Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-13-2001 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch, and Zutshi ABSENT: Commissioner Roupe STAFF: Director Sullivan, Planners Knapp and Schubert PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 8, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR DR-00-062 (397-28-013) - PICO RANCH INC., 20460 Williams Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,275 square foot single-family residence and construct a new 4,057 square foot two-story residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 7,671 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 5-0) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. 1. TUP-Ol-002 (397-30-047) -CITY OF SARATOGA, 13724 Saratoga Avenue (Sacred Heart Church and School); Request to temporarily relocate the Saratoga Community library to a neighboring site (Sacred Heart Church and School at 13724 Saratoga Avenue) during the renovation and expansion of the City's existing library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue. The Sacred Heart Church and School site is in the R1-20,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 5-0) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 2 JUNE 13, 2001 2. DR-O1-005 (386-06-017) - PALUMBO, 19208 Brookview Drive; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a 65 square foot addition to the ground floor of the existing single-story home and construct a 636 square foot second story addition. Total addition would be 701 square feet fora 3,049 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence will be 21'-2". The property is 9,376 square feet and is located within an R- 1-10,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 4-1, KURASCH OPPOSED) 3. UP-O1-004 (397-24-12) - MARKWITH, 20253 La Paloma Avenue; -Request for a Use Permit to construct a new 462 square foot garage and remove an existing 297 square foot garage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear and side yard setback. The property is 7,491 square feet in area and is located in the R-1- 10,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 5-0) 4. UP-O1-009 ~ DR-O1-005 (392-22-035) - SCHUPPERT, 20350 Orchard Road; - Request for a Use Permit to construct a new 418 square foot garage and remove an existing 323 square foot garage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear and side yard setback. The property is 6,250 gross square feet and 5,250 net square feet in area and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 5-0) ti 5. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, TUP-Ol-003, LL-O1-003 (397-22-019) - SARATOGA FIRE ' ° DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Road; -Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval ~ ~ ~ _ to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station. A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. The Temporary Use permit is necessary to allow the temporary Fire Station to be located behind the subject property at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, during construction. The maximum height of the new Fire Station will be 34 feet 6 inches tall. The project is located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 6/27/01) DIRECTOR ITEMS Blackwell Properties, Lot 54, Alta Vista Subdivision. Modification of Approval COMMISSION ITEMS Appointment of Commissioner as Liaison to Library Committee (Zutshi Appointed) COMMUNICATIONS Written -Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of May 8, 2001 and May 22, 2001. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:45 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 27, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, June 12, 2001- 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2001 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-O1-005 - PALUMBO Item 2 19208 Brookview Drive 2. DR-00-062 - PICO RANCH Consent 20460 Williams Avenue 3. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, - SARATOGA FIRE STATION Item 5 TUP-Ol-003 &r LL-O1-003 14380 Saratoga Road 4 UP-O1-009 &t DR-Oi-005 - SCHUPPERT Item 4 20350 Orchard Road 5. UP-O1-004 - MARKWITH Item 3 20253 La Paloma Avenue 6. TUP-Ol-002 - CITY OF SARATOGA Item 1 13724 Saratoga Avenue LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site .visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public • hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: .Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 8, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR DR-00-062 (397-28-013) - PICO RANCH INC., 20460 Williams Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,275 square foot single-family residence and construct a new 4,057 square foot two-story residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 7,671 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/25/01) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. 1. TUP-Ol-002 (397-30-047) -CITY OF SARATOGA, 13724 Saratoga Avenue (Sacred Heart Church and School); Request to temporarily relocate the Saratoga Community library to a neighboring site (Sacred Heart Church and School at 13724 Saratoga Avenue) during the renovation and expansion of the Ciry's existing library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue. The Sacred Heart Church and School site is in the R1-20,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 2 JUNE 13, 2001 2. DR-O1-005 (386-06-017) - PALUMBO, 19208 Brookview Drive; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a 65 square foot addition to the ground floor of the existing single-story home and construct a 636 square foot second story addition. Total addition would be 701 square feet fora 3,049 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence will be 21'-2". The property is 9,376 square feet and is located within an R- 1-10,000 zoning district. 3. UP-O1-004 (397-24-12) - MARKWITH, 20253 La Paloma Avenue; -Request for a Use Permit to construct a new 462 square foot garage and remove an existing 297 square foot garage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear and side yard setback. The property is 7,491 square feet in area and is located in the R-1- 10,000 zoning district. 4. UP-O1-009 6~ DR-O1-005 (392-22-035) - SCHUPPERT, 20350 Orchard Road; - Request for a Use Permit to construct a new 418 square foot garage and remove an existing 323 square foot garage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear and side yard setback. The property is 6,250 gross square feet and 5,250 net square feet in area and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. 5. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, TUP-Ol-003, LL-O1-003 (397-22-019) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Road; -Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station. A . Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. The Temporary Use permit is necessary to allow the temporary Fire Station to be located behind the subject property at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, during construction. The maximum height of the new Fire Station will be 34 feet 6 inches tall. The project is located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS Blackwell Properties, Lot 54, Alta Vista Subdivision. Modification of Approval COMMISSION ITEMS Appointment of Commissioner as Liaison to Library Committee COMMUNICATIONS Written -Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of May 8, 2001 and May 22, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 27, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • ~, ,, ~. MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION U(f DATE: Wednesday, May 9, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Commissioner Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Interim Director Irwin Kaplan, Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planner Kim Duncan Commissioner Jackman advised that the Commission would need to select a Chair for the Commission for the year. Motion: Upon Motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Commissioner Barry was nominated to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission for 2001. (6-0) Motion: Upon Motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, Commissioner Jackman was nominated to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2001. (6-0) APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of Apri125, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of April 25, 2001, were approved with the following amendments: • Page 5 -Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Hulme if sizez {-bu•11~-ate) bulk and mass are fs issues far him. • Page 6 -Commissioner Kurasch stated that the setback should be about 30 feet and the project have a reduction in bulk and size. (5-0-0-1; Commissioner Roupe abstained.) Chair Barry: • Expressed her appreciation for the Council's recently authorized monthly stipend of $150 for Planning Commissioners and the acknowledgement by the Council of the time and commitment offered by Planning Commission members in the performance of their duties. • Welcomed two new members to the Commission. Ruchi Zutshi, who is attending her second meeting as a Commissioner, and Mike Garakani, who is attending his first meeting as a Commissioner. .f' Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNLCATIONS Mr. David W. Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, Sazatoga: • Advised that he is the Chair of the Sazatoga Firefighters' & Citizens' Task Force. • Suggested that the Commission might want to delay consideration of the pending Fire Department reconstruction application project until the situation is resolved between the County and Fire Department. - - • Informed that he spoke at the last Council meeting and asked Council to look into the permit process. Council set a hearing for June 3ra • Said that it may be in the best interest not to consider the Fire Department project until after this Council meeting on June 3ra . Chair Barry asked staff for direction on this request. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that since a legitimate application is pending, that application .. will need to proceed as scheduled. Commissioner Roupe said that no matter what happens later through the Council hearing, the Planning Commission hearing could be held and public comment solicited. -Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that at that meeting, the Commission can determine whether it is prepared to make a decision that night or could decide to continue the matter if necessary. Chair Barry suggested that this topic should be discussed further later in the agenda under Commission Items.. Thanked Mr. Dolloff. Mr. David W. Dolloff distributed a copy of an. article, which just appeazed in the Saratoga News Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Dolloff what he thinks the impact will be on County vs. City Fire Services. ..Interim Director Irwin Kaplan interrupted and advised the Commission that this topic must now be deferred to an appropriately noticed public hearing. - REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA . Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda. for this meeting was properly posted on May 4, 2001. . TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET - Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, provided the following six technical corrections to the staff report 'for Agenda Item No: 2:. - • Page 4, 4`'' pazagraph, line 1 - two ~ _. • Page 5, 5`h pazagraph, line 4 - a~-e~~gd~gle~ • Page' 11, 1 S` pazagraph, line 3 - se~r•,~ ~ - • Page 15 (IV - a -Water) I~-RB HR n. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 3 • Page 7 (Finding No. 1): The proposed lots fall into two General Plan categories, Residential Very Low Density and Residential Hillside Conservation. Accordingly, the use and overall density will conform to Hillside Residential Conservation Distract of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. • Page 7 (Finding No. 2): The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will result in one conforming and one non-conforming lot, so the net effect of the Lot Line Adjustment remains the same. Therefore, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is consistent with the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 14 of the City Code. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-O1-014 (397-43-010) - ADLPARVAR, 13921 Loquat Court: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,089 square foot structure and construct a new 3,369 square foot, single-story residence with a~ 2,281 square foot basement. Maximum height of the proposed structure is seventeen feet eleven inches and located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to demolish a 2,089 square foot . residence and construct a 3,369 single-story home on a 10,083 square foot lot within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. • Provided a table matrix of the homes on Loquat Court, which range in size from 1,717 to 2,255 square feet, exclusive of garages. • Said that this proposal does not conform to the policies of the design handbook. • Suggested that the Commission take action to continue this application with specific directions to the applicant for redesign. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the disposal of groundwater from the proposed basement and how storm water drainage will be dealt with. Chair Barry inquired of staff as to why information is not provided about storm water management. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, advised that typically storm water drainage plans are not reviewed by the Commission for single-family .residential applications. Chair Barry warned that the Commission might want said information in the future. Asked staff for direction. Since the Commission usually asks an applicant whether they will support a continuance, wanted to know if the Commission could actually continue an item without applicant support. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that the Commission could continue without the support of the applicant. However, it makes sense to ask the applicant if they are willing to redesign. If they are not . willing to redesign their project, a continuance serves no purpose. In that case, it is best that the Commission takes definitive action to approval with conditions or to deny the application. This action leaves the applicant with the option to appeal to Council. . !i Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Raymond Nasmeh, 12029 Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Said that their proposed front setback is 25.2 feet. • Advised that there are two other homes on the Court with 25-foot setbacks while the remaining have 30 feet. • Said that their request represents only 29 percent coverage, with 2,936 square feet plus the basement below. • Assured that the groundwater is retained and the property graded towazd the street. A sump pump will be installed in the basement with street size drain caps, per building code. No water from this site will be drained onto neighboring properties. Commissioner Jackman sought clarification that the runoff will be directed to storm drains rather than to the street. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh replied that the storm water would be directed to the Sanitation District's storm drain system. Commissioner Roupe advised Mr. Nasmeh that the Commission strives to minimize the flow of runoff water into the Bay through the use of impervious coverage on projects whenever possible. Applicants ~ aze encouraged to retain water on site. Chair Barry stated that if the inclusion of storm drain plans aze not a part of a standazd application submittal, they should be. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh replied that Storm Drain Plans aze a part of the building plan submittal. , Chair Barry said that it has been a Planning Commission stance to retain as much water on site. as possible rather than directing it into the Bay. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh assured the Commission that these concerns are covered at plan check stage. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Nasmeh whether the same Storm Water Management process would be used as was used for his Saratoga Legends Project. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh replied yes. He continued to say that his client has attempted to follow direction provided by staff. One result was the lowering of the garage entry as well as the changeover from stucco to wood siding to blend with the materials in the azea. Asked for direction in order to be able to proceed. Commissioner Roupe questioned the reasoning behind the rise in the base floor plate by a few inches from the original height:- Mr. Raymond Nasmeh answered that Code requires the base floor plate to be six inches above ground Commissioner Roupe replied that it appears the finish floor of the house would be higher than the existing floor height. Said that since there are mass and bulk concerns, this added height is a concern. Mr. Hamid Adl arvaz A licant'and Pro a Owner 13921 • p pp p rty Loquat Court, Saratoga: i~ . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 5 • Admitted that he had not paid attention to the fmish floor height and saw no reason for this increase in height. • Promised to check with his civil engineer to determine whether there is a compelling reason for this height increase. If not, he is willing to lower the finish floor height so that it is consistent with the current height. Commissioner Garakani asked staff for guidance on the City's standard requirement for finish floor height. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that the City deals with overall height rather than with the floor plate. - Mr. Raymond Nasmeh suggested that resolving this issue could be made a Condition of Approval and resolved appropriately to meet City standards. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the design of the driveway would meet grade standards as it appears to be a steep drive. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh replied that the lowering of the finish floor would lessen the grade of the drive too. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Nasmeh whether they are willing to work with the neighbors to achieve a compromise through redesign. S Mr. Ra mond Nasmeh re lied that he s oke with Mr. Zambetti and the a licant y p p pp spoke with the rest of the neighbors. Mr. Hamid Adlparvar clarified that he wrote a letter and spoke with them over the phone. Commissioner Kurasch inquired why the applicants were not able to develop a design that was acceptable to all. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh admitted that it is hard to make a 2,900 square foot home look like it is only 1,700 square feet. Said that they added wood siding to satisfy others. Added that a 2,900 square foot house is under par in regards to a new home by today's standards. Commissioner Kurasch cautioned that the Commission is not in a position to evaluate economic considerations but rather design and compatibility issues. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh said that this proposed residence is not overly large, it has four bedrooms and two and a half baths. Chair Barry pointed out that approximately -eight letters in opposition to this proposal have been received. Added that a letter was received this evening from Abbas Haghshenas, 15500 Quito Road, Saratoga, in support of this design. • Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:20 .m. p r Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 6 Mr. James Riley, 13910 Loquat Court, Saratoga: • Advised that his residence is located across the street and one house down from this project site. • Reminded that the original application was denied on February 16`}'. This second application has been brought to the Planning Commission based on having changed drawings, however, the only change to the drawings was the addition of screening trees while no attempt seems to have been made to address the concerns raised with the original design was denied. • Said that the demolition of awell-maintained residence, a beautiful house in pristine condition, was unfortunate and would send lots of debris to landfill unnecessarily. • Expressed concerns about the slope of the proposed driveway and the fact that the structure has been placed six feet closer to the front property line. • Added that the roof ridgeline will be higher than the existing and the footprint of this home will completely fill the area. • Advised that the two light wells are encroaching into the sideyard setbacks by two feet. A 10-foot setback is required and the light wells will be at eight feet. • Said that the light wells are an attractive nuisance, which could be dangerous to neighborhood children. • Said that not counting basement space was something that was initiated long ago, when basement space was limited to housing the water heater and other such mechanical uses. • Added that this proposed basement has three bedrooms, a full bath and a family room, all with a separate entrance. This represents a completely independent second living unit in his opinion. • Explained that this street was created in the early 60's and designed for light traffic. Cautioned that the heavy construction trucks risk damaging the roadway and the neighbors will . bear the brunt. • Advised that no one has approached him in order to discuss this proposed project. Mr. Glenn Zucca, 13911 Loquat Court, Saratoga: • Said that his is a corner house. • Advised that he had made himself available to meet with the applicant but the applicant always canceled the scheduled meetings. • .Said that the homes on this Court are in original condition and work well together. They are evenly spaced and similar in architectural style. • .Said that he is not opposed to a remodel nor upgrade that fits within the neighbor. Instead this proposed structure will push the house to within 10 feet of his home when it currently is 22 feet away. This change will -mean that he will be able to see their kitchen from his backyard and will lose privacy. • Encouraged the Commissioners_to visit his home in order to see the potential impact. • Suggested that a full size mock up be required to provide a visual demonstration of what the impact of this structure will be on the neighborhood. • Expressed concern that about the light wells encroaching into required side yard setbacks and the potential impact on adjacent properties. Commissioner Garakani advised Mr. Zucca that the Commissioners had visited the site this week. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that similar comments appear in other letters. Asked what impacts on views Mr. Zucca envisions with the proposed residence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Glenn Zucca replied that the homes on the Court are of a similar size and distance from the street. If this house is constructed closer to the street, it will obstruct views from the other homes on the Court. Added that a careful job was done in designing this Court originally. Mr. Martin Schibler, 13939 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Explained that his is a deep lot that backs Loquat Court. • Said that he concurred with the comments made by Mr. Riley and Mr. Zucca. Chair Barry asked if the Commissioners had any questions of any speakers. Since no one did, Chair. Barry invited Mr. Nasmeh to make his final statements. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh: • Said that regarding Mr. Riley's concerns about the slope of the driveway, a professionally engineered grading plan will be prepared that falls within all codes, including drainage compliance. • Added that the house that will be demolished will actually be recycled. Recycling occurs for several reasons, which range from the fact that there is an earth to preserve to the fact that it is cheaper to the builder to recycle materials as opposed to dumping them into landfill. • Added that this existing structure is a 30 to 40 year building. The electrical and plumbing services are not up to current code. • Explained that the difference in the proposed versus existing front setbacks is but five feet. • Said that they are willing to make changes to remove the roof line variations over the bay windows in the third bedroom and living room in order to conform with the ranch style that is evident in this Court. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:40 p.m. Chair Barry said that the Commission has options that include a vote this evening or' a continuance. Commissioner Garakani suggested proceeding on an approval with conditions. Commissioner Roupe said that changes needed include the simplified roof line, tucking in the bay windows, reducing the entry feature and eliminate the use of a double door and ensure that the finish floor height is not raised beyond the existing finish floor height. Commissioner Zutshi said that she would require a 30=foot front yard setback. Conunissioner Roupe asked Commissioner Zutshi if she would expect a reduction in the square footage of the house. Commissioner Zutshi replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch said that she would rather not condition this project but rather would send it back for redesign. There are more than just a few elements requiring change. Issues include a lack of critical consistency, architectural style, placement, bulk and size. Reiterated that she is not willing to condition an approval. Said that the structure should be reduced by a minimum of 15 percent. Commissioner Jackman said that the 2,936 first floor (without counting the basement space) is not all that large by today's standards. Added that the house does appear too bulky and the front needs to be Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 8 decreased. Said that the light wells should not intrude on the side yard setbacks and should be pulled back so that they do not encroach. Chair Barry said that there was strong direction from Council regarding striving to achieve compatibility with new development. The neighborhood has come forward and given input. Said that she is inclined to pursue that process by letting the neighbors and applicant work together with staff to come to grips. It is clear the neighbors say this proposal is too much. Said that it is unfortunate that no good give and take has occurred between this applicant and his neighbors. Commissioner Jackman said that houses would get larger over the next few years. Wondered how to get people together. Suggested neighborhood meetings. ' Commissioner Roupe warned that requiring the 30-foot front setback will reduce this structure by 500 _ to 700 square feet. Commissioner Zutshi said that perhaps the garage-could be moved back. - Mr. Raymond Nasmeh said that moving the garage would leave an inadequate rear yard, which would impact the enjoyment rights of -for the owner of his rear year and such a negative impact could be appealed. Commissioner Kurasch said that the house would be more consistent with the neighborhood if it includes the same 30-foot front setback. Suggested that the applicants redesign and include the neighbors in the process to help find a good compromise.. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that if the Commission elects to continue this application, it should reopen the Public Hearing and ask the applicant if he wants a continuance or action.this evening by the .. Commission. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:50 p.m. ` Mr. Raymond Nasmeh: • Said that the neighbors and applicant have worked through staff for the last 8 to 10 weeks to no avail. . • Said that he did not believe it would accomplish anyone's need to continue this request. • Added that they have conformed to all codes. • Asked that the Commission move forward tonight and grant an approval with conditions or deny and he can appeal to Council. Chair Barry re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch suggested additional front and side yard screening landscaping. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the light wells be modified in a way that takes into account the safety of children. Commissioner Rou a advised that these li ht wells are re uired b code to rovide a ess from ~'" p g q y p gr the. basement. Suggested some sort of fencing that would prevent children from falling into the light wells. . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, advised that a three to four-foot railing is required by code for the light wells for safety. Chair Barry said the placement of the light wells should be adjusted if they do indeed encroach into the required setbacks. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the distance from the bay windows to the street. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, replied 25 feet. Chair Barry pointed out that many houses do not have a straight line so some portion of the house could be at a 30 feet setback and some at 25 feet. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission approved DR-O1-014 to allow the construction of a new single family residence on property located at 13921 Loquat Court with the added conditions of approval: • The finished floor height shall be no higher than the existing finish floor height; • The bay windows will be recessed so as not to impact the roofline; • The front entry will be changed in style to reduce the grandeur and the double door feature eliminated; • A minimum reduction of 15% in square footage; • The residence shall be set back where possible, with at least a 30-foot setback for the garage; • Minimize the impact of the light wells as they encroach on setback area; and • Provide additional front and side yard screening landscaping: (6-0) Chair Barry advised that the applicants have 15 days to file an appeal. Chair Barry called for a break at 9:10 p.m. Chair Barry reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 LL-00-005 (517-23-021 and 517-22-111) - HUSAIN/KHAN, 15480 Peach Hill Road: Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval for two existing parcels with slope greater than 20 percent. Currently, a residence is located on top of the existing lot line. The purpose of the request is to correct this situation and create two parcels capable of supporting a residential building site in a Hillside- Conservation Residential-zoning district. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 10 . ; • Advised that the applicants are seeking a Lot Line Adjustment for two existing parcels with a slope greater than 20 percent. • Informed that in 1983, a Lot Line Adjustment was approved for this property but never recorded and the approval later lapsed. • Said that there is an existing residence that straddles the current lot line. • Said that this Lot Line Adjustment will create one conforming lot and one non-conforming lot. • Advised that this Lot Line Adjustment will allow a new residence on the second lot. • Said that staff did an Initial Study and is recommending approval of a Negative Declaration. . Interim Director Irwin Kaplan pointed out that staff has distributed a written copy of the technical corrections reported at the beginning of this evening's meeting to clearly outline the amendments to the staff report. Chair Barry sought clarification that the 1983 Lot Line Adjustment was never recorded. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that the approved lot line adjustment was never recorded .and lapsed. Commissioner Roupe asked if the information from the previous lot line adjustment application is available. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that this information was not available. Commissioner Garakani asked whether the house that .straddles the current property line was constructed before or after the establishment of that existing lot line. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that the home was constructed before the property was annexed into the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Roupe said that a rational for creating anon-conforming lot has not been provided: Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that there is no way to get two conforming lots. Chair Barry said that this lot line adjustment doesn't worsen the situation. Commissioner Jackman agreed that no new lots are created. It is the same number of lots. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the lots are both in the City now. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that both lots are now located in Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff for procedures or rules that govern non-conforming lots. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that there is an existing legal but non-conforming lot. If it were possible to create two conforming lots, that would be required. In this case, there is not enough acreage to do so. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a bit of an imbalance between the two lots with Lot A having 4.6 acres while Lot B has just 2.4 acres. That will leave Lot B more constrained. Suggested more evenly balancing the two lots to provide a greater opportunity to build on Lot B. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that this is a legitimate issue to raise with the applicant. Commissioner Zutshi asked if a more detailed survey is available. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, replied no. Commissioner Kuiasch asked whether the lot is conforming if it is one parcel. Ms. Kim Duncan replied that it would be 7.05 acres. The slope density would have to be determined. If the slope were greater than 40 percent, building on the land would be prohibited. Staff would not be able to make that determination this evening. Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that the only ingress/egress to the two parcels would be off of Peach Hill and not off of Sunset. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan clarified that there is no right of access from Sunset. Commissioner Roupe asked why the easement (one-foot non-easement) is being retained rather than eliminated altogether. . Commissioner Kurasch su ested that a ermanent easement be recorded that s ecifies that Peach Hill gg P P will be the only access to the two parcels. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that this would guarantee that such an easement is enacted. Chair Barry pointed out that this requirement is already incorporated into the conditions of approval. Commissioner Roupe asked where the sewer and utility easements are currently located. Chair Barry said that the Commission. could impose conditions on the placement of these easements based upon the Subdivision Map Act. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan corrected the Commission by stated that a Lot Line Adjustment is a special consideration that is not a part of the Subdivision Map Act. The Commission is limited to zoning and building issues. This is not a subdivision under the law. Commissioner Roupe added that imposing future conditions could not be applied at this point. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that one of the conditions states that there is no assurance that Lot B can be developed at all. To construct on that lot, the owner will be required to comply with all City regulations. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 12 . ; Chair Barry pointed out the strong language provided by the Assistant City Attorney on Item 4, page 8. Added that she would like to see this paragraph added to the Negative Declaration. Added that she had a problem approving the Negative Declaration as it appears to be in conflict. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that there is no intention to create a conflict. The lot line adjustment can occur and use of Lot B is conditioned that building on the property is contingent upon being found to be developable and meeting development standards. Chair Barry reiterated her belief that the Attorney's language, in its entirety should be inserted into the Negative Declaration. Asked whether it has been determined if this property is located on a fault. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a letter in the packet that states there are no faults. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that the City's geologist has reviewed this. Commissioner Roupe added that it is stated that there are no known faults on or through the property. Chair Barry stated that she wants this verified. Added that the Commission has not seen the geotechnical map for this area and that she want to verify that the property is not next to or on the fault. Asked staff to explain the differences between Hillside Residential and Hillside-Residential Conservation zones. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, advised that they are the same. Chair Barry o ened the Public Hearin for A enda Item No. 2 at 9:45. .m. p g g P Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Drive, San Jose: • Identified himself as the attorney and representative for the applicant. • Said that the simple issue -is that they have two lots. The northerly lot is the large one with about 5.5 acres. The southerly lot has a house straddling .the .property line. They propose to shift the property .line northward. • Explained that the two. lots are not even because they were attempting to created a lot with a workable building site area to eliminate. the .need for excavation and/or grading in order to accommodate a house on the property. This ,configuration offers a flatter building area and includes appropriate contour lines. Added that with slope formulas, setbacks are established that will fit with the design of a home in the future. .The existing ,home was built without permits in the 1940's, while under County jurisdiction. The existing lot line is the- old section line. • Advised that Sunset Drive was originally established in the Glen Una Subdivision at the end of the 19t" Century, beginning of the 20t Century. Sunset does not intrude into this parcel. The Sunset easement is at the City Attorney's recommendation, aneasement of non-access so that that connection cannot be made in the future. They cannot abandon or grant any easement rights . because they were originally dedicated to the County and the City now has them. Chair Barry asked for verification as to whether there are two accesses to the property. Mr. Norm Matteom: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 13 • Advised that access to this property is only from Peach Hill Road. There are easements off of Chair Barry asked what the status is for the access easement for Lot B. Peach Hill. • Added that this application seeks to correct an existing situation and does not worsen the situation but rather improves it. • Added that they have undertaken geologic and soils evaluations and the outcome was provided in the staff report. The report finds no impact. Further geologic review will be undertaken with any specific proposal for a house on Parcel B. • Pointed out that the conditions go with the property. • Reminded that there is no specific application for a new residence on Lot B at this time. Mr. Norm Matteoni replied that it will be recorded to define the path and assure access to Peach Hill. Chair Barry asked what would occur if future geologic problems are discovered. Mr. Norm Matteoni answered that they will be unable to sell the land without appropriate access. Clarified that the Santa Clara Formation Fault is north of the westerly edge of this property. The letter in the packet states that there are no faults shown to cross the property. Chair Barry said that this information seems to say that the fault does not run through the property but is located but 800 feet away. Mr. Norm Matteoni said that the house is 150 to 200 feet from the road so the fault is about 600 feet from the property. Added that the existing lot patterns are one to two acre sites. These two proposed lots are larger than most along Peach Hill. They are in keeping with the harmony and character of the neighborhood. This lot line adjustment helps for any future residence. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, 14583 'Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Explained that the existing lot line was created before the house. The house was built before building permits were required by the County (they began to issue permits in 1946). • Said that they looked at potential building sites for both lots, topography and trees. • Said that they didn't want to take out trees unnecessarily and conducted a tree survey. • Of the two sites, one has an existing home and the other is down the ridge quite a ways. It is fairly level site with a slope of less than 10 percent. After defining the building sites, they worked backwards to create the proposed lot line. • Pointed out that there are quite a few easements: including sewer (from Peach Hill to Sunset); San Jose Water (from Peach Hill to Sunset); road and utility easements (at two points, one from Peach Hill to the section line and the other between the section line and the Birunbaum property, both of which have slope easements attached). They propose to leave the existing 22-foot easement and extend a new easement to the new property line. Chair Barry asked what the owner's intention is for the building pad area of Lot A. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that they are simply potential building sites for use in determining setbacks. They are not trying to define the actual building area. Commissioner Roupe asked why the proposed lot line placement was selected. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 14 , , Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that for Parcel B scenario they wanted to leave an area behind the potential residence for placement of a pool in the reaz yard. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the lot line be moved west (left) to achieve more balance between the two lots. Added that if Lot B is smaller, it will be more difficult to get an approval to build on that lot. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, admitted that Mr. Husain wants the bigger of the two lots. Added that the only other issue raised that she should address is Sunset. Added that the existing road does not belong to this property and. this owner has no control over it. Added that the City Council could vacate and give this azea to one of the adjacent owners. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the detailed survey of trees. Ms. Jitka .Cymbal, Project Engineer, .replied that she has given that report to the City as well as a topography map, items not typically provide for a lot line adjustment application. Chair Barry asked what the results aze of these reports. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that they depict the contours, trees, drip lines and physical ' ' improvements.. Such information is not generally needed at this stage. In order to design the easement access road, they will conform to the topography. Commissioner Gazakani asked about the easements. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that both easements would be created by the same ,~ document. One easement from Peach Hill to the section .line .and the other from the Biranbaum property to the section line, the purpose and intent for,that easement is unknown. Commissioner Kurasch wondered about combining both 'lots. The formula requires a 9.25 acres in order to be developable. Asked how lazge the net azea, with the slope area ,would be. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that they have not calculated on that basis as they have always looked at this property as two parcels. Commissioner Roupe said that per the staff report, there is a 3.73 acre net requirement for Lot A. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, advised that the Hillside Residential code. requirement is 29 percent slope requires 3.73 acres. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, said that average slope may increase if you reduce the azea. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that Lot A could be reduced and still be conforming. Commissioner Roupe stated his preference for a larger non-conforming lot. Ms. Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, Sazatoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 15 • Stated that her main concern is the access. • Stressed that access needs to come form Peach Hill Road. • Warned that access could come indirectly from Sunset. That could be expanded but shouldn't be used. • Agreed that it would be appropriate to use anon-use easement from both. • Showed the Glen Una map from the 1920's. Commissioner Roupe suggested that a good lawyer will be able to structure an agreement that ensures that access to this property comes only from Peach Hill. Ms. Meg Giberson asked that the Commission consider a continuance. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Giberson to identify her primary concern. Ms. Meg Giberson replied that keeping access off of Willow Creek Canyon is a second concern. She distributed photographs depicting story poles, which were installed on the subject property in February. Commissioner Kurasch advised Ms. Giberson that the City does not have a proposal for a house before it right now. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan reiterated that there is no development application before the Commission. Chair Barry said that this lot line adjustment pre-supposes building pads. Asked Ms. Giberson if she has any other issues to raise. Ms. Giberson expressed disappointment that Saratoga Codes appear to be in conflict with the Subdivision Map Act. Added that she wished more information were available, particularly about the 600 foot driveway that may end up not even being allowed, perhaps due to Fire requirements. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that such issues would be referred to the Fire Department when a specific application is presented. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that if the property owner cannot meet requirements, they will not be able to build on Lot B. Added that only one access will serve these two parcels, off of Peach Hill Road. Commissioner Jackman said that she believes that once there is a legal parceUlot it can be build upon. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised the Commission that a lot cannot be developed if it does not meet City codes. Commissioner Jackman said that she needs more information before she can make a decision on this application. Ms. Meg Giberson distributed copies of a four-page letter to the Commissioners. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 16 .~ Mr. Alan Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, Saratoga: • Backed the comments of his wife and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Darryl Dukes, Resident, Peach Hill Road, Saratoga: • Expressed his opposition to this lot line adjustment. • Provided an updated petition with additional signatures (for a total of eight). • Discussed the inadequate roads in the area. • Questioned why give the opportunity to split these lots. • Opined that the lots should be developed as one lot. • Pointed out that four traffic accidents have occurred on Peach Hill recently since the construction of another new house began in the area. • Complained that he cannot jog while cars are driving along the road. • Stated that Peach Hill Road cannot handle any more traffic. Commissioner Roupe clarified that this lot line adjustment does not automatically approve Parcel B as a developable lot. Added that maintenance/repair of a road during and/or following construction is a standard condition of approval when granting approval to build. Mr. Darryl Dukes warned that one property owner in the area had to spend a million dollars. Warned that it could cost a million to improve *.his road to access Parcel B. Mr. Norm Matteoni • Explained that there are two legal lots here even without a lot line adjustment. • -Added that the owner could simply remove this 1940's home and be left with two buildable lots. • They are only moving a property line. • Agreed that the cost of the road might make building on Lot B cost prohibitive.. „ • Added that they are committed to prohibiting access to Sunset. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Matteoni whether he could support creating a minimally conforming Parcel A and expanding the non-conforming Parcel B. Mr. Norm Matteoni said-that as long as the average slope can be maintained, they could support that recommendation. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the slope formula be determined in order to define the minimum area necessary for Parcel A to keep it conforming and incorporate the rest of the property into Parcel B. Mr. Norm Matteoni again said that this would be acceptable. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. (6-0) Chair Barry stated that the issues seem to be ensuring that the only access easement be from Peach Hill and the repair and/or maintenance of Peach Hill be required in order to build the access road. Commissioner Roupe suggested that this be a condition of approval for building on Parcel B. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 17 Chair Barry asked about the building of the access road to Parcel B. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that this condition be processed as part of the lot line adjustment this evening. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that the requirement for- the recordation of an access easement should be a condition of approval. ' Chair Barry asked about the requirement to repair construction damage to Peach Hill: Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that this is a typical requirement. Commissioner Kurasch wondered if the Hillside District was established prior to 1983, when the unrecorded lot line adjustment was approved and/or before this property was annexed into the City of Saratoga. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that he was unaware of the answer to that question. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the conditions of the original approval could be useful to the Commission. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said not really since the lot line adjustment must meet today's standards. Commissioner Jackman advised that the Hillside Development District was established b the 1974 Y General Plan. Commissioner Roupe said that he was prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Garakani suggested that these properties might be best combined into one lot rather than being divided. Commissioner Roupe advised that the owner seeks a lot line adjustment. Commissioner Kurasch said that Commissioner Garakani raises a good issue. Commissioner Roupe said that Commissioner Garakani can vote no if he does not support the lot line adjustment. Chair Barry reminded that the existing residence is not strictly legal but rather legal non-conforming. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that this is correct. Chair Barry added that this project is grandfathered. _ _ - Commissioner Garakani asked why the properties should be split. Chair Barry replied that they probably want to sell one parcel. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 18 , , Commissioner Roupe reminded that there are already two legal parcels. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration in support of a Lot Line Adjustment Application (LL-00-005) with the following additions: 1. The addition of language, drafted by the Assistant City Attorney (Paragraph 4), into the Negative Declaration that states that the lot line adjustment in no way implies that Parcel B is a buildable lot; 2. Documenting that the Berrocal Fault runs near enough to this property to be .a significant factor in future considerations. (6-0) Chair Barry clarified that approval must have legally strong enough language that offers no assurance of the build-ability of Lot B. Commissioner Kurasch sought a protective easement for Willow Creek. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said tfiat it could be specified that the access easement shall not impair Willow Creek. Commissioner Roupe said that he would be willing to add this as a condition to his motion. Chair Barry suggested that Willow Creek be tested. Commissioner Kurasch said that the existing condition is that these two lots are functionally one parcel. Only one is buildable. One lot is conforming, the other non-conforming. There appears to be an intent to develop both. Said that she is not comfortable supporting this request. Said that there is not enough information and that she does not want to create something that is not up to minimum standards. Stated that she will not support two lots. Commissioner Roupe reminded that the Commission is not creating two lots, there are already two . parcels. However, the house runs through the property line. This lot line adjustment will correct that situation. Parcel B might be non-conforming but both lots already legally exist. Right now, only one is buildable. There is a better chance of approving a building on Parcel B with this lot line adjustment. Advised that to vote against this application is to keep the situation as it is. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission moved to approve a Lot Line Adjustment (LL-00-005) for two parcels with slope greater than 20 percent, with the following additional conditions of approval: 1. Add language that states that in no 'way does approval of this lot line adjustment imply that Lot B is a buildable lot; 2. That the lot line be adjusted so that Parcel A would become a minimally compliant lot within the formula of code and Lot B increased, although it will remain non-conforming; 3. That there shall be no access to Lot B other than off Peach Hill Road; 4. That all access from Sunset be recorded and denied; ~ . 5. That it be specified that any access easement will not impair Willow Creek. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 19 (3-3; Commissioners Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi voted for approvaUChair Barry and Commissioners Garakani and Roupe voted against approval) The motion failed for lack of a majority. