Building A. This building is proposed in an existing historic park space, that also has challenging site conditions. Many poles to be installed are in conflict with the existing trees and groves of trees. However, we plan to have our contractor install the poles (and lines between them) working through the tree conditions the best way possible. We will also have poles within a few feet of three very large existing Coast Live Oaks that our contractor will need to carefully work around. These trees have trunk diameters of 38”, 20” and 13”. The pole foundations could have effects on their root systems. The poles and the required lines between them, will also conflict with the upper branches of the trees in many cases. Again, the pole contractor will work through these conditions the best way possible. Virtual Model and Walk-through. Since we know that many of the story poles will create conflicts, we have developed a Virtual Model to utilize. This method will provide an excellent understanding of how the new b uildings will fit into the campus. We have prepared a Virtual Walk-through of the camp us, showing the proposed new buildings and how they will appear in context on the campus. We have accurately modeled the existing buildings and site, preparing a Virtual Walk-through that is very much like a Google Earth Street view. The new buildings proposed have been designed in a 3D Revit program, so the Virtual Model shows the buildings exactly as designed and submitted for entitlement. The path of the Walk-through will enable the viewer to move through the campus and stop at different points where they can see dif ferent views of the new proposed buildings, in context with the existing campus. A campus plan in the lower right will show the location of the viewpoint. The viewer can pan to the right and left, and can zoom-in from the viewpoint. We have also provided a campus Development Plan showing the path of the Virtual Walk-through and the viewing points. This Virtual model will allow viewers to take this Walk-through online and experience this proposed development from the comfort of their home or office. A link to the Walk- through is provided below. We believe this proposed Exception, which provides which provides the story poles where possible, is the best way to meet the intent of the Story Pole requirement while managing to keep the campus operational. Also as required, the trees to be removed will be marked by the Surveyor. Certificat ions will be provided by the Surveyor and Architect, verifying the accuracy of the work. We respectfully request approval to utilize this Exception method described. 77 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS URBAN DESIGN IDENTITY SARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY / 09.12.2022 ANKROM MOISAN 3 Sincerely, Ankrom Moisan Architects, Inc. Chris W Dalengas, AIA, LEED AP Principal Joe Tucker, Architect, NCARB Principal Previous Attachments: Application Form for Exception Zoning Code Story Pole Example Plans with Story Poles & Conflicts Plan with Path of Virtual Walk-through General Development Plan (reference) Virtual walk-through link with map and hotspot viewpoints https://360.ankrommoisan.com/panos/Sara toga-Retirement-360-Tour/ 78 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&23 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN. APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 09.08.2021 09.08.2021 STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED WITHIN CANOPY OF TREE STORY POLES IN TREE ROOTS AND CANOPY STORY POLES IN TREE ROOTS AND CANOPY STORY POLES IN TREE ROOTS AND CANOPY STORY POLES IN TREE ROOTS AND CANOPY STORY POLE NEXT TO TREE & ROOTS STORY POLE ON RETAINING WALL STORY POLE: EAVE HEIGHT - 25' RIDGE - 31'-6" BUILDING A: LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR - 448'-0" LEVEL 2 FINISH FLOOR - 459'-0" ROOF EAVE - 470'-0" ROOF RIDGE - 479'-6" BELOW GRADE STRUCTURE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE BUILDING CORNER WITH CONFLICT BUILDING CORNER WITHOUT CONFLICT BUILDING ROOF RIDGE LOCATION LINE OF ROOF RIDGE NOT TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF BUILDING AT GRADE LEGEND PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE EXISTING DRIVE, SIDEWALK, SURFACE NOT TO BE DISTURBED STORY POLE WITHOUT CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED STORY POLE WITH CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE MARKED ON SURFACE MEETING ROOM ADDITION DECK CORNER TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE LINE OF PROPOSED NEW ALIGNMENT AT COLFAX LANE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE LINE OF ROOF EAVE / RIDGE TO BE INSTALLED 79 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&24 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN. APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 09.08.2021 09.08.2021 STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED WITHIN CANOPY OF TREE STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED WITHIN CANOPY OF TREE STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED WITHIN SIDEWALK STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED WITHIN BOCCE BALL COURT STORY POLES IN TREE ROOTS AND CANOPY STORY POLE: EAVE HEIGHT - 10-6"' RIDGE - 15'-9" STORY POLE: EAVE HEIGHT - 33'-3" RIDGE - 40'-9" BUILDING A: LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR - 448'-0" LEVEL 2 FINISH FLOOR - 459'-0" ROOF EAVE - 470'-0" ROOF RIDGE - 479'-6" FITNESS: FINISH FLOOR - 456'-6" ROOF EAVE - 467'-6" ROOF RIDGE - 472'-9" BELOW GRADE STRUCTURE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE BUILDING CORNER WITH CONFLICT BUILDING CORNER WITHOUT CONFLICT BUILDING ROOF RIDGE LOCATION LINE OF ROOF RIDGE NOT TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF BUILDING AT GRADE LEGEND PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE EXISTING DRIVE, SIDEWALK, SURFACE NOT TO BE DISTURBED STORY POLE WITHOUT CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED STORY POLE WITH CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE MARKED ON SURFACE MEETING ROOM ADDITION DECK CORNER TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE LINE OF ROOF EAVE / RIDGE TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF PROPOSED NEW ALIGNMENT AT COLFAX LANE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE 80 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&25 of 146 STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED IN MIDDLE OF DRIVE STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED WITHIN CANOPY OF TREE STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK AND / OR RETAINING WALL ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN. APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 09.08.2021 09.08.2021 STORY POLES IN DRIVE STORY POLES IN DRIVE CONFLICT WITH FLAG POLES STORY POLE: EAVE HEIGHT - 28'-3" RIDGE - 35'-9" BUILDING B: LEVEL P2 FINISH FLOOR - 407'-9" LEVEL P1 FINSIH FLOOR - 418'-3" LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR - 429'-3" ROOF EAVE - 440'-3" ROOF RIDGE - 447'-7" STORY POLE: LOCATION TO BE MARKED ON PAVEMENT STORY POLE: LOCATION TO BE MARKED ON PAVEMENT BELOW GRADE STRUCTURE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE BUILDING CORNER WITH CONFLICT BUILDING CORNER WITHOUT CONFLICT BUILDING ROOF RIDGE LOCATION LINE OF ROOF RIDGE NOT TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF BUILDING AT GRADE LEGEND PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE EXISTING DRIVE, SIDEWALK, SURFACE NOT TO BE DISTURBED STORY POLE WITHOUT CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED STORY POLE WITH CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE MARKED ON SURFACE MEETING ROOM ADDITION DECK CORNER TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE LINE OF ROOF EAVE / RIDGE TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF PROPOSED NEW ALIGNMENT AT COLFAX LANE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE 81 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&26 of 146 STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK AND / OR RETAINING WALL STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK AND / OR CURB ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN. APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 09.08.2021 09.08.2021 STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED IN MIDDLE OF DRIVE STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED IN MIDDLE OF DRIVE POLE IN TREE ROOT & CANOPY STORY POLES IN PARKING STORY POLE: EAVE HEIGHT - 28'-3" RIDGE - 35'-9" STORY POLE: EAVE HEIGHT - 22'-0" RIDGE - 29'-3" BUILDING C - WEST: LEVEL P2 FINISH FLOOR - 392'-0" LEVEL P1 FINISH FLOOR - 403'-0" LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR - 414'-0" LEVEL 2 FINISH FLOOR - 425'-0" ROOF EAVE - 436'-0" ROOF RIDGE - 443'-3" BUILDING B: LEVEL P2 FINISH FLOOR - 407'-9" LEVEL P1 FINSIH FLOOR - 418'-3" LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR - 429'-3" ROOF EAVE - 440'-3" ROOF RIDGE - 447'-7" STORY POLE: LOCATION TO BE MARKED ON PAVEMENT STORY POLE: LOCATION TO BE MARKED ON PAVEMENT STORY POLE: LOCATION TO BE MARKED ON PAVEMENT BELOW GRADE STRUCTURE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE BUILDING CORNER WITH CONFLICT BUILDING CORNER WITHOUT CONFLICT BUILDING ROOF RIDGE LOCATION LINE OF ROOF RIDGE NOT TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF BUILDING AT GRADE LEGEND PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE EXISTING DRIVE, SIDEWALK, SURFACE NOT TO BE DISTURBED STORY POLE WITHOUT CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED STORY POLE WITH CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE MARKED ON SURFACE MEETING ROOM ADDITION DECK CORNER TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE LINE OF PROPOSED NEW ALIGNMENT AT COLFAX LANE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE LINE OF ROOF EAVE / RIDGE TO BE INSTALLED 82 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&27 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN. APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 09.08.2021 09.08.2021 BELOW GRADE STRUCTURE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE BUILDING CORNER WITH CONFLICT BUILDING CORNER WITHOUT CONFLICT BUILDING ROOF RIDGE LOCATION LINE OF ROOF RIDGE NOT TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF BUILDING AT GRADE LEGEND PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE EXISTING DRIVE, SIDEWALK, SURFACE NOT TO BE DISTURBED STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED IN MIDDLE OF DRIVE STORY POLES IN PARKING STORY POLE: EAVE HEIGHT - 37'-0" RIDGE - 44'-0" STORY POLE: EAVE HEIGHT - 41'-0" RIDGE - 48'-3" BUILDING C - EAST: LEVEL P2 FINISH FLOOR - 392'-0" LEVEL P1 FINISH FLOOR - 403'-0" LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR - 414'-0" LEVEL 2 FINISH FLOOR - 425'-0" ROOF EAVE - 425'-0" ROOF RIDGE - 432'-3" STORY POLE WITHOUT CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED BUILDING C - WEST: LEVEL P2 FINISH FLOOR - 392'-0" LEVEL P1 FINISH FLOOR - 403'-0" LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR - 414'-0" LEVEL 2 FINISH FLOOR - 425'-0" ROOF EAVE - 436'-0" ROOF RIDGE - 443'-3" STORY POLE: LOCATION TO BE MARKED ON PAVEMENT STORY POLE WITH CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE MARKED ON SURFACE MEETING ROOM ADDITION DECK CORNER TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE LINE OF ROOF EAVE / RIDGE TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF PROPOSED NEW ALIGNMENT AT COLFAX LANE LINE OF ROOF EAVE / RIDGE TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF PROPOSED NEW ALIGNMENT AT COLFAX LANE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE 83 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&28 of 146ZONE CHANGE, CAMPUS EXPANSION AND NEW MASTER PLAN. APPLICATION NO: PDR19-0012, ARB19-0039, GEO19-0013, ZOA-0004PLANNING SUBMITTAL: 09.08.2021 09.08.2021 STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK STORY POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED WITHIN CANOPY OF TREE STORY POLE: EAVE HEIGHT - 35'-6" RIDGE - 47'-0" MEETING: LEVEL P1 FINISH FLOOR - 421'-2" LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR - 432'-2" LOW ROOF - 434'-0" ROOF EAVE - 452'-6" ROOF RIDGE - 465'-0" PATIO PATIO LOWER FLAT ROOF AT CONNECTION TO MANOR BUILDING BELOW GRADE STRUCTURE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE BUILDING CORNER WITH CONFLICT BUILDING CORNER WITHOUT CONFLICT BUILDING ROOF RIDGE LOCATION LINE OF ROOF RIDGE NOT TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF BUILDING AT GRADE LEGEND PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE EXISTING DRIVE, SIDEWALK, SURFACE NOT TO BE DISTURBED STORY POLE WITHOUT CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED STORY POLE WITH CONFLICT PROPOSED TO BE MARKED ON SURFACE MEETING ROOM ADDITION DECK CORNER TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE LINE OF ROOF EAVE / RIDGE TO BE INSTALLED LINE OF PROPOSED NEW ALIGNMENT AT COLFAX LANE TO BE STAKED / MARKED ON SURFACE 84 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&85 B L D G A ROO F R I D G E 4 7 9 . 5 ROO F E A V E 4 7 0 . 0 L 2 F F 4 5 9 . 0 L 1 F F 4 4 8 . 0 P 1 F F 4 3 7 . 0A2A4A3A1A6A5 A8A7A9A13 A12 A20 A10 A14 A16A15 A11 A19 A21 A22 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&86 A16 A18 A15 A17 F1 F7 F2 F8 F3 F4 F5 F6 BLDG F ROOF RIDGE 472.75 ROOF EAVE 467.5 L1 FF 456.5 F9 F10 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&87 B2 B4 B6 B5 B3 B1 B9 B8 B7 B11 B10 BLDG B ROOF RIDGE 447.58 ROOF EAVE 440.25 L1 FF 429.25 P1 FF 418.25 P2 FF 407.75 BLDG B ROOF RIDGE 447.58 ROOF EAVE 440.25 L1 FF 429.25 P1 FF 418.25 P2 FF 407.75 B2.1 B4.1 B3.1 B17B16 B18 B19 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&88 B10 B12 B13 B15 B14 BLDG B ROOF RIDGE 447.58 ROOF EAVE 440.25 L1 FF 429.25 P1 FF 418.25 P2 FF 407.75 B14.1 BLDG C WEST: ROOF RIDGE 443.25 ROOF EAVE 436.0 L2 FF 425.0 L1 FF 414.0 P1 FF 403.0 P2 FF 392.0 C2 C4 C5 C3 C1 C6 C7 C8 C9 C11 C5.1 C12 C1.1 C19 C20 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&89 C13 C11 C10 C15 C14 C16 C18 C17 C12 BLDG C EAST: ROOF R I D G E 4 3 2 . 2 5 ROOF E A V E 4 2 5 . 0 L2 FF 4 2 5 . 0 L1 FF 4 1 4 . 0 P1 FF 4 0 3 . 0 P2 FF 3 9 2 . 0 BLDG C WEST: ROOF R I D G E 4 4 3 . 2 5 ROOF E A V E 4 3 6 . 0 L2 FF 4 2 5 . 0 L1 FF 4 1 4 . 0 P1 FF 4 0 3 . 0 P2 FF 3 9 2 . 0 C17.1 C22C21 C23 C24 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&90 BLDG M M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M10 M9 ROOF RIDGE 465.0 ROOF EAVE 452.5 LOWER ROOF 434.0 L1 FF 432.17 P1 FF 421.17 M11 M12 M13 M14 civil engineers and surveyorsROSENBLUM, INC.UNDERWOOD&91 From:Bryan Swanson To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:43:36 PM Attachments:image001.png Just wanted to share Bryan T. Swanson Community Development Director City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1231 | bswanson@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:41 PM To: Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Paul Germaraad <pgermeraad@gmail.com>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Geoff Hough Phone Number Email Address Comments This comment pertains to Application PDR19-0023/ARB19- 0039/GE019-0013/ZO419-0004/ENV19-0005; 14500 Fruitvale Avenue (397-12-012 & 397-12-019 & 397-40-006); Saratoga Retirement Community Master Plan Update, and the notice sent by the City to residents living within 500 feet of the proposed project. 