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Interim Director Irwin Kaplan announced that a new .Community Development Director, Tom Sullivan, will begin work next week. Additionally, he advised the Commission that Planner Kim Duncan would also be leaving the City of Saratoga at the end of next week after seven months with the City. Chair Barry expressed her farewells and appreciation to Mr. Kaplan for his service as Interim Community Development Director. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, said that it has been a wonderful experience working for the City of Saratoga and that she learned so much. Commissioner Garakani .expressed his appreciation for Ms. -Duncan for assistance she offered to him on one occasion prior to his appointment to the Commission. Chair Barry thanked Ms. Duncan for her service. COMMISSION ITEMS Consideration of Fire Department Application at next meeting: Chair Barry asked whether consideration of the Fire Department application should be continued until after Council meetings in June. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan stated that there is a-valid land use application (Use Permit and Design Review) to be considered. Council is approaching this matter from a policy standpoint. The Commission must consider it from a land use position. Chair Barry said that the work of the Commission on this application could become moot a few weeks later depending on the decision of Council. Commissioner Jackman said that the Commission really has no choice but to consider these valid applications. It is necessary to keep political and land use issues separate. Added that she will not be available for the next meeting. Change in Submission Requirements to Include Landscape Plans: Commissioner Zutshi suggested that an item be agendized for a future meeting in consideration of a ' change in submission requirements to require landscape plans early in the application process for development applications. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 20 , , Commissioner Roupe said that it is hard to prepare landscape plans until the structure is pretty well set on the site. Chair Barry said that it appears the Commission does not yet have a defmitive basis in order to require landscape plan submittals during the initial approval process and is interested in developing whatever protocol necessary to necessitate provision of said landscape plans with each application. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan suggested that this matter be agendized for the next meeting. Chair Barry said That all of the Commissioners seem to feel that this requirement for early submission .. of landscape plans is important, including handscape, fencing and landscaping details. Working with Applicants and their Neighbors Commissioner Garakani suggested getting together with staff to brainstorm on ways to effectively work with neighbors and/or applicants in the future in dealing with conflicts regarding potential development so that these issues may be resolved by all parties prior to Planning Commission hearings when possible. Chair Barry said that with a new director coming on boazd, this is a natural time to have such a discussion, either as a Study Session topic or as a Retreat item. Need for Better Sound during Meetings Commissioner Gazakani asked staff to look into having a speaker added in the Theater neazer to the far right side in order to allow the Commissioners on this side of the dais to better hear one another and members of the audience. County Planning Workshop Commissioner Kurasch announced a workshop, sponsored by the County Planning Department. The date is June 1, 2001, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Cost is $10 and includes lunch. Email Communication One Commissioner had mentioned exchange of email addresses in order to pass along information. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan warned that email amongst Commissioners falls under Brown Act regulations and is considered a matter of public record. Whistle Stop Housing Tour -Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group: Chair Barry announced that she had received a flyer regazding the upcoming Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group's Whistle Stop Housing Tour. Promised to provide it to staff for distribution to any Commissioners who have not yet received this flyer. COMMUNICATIONS I' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 21 Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Adjourned Meeting of March 23, 2001, and April 18, '~ 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 11:27 p.m. to Wednesday, May 23, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: _ Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • • • CONSENT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 8G8-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Connoll ,Associate Planner ~~~~~( y DATE: May 23, 2001 COUNCIL MEI4IBERS: Evan Baker Stan 8ogosian t John Mehaffey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith SUBJECT: DR-00-062; PICO RANCH, INCORPORATED, 20460 Williams Avenue DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1,974 square foot, single story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 2,663 square foot, two-story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 7,671 squaze feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. For additional infromaiton regarding the proposeal, see the attached Planning Commission Staff Report. BACKGROUND This application was originally heazd at the April 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting (see the attached excerpt minutes of the April 25, 2001 meeting). At that time the Commission suggested that the applicant meet with staff and one representative from the neighborhood to reach a compromise between the applicant and neighbor's interests. The Commission also suggested that the redwood tree be retained, five additional feet be provided for the front yard setback and the size and bulk of the home be reduced. The applicant agreed to a continuance in order to meet with - staff and the neighbors and re-design the proposal to address the Commission's concerns. DISCUSSION Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant met with staff and a representative of the Neighborhood Committee. The project has now been redesigned which includes the following: t OOU00~ Printed on recycled paper. File No. DR-00-062; 20460 Williams Road • The front yard setback was increased by ten feet (i.e., to 35 feet); • The side yard setback on the right side was increased by six inches (i.e., to six feet, six inches); • The massing on the front elevation was reduced by eliminating the planter box and trellis; • The covered deck on the rear elevation was eliminated; • The screening on the second story balcony was revised to provide additional privacy for the neighbor; and • The redwood tree was saved (i.e., the distance between the foundation and the trunk of the tree remains the same as the previous proposal). The Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Committee has submitted the attached memorandum dated May 3, 2001 indicating support for the revised plans. Staff feels that the applicant has made significant design changes in an effort to address the Planning Commission's concerns and that all the Design Review findings can be made to support the application RECOMMENDATION Approve the application by adopting .Resolution DR-00-062. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-00-062 2. Excerpted Planning Commission hearing minutes, Apri125, 2001 3. Memorandum from Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Committee dated May 3, 2001 4. Memorandum from Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Committee received April ~, 2001 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 28,2001/Revised April 11, 2001 6. Original Photoperspectives 7. Revised Photoperspectives 8. Previous Plans, Exhibit "A" • o~OUQi: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-00-062 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA PICO RANCH, INC; 20460 Williams Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 2,663 square foot residence on a 7,671 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant. has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community vie~~ sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the home is set back 52 feet from the rear property line, double that required buy code, which affords privacy to the property adjacent to the rear of the home. The second-story balcony proposed on the eastern elevation of the home' follows the Residential Design Guidelines Handbooh. Specifically, Policy 3, Technique #1 "Control View to Adjacent Properties" identifies orienting upper floor balconies toward large yard areas and the use of structural features to limit view angles. The view from the balcony would be ].united and- afford privacy to the neighbors, given the configuration of the proposed construction. Where one would stand on the balcony is pulled back from the first floor roofline approximately two feet, directly utilizing Design Technique #1 of the Guidelines. Additionally, the view would be toward the neighbor's roof, accessory structure and a very limited part of the backyard. The natural landscape is preserved in the design of the home. No trees would be removed. Additionally, the lot is flat. The grading proposed is required to construct the basement, which would not alter the terrain as seen from adjacent and neighboring properties or from publicright-of-ways. ®UUUO~ __ .. _ ________~_ y File No. DR-00-062; 20460 Williams Road The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by des boning structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimising tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed azeas and undeveloped areas and in that no trees would be removed Additionally, the lot is flat. The grading proposed is required to construct the basement, which would not alter the terrain as seen from adjacent and neighboring properties or from public right-of-ways. The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which rr-inim~e the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment in that fifty percent of the homes along Williams Avenue aze two-story. Two of the one-story homes (including the adjacent home) have- steeply pitched or high roofs that bring their height to approximately 20 feet, similar to a two-story structure. The proposed grading would not alter the existing topography of the site. The site is already flat. No trees would be removed as a result of construction. The natural environment would remain predominately, as it currently exists. The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential .structures on adjacent, lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The construction requires a Ciry-issued building permit. Appropriate grading and .erosion control methods will be required as a part of that permit. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. Now, THEREFOttE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Pico Ranch Incorporated for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: • • OUODU~ File No. DR-00-062; 20460 Williams Road COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A', incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. The plans indicate that there will be no more than one fireplace. The plans shall indicate if it is a gas or wood burning fireplace. The wood burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. u. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iv. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans.„ v. The second-story deck shall include lattice and plantings to insure privacy to the adjacent neighbor. vi. All construction, including entry-columns shall be behind the 25-foot front setback line. b. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. 3. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed with the exception of tree #3 without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. Should tree #3 be removed it shall be replaced with a 36" box and 15-gallon Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, California Buckeye or Coast Redwood. Revised landscape plans shall be submitted for administrative review and approval as a part of the building permit application. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. ~®DOQS File No. DR-00=062; 20460 Williams Road y 5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. CITY ARBORIST 7. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 03/06/01 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a: The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted-on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note °to remain in place - throughout construction.° The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to - issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles. shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. Should tree #3 be removed, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing the location and type of replacement tree which shall include either a 36" box and 15-gallon Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, California Buckeye or Coast Redwood. - 8. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $12,661 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 9. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 10. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 0®OUO~; File No. DR-00-062; 20460 Williams Road 11. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence and driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to tree # 1; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. 13. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I~). 14. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new residence. A 4-head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. 15. All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders. City Attorney 16. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or -Federal Court, challenging the Ciry's action with respect to the applicant's project. 17. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. • OQ~~~+U-'1' File No. DR-00-062; 20460 Williams Road Section 2: Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section- 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. .~_- -- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of May 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ~ :' ~-- ~, Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission •I •i •i 0®0~0~ CITY OF SARATOGA CHECK REQUEST FORM Vendor Name: California Department of Justice Vendor Address: Accounting Office -Cashiering Unit P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Date: May 15, 2001 Vendor #: Check Date: P.O/Contract Account Number Invoice # Amount Description 1 001-1040-413-OS-00 347508 $32.00 Fingerprint Processing (1) Massage Permit 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Total Amount $32.00 Submitted By: Steve Prosser Additional Information Massage Applicants fingerprint card processing for one applicant. Cost is $32.00 per applicant (Duyen "Daisy" Tran Approved By: Community Development Director Administrative Services Director City Manager Tom Sullivan Mary Jo Walker Dave Anderson 000009 •i ~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ®©UU~O •i •i Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 3 • CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-062 (397-28-013) - PICO RANCH, INC., 20460 Williams Road: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,974 square foot single-family residence and construct a new 2,663 square foot, two-story residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 7,671 square foot parcel is located in the 4-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/11/01). Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report: • Advised that this item was continued from the April 11, 2001, Planning Commission agenda. • Said that the application is for approval to demolish a 1,974 square foot, single-story residence-and detached garage and to construct a new 2,663 square foot, two-story residence with attached garage. • Informed that this is a substandard lot with just 50-foot width. The required lot width in this zoning district is 85 feet minimum. • Pointed out two concerns raised by adjacent neighbors as being privacy impacts from a rear deck and the proposed front setback for this project. • Advised that the applicant has offered to install additional landscaping to buffer the balcony. • Staff is recommending approval of this proposal. Chair Barry opened the.Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:05 p.m. ,- Mr. John Ridder, Applicant: • Said that he has worked closely with Planning staff and has met all design criteria, including a 25- foot front setback. The rear yard setback is 52 feet when only 25 feet is required. The proposed height, at 23 feet, is three feet lower than the maximum allowable. The second story setback is eight feet more than required. • Advised that this home has been developed to fit in with the neighborhood. • Said that is response to the concerns outlined in the letter from the Neighborhood Watch, dated April 3, 2001, they are proposing a screening trellis. • Added that upon conducting a survey of the front setbacks in the area, only one home has a 38-foot setback. Most homes are 25 feet or less set back from the front property line. • Said that he believes they have met and exceeded the City's criteria and design guidelines. • Added that they are willing to work with staff and neighbors to solve any concerns. Commissioner Kurasch said that in order to minimize the perception of bulk, the home couldn't appear to stick out at the front of the property further than the adjacent homes. Added that it may be necessary to slightly reduce this home in size. - Mr. John Ridder replied that he has met all guidelines. . Commissioner Zutshi asked what size homes are in the immediate area. 0~0~~~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 4 Mr. John Ridder replied that a similar home is located just down the street from this site. Mr. George Elliott, 20462 Williams Road, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is located adjacent to this parcel. • Added that the home mentioned by Mr. Ridder, Jack Cook's home, is set back behind its adjacent neighboring homes. • Added that recent infill projects have been sensitive to setbacks. • Read the letter from the Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Committee into the record: The Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Committee respectfully ask the Saratoga Planning Commission to consider and act on two requests which affects our neighborhood concerning the Proposed Site Plan for 20460 Williams Avenue. The first request is to review the "interference with privacy" of the deck shown on the left/front elevation of the proposed site plan. Please read Police 3 #1: Control view to adjacent properties on page 19 of the Residential Design Handbook, City of Saratoga. In this context, we believe the proposed design does not work. The city planner for this project and the architect have already come to that same conclusion.. We would like to find a solution that is agreeable to John and Chris Pace whose home is adjacent to the Left/East elevation. - Secondly, tl:e Committee would like to "minimize the perception of bulk" on the proposed site plan by having the house use the same front setback that now exist with the present home at this location. Again referring to the. Handbook Police 1 #S: Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood, page 8. Under the design Don'ts section we quote:' "Avoid overwhelming existing residences and do not design to attract attention or stand out. " - .. We do not object to the building of atwo-story, 4057 square foot house set between two 1600 square foot homes. We do object to the "sticking out" 13 feet beyond the existing front setback which would not be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. We think the proposed setback does not minimize the perception of bulk but in fact x~ould maximize it and "set it apart " frvm the existing surroundings. We have a positive example in the neighborhood on how this can work where neighbors and developers both win. Jack Cook of Cook Construction Company set his new two-story house on Williams slightly behind his neighbor's front setback. If you view the house, as many of you on the Planning Commission did, clearly this works with the existing surroundings and it minimizes the bulk issue. (By the way, the same designer working on the site at 20460 Williams Avenue designed the Cook house.) Botlt Cook Construction and Blackwell Properties, who are working on "infill "projects on our street have been very sensitive to front setbacks and keeping the look consistent with the neighbors so not to overwhelm them. Therefore, our neighborhood committee is asking the Planning Commission not to approve the proposed design without adoption of our two requested modifications. O®U®~~: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 5 Signed: M/M Pace, M/M Elliott, M/M Kerin, M/M Hart, M/M Rockwood, M/M Hulme, M/M Kwan, Ms. Felcyn, Ms. Anderson and Ms. Paxton. • Added his belief that Mr. Ridder can design to better fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that one issue is tree retention. Mr. George Elliott replied that they could either reduce the size of the 4,000 + square foot home .or design around the trees. Commissioner Jackman advised Mr. Elliott that he should not count the 1,092 square foot basement as actual square footage. The actual home is 2,663 square feet per City code. Mr. Anthony Kerin, 20461 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is directly across the street from this property. • Added that he will be visually impacted by the bulk and mass of this proposed structure and that the wishes of 17 neighbors should be respected. Mr. Theo Hart, 20431 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that his home is also across the street and down from the proposed home. • Said that this is a great neighborhood and the real issue is having a contiguous line in the front year setbacks on the street. Chair Ba asked whether Mr. Hart and the other Nei borhood W ITY gh atch members would be willing to appoint one representative to meet and work out issues with the developer and staff. Mr. Theo Hart replied absolutely. Mr. Allan Hulme, 20485 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Identified his home as being across the street and two house over. • Said that none of the neighbors is opposing the construction of this home just the proposed setback from the street. The proposed setback would be very different from what is there now. This is already a bigger and two-story home coming onto this lot. • Stated that it is important to take the neighborhood into consideration. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Hulme if size (bulk and mass) is issues for him. Mr. Allan Hulme reiterated that their only concern is how this home will relate to the other houses on the street. Chair Barry stated that it is always a key consideration of the City to take into consideration neighborhood compatibility. Ms. Chris Pace, 20450 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that her home is next door to this site. • Said that the proposed balcony was her original concern as well as the potential of bulk and the home sticking out. 00001.3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri125, 2001 Page 6 • Said that the tree being retained could be removed as far as she is concerned as it has caused many sewer problems over the last 15 years. • Suggested that removing that one tree will allow the home to be moved back. Commissioner Jackman stated that she would not support the removal of this tree. Mr. John Bidder: • Clarified that he had nothing to do with the design of the Cook home. Architect Bruno Marcelic, who shares office space with him, did that design. • Said that the Commission should consider the setbacks of the whole neighborhood and not just five homes. • .Said that he is unable to remove the tree as it is recommended for retention in the Arborist report. -- • Pointed out that the setback for the Kerin Home across the street is just 16 feet. • Reminded that the second story setback is 33 feet from the front property line. Commissioner Jackman stated that she felt the design could be reworked. Chair Barry asked Mr. Bidder if he is willing to work out issues together with a neighborhood representative and staff. Mr. John Bidder replied that he would be so willing. Commissioner Kurasch wondered if the garage might be better detached than attached. Mr. John Bidder replied that a detached garage would result in a vary narrow home to allow the driveway. ,. ~ w Motion: Upon- motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:34 p.m: (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Comrriissioner Jackman suggested that the project be redesigned and returned for further review Advised that Mr. Bidder would have to retain the redwood tree. Commissioner Kurasch said that a compromise could be struck with a balance between the applicant's and neighbors' interests. Said that the home should have a deeper front setback and reduction in size and bulk. Suggested scaling the project back by about 10 percent, with a deeper setback and retention of the redwood tree. Commissioner Zutshi concurred. Mr. John Bidder asked for further clarification. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the setback should be about 30 feet and a reduction in bulk. s Chair Barry stated that the applicant can meet with staff and one representative from the neighborhood. It appears that five additional feet in front setback, for a total of 30 feet and the retention of the tree are specifics offered by the Commission. ®®0~~4 r- ' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 7 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman seconded b Commissioner Ku y rasch, the Commission continued consideration of DR-00-062 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to work with staff and a neighborhood representative in order to develop an alternative design that provides a 30-foot front setback and some reduction in bulk and size as well as the retention of the redwood tree. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are Iivo vacant seats.) *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 -~ UP-00-013 (386-44-040 - NEXTEL, Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive: Request for Use Permit approval to install nine, four-foot tall panel antennas mounted 84 feet high on an existing 143-foot tall utility lattice tower. A proposed 50 square foot equipment shelter surrounded by a six-foot high wood fence would be located on the northwest portion of the property north of Cumberland Drive on Cox Avenue. (CONTINUED FROM 4/11/01.) Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for a Use Permit to install nine antennas on an existing utility tower. • Said that an equipment shelter will be constructed and will include an air conditioning unit that will run continuously to maintain the equipment within. • Said that staff is recommending approval of this application and adoption of a Negative Declaration. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Ashraf Rageh, Nextel Representative: w'~- .. _ • Said that he worked closely with the City and was able to reduce the shelter for the equipment to a seven-foot high, five by nine footprint, surrounded by a six-foot fence enclosure at 25 by 25 foot with redwood slats. • Added that there is already quite a canopy of existing landscaping in the immediate area. • Said that they are prepared to meet the Conditions of Approval. - Chair Barry pointed out a letter received from a neighbor which outlines concerns about cumulative effect of radio waves on the area. Mr. Ashraf Rageh advised that they have hired a consultant to conduct a pre and aft study of the site and area for RF (Radio Frequency) exposure. Mr. Bill Hammett, RF Consultant to Nextel: • Stated that he conducts tests to calculate and measure radio frequency exposure and develop . mitigation if necessary. -~, _ _ ?~ - • Said that he has visited the site and this project will comply with all FCC standards. Frequency is 100 times below the allowable standards with this installation. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the. applicant could support requiring annual emissions tests as a Condition of Approval. ®®0~~5 - -- o ~ ~~r; ~a ~ ~o ~ ~'`t _` Q ~~ o ~--~--~ i _ d O ..c U ,. a*u~ o . ~ o 4 ~ ~ ~ .,,'~i~ j B ~ ~ ., ° I ~4~ L~3 e~~,r b' "~' n ~ ~~ 0 6B d~ ~~~ ry // e ~,> ~ 9 ° o r ~ o 1 ~ ~~ ~ LJ o-9 U~ ~ ~ k' _ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ J~ o /. G o ,~, ~~ ~ $ d ~ .. ~6 ~A° ~ ~ q ~~o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~% ~ o ~ , o g~~ ~V p ~ n -y ~ /" r 4 ~; oo ~ ~ ~ O O ~rlt f r ,! Y ~ ~~ .M sr <.. ii?T ~4 ~_.- ~ O Sid ~ - ~+~ + ~ ar .~, ^A r f` ~ .... ~ ~.. a^, t' ~ ~0 O O ~ ; ~. '~ - ty ~y. FF (~ (^) e ,3,~ ,. , ~~, , i gym,,. . V `r~\~ ~ .i. .??j`. ~k.~ .,~2. tt ~ ~ '' '$ . ,.:,,~a•~3 VAS is ~~ f ~.5 ~ ~i Try •~ ~~ ~ .5 - g ..o ~ Y~~~~ Y~ 3 r ~ ~,y J ,, { ,W :h~ f t.~, 4 ~ y +af' a s r , ~~ 4 ~. p-~~ f v> M ~+1 ~CSv 3 L ;k t Y :~ ~, , F e r..~ A;; `~ wr „ ''~ ~k~ ~ l~r ~ ~ ? r ~ •fv Sp v~y. 2d ~?~R~ ~}?: 4 - ~, 7 ~ ~ -~~s ~ ~ ~.r~,F' ~[ ~.I ~ c~.r ~ ?,~,7~ ~"G~~y , rti,r '! r t4 r'` '.~, v ~~ ~ o r ~ a ~~ n~a f f ,.,, ~ ~ 9 '' 1 ~ ) " ~ ~~~ 74 t r ~ 'cr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A,a } 1 [ ~ ~ a ~ .. w: a, '..uvr^i~ err' ~ o f' v r F` ~ 4 ~o ~ o h S/ r~-Fw'" (f~ r '~ J v ~~ a .. '"§r ~ J "'~!1 ~E ~3~: sue' t`.~:g~,'~t~~ %'r ~ o ~ ~~ .l~r~~h 'u za /~~~, ,~ ... M~~~sG~ 4'r`a'.-~~w'~w''l, ' ~d ,. rf ,~, 3 ,+,*. t~. -rm ..F _ cA -_!. y A' > a ~ :`d` '~ ~ r1 ~ ` V ~ ~(A,~~ ~~ O f ~ r f~~ ~r. 1 i, °. . ~ l J~~O~ j ~ ~ `~ j ~~ ~F n ! j .,. `i v ~ ~ i . F ~ `l ~~ J w /J ^`. ~ f ~ i Q, a~ . 0 ~(\~\)~110~1aaa11"' p0 ~ ~: f ~Sy' f ~ ~ y e~gAo ~~~~0 I ~~~ ~ ~` _ , °~. f ~•~: *_ ~`` N;. r. ,~0 O /~ r S ~~ / L ~ 9 cy~ /AG S~ 4 y 6 as t yr ~~ _ ~/ ~' E' 0 ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ o ~~~ doo ° , ~~ ~ ~ ° ~ v ~o~o ,~ o~ o~ `, ~ ~ . , ~opooo 0 ,~ o~~~ 3~. ~, _/ G~~ nO i~ -' I__ ~ .. - i - .. -.. i ,. o v ~ • 000018 }. 1 ~x v" n "'~w,^~`',~ ~ ~ 9 'l ~) G rib o. r 1~ -4 ~~ ~ /~~/~ o ~ /i ~ ~~ ~~i / i. .~ s ~ qp s ~ l/ ~ ~ a ~ // a' B b o \v1A1' ~ ~ 'S ~~ o o ~ .o ~ D ~ ~ ~ dr ~~ i 1 M1 ~ •~ u ill k e Ca 0, - e ~ 9 aN ~r „ d ~ / ~ t p o ! u` 0 a FF p~ ~ o ~' a 0 ~(/ // t ~ ~ ~ n ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ b~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~_ ~ .A pr° „~ 4 tl ~ O o0 0 O .X' ~~ ,. fl ~,~ h ~q ~7 0 ~1 G[, .• O e~ o,R ~ ~ ~ O~ ^ ~ tt gb. 1 b~ r '. ~ ~ u ~S ~ ~ A~ o ~ w ~ ~N ~ Y ~ U O Y{ a S •,' ¢~ ~i! O ~ ~ u. Jn4 +y ' ,, rr /( °" °' ~J}.rz ~ ` ' ~' r.1~1 ~~ e s O ~ r A g ~~ 0 v ~ 4 ? ~ - 1 ~- r ~ ; k 3Ax x ~ ~ ~ fr x = ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ - (V\O 1Y ' ~Ft ~"*u"~ix;,rt~~ 1C .rte "'~ w 9,., 4i a ,'% 0 na. .k }^r . y ~ ,N YX e~ r 4 ~ (~i. sJ ''~~ Y~p~ }r t y N'n^fr P' k ~.'S .^.4 ! r••l7 / ea •.i Yr } ~} a `~ "`~ ii R r v..~~fl'd .. ~n$~y, ~^" y!. ~. e.J,' .- ' ~ 1 ' ,~ ~ ~ "~ o 'sY~ L~~:) # t~C `Ta'~`+.~i"7i~Y$'i'~•kr;^ : a " ri ~ '. Y ~ • : tur e ~~'h a~ h L b ~ Stk.: d-af. ,~,'~ .~.rz 7ar~`ir ~ :~_ • 'a lr~,~~,~ ~ ~k,. r9 ^ ;, r .' , ',- }{ - V J r- ~`}*+ a,~ ,Fr ^;,,~ 'n ~r Jl~ w x ~~ 4~s c~ ,,?p t ~ '"~~~ }~ , _ •(~x~.,. r _ i F ^ . z ~ s (zv~, *.. r ,s'k~ 5'~iF~i"i ~ , r, .*^ ,~f".a, ~ .. - o~ ~ 9 ~~ ~ t"]a t a r f ~ y~' G ~ (~.. h y "Y'e '~!J 'F 5 cn 0 ., ~ o . 4 r 1r J ~ ~ a ,h~ ,fir ~~` "" ~` T'~'fr-~'iN F' ~ix . ~ y~J ~ B ~ {1 "~ r ~.. b 0 ~ n <' a ~. 'Try '0 6' .O ~l F S. { i ~~r~~ a, ~ ~ 1 .~ " hb ~` `~ 9 ~ ,:r,~ R.y q (a, 1 a, ~) o ~ ~ , ~ 1~')AO 1 a'~N(iT ~ ~ Ji ~.. ~ v ~ a1 ~ ~ ~ ~J7 ~.p a ~•~ ~ y ~ r °' ~ ~- ?,' ~0~ a 1 ~~~pgl^;~S•• :k~ H ~, ~~ ~'rt. f, ) `Eet ~ J;' v,~ ~ ~ _ _ ~~ ~'`~y. ~~t,r ,r• ~S ~~,4~~.7~..3 r Z ~ey~?'1 ~~Y ~ r ~ :~b S ~- ; ~60 a ~ fl .$' ' ~ , ~,;, ~ r~' _ ~ ,e> ..d'.: P~`lif"~¢*~k 4t1~'+ ~ n'1j~'~~ a~ ~t x,v+'1 -'7rka~ ~ ''~~ n a .. '~ ."/N~~jq'~lr Z-: 3 ~~ 4 .. ,.a~~Ni:~r..sn..~t:. r0 0 !f''- .°! l fl^ ~~,~ ~` x!H f wtvs,~ a: ", ~ sf ,4ki- 5 ~ r ~+ 1~`' - br tir r ~ srl ~ ~A~ ~ ~ ~~v ~ .. t. ~ ~> 5, ~ ,:+~ ets (..:~ r 1 et:: ".zr! b... r ri i u ~r: 1 ~ z,. a ~ ~ ~ ~.,. o ~~ .M.W.y.1 41 A N _ ~ ~ T