1) It hard to see how this project as currently described and 92 envisioned is a net positive for a nearby resident (though it may be for other parties). All the NIMBY downsides have probably been well described previously and elsewhere (e.g., construction disturbance, increased traffic, loss of open space, trees, views, etc.). 2) If stopping the project altogether is not possible or feasible, then perhaps there are ways to seek a win-win, as opposed to a win-lose, situation. Along those lines then, I'd like to recommend that the project at least be made to include items that will meaningfully improve the broader community. For example, Fruitvale - the main artery to the Retirement Community - could do with LOTS of improvements to improve congestion, safety, beauty, noise and walk-ability. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 93 From:Ravi Ravikumar To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Specific concerns re site plan Building D Alternate 1 submitted today by PRS/SRC Date:Wednesday, September 20, 2023 7:25:56 PM Attachments:ravi brian discussion sep 19 2023 .pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Cynthia, Brian McLemore from PRS provided me with an opportunity to review the proposed Alternate 1 for Building D, which they may have subsequently submitted for your review/approval. I appreciate Brian and the PRS/SRC team for having re-worked the architecture design and plans for Building D in view of our standing concerns regarding the privacy and environmental issues surrounding its planned construction immediately adjacent to the entire stretch of our property line at the western end of the proposed Project. We truly appreciate the collaborative spirit of our discussions. I have attached an email exchange of our mutual communication and remaining concerns after reviewing the revised design for Alternate 1 for Building D. I would like for you to please include the following in your staff report: 1.SRC/PRS needs to show the new trees on the landscape plan along the entire stretch of my property line which includes areas of privacy concerns from the prior development project in 2003. Brian has agreed to provide for the design and the trees for the entire stretch. The approval conditions should dictate the timeframe by which these trees are to be planted based on a mutually agreed upon landscape design and choice of trees. 2.Two Balconies shown on the second level, west side elevation of the proposed building D are located in the angled side of the building closest to our property and looks down directly into the swimming pool and tennis court areas - suggest both balconies are asked to be removed from the design, in this side of the building. This remains a HUGE privacy concern especially given the significantly lower elevation/grading of our property. 3.The Ground level residential unit is very close to our property (approx 30' from our property line) and has three very large windows overlooking our home. This residence should be removed from the design or it becomes consentual based on other mitigation items including extra shrubbery and tall fencing between our properties, and smaller clearstory opaque windows. 4.Sixteen to eighteen very large windows along the entire stretch of the west elevation should be redrawn to show opaque clearstory windows smaller in size Thank you Cynthia Ravi 94 Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 18:53:40 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 4 Subject:Re: New Building D Layout Date:Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:20:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:ravi ravikumar To:brian@ CC:'Drew McLemore', sstel@reMrement.org, 'Chris W. Dalengas' BCC: AIachments:image001.png Thanks Brian, Pls see comments in line – Appreciate the help and we will conMnue to evolve the soluMon…. Thanks – and just a note that I will be traveling early tomorrow to the east coast and will be available in the evening eastern Mme, if needed. ravi From: brian@ Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:44 PM To: ' Cc: 'Drew McLemore' <drew@ , sstel@reMrement.org <sstel@reMrement.org>, 'Chris W. Dalengas' <ChrisD@ Subject: RE: New Building D Layout See answers below. Thanks, Brian McLemore Owner McLemore Development Advisors LLC 95 Page 2 of 4 From: Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 2:04 PM To: brian@ Cc: Drew McLemore <drew@ >; sstel@reMrement.org Subject: Re: New Building D Layout Thank you Brian. Certainly appreciate your efforts in geang the new building D layout done for us. We are commibed to working with you to get this done and supporMve. Here are my asks: 1. As discussed earlier, pls have your landscape plans be updated to show new row of tall evergreen trees for privacy along the enMre stretch of our property line including, and equally importantly, the homes currently already occupied that are closest to our home, from the prior development. The city can then update their approval condiMons accordingly. We can do this if the project is approved. We will work on add trees and screening in this area. thank you – let’s get a good design and tree recommendaMons at that Mme from your landscape architect. should work out well. 2. A taller newly erected fence along the property line could be considered as it will enhance the look for both our respecMve properMes and miMgate privacy concerns. I don’t think this will maber much with the new landscaping that will provide the same effect. Reason why I menMoned this is that a porMon of the shared fencing had fallen down during the last storms when we were away in India, and had lef our properMes exposed – we have a chance to get ahead of this and be smarter….pls do consider this – I will plan to bring this up at the study session on the 27th and we can get inputs 3. The two balconies shown should be removed as they are the closest to our property and overlooking the pool and the tennis courts – pls remember our home is at a considerably lower grade level than the proposed development of Building D. We can take two of the balconies off this (the ones on the corners, as they are not on the floor plans either). The others we must keep because we cannot have apartment with not balconies. We did move these 75 feet away and again; with the landscaping we will install they will not be looking directly into you pool area. I did not mean the two corner ones. We will have problems with the two balconies Brian – (they are not on the farther side which is 75 ‘ away) – they are both on the shorter side which is much closer to our home – so what do we do? The planning commission will be sensiMve to buildings with two storeys and balconies – and we won’t be happy either, even with the tress unless we are able to visualize this with a proper design. 96 Page 3 of 4 4. The protruding unit with its own roof on level 1 – is this a residence? If so, this will be very concerning – it is much closer to our home and has very large windows at a lower level. Should you lose one unit, will it be a major issue for the DEIR? Perhaps this building can have 10 units instead of 11? This is one single story that will not look over your fence. Also, the added landscape will block this view. We need the square footage to get the unit count the same. This may be ok afer we see the landscape plan – unMl then, will remain a concern 5. Lastly, so many large windows – sixteen or eighteen windows shown on the west elevaMon are daunMng – are these bedrooms ? if so, can the windows be smaller ? Regardless, this can only be miMgated by well planned evergreen shrubbery and trees incorporated into your landscape plan and appropriately noted in the city approvals. We will work with you on the planMng plan. Again, we need to visualize the plan with the landscaping design. Happy to collaborate with you for a win win. We believe this should be workable with the effort that has been made to move the building away from your property. Thanks, Ravi From: brian@ Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:28 AM To: Cc: Drew McLemore <drew@ sstel@reMrement.org <sstel@reMrement.org> Subject: New Building D Layout Here is the updated plan moving the building away from the fence. The City wants the same unit count and parking count, so we don’t have update all the EIR documents. This moves the two-story piece 75 feet from your fence and turns the views away from your house. Call if you have quesMons. Thanks, Brian McLemore Owner McLemore Development Advisors LLC 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 From:Linda Shaw To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:SRC expansion plan Date:Saturday, August 26, 2023 4:03:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Planning Commissioners and Saratoga City Council I understand you have a big decision before you but I would like you to consider the sense of community we have here. It’s a feeling of trust we have for each of our fellow residents. That same trust seems to have broken down now between the PRC leaders and us the residents. We have a beautiful campus and I am willing to make whatever compromise is necessary to keep some of that special community trust we have built over the years. We need to preserve this place for the future senior Saratoga residents who will continue our beloved SRC. Thank you for your consideration. Linda Shaw. (51 year Saratoga resident) 111 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Debbie Pedro; Cynthia Richardson; DList - Planning Commission Subject:Online Form Submittal: Proposed Saratoga Retirement Community Project Date:Sunday, September 3, 2023 1:52:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Proposed Saratoga Retirement Community Project Please share your feedback on the proposed Saratoga Retirement Community project. All First Name Carole Last Name Hall Email Address Phone Number Address 14500 Fruitvale Ave City Saratoga State Field not completed. Zip Code 95070 Comments My wife and I have lived at Saratoga Retirement Community since 2020. We were never told about the expansion plans prior to moving in. We are both aghast at the PRS expansion plan. The plan will place a building on the largest public open space on the campus and create immense stress on the residents during construction. Noise, dust, traffic congestion, and unknown other disturbances will destroy the peaceful nature of this campus for several years during construction. And we will be left with a campus that is much less attractive than the one we initially chose as our home. The Preserve group alternative plan is much better in regard to preserving open space and limiting construction to the perimeter of our campus. Of course, no expansion would be the best plan. We have been told that the primary reason for the expansion is that the health center is too large and is (or will become) financially unsustainable. Well, then the logical solution to this issue seems to be to reduce the size of the health center, solving the problem. Why is PRS (OFHC) perusing this elaborate and expensive and seemingly unnecessary expansion plan? Please (re)consider the alternative plan, or (better yet) don't 112 approve any expansion at all. The residents of SRC will thank you for your consideration of our desires to spend our remaining years in a peaceful open setting. Thankyou, Rich Lamb Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 113 From: To:Cynthia Richardson Cc:t SRC Expansion Plan Date:Tuesday, September 19, 2023 2:43:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. My husband and I have lived happily in SRC for almost 4 years. We chose SRC over several others because of its open spaces; its green landscaping; well-placed, attractive housing; quiet streets, and location in beautiful Saratoga. At that time, nothing was mentioned about future expansion. We accept that time changes things; expansion may be required to stay viable, but the SRC plan is enormous. One new building this time around would cause less destruction and disruption to the campus for a shorter duration while providing enough new living space and parking for the time being. Furthermore, the current plan calls for a new building in front of the beautiful, historic Manor building, forever blocking an impressive view of this grand structure. I’m distressed too by the number of very old, healthy trees – especially redwoods – that the plan would remove. The plan will also eliminate a prime outdoor green space and recreation area that is well used by residents. The number of months – even years – required by this huge project will cause serious disruption to our aging lives: daily construction noise, trucks blocking streets, especially those streets needed for emergency evacuation and also entry for emergency vehicles that frequent the campus. (Note that no construction is going on at the moment, and we already experience minor traffic jams in some locations.) Thank you for your time. I’ll leave this with one comment about the current plan: “Think smaller.” Celia Brewer 114 From:Charles Cummins To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community Date:Wednesday, September 6, 2023 4:13:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. I live in SRC's independent living and urge the Planning Commission to take maximum steps to minimize the impact of improvement, if any, to SRC's Health Care Center. It is a skilled nursing facility. Most or all of its patients are elderly. All patients are there for medical reasons, are vulnerable, and are sensitive to external irritants. I have served many years as a volunteer Long Term Care Ombudsman and have witnessed the annoying and irritating disruption of patients' lives caused simply by repainting the interior of and laying new vinyl flooring at a skilled nursing facility. I also have lived next to a townhouse being remodeled and know how annoying construction noise and activity can be. Respectfully submitted, Charles F. Cummins, Jr. Independent Living Resident Unit #6140 115 From:Charles Cummins To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community Date:Wednesday, September 6, 2023 4:12:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. I live in SRC's independent living facility and oppose the construction of an auditorium or meeting room at the west end of the manor building. 1. We as residents never requested, do not need, and do not want this addition. Our existing facilities are more than adequate for our purposes. 2. Adding this structure: A. Disrupts our lives with additional construction. B. Causes the removal of trees and part of a grassy area that are part of the beauty of SRC. C. Damages the ascetics of our stately and iconic manor building. Respectfully submitted, Charles F. Cummins, Jr. Independent Living Resident Unit #6140 116 14500 Fruitvale Ave, Apt 6153 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga City Council and Planning Commission Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council, I am a resident at the Saratoga Retirement Community. I support a strictly limited expansion plan for our campus as described in the Updated Residents’ Proposal. The Updated Residents’ Proposal now proposes that just one building should be allowed. This is Building C of the original PRS proposal, located at the North East corner of the campus near the Assisted Living building. This location is the least impactful to the environment and the quality of our campus. The building would accommodate about 20 new apartments, but note that more can be included if the building is allowed to extend to three stories high. The benefits of this proposal are: • It conserves the campus and its attractive qualities: o It preserves the view of the historical building – the Manor; o It conserves most of the trees that would be removed in the PRS proposal and minimizes tree removal, and those trees that are removed are younger; o It preserves the outdoor green space end recreational area, in particular the Odd Fellows Historic Park; • It minimizes construction disruption and health hazards to senior residents’ lives [avg. age 85] during construction years. • It provides an excellent compromise between the needs of the residents (maintaining the quality of the campus), the needs of the city (more housing) and the needs of PRS (expansion). In addition, we need a solid schedule that can be monitored for the renovation of the Skilled Nursing Facility. Thank you for considering this proposal. Sincerely Colin Whitby-Strevens 117 From:Debbie Manser To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community Constructions Date:Friday, September 15, 2023 4:32:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms Richardson, As an interested bystander and long time area resident of the immediate area, I do not support the extensive construction proposed by the owner. Saratoga bills itself as a tree city. Buildings A & B take out many wonderful trees and green space. Something all community members enjoy. The disruption to current residents will be horrific. Not how I’d want to spend my golden years. Those who bought in thinking they were getting one lifestyle now face non-stop construction, noise, dirt and disruption not to mention loss of beloved trees and green space. This corporate overreach needs to be halted. This will also impact those of us that live in the surrounding neighborhoods by increasing traffic of big heavy trucks, workers, etc. it will also crate more noise & dust for us. Thank you for giving this project more thought and a hard look from the people impacted most not the corporate spokespeople. Please rein in this wholesale affront to a green, tree promoting community. Debbie Manser 14253 Hilltop Way 118 From:Edmond To:Cynthia Richardson Cc:Tsing Bardin Subject:SRC expansion plan Date:Monday, September 11, 2023 1:30:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ms Richardson, Following is a letter that I would like to submit for the consideration of the Saratoga planning commission: Ms Richardson, By now you have heard that the SRC resident committee, has decided to abandon their original alternative plan in favor of a more modest proposal to build one additional apartment building with about 20 apartments. I think that this is a great improvement, but it brings up another question, the need for a new meeting hall attached to the manor, I suggest that this construction should also be dropped for the following reasons: 1. The 20 apartments will bring about 30 new residents. This will require some addition to the dining facility. To accommodate these new residents there is an opportunity for considerable reconfiguring of the dining facilities making use of presently underutilized space in the manor. 2. Barnes hall has never been able to accommodate 100% of the IL residents. The capacity of Barnes hall can be expanded to some extent by purchasing new, smaller chairs and more of them. This is much less costly than building a new meeting room. 3. The New meeting room is pure expense, it will produce no revenue. Not building it will improve the financial projection for the project. There will be some expense in modifying Barnes hall and the dining facilities to accommodate the new residents, but this should be minor compared to the cost of a new building. Once again, I would state that I feel that the upgrade of the health center within the existing footprint is very important and should be a part of any expansion plan. In fact I can’t see why it has not been started already, Regards, Edmond R. Pelta (SRC resident) 119 From:Harlen & Beata Ng To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community #1 Date:Monday, September 11, 2023 2:43:13 PM Attachments:YGn00zd6Zv3a369D.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Planning Commissioners and the City Council, Subject: Off-Limit Areas on the SRC Campus for the Expansion Areas of the SRC Campus that must NOT be used to build any new buildings. Areas of the SRC Campus that must NOT be used to build any new buildings. Area Labeled X1: This is the residents recreational area which has a full sized Bocce Ball Court that must stay. This is the ONLY Open Space area for residents and future residents to be used for fresh air, social gatherings and games. Having a building here impacts the Environment of all of our residents. Building A must be removed due to the negative quality of life impact. Area Labeled X2: This area blocks the frontal view of our Iconic Manor. The Manor's Frontal view represent the City 120 of Saratoga. Most everyone in Saratoga is against having Building B block the Manor's front view. Building B must be removed due to the impact of representing the City of Saratoga and possible building rules of the City of Saratoga. Also, many huge redwood trees will be removed. Area Labeled X3: Planning to build a new apartment building here will place the new apartment next to the adjacent neighbor's property and house. Placing a 2 story building will disturb and impact the neighbor's privacy. The neighbor does not want a building build immediately next door overlooking and disturbing their daily lives. Do not impact the adjacent neighbor's peaceful environment. It appears the only Building C is the only building without objection to be built on the SRC Campus. Thank you, -Harlen and Beata Ng 121 From:Harlen & Beata Ng To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community #2 Date:Monday, September 11, 2023 3:31:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Planning Commissioners and the City Council. Subject: Trees are needed to Prevent Further Global Warming - At a Dangerous Point!!! There are 124 trees that are to be removed including 28 Coastal Redwood Trees Redwoods. One of the Coastal Redwood Tree is gigantic with an 81 inches diameter - so sad. Our SRC Campus will really look different without these magnificent trees. When and if the Story Poles are erected, yellow Ribbons must be tied around each tree to be removed. Then everyone will be able to visualize the full impact of these missing trees from our SRC Campus. What about Global Warming and Climate Change? It is well known that Earth's temperature is at its tipping point weather-wise due to Climate Change. Some of our huge Coastal Redwood Trees will be cut down, and it is known that Coastal Redwood Trees are the most efficient in converting CO2 to O2 (oxygen) which the earth badly needs. These 124 trees need to be saved. Only allow Building C to be built. Please don't allow Building A & B to be build at all. Save all the trees you can, Thank You, -Harlen and Beata Ng 122 From:Harlen & Beata Ng To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community Date:Monday, September 11, 2023 3:36:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Planning Commissioners and the City Council Subject: Reduce Scope of Expansion Plan We love our campus. If we take an overview the the Proposed PRS Expansion Plan for the SRC Campus, We see a congested Concrete Jungle. There is not space for the residents to enjoy the outdoors for playing games, exercise or sitting to visit other residents. We are confined to our rooms and view to the outside through our window, we’d only see walls of concrete and windows, not trees or open space. We don’t need or want this concrete view. Buildings A and B are bad for the campus. Building A covers our only Open Space for outdoor recreation and Building B blocks the frontal view of the Iconic Manor Building. Only Building C make sense for the Campus. Allow Building C and New Fitness Center to be built. Thank You, -Harlen and Beata Ng 123 From:Harlen & Beata Ng To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community #4 Date:Monday, September 11, 2023 3:48:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Planning Commissioners and the City Council Subject: Traffic Nightmare & and Need a Plan Traffic will be stopped - Currently, our roads within SRC Campus are narrow and already difficult to navigate. Even the less traveled South Cottages Lane is currently congested because 3 cottages are being remodeled, this is because many pickup trucks are doubled parked blocking the road, and we must wait at time to drive through in & out. When 18 wheeler trucks are delivering building supplies and many workers trucks crowd our campus, no one can get in or out. But wait, what about emergency vehicle? These emergency vehicles are also large, and they need lots of room to drive through. Emergency Vehicle many daily, hourly trips to SRC Campus whether it is the Health Care Center, Assisted Living, apartments or cottages. This could be an life-ending problem for us. Don't let this happen. There is no traffic plan at this time. Please make sure PRS develops a traffic and parking plan. Thank you, -Beata & Harlen Ng 124 From:Harlen & Beata Ng To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community Date:Monday, September 11, 2023 4:08:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Planning Commissioners and the City Council Subject: Minimize Health Hazards and Protect Our Seniors Noise, dust, and heavy equipment ground vibration we will experience for 7 or more years is not healthy for anyone. Also, the heavy type of traffic we will experience is dangerous as many 85+ year Senior walk daily around our campus. This walking form of exercise is very beneficial to ones well-being and must continue. This pollution will happen for at least 7 years or more, all during the expansion work. We, the residents, did not move here to live through this pollution period and do not want to experience it. We came to SRC to live out our lives with the few years we have left to enjoy them. The construct plan must provide full and safe access for both pedestrians and vehicles, to all residential units and garages. Monitoring of noise levels to be continual and legal limits must be strictly enforced. Canceling Buildings A & B will help and only allow Build C and Fitness Center to be build. Please let us enjoy our passing years. Thank You, -Beata and Harlen 125 From:Harlen & Beata Ng To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community - Help Date:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:15:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Planning Commissioners and the City Council, Subject: Limit the SRC Expansion Plan and Protect Our Environment A) A Limited Expansion Plan We want to support the Saratoga Housing Element Plan as much as we can, so we want to support a limited expansion at the Saratoga Retirement Community. We are residents here and love the current setting, which are the peacefulness, recreational area, our many large trees and quite auto traffic. B) OK Building C and Fitness Center We want to see only Building C and Fitness Center built, and Building C can be expanded to hold more housing. We do not want to see Buildings A & B build due to overtaking our recreation area Building A and impairing the frontal site of our lovely Manor (Building B). We also do not need the new meeting room since it will remove a giant redwood tree. C) Save Our Trees From Removal - Protect the Environment This Limited Expansion Plan will also save many trees that were to be removed thereby reducing the process of generating oxygen for all of us. This will help curb global warming now! D) Requite a Plan to Monitor and Curb Pollution Also, Please require a plan to limit the amount of construction noise, dirt and traffic during the construction. These environmental issues must be monitored and enforced at all time to protect all of us senors. Thank You for your consideration, -Harlen and Beata Ng Cottage #6157 SRC 126 From:Harlen & Beata Ng To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community - A Win-Win Proposal Date:Monday, September 18, 2023 11:31:52 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Planning Commissioners and the City Council, Subject: One Building Proposal - Expanded Building C Only A large group of residents at the Saratoga Retirement Community has worked on an Alternative Proposal Plan to the PRS proposed expansion plan which takes all our outdoor living and exercise space and leaves our campus to a Concrete Jungle. With Buildings A & B removed from the PRS expansion plan, this will save many very large tree from removal. Our earth badly needs these oxygen generators. We need the Planning Commissioners and the City Council to helps limit the PRS expansion plan and strongly consider the Alternative Proposal Plan - Allow only Building C but with capacity expansion. This Alternative Proposal Plan is a Win-Win for everyone (PRS, SRC Residents and City of Saratoga Housing Element). Also this Alternative Proposal Plan solves our quality of life problems with the PRS expansion plan. Which are: Preserves of the view of the historical building – the Manor frontal view Saves our many very large trees and reduces tree removals We need our outdoor green space and recreational area which would be lost Minimizes the of construction area to a single spot on the campus. Thank you very much for listening and considering this One Building Proposal. -Harlen & Beata Ng 127 Planning Commission Study – SRC Proposed Expansion Hello, my name is John Brittain. I am an SRC resident. The elderly residents of SRC have an average age of 85 years old. Some of us use canes or walkers, have medical, cognitive, and/or emotional problems, or simply have just slowed down. A major expansion causes an undue and dangerous hardship for us. The PRS expansion proposes to erect five buildings four of which with underground parking. These buildings are to be located in green areas, in parking lots, and in the central Odd Fellow’s Park which is our only outdoor recreational site. It removes well over 100 trees, 64 of which are protected. One building will attach to the historical Manor through a window and will substantially block its view. This proposal turns our beautiful rural campus, currently enjoyed by the residents, into an urban much less desirable one. Our residents just lived through the Covid-19 pandemic where they had to remain indoors for over a year. Due to construction problems, including congestion, noise, dust, vibration, health and safety issues, etc. and because of the medical problems of the elderly residents, we will again be forced to stay indoors this time for the duration of the construction period. Although PRS says the construction can be completed in 2 years, the likely construction period will be 5-7 years. However, the residents realize, due to the state mandated housing element, an SRC expansion needs to be included. The residents therefore propose approval for a single apartment building to be erected in front of the Assisted Living facility. This compromise, yes, a compromise, provides: • For the city – housing units for the housing element • For PRS and the Odd Fellows – approval of an expansion • For the residents – it minimizes the impact on the campus and the construction problems In conclusion let me ask you a question. If you had elderly parents living on the campus, would you want them to be forced to live through and live with the complete expansion identified in the PRS proposal? Thank you for listening and for your consideration…. John Brittain, SRC Resident 128 From: To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Facility-possible expansion Date:Saturday, September 16, 2023 10:24:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. September 16, 2023 Good Morning, I’m aware that the City of Saratoga had plenty of input for residents and members of the community regarding expansion of the retirement facility. Can you tell me when the City will make a decision on expansion? I’m doing some long term planning. I’m several years away from making a move, and have just begun to clear my residence of some things. When you live in a house for over 30 years, there is plenty to clear. I’m aware it is early in the process, and read in the Mercury where you certainly had input from the community. Most of the input seems to be no expansion of the facility. Thanks Jon Ramos San Francisco Bay Area 129 From:Karen Grebene To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Fwd: Saratoga Retirement Center proposal Date:Saturday, September 16, 2023 1:33:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Begin forwarded message: From: Karen Grebene Date: September 16, 2023 at 1:27:17 PM PDT To: Subject: Saratoga Retirement Center proposal Our family has lived in Saratoga for over 50 years. We chose this beautiful village because of it rural and wooded setting. As housing has become more expensive, we understand the need for more and affordable housing so that all members of the village can afford to live here. The Saratoga Retirement Home plans seem not to acknowledge the need to retain our environment or to encompass affordable housing. I am aware that a compromise to add more housing to the community without destroying the crucial woodland exists. Please seriously consider this compromise. Sincerely Alan and Karen Grebene 15479 Belnap Way Saratoga, Ca 130 From: To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:FW: SRC Expansion Plan Environmental and Residents impact Date:Wednesday, September 6, 2023 4:06:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.     Nathan Silberman Saratoga, CA   From:  Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 3:54 PM To: dpedro@saratoga.ca.us; , crichardson@saratoga.ca.us Subject: SRC Expansion Plan Environmental and Residents impact   My name is Nathan Silberman, and I am a new resident of SRC. I assume you already have heard numerous comments from residents and the Preserve SRC group, related to the negative impacts associated w/ the PRS management company’s expansion plan. It is my opinion based on engineering and environmental considerations that their plan is incombered by multiple environmental and safety impacts that deserve the particular attention of the EIR investigator. Here are some of my key concerns to be evaluated by the city EIR experts and the city council before any approvals: . Transportation and Safety Considering the increase in vehicular traffic from staff, residential and visitors, in addition to traffic generated by the eighty [80] residential units envisioned by the City’s new housing quota for the Fellowship Plaza project... the management plan is deeply flawed in its inability to deal w/ negative transportation impacts resulting from this growth. We ask that the EIR undertake a complete reappraisal of the traffic impacts of ALL growth associated with both SRC expansion and that of Fellowship Plaza. The PRS expansion plan has not provided a plan for Residents Self Emergency evacuation by personal vehicles. This applies for cases of serious Earthquake as well big forest fires. The traffic report by Hexagon consultants is flawed in the sense it does not address at all emergency traffic during construction and afterwards, it also uses traffic models that are inconsistent with SRC location and traffic characteristics. Peak traffic flow was measured at 7–9 AM and 4–6 PM; however, peak hours at the SRC campus and when the school is in session are between 2:45 and 4 PM. West Valley College has peak traffic throughout the day when classes 131 change. During these peak hours, traffic on Fruitvale Ave. is extremely congested, much worse than reported in your study (pages 1 and 4). The study results are irrelevant because of inaccurate peak hours. The theoretical Poisson distribution model used is inadequate because at peak hours, all the cars are there at the same time. The Poisson distribution also fails to work for emergencies. In these cases, the Theory of Constraints model, in which the speed or the rate of cars is determined by the slowest bottleneck, is more applicable. For example, in case of emergency such as earthquake or fire, all cars on campus would need to evacuate to a safe place. The rate of vehicle movement would be determined by speed over the bumps (2–4 mph), backing up cars on the streets that have stop signs at Odd Fellows Drive. In addition, cars exiting from San Marcos often fail to stop at the Odd Fellows Drive roundabout! Re: statement on p. 1: “There are no approved or under-construction projects within the project vicinity.” Traffic studies should be made while there is construction in this area. Recently there were quite a few construction projects along Fruitvale Avenue from Allendale to Burgundy Lane. One could see dump trucks and cement trucks blocking the road. This was for just one or two houses. Imagine the impact of construction for five buildings at the Saratoga Retirement Community campus! Also re: p. 1: The amount of increased traffic should include both the increased number of residents and the increased workforce, as there will be a 50% increase in both numbers. The traffic study does not reflect these increases, instead estimating fewer than 100 net peak-hour trips. What is the basis for this? · Re: statement on p. 17: “Vehicular access to the site is provided by four main driveways.” To clarify, all four driveways share one incoming lane, Odd Fellows Drive, a narrow, two-lane road with traffic bumps. Access to the site after the new construction will be very congested, particularly at the junction of Pavilion Circle and West Cottages Lane, where entry to the new Meeting Room building and the entrance to the Building A underground parking garage meet. This junction is already a problem because it is heavily used by big delivery trucks, garbage trucks, and pick-up trucks all day at the receiving dock. The entrance to the Building A underground garage directly across from the receiving dock on Pavilion Circle is most unsafe. When the new Meeting Room building is complete, there will be additional pedestrian traffic, posing a real hazard. The traffic report does not address this issue. Because Odd Fellows Drive is a public easement, there will be more pedestrians walking along it in front of Buildings B and C. Both buildings have parking entrances from the road, increasing the risk for elderly pedestrians, even when walking on the sidewalks. · On p. 17:, the report describes all added stop signs at each of the main access roads, but it gives no estimate of evacuation time if each car must stop at the stop sign when there are more than 150 cars trying to get out to Fruitvale Avenue. It would pose a major traffic jam and unsafe evacuation. 132 · Re: statement on p. 21: “The total number of employees working on the campus is 294 with a potential future reduction of 6 employees working in the Skilled Nursing Building, which will reduce the total number of employees to 288." This is inaccurate accounting and fails to include the 75 additional Independent Living residents and 75 more employees. · Re: statement on p. 21: “The employees typically arrive and leave outside commute peak hours.” Why is peak traffic measurement not done during SRC employee commuting hours? The current measured peak periods of traffic time are irrelevant, erroneous, and misleading. A realistic calculation and model are required · Re: p. 8: Vehicle queuing data is invalid as it was not collected at peak times when school discharges or when West Valley College classes change. · Re: p. 10: Trip generation during project: An estimated 28,600 cubic yards of dirt will be exported from the construction site. This means 2,860 10-cubic- yard truck loads and about 6,000 trips of 10-cubic yard trucks on the streets near the campus. Add trips by cement trucks to that. Saratoga Avenue, Highway 9, and Highway 85 will be congested. The traffic report is irrelevant when they use the Senior Adult Housing data. We are talking about major construction lasting several years. · Re: p. 21: Loading zones: The receiving dock behind the Manor is constantly busy location, with large garbage trucks, large food delivery trucks, and smaller delivery and dumpster trucks all day long. It is false to say “do not receive recurrent deliveries for goods by truck,” as stated in the report. Truck deliveries occur every day, and they need loading spaces. Traffic problems will be exacerbated by the new underground garage entrances and the pedestrian walk from the Meeting Room building to Building A as well as by cars traveling on Pavilion Circle. All this added traffic and congestion will make the junction very dangerous for both cars and people. The City council has approved 80 additional units at the Fellowship Plaza and 52 additional units at the Saratoga Retirement Community(SRC) campus in the next 8 years housing elements plan. · These additional units, will add an estimate of at least 250 people. ( 130 from Fellowship plaza and 120 from SRC including staff members). How are you going to evacuate these people in their cars in case of emergency? · The current Chester Ave. fire exit is for fire engines in and out of SRC, and the second exit is for Fellowship plaza residents. The SRC exit at Chester is not suitable for small cars with low ground clearance. How are these exits going to be used by residents and what is the impact on the Chester Ave. neighbors. · In case the Chester Ave. is not available what is the impact on the San Marcos traffic ? The emergency evacuation will be substantial with the current almost 500 residents and staff at SRC, and the additional 52 units of IL units of 120 residents and staff, and the residents at the Fellowship plaza of 400 or so. ( current Fellowship plaza has 150 units i.e. 250 people and then 80 more new units i.e. 130 residents). · All the Skilled nursing facility patients need ambulances to transport them 133 that will add to the IL residents traffic and slow it down!!. What is the City’s plan for evacuation? Public Services and Recreational Resources Given the magnitude of population growth envisioned, the management’s plan does not address the need for increasing the availability of outdoor easily accessible recreational facilities. On the contrary, because their building A will occupy the Historic Park, the campus will lose the current Bocce ball court, horseshoe range, putting green and pick-nick facilities. Which means that instead of recreational resources keeping pace w/ residential growth, resources are in fact diminished. This is an unacceptable impact on campus residents and their quality of life. PRS plan to have Building A on top of the Odd Fellows Historic park, leaves residents with no other Equal Access recreational area and only with a reduced size Bocce Ball court. Most resident are of over 85 years old with various walking limitations. Accessing outside parks, which are over 1.5 miles away, is basically “Mission impossible” for most of us. Also the environmental impact of building A should be thoroughly analyzed and considered. Replacing green area of the park with concrete and asphalt and lack of shade will create an oven effect on buildings 4000 and 5000, increase the ambient temperature and increase the carbon pattern of the whole site as more air condition will be required. There is room for a building A-like site on the Eastern Side of the campus next to the Assisted living building and McLaren Drive Furthermore, during construction, the total gridlock generated by the nature of the project’s being scattered throughout the campus, will cause vehicular access to become completely congested and inoperable. Truck traffic, heavy equipment being mobilized in addition to staff, residential and visitor traffic will cause transportation to come to a standstill. This too is an unacceptable environmental impact. Story poles: The City ordinance requiring story poles has a recent amendment that allows developers to substitute alternative visual methods in place of traditional poles. Unfortunately, this adjustment to the original rule thus allowing of alternatives to story poles does not offer criteria for granting exceptions to this important requirement. The lack of specifics has the effect of permitting developers to attempt closed door negotiations w/ senior City staff to dodge the visual impact that story poles have on viewers. This circumvents the intent of the law. Any such negotiations must be conducted in the light of day in front of a public hearing. PRS alternative offered, is nothing more than a piece of SOFTWARE 134 MANIPULATION OF VISUALS. There are no dimensions or scales in their presentation and some of the views are clearly distorted in order to provide “Improved Views”. PRS claims that Story poles are not feasible, are baseless, and the city should review the analysis provided by the residents using Google Earth View that proves that story poles are totally feasible and necessary to gage the real size and impact (visual and practical) of the proposed buildings. Environmental Impact During Construction: • Construction traffic, noise, and air quality impacts on the daily residents’ lives and the neighbors’ have to be evaluated. Dust, noise, and air pollution generated by exporting 28600 cubic yards of excavated dirt i.e. over 6000 trips of 10-cubic yard of dirt trucks, cement trucks, bulldozers, backhoes, trenchers, graders and other heavy construction equipment over a period of several years need to be considered. The real health and safety hazard to the elderly residents walking and living on site must be evaluated. A quantitively acceptable level of these above mentioned pollutions must be described and how they are controlled and kept within the acceptable levels should be specified.   Best Regards, Nathan Silberman-SRC 5102 Saratoga, CA   135 From:Frances Reed To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5:13:10 PM Re: SRC Sent to Planning Commission From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:06 PM To: Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Paul Germaraad <pgermeraad@gmail.com>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Pat Pfeiffer Phone Number Email Address Comments Text of 3-minute off-agenda talk on 13 September, 7 pm, before Planning Commission: Hi! My name is Pat Pfeiffer and I’m a card-carrying resident of the Saratoga Retirement Community. I’d like talk to you tonight, not as city officials, but as neighbors. I’ve lived in this area since 1959. I share your love of natural surroundings and, eight years ago, I felt very lucky to have made our last home in your neighborhood. But I’m glad that my husband, who died two years ago, never knew that our lives here could be utterly disrupted by a mind- blowing expansion plan submitted by the management company representing Saratoga Retirement Community. The average age of the 400 residents at SRC is 85. Many of us have limited mobility, and most no longer drive. But the deer, birds, squirrels—and, yes, even pesky rabbits—seen on our walks or from our windows provide as big a boost as a 136 pacemaker. The sheer beauty of our surroundings is restorative. So we lament the fact that our favorite gathering place and bocce ball court, to take just one example, will be replaced by another large building. And we’re appalled by the number of sacrifices that will be imposed on us. We committed our savings and our future to SRC, and we feel betrayed. We also wonder how many years this massive project will force us—including all of you who surround us—to live with the noise, dirt, air pollution, and heavy traffic on our narrow access road. So I’m asking you, as good neighbors, to pay attention, not only to floor plans and elevations, but to the human costs of this proposed project. Thank you. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 137 From:Patricia McGlynn To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 4:16:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Please forward to Planning Commissioners andCity Council I am not against change. We want to minimize and limit the many years of construction hazard and health and safety impact to the senior citizens in their last years of their lives, including Skilled Nursing residents. I agree with permits to construct Bldg C only. We want to minimize tree removal and to preserve our green open space. Public benefit required by the new zoning is provided by the enlarged Bldg C. Thank you for your consideration! Tish 138 From:rc Cynthia Richardson Cc:Bryan Swanson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community Project Date:Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3:38:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. My wife and I have been Saratoga residents for over 50 years and we chose to stay in Saratoga and move to the Saratoga Retirement Community (SRC) because of its rural campus and Its compatibility with the Saratoga Community. The General Plan calls for Saratoga to have a small town residential rural character whereas the proposed expansion project for the Saratoga Retirement Community eliminates all of the rural open space and recreational areas for the residents of the current campus. It replaces them with 5 new buildings and 4 underground garages. The construction requirements for such a massive project will not only negatively impact the current senior SRC residents over the 4 to 5 year construction cycle, but also impact most of the surrounding neighbors with excess noise, dirty air, increased traffic and safety concerns In fact the hundreds of trucks hauling dirt and rocks away and a like number of trucks hauling cement and materials in to the site will create massive traffic on San Marcos Dr, Fruitvale Ave and surrounding residential streets such that safety of drivers in the area, including neighbors, commuters, the students and staff of the both West Valley College and Saratoga Middle School, will be severely impacted over the entire construction period. We’re not against change, we’ve seen it happen in Saratoga over the last 50 years. What we want is reasonableness and common sense in such changes. A good compromise would be to limit the expansion to the one building that minimizes impact on the residents and campus operations, maintains the magnificent view and symmetry of the historic Manor building, maintains the park area for residents’ recreation and health, minimizes the destruction of so many mature trees while responding to the Housing Element demands. The Saratoga leaders have a chance to decide the future of the Saratoga Retirement Community and Saratoga.. The SRC community is sustainable without new units, but pressure on adding housing is recognized. It’s time for compromise to maintain Saratoga’s General plan of being a small town residential rural community while responding to the pressure for additional housing. Sincerely, Robert Berglund 139 140 From:Tsing Bardin To:Cynthia Richardson Cc:Tsing Bardin; Bob Berglund; Dick DuBridge; Michael Griffin; Ravi Ravikumar; Don Schmidek; Tony Vandersteen; Colin Whitby-Strevens; John Brittain; Marilyn Manies; Marilyn Basham Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community–Preserve SRC campus suggested Proposal Date:Saturday, September 9, 2023 3:34:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Cynthia, Would you please forward this to the Planning commissioners and the City Council and be included in the Study Session packet. Here is our proposal which is approved by our Preserve SRC Campus Interest group. This group has over 190 residents from the SRC campus and is by far the majority of the residents. Dear Planning commissioners and City Council, I am writing representing opinions of the vast majority of our SRC residents with regard to the SRC expansion. After three years of trying to work with our out-of -town management company the Pacific Retirement Services, we, the residents of the Preserve SRC campus group have come to the conclusion that we would like to propose to you our preference with regard to our campus expansion. We are not against Change. We support expansion with responsible stewardship to preserve our green open space and trees, and our historical heritage Manor. We want to minimize and limit the many years of construction hazard and health and safety impact to the senior citizens in their last years of their lives, including Skilled Nursing residents. Here are the details to achieve the above concepts: The Preserve group supports a limited edition of the Expansion proposal, that permits construction of Bldg. C ONLY Preserve the view to historical Manor, as well as to minimize tree removal and to preserve our green open space and our outdoor recreation facilities. We oppose Bldg. A in the Park, Bldg. B in front of the Manor and the Meeting Room connected to the Manor. Minimize disruption and health hazards to senior residents’ lives [avg. age 85] during construction years. Provide full and safe access for both pedestrians and vehicles, to all residential units and garages. Monitor of 141 noise levels to be continual and legal limits strictly enforced. Include a solid schedule for renovating the Skilled Nursing facility (SNF) to minimize the impact on the SNF patients in the conditional permit. Public benefit as required by the new zoning is provided by the enlarged Bldg. C, adding more than 20 residential units to Saratoga’s Housing Element inventory but not obscuring the Manor (per #2 above) could be a good compromise position. This benefit allows the City’s Housing Element to be approved by the State, thus avoiding the “Developers Option” being implemented. There is no public benefit in adding Meeting room as there is no adequate parking space for outsiders. There is no public benefit in adding the Odd Fellows Lane easement because it is already in existence. Please consider the one new building ( Building C) for Independent resident apartments which is in the PRS original proposal situated in front of the Assisted Living compound. This would reduce construction duration and the impact to the residents’ lives and would preserve the Green Open Space and the outdoor recreation facilities. Tsing Bardin on behalf of the over 190 members of the Preserve SRC Campus group. 142 Dear EIR consultant, Planning Commissioners and City Council, As we have voiced our concerns of the PRS proposal many times before, and we have suggested a ONE building proposal to help City meet the State Housing Element requirement, I am giving you some of the reasons why we oppose the Meeting Room: 1) Aesthetically, it is NOT acceptable to have the proposed Meeting tucked onto the west wall of the Manor building. The Meeting Room would obscure the historical Manor just like the proposed building B in front of the Manor and building D on the side of the Manor building, both these buildings have non mitigable impact on the Manor. As shown in the picture it is easy to compare the differences with and without the Meeting room. The Meeting room obscures the majestic Manor totally when you drive into the campus. 2) Completely offset the original symmetrical design of the Manor. Manor is a historical building over 100 years old and is one of the two significant buildings in Saratoga. It is on the Saratoga historical inventory list. It should not be altered. 3) Eliminate 14 mature trees, including Chinese pistache , liquidambar, crepe myrtle, and protected redwoods. Shown here the white Manor West view is to the left. The Meeting room is going to occupy where the trees and the lawn area. The Project will replace these majestic mature trees with some young small trees or bushes. This is NOT acceptable. The red zone on the left (West) to the Manor indicates the Meeting Room site. The proposed 2-level Meeting Room completely destroys the original symmetry of the historical Manor. And it occupies the green open space and eliminates the existing beautiful mature trees. View of Manor with Proposed Meeting room 143 4) Construction noise estimated louder than the fire alarm in the hallways, exceeds the FTA [Federal Transit Administration] recommendations. Where can the seniors go when the noise level is insufferable and last so long? This is our home. This is Elder Abuse! Please be humane, we did not move to a loud and disturbing construction zone in the last years of our lives. The impact is significant. 5) Vibration Damage to the Manor foundation due to unavoidable heavy construction as evaluated in the DEIR is significant. The impact on people who live or work in the Manor during construction is ignored. 6) The construction length is unrealistic. Table 4.5-6 listed that 3 months of 95 dBA noise and 7 month total. How do you guarantee for this projected length? Do the residents have any leverage if the construction length is violated? The Construction period is unrealistic. Construction duration has never been proven to be within schedule at SRC. The said 3 months grading/foundation, 7 months total seems to be unreal. Judging by the last major repair work on campus, it took 4 years to repair the apartment balconies. It took 9 months to fix a single section of the apartment balconies after they got the scaffolding up. During the 9 months, residents had no natural light and no fresh air. In spite of the complaints, Management never paid any attention. So we definitely do not trust in this unrealistic timeline. All these issues have significant impact to the residents and the environment. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE MEETING ROOM! Thank you for listening, Tsing Bardin 144 Dear Planning commissioners and Saratoga City Council In our proposal of the SRC expansion, we proposed a limited expansion. This is to allow only Building C in front of the Assisted Living compound. Here are the reasons for blocking Building A on our only outdoor green open space. Sorry for the length of this note. Just glance through the headlines if you have no time. 1. Obliteration of Odd Fellows Historical Park Construction of Building A would cover up all of the green space currently designated as Odd Fellows Home of California Historical Park, dedicated with a plaque on the site in August, 2008. 2. Loss of Mature Trees and Green Vista Construction of BuildingA would require the removal of every protected, mature tree in the Historical Park. 3. Loss of Green Space and Outdoor Recreation Facilities The proposed Building A would remove the current green space and outdoor recreation facilities at SRC. This green space, the Odd Fellows Historical Park, currently sports paved pathways with many benches and tables. A large number of SRC residents (average age 85) have mobility issues requiring canes, walkers, wheelchairs, or motorized assistance to get around. For them and others with physical disabilities, this park is the only accessible outdoor recreation available. In addition to SRC residents, many neighbors visit the Historical Park regularly to walk their dogs or bicycle in the safe, quiet area. Removing the park means that everyone in the area would have to travel elsewhere to find a similar quiet green space. 4. “Replacement” Bocce Ball Court Not a Usable Replacement The current 91-foot, regulation size bocce ball court and other outdoor recreation facilities such as a putting green would be removed if Building A is constructed. The “replacement” of 2/3 of the current size is not acceptable. At present, more than 60 residents regularly play bocce ball here. Bocce ball is also a popular spectator sport for many more residents, especially those with limited mobility, for whom it is easily accessible by the paved paths through the Historic Park. 5. Many years of major construction destructions –noise, air pollution, dust and major construction trucks. They have to endure many years of construction noise like chain saw, drill, Jackhammer, bulldozers, construction truck and construction traffic. The mitigation on the EIR report is to notify us when it would happen and it would be during day time. This suggestion is totally impractical, where do you expect the elderly senior residents 145 going to hide from this noisy and dusty environment which is their home. And construction traffic poses a health and safety hazard for both residents and neighbors. 6.Hazardous garage entrance to Building A and congested traffic permanently The garage entrance is situated at the most congested traffic area already. It is right across from the garbage and receiving dock. This picture show the delivery trucks double-parking and the pedestrian traffic. In addition, the Senior population is slow in reaction time and in mobility, and poor eye sight, many residents on walkers, will not be able to react quickly for potential congested traffic problems. In summary, Building A would have a negative effect on the historic, environmental, and human aspects of the Saratoga Retirement Community and its neighbors. Please preserve this beautiful campus as shown in this picture. Build ONLY one building C on the existing parking lot. Sincerely, Tsing Bardin on behalf of the over 180 members of the Preserve SRC Campus group Sept. 11, 2023 146 147 148 From: To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community Date:Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:54:53 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. James Dixson 14500 Fruitvale Ave, Apt 5208 Saratoga, CA 95070 September 20, 2023 Saratoga Planning Commissioners Saratoga City Council I am writing once again to voice my opposition to elements of the proposed building expansion on the Saratoga Retirement Community campus. Specifically, I am against the proposed Building A. The loss of open space and the removal of scores of mature trees required by the footprint of Building A negatively alters the look and feel of the campus, one of our most attractive features. Indeed, the white tape that the surveyors placed on trees indicating those to be removed under the proposed SRC Master Plan, only served to highlight the magnitude and impact of this proposed project. Respectfully, James Dixson     149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan Swanson Date: September 27, 2023 Subject: Application: PDR19-0023/ARB19-0039/GEO19-0013/ZOA19-0004/ENV19-0005; 14500 Fruitvale Avenue - Supplemental Memo No. 1 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 268 149781370.2 LEIGH F. PRINCE Direct No: 704 384 2617 Email: LPrince@FoxRothschild com 101 N. Tryon Street Suite 1300 Charlotte, NC 28246 Tel 704.384.2600 Fax 704.384.2800 www.foxrothschild.com 345 California Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104-2670 Tel 415.364.5540 Fax 415.391.4436 www.foxrothschild.com September 25, 2023 VIA EMAIL: CRICHARDSON@SARATOGA.CA.US Cynthia Richardson Project Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Retirement Community Project Dear Cynthia: This letter is written on behalf of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (“Odd Fellows”) regarding the master plan proposal to expand the Saratoga Retirement Community (“Project”) located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue. This letter is intended to provide some clarity around the Project and the alternatives. Project The Project, which was analyzed in the draft Environmental Impact Report (“EI R”), includes three new buildings designed to blend harmoniously with the existing campus that would add 52 independent living units, a meeting room, a workout room, additional parking and new landscaping. The Odd Fellows have not changed the Project; it remains stable and accurate per the April 2022 planning submittal. The draft EIR revealed that Building B, which would include 10 new independent living units, would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources. When an EIR identifies a significant environmental impact, it does not mean that a city cannot approve a project, it simply means to do so a city must make certain findings referred to as the “statement of overriding considerations.” Public Resources Code Section 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15093. Here, the city could find that the benefits of the Project, as described in the Odd Fellows’ public benefit letter, outweigh the environmental harm and approve the Project as proposed with Building B. 269 I am not against change, I know we need senior housing, BUT I am against being trapped again in isolation and loneliness. During the Pandemic, we were trapped in our apts. and for those us, widows and widowers , it meant unbelievable loneliness. My only reprieve was to get out and walk under the canopy of our magnificent mature Redwoods and Coast live oaks trees in the Historic Park. 128-148 of these trees are doomed for destruction under the PRS Expansion plan. This beautiful canopy allows us coolness from the summer heat, a beautiful place to enjoy fresh air and to greet other residents. If you ask me now, how’s retirement going ? the only word that comes up is TRAPPED. I am TRAPPED financially , my retirement nest egg went to pay the SRC “ENTRY FEE” and if I leave NOW because of the construction chaos, I will lose a huge part of those retirement savings. I am TRAPPED environmentally. If the massive expansion is allowed, the noise, the dust, the construction debris, and the traffic congestion will force us seniors back into our apts. and back into isolation. The heat during the summer will be even more intense since the trees and our shade canopy will be gone. The heat will only intensify with the massive density of buildings, of concrete and blacktop. YES, we seniors of SRC are TRAPPED in a RETIREMENT NIGHTMARE. 270 But the City of Saratoga can help us minimize that NIGHTMARE, there is a way of compromise. WE seniors support ONE building, bring construction to ONE part of the campus, not the entire campus. WE seniors support minimizing the possible health hazards of massive construction, segregate it to just ONE area. We support the much needed remodel of the Health Care Center, but NOT piecemeal over four years and NOT scheduled PHASE FOUR. IT needs to done FIRST priority for the health and safety of the residents. Post Pandemic studies show shared rooms, toilets and showers ( similar to the Health Care Center) contribute to the spread of pathogens. Please help us minimize the RETIREMENT NIGHTMARE. Please bring back our peaceful campus and remove these dark clouds, especially this last month, that has hung over our campus and our residents for years. THANK YOU for allowing this comment period. 271 From:Don Schmidek To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Entry into Bldg. A Date:Saturday, September 23, 2023 3:59:02 PM Attachments:Screenshot 2023-09-23 at 1.42.39 PM.png CAUTION This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. > Hi Cynthia > > Have a look at where the Entry into the Building A is vs. the street and sidewalk. > Where will all the Cars and Trucks and Ambulances park while delivering or picking up. > > Not a good solution! > > I also love the balconies overlooking the Garbage yard. Finally, the Park is GONE! No place to walk, to sit, etc. Cruel Fate?!?!? Regards Don Schmidek SRC > > > > > 272 Saratoga Planning Commission, My name is Jim Reyner and I’m a resident of Saratoga Retirement Community [AKA S RC]. I speak in support of the expansion. SRC is Saratoga’s only CCRC – that is, a continuing care retirement community that offers independent living, assisted living and skilled health care for its residents as needed. The owner is the Odd Fellows Home of California (OFHC). Pacific Retirement Services (PRS) is the manager of the facility. My wife and I moved into SRC nine years ago from San Jose. We have both been active in the Resident Association that represents the SRC residents. We have served on the Resident Council and now serve on several of the council’s committees. We speak for the silent majority of residents that are grateful for their community. Based on their extensive success in managing many CCRCs, the OFHC has funded PRS’ efforts to develop a master plan for sustaining SRC in perpetuity. The main reason for expansion of the campus is to keep SRC affordable. We all can see the rising costs of inflation, maintenance, operation, and health care. By adding more living units at SRC, we can continue to offer local residents an affordable place to retire. By keeping our monthly rent competitive with other retirement facilities, we can offer our retiring neighbors affordable housing. It seems so simple! Even the alternative plans offered by our SRC Preserve group agree that a 52-unit expansion our living units is necessary. Let’s go for the city’s entitlement as soon as possible! Respectfully, Jim Reyner, Apt. 4214 273 274 My name is Jim Reyner and I speak for the silent majority of the residents of Saratoga Retirement Community [AKA SRC]. I speak in support of the expansion. SRC is Saratoga’s only CCRC – that is, a continuing care retirement community that offers independent living, assisted living and skilled health care for its residents as needed. It has been here since 1912, owned by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows [a fraternal organization]. The majority of residents understand that changes to the campus will happen, but they don’t see it affecting the rest of their lives. What they hope is that their rental increases will be minimal, and that amenities will be maintained and improved. The main reason for expansion of the campus is to keep SRC affordable. SRC management sees the rising costs of inflation, maintenance, operation, and health care. By adding living units at SRC, we can continue to offer local residents an affordable place to retire. By keeping our monthly rent competitive with other retirement facilities, we can offer our retiring neighbors affo rdable housing. It seems so simple! Even the alternative plans offered by our SRC Preserve group agree that a 52-unit expansion our living units is necessary. Let’s go for the city’s entitlement as soon as possible! Thank you for listening! 275 Planning Commission Study – 09/27/2023 (2-minute version) Hello, my name is John Britain and I bet you guessed that I am an SRC resident. Instead of repea�ng all of the problems of the original PRS expansion proposal, I would like to present a compromise to you. The residents realize, due to the state mandated housing element, an SRC expansion needs to be included. Therefore, the residents propose approval for a single apartment building to be erected between Odd Fellows Drive and the Assisted Living Facility. This provides for 20 apartments or 30 apartments if a third story is added. This means: Building A in the Odd Fellows Park, Building B in front of the Manor, Building D in the entrance parking lot, and the Mee�ng Room next to the Manor would not be approved. This compromise provides: • For the City – units for the housing element and support for the residents and neighbors • For the Odd Fellows who own the land – an expansion that significantly increases the value of their land • For the Residents – it largely preserves the rural campus where they live and isolates and reduces the construc�on �me and problems Meriam Webster defines compromise as: setlement of differences by consent reached by mutual concessions. Each of the three par�es concedes a litle but receives a lot. This results in a Win-Win-Win situa�on for all three par�es. Thank you for listening and your considera�on John Britain, SRC Resident 276 277 August 30, 2021 Dear Resident, When the Odd Fellows Home of California board embarked on the master planning process in 2017, our goal was to position Saratoga Retirement Community for success for generations to come. Our organization has provided a home to senior adults for over a century. We are committed to carrying on that legacy and believe a forward-looking master plan is necessary to give us flexibility for the future. We approached master planning with the assumption skilled nursing care will become increasingly expensive to provide while revenue becomes harder to count on. We also believe that future residents will prefer, if not expect, to receive skilled nursing care in private rooms. Downsizing the existing nursing facility by converting semi-private rooms to private rooms solves both issues. Downsizing the skilled nursing facility will insulate us from risks related to the healthcare sector, but it will also affect overall revenue. We plan to offset that loss by adding 52 independent living residences to campus. Adding units will have additional scale benefits and also help cushion us during occupancy shocks. But the question of where to place 52 new residences has been difficult for the board, PRS Management, and our community. We all want to preserve what makes SRC unique, including the open acreage and especially the historic Manor building. That said, the constraints of regulations and financial feasibility limit where on campus we can build. Our board is part of a fraternal organization steeped in tradition. Because of this, we have a strong bias toward preserving history. But we also recognize that preservation is only possible if the organization survives. Therefore we are now willing to develop areas of our campus that we might have once considered off-limits because there is no single part of SRC that is more important to us than the whole. After considering various alternate expansion configurations, including the plan proposed by a group of residents, the board has decided to continue the entitlement process on the master plan that has already been submitted to the City of Saratoga. We feel that this plan is the most feasible of all options and, if the city approves it, it will give us the flexibility we need to navigate the future. 278 We appreciate the ideas residents have presented and recognize the virtues of the plan proposed. However, that resident plan would require tearing down our existing skilled nursing building. Demolishing this building would displace residents and eliminate nursing revenue without an immediate offset, neither of which is acceptable to the board. Further, the proposed replacement building would require operating two separate floors of skilled nursing. A two-story building would impose more expense and operational risk than we have today with our single-story configuration. Though the board has agreed to proceed with the entitlement process already underway, all stakeholders, including PRS Management, should remember that the board has not authorized any construction. The current process is just about securing entitlements from the City of Saratoga. There are several significant steps between entitlements and construction, and board authorization is required all along the way. We have heard the clear message that preserving open spaces is highly desired by current residents. Please know that the board is willing to not to authorize the construction of building A, located in what is now Odd Fellows’ Park, for at least seven years after the city approves the master plan. While this moratorium would not be permanent, we hope it would provide current residents confidence that this space will remain open for most of the next decade. What is now Saratoga Retirement Community was once home to 150 aged Odd Fellows, their widows and orphans, and Rebekah’s. Where residences sit today, orchards used to blossom. The 1912 version of Saratoga Retirement Community would be almost indistinguishable to today’s residents and vice versa. The one constant between then and now has been the Odd Fellows’ commitment to providing care and comfort to our seniors. That commitment remains steadfast, and we thank you for choosing to live here. We are proud to serve on this board, and we are confident that the ability to add residences and future residents to this special community is the right direction for the organization. The board looks forward to additional work with the City of Saratoga and its next steps in our master plan entitlement. Odd Fellows Home of California Executive Board Terry L Olson Chairman Gerald Poarch Vice Chairman Betty Rasor Secretary Roy Steel Treasurer 279 From:Charles Cummins To:Cynthia Richardson Cc:Berglund; Tsing Bardin; Michael Griffin Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community (SRC)"s obligatins under our contracts Date:Monday, September 25, 2023 11:24:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. My wife Anne and I have lived in Saratoga for 42 years and presently live in the independent living section of the Saratoga Retirement Community. I am writing in response to the 9/20/23 email from Odd Fellows' attorney Leigh F. Prince to Cynthia Richardson. But first, let me say that somehow SRC's proposed expansion has taken on part of the burden of solving Saratoga's housing element issue. There are other ways to satisfy that issue without taking something from and placing additional burdens on the elderly at SRC. What kind of community is Saratoga if it wants to solve such an issue on the backs of the older and most vulnerable of its senior citizens who only want to live out their final years in peace?. Ms. Prince is only partially correct when she states that entrance fees are partially refundable. That is true under one higher fee program. But under the other program where you still pay a substantial fee, your entrance fee is refundable on a pro rata basis over the first 3 years.Thereafter, there is no refund. The main point is that all residents have paid hefty fees to live in an open and beautiful environment. The proposed expansion would build on every possible open space and turn this unique place into just another apartment complex. Rather than the rosy picture submitted by Mr. Prince, independent living residents are TRAPPED here. We cannot repurchase the homes we sold upon moving to SRC. We cannot qualify for mortgages to buy new homes because we are retired and do not have any earned income. Prices in the housing market have increased substantially since we moved to SRC. And as noted above, if we move out, we lose part or all of our entrance fees. Ms. Prince incorrectly states that SRC is owned by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows which she refers to throughout her letter as the "Odd Fellows". That Order is an international fraternal organization designed to benefit its members. I do not know what entity owned this property prior to 2000. But after the property was substantially rebuilt as SRC around 2000, it has been owned by a separate corporation known as Odd Fellows Home of California (OFHC). The various public benefits she mentions may be provided by the International fraternal Order, but not by OFHC. And contrary to the inference in her letter, OFHC does not own the adjacent affordable housing project known as Fellowship Plaza. Ms. Prince says that the expansion will provide healthcare and up to 10 affordable housing units in assisted living without an entrance fee. She fails to note that both assisted living and SRC's skilled nursing facility known as the Health Care Center are already available to the general public without payment of any entrance fee. Our skilled nursing facility already accepts Medi-Cal patients. As discussed below, another Odd Fellows corporation, known as the Grand Lodge of California, already has an Endowment Fund to assist its members in obtaining housing such as assisted living. Ms. Prince either directly or indirectly infers that the expansion project will provide additional assisted living units. Those units are already available to the general public. I doubt that OFHC has the authority to make available to the general public the Grand Lodge's Endowment Fund which is designed to benefit only Odd Fellows members. Any affordable housing units not subsidized by the Endowment Fund would be an additional financial drain on SRC. She also claims that there is ample room for redevelopment. Yet the only buildable space is property which residents have already paid millions of dollars to use and occupy. This 280 proposed expansion is simply a real estate deal for OFHC for which it pays nothing to residents and for which OFHC takes no risks. The burden and risk of expansion is to be borne by residents. OFHC also wants to build an auditorium on this private property that could be rented out to the public. And, OFHC wants to build a parking garage in front of the historic manor to provide parking for the public. Both the additional traffic and the parking create a safety hazard for the elderly who live here. Some are hard of hearing and/or have poor eyesight. Many are slow movers who may or may not use walkers, wheelchairs and canes. The parking garage and auditorium also will detract substantially from the beauty of our iconic manor. Trees slated for removal and story poles required elsewhere have not yet been marked for this parking garage. Building D will eliminate our existing staff parking lot and demolish the first cottage containing 2 independent living units. Trees to be removed and story poles have not yet been marked. Building D also will degrade the beauty of the manor. OFHC only owns 2 continuing care retirement communities: SRC and a similar facility in Napa named The Meadows. It does not own Fellowship Plaza or any other real estate. SRC and the Meadows share one OFHC balance sheet, and the Meadows presently is a financial drain on SRC. If SRC defaults, residents' contracts provide that the Grand Lodge of California will be responsible to perform OHFC's obligations. According to a 2019 public filing there were 4300 Odd Fellow members in California. In 2019 The Grand Lodge's Endowment Fund had $17,263,846 designed to assist Odd Fellow members. The Grand Lodge only had $10,690,841 in additional assets. Residents' entrance and monthly fees presently maintain SRC. If OFHC defaults, the Grand Lodge's limited assets are a thin reed on which to place the burden of OFHC's operations and the additional burden of any expansion. Ms. Prince says that the expansion will make SRC sustainable for the long term. That statement is completely baseless. In 2019 SRC only provided an estimated total project cost, a long term debt amount and a few financial ratios. It has never provided demographics to support an expansion or any detailed financing information, income or expense projections, or explanation of the expansion's effect on the Meadows and SRC operating statements and joint balance sheet. This expansion project has caused many residents a lot of distress. An expansion threatens the residents' financial viability, our living environment, and our livelihood. We do not need this expansion and do not want it. Respectfully submitted, Charles F. Cummins, Jr. SRC Independent Living #6140 281 From:Tsing Bardin To:Cynthia Richardson Cc:Tsing Bardin; Bob Berglund; Dick DuBridge; Michael Griffin; Ravi Ravikumar; Don Schmidek; Tony Vandersteen; Colin Whitby-Strevens; John Brittain; Marilyn Manies; Dick Caputo Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community –More reasons for NO meeting room Date:Sunday, September 24, 2023 7:41:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Cynthia, This is for the Planning commissioners and the City Council, Dear Planning commissioners and the City Council, Please do not let PRS build the Meeting Room! I am sure you have heard about the aesthetic impact of the Meeting Room on the historical heritage Manor building from other residents and neighbors, I am going to address other impact due to the Meeting Room. • noise level during construction is estimated to exceed the FTA’s recommended construction noise criteria of 80 dBA. Such loud noise is very disturbing and causes mental health issues. Particularly for long duration, not just a few minutes but many hours during the day. The construction noise is for 7 months long. Where do the Manor residents hide during these noisy days? This is our home, we have to stay there. • Vibration from heavy construction equipment and soil compaction for the new Meeting Room Addition on recently excavated ground could cause irrepairable damage to the foundation of the historic Manor. This is also a concern from the EIR engineer. • The Construction period is unrealistic. Construction duration has never been proven to be within schedule at SRC. The said 3 months grading/foundation, 7 months total seems to be unreal. Judging by the last major repair work on campus, it took 9 months to repair the balconies for the apartment buildings. During the 9 months, residents had no natural light and no fresh air. In spite of the complaints, Management never paid any attention. So we definitely do not trust in this unrealistic timeline. • Finally NO View for the apartments after the Meeting room is constructed, The Manor apartments along the west wall where the Meeting room will be, will be blocked by this new structure. So they will have no views, no fresh air. The residents would lose the beautiful view of the trees and open space. How would you like to live in a cave! • There is NO public benefit for having this Meeting Room. There is such limited parking space, even for the residents, not to mention for outside visitors using this facility. PRS has asked for a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Code for reduced parking on campus. This is worse than can be imagined, if the reduced parking is granted. At present Parking is already a nightmare, visitors circulate for hours to find parking space. Parking is not adequately provided for the new additions, how can PRS claim public benefit knowing that there is not enough parking for the residents or staff even. Please consider the ONE Building permit so we do NOT need a Meeting room. Thanks for listening Tsing Bardin 282 From:Tsing Bardin To:Cynthia Richardson Cc:Tsing Bardin; Bob Berglund; Dick DuBridge; Michael Griffin; Ravi Ravikumar; Don Schmidek; Tony Vandersteen; Colin Whitby-Strevens; John Brittain; Marilyn Manies; Marilyn Basham Subject:Saratoga Retirement Community––1996 permit units Date:Friday, September 22, 2023 10:28:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Cynthia, Please include this information in the packet of the Planning Commission study session Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council, I am surprised to see there is a whole page (pgs. 3-4) in the staff report addressing the comparison of number of units built in 1996 and the current proposed 52 units . On page 4 it says "Even though there was a reduction in the number of units the building footprints did not change from the original approval.” I would like to call attention that on August 31, 2023 I asked the same question about the 1996 permit and the number of units built then and the current proposal, I asked if there would be any impact on the current proposal. Cynthia’s email clearly replied as follows: ( underlined below). So why is there this much discussion in your staff report? What is the significant of this? I am enclosing my earlier 8/29/23 email communication as well as to complete the thread. It is quite clear that the 1966 permit is irrelevant, so what is the point of bringing this up to confused the Planning commissioners and the City Council? Thanks for your help, Tsing Here is your old email:From: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: RE: Saratoga Retirement expansion unit numbers for Independent living apartments Date: August 31, 2023 at 4:58:26 PM PDT To: Tsing Bardin <t , Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>, James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Bob Berglund >, Dick DuBridge , Michael Griffin , Don Schmidek <Tony Vandersteen >, Colin Whitby-Strevens Hi Tsing, Since the footprint of the buildings under the approved Use Permit were constructed 283 per plan in 1996, there would be no opportunity to add units under the old use permit. The project is being processed as a new project/application and the number of proposed units would be evaluated through the current planning process. I hope this answers your question. Cynthia Richardson | Project Planner City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 crichardson@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us Office Hours Mondays and Thursdays My earlier email of 8/29/23 From: Tsing Bardin Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 4:55 PM To: Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Tsing Bardin <; Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us>; Bob Berglund ; Dick DuBridge >; Michael Griffin >; Don Schmidek m>; Tony Vandersteen >; Colin Whitby-Strevens Subject: Saratoga Retirement expansion unit numbers for Independent living apartments CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear James and Bryan, After the August 22 meeting with you both, we did another close look at the PRS proposal and also we checked with the Assisted Living marketing department to clarify what kind of apartments they have. Here is what we found out. The Assisted living (AL) units do NOT have kitchen, they only have mini- microwave and mini-fridge. AL residents do not need to cook as they have three meals in the dining room or meals delivered to their rooms. These apartment units are like hotel units, or dorm units. Based on this data, we do not agree that PRS can justify building 52 Independent Living units from the 1996 permit. They have combined the Independent Living units with Assisted Living units and call them residential units and reached a number of 298. This number has no meaning. Based on the date there are only 21 Independent Living units which they have not fulfilled from the 1996 permit. Here is a detailed calculation: The underlined orange text are in the PRS proposal shown in the website https://www.saratoga.ca.us/461/Proposed-Saratoga-Retirement-Community-P On February 21, 1996, the City Council approved an increase to the number of residential units permitted at SRC from 170 to 307 units (164 independent living units and 143 assisted living units) and an increase in the number of skilled nursing beds permitted from 68 to 99 beds. SRC did not build all the units permitted in 1996. The facility currently has 249 units (143 independent living units and 106 assisted living units) and 94 skilled nursing beds. Date Independent units ( IL ) Assisted Living units ( AL ) Total IL + AL units Skilled nursing beds 284 1996 approved 164 143 307 99 Current 143 106 249 94 Difference 21 37 58 PRS Proposal 143 + 52 106-3 298 52 Please note that there is a big difference between the Assisted Living units. They do not have kitchen , only a mini microwave and a mini refrigerator like a hotel room. One should not mix the Independent Living apartments with the Assisted living apartments. On June 21, 2019, SRC submitted an application to the City seeking approval of three new buildings which would contain 52 independent living units. If approved, this would bring the total residential units to 298 and skilled nursing beds to 52 PRS has not fulfilled the 21 IL units according to the 1996 permit. However PRS has combined the IL and AL units to show a difference of 58 units, which is like comparing apples and pears. The AL units are like dormitory units, they are not the housing units that the State is asking. They are not ADU’s, they are not single dwelling units. Please do not confuse the two kinds of apartments. There is only 21 apartments that PRS could build if they want to go back to the 1996 permit. Hope this helps to clarify PRS’ numbers. Thanks for your attention, Tsing Bardin on behalf of the Preserve SRC Campus group. 285 From:Marilyn Basham To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:SRC Expansion and being trapped Date:Monday, September 25, 2023 4:46:49 PM Attachments:Edited TALK 920 EXpansion 2 2.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Cynthia, Please include this in the letters for the City Council Thank You Marilyn Basham 286 From:Linda Shaw To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:SRC expansion plan Date:Saturday, August 26, 2023 4:03:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Planning Commissioners and Saratoga City Council I understand you have a big decision before you but I would like you to consider the sense of community we have here. It’s a feeling of trust we have for each of our fellow residents. That same trust seems to have broken down now between the PRC leaders and us the residents. We have a beautiful campus and I am willing to make whatever compromise is necessary to keep some of that special community trust we have built over the years. We need to preserve this place for the future senior Saratoga residents who will continue our beloved SRC. Thank you for your consideration. Linda Shaw. (51 year Saratoga resident) 287 From:rcbergie@aol.com To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:SRC Expansion Project Date:Monday, September 25, 2023 8:59:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Cynthia Richardson, 9/25/23 Please pass this on to the Planning Commissioners and the City Council. It’s disappointing to see a last minute input to the SRC expansion project by the applicant so full of mis-statements aimed at confusing the Planning Commissioners and City Council members. I’m speaking of the input on Public Benefits. For example; the degree to which a portion of the initial fee is returned depends on the specific contract. Many are classified a ‘Traditional” with no return of fee after 3 years. Others are “refundable” to varying degrees depending on management’s offerings at the time of residents admittance. Paying large entry fees and substantial monthly fees is not a public service but a commercial contract arrangement. Secondly, SRC is not owned by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows . It is owned by the Odd Fellows Home of California (OFHC), a 501(c)3 non profit corporation with two CCRC operations, SRC and the Meadows of Napa Valley. The infill proposed to the SRC is not a public benefit as the new units will be used for commercial contracts with future residents from any location, not just Saratoga. Similarly, the Affordable Housing provided at the Fellowship Plaza in the adjacent parcel is a separate organization. While the Fellowship Plaza is owned by The Grand Lodge of the IOOF, it operates thru its tenants, including EAH Housing with the mission to provide low-income housing. There are no operational or financial ties to OFHC and thus no public benefits resulting from the SRC expansion project. The same comment can be made with reference to the Assisted Living (AL) studio apartments as they also will require commercial contracts for consistency with other AL residents receiving full housing, dining and assisted living services. A discounted monthly fee is only available to Odd Fellow members not the public. Putting the details of this so called public benefit of “Affordable Housing” off to the future is an empty promise with no assurance of public benefit. Lastly, The SRC expansion project does not create an opportunity for a public trail connection, under the Open Space and Conservation, Goal 5, as the trail connection has already been approved and is in daily use at the present time without the SRC expansion project. Again, it’s disappointing to see such confusing last minute input from the applicant. We trust the leaders of Saratoga will focus on the facts. Robert Berglund, President, SRC Resident Association 288 From:tuncdoluca@comcast.net To:Cynthia Richardson Cc:isikdoluca@gmail.com; "Sinan Doluca" Subject:SRC Expansion Date:Monday, September 25, 2023 4:12:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. My mom has been a resident of SRC since 2011. She is 92 years old now. I wrote a letter to you about a month ago and wanted to supplement the planning commission now that I have more details on the proposed project. 1. Proposed building D is right in front of mom’s cottage (6106). Building D is less than 17” from her front door and I assume during construction there will be even less distance to the protective fence around the construction. You can also imagine the construction noises she will have to endure for at least one year (maybe longer) when it is that near. We strongly oppose the construction of building D this close to units 6106 and 6108. 2. Since SRC insists that there must be an expansion, the least disruptive one is to only build an expanded building C in front of the current assisted living building, and no other structures. This creates the least disruption for current residents and saves the much-valued open green space near the current fitness center. I hope that SRC will stake the proposed building D properly so the planners will see how bad it will be for mom. Best Regards. Tunc Doluca (for Isik Doluca) 289 From:Tsing Bardin To:Cynthia Richardson Cc:Tsing Bardin; Bob Berglund; Dick DuBridge; Michael Griffin; Ravi Ravikumar; Don Schmidek; Tony Vandersteen; Colin Whitby-Strevens; Marilyn Manies; Marilyn Basham; John Brittain Subject:What does the City gain by permitting PRS to build 52 units? Date:Monday, September 25, 2023 3:43:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Cynthia , please include this in the study session packet. To the Planning commissioners and the City council, I am thinking what the city would gain to give permit to PRS to build 52 units on the Saratoga Retirement Campus. There is no extra property tax from the new units as the owner, Odd Fellows are non-profit. We understand that we do need to comply with the State Housing element so we are not against expansion, we are not against change. However, the number in the Above moderate income units is about 20% exceeding what the State requires, there is about 134 units more than needed. So there is no need to supply 52 units, instead 20 units would be sufficient for the future seniors. All I can say is that if the City grants 52 units, there will be more than 300 very unhappy seniors, the construction disrupts their lives for many years, many magnificent trees will be cut down, the historical Manor views will be obscured and the forever loss of open green space. PRS, our out-of-state management company, against the will of 3/4 of the residents, wants the extra income by building more apartment units, but I do not see why the City wants to go along with it. Please Planning commissioner think it through and make sensible choices. Thank you. We propose only ONE Building on an existing site that has least impact. Thanks for listening, Tsing Bardin 290 2 149781370.2 Alternative While decision makers can approve a project with impacts upon making the appropriate findings, they also have the flexibility to approve an alternative that satisfies environmental concerns. Public Resources Code Sections 21001 -21001.1 and 21004. A major purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act is to prevent significant unavoidable damage to the environment by encouraging agencies to requi re changes to projects, including the approval of alternatives. 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15002 and 15021. As noted in the staff report for the September 27, 2023 study session and in the comment letter on the draft EIR submitted on behalf of the Odd Fellows, when the Odd Fellows were informed there was a significant and unavoidable impact, they sharpened their pencils to identify an alternative that might meet project objectives without the historical impact. Although the city could still approve the Project as proposed, the Odd Fellows understand from city staff that the city would prefer not to approve the Project with Building B creating a significant and unavoidable historical impact. Therefore, Odd Fellows is supportive of the city’s approval of the Applicant’s Alternative that eliminates the historic impact and achieves more of the project objectives than the other alternatives. With respect to story poles, the Odd Fellows submitted a request not to install story poles for Building B as the city has indicated a preference not to approve the Project with Building B over the Applicants Alternative. The Odd Fellows look forward to continuing to work with the city and the community to approve this important Project that expands the public benefit to the senior community in Saratoga. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Leigh F. Prince cc: Bryan Swanson (bswanson@saratoga.ca.us) Chris Dalengas (ChrisD@ankrommoisan.com) Brian McLemore (brian@mclemoredevelopment.com) Sarah Stel William Parkin (wparkin@wittwerparkin.com) 291 From:Don Schmidek To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:Ankrom SRC campus video distortion. Date:Monday, September 25, 2023 5:00:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi I have looked over the video walk thru the SRC campus generated by Ankrom. as listed in the EIR. This is a distorted view from 12+ft. up and not from a human eye, thus makes all the things flatter, etc. and less impacting. This should be either removed or the view distortions pointed out. Thanks Don Schmidek 292 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, September 25, 2023 4:04 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name John B Henley Jr Phone Number  Email Address  Comments re: Saratoga Retirement Center Please reflect on the considerable net increase or significant impact on these points in the EIR. Impact Air-2, -3;Impact Bio- 1,-4; Impact Cul-1,-2; Impact GEO-2; Impact GHG-2; Impact NOI-1,-2; Impact TRA-3,-4; TCR-1; Impact WF-1; and MFS-1,- 2. For these as well as the negative impact in the removal of trees and on the current residents, I suggest a NO vote to any development. I am a resident of Fellowship Plaza. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   293 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan Swanson Date: September 27, 2023 Subject: Application: PDR19-0023/ARB19-0039/GEO19-0013/ZOA19-0004/ENV19-0005; 14500 Fruitvale Avenue - Supplemental Memo No. 2 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 294 1 Cynthia Richardson From:Éric Spérano Sent:Monday, September 25, 2023 7:26 PM To:Cynthia Richardson Subject:For the planning commission meeting Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.  Dear Madam, My mother-in-law moved into the Saratoga Retirement Community after long debating the merits of the Terraces in Los Altos versus SRC in Saratoga. She wanted to be as near to me as possible in Los Altos, but ultimately chose SRC because of its beautiful campus of open space, park, & tree lined streets. She didn’t know a soul, but these things were of utmost importance to her. After moving in, at considerable non-refundable expense, she gradually learned of the scope of the expansion plan. Marketing had mentioned that there MIGHT be building in the far future, but it was minimized, & might never happen. Now she has learned that all that she holds dear will be taken away from her — the trees with their shade & birds, & fresh air, the park, the lovely walks, and — her very home. The stress is not hers alone. My wife & I feel horrible for her, & worry about the toll this is taking on her. Surely there is a more humane way to add apartments & improve the Health Care Center with our raping the campus of its gorgeous trees, without filling the only flat open space with buildings, and without destroying the very homes of some of our elderly. Best regards, Eric Sperano Son-in-law of Elizabeth Landergren. Los Altos 295 149781370.2 LEIGH F. PRINCE Direct No Email: www.foxrothschild.com www.foxrothschild.com September 25, 2023 VIA EMAIL: CRICHARDSON@SARATOGA.CA.US Cynthia Richardson Project Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Retirement Community Project Dear Cynthia: This letter is written on behalf of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (“Odd Fellows”) regarding the master plan proposal to expand the Saratoga Retirement Community (“Project”) located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue. This letter is intended to provide some clarity around the Project and the alternatives. Project The Project, which was analyzed in the draft Environmental Impact Report (“EI R”), includes three new buildings designed to blend harmoniously with the existing campus that would add 52 independent living units, a meeting room, a workout room, additional parking and new landscaping. The Odd Fellows have not changed the Project; it remains stable and accurate per the April 2022 planning submittal. The draft EIR revealed that Building B, which would include 10 new independent living units, would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources. When an EIR identifies a significant environmental impact, it does not mean that a city cannot approve a project, it simply means to do so a city must make certain findings referred to as the “statement of overriding considerations.” Public Resources Code Section 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15093. Here, the city could find that the benefits of the Project, as described in the Odd Fellows’ public benefit letter, outweigh the environmental harm and approve the Project as proposed with Building B. 296 2 149781370.2 Alternative While decision makers can approve a project with impacts upon making the appropriate findings, they also have the flexibility to approve an alternative that satisfies environmental concerns. Public Resources Code Sections 21001 -21001.1 and 21004. A major purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act is to prevent significant unavoidable damage to the environment by encouraging agencies to requi re changes to projects, including the approval of alternatives. 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15002 and 15021. As noted in the staff report for the September 27, 2023 study session and in the comment letter on the draft EIR submitted on behalf of the Odd Fellows, when the Odd Fellows were informed there was a significant and unavoidable impact, they sharpened their pencils to identify an alternative that might meet project objectives without the historical impact. Although the city could still approve the Project as proposed, the Odd Fellows understand from city staff that the city would prefer not to approve the Project with Building B creating a significant and unavoidable historical impact. Therefore, Odd Fellows is supportive of the city’s approval of the Applicant’s Alternative that eliminates the historic impact and achieves more of the project objectives than the other alternatives. With respect to story poles, the Odd Fellows submitted a request not to install story poles for Building B as the city has indicated a preference not to approve the Project with Building B over the Applicants Alternative. The Odd Fellows look forward to continuing to work with the city and the community to approve this important Project that expands the public benefit to the senior community in Saratoga. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Leigh F. Prince cc: Bryan Swanson (bswanson@saratoga.ca.us) Chris Dalengas ( Brian McLemore Sarah Stel ) William Parkin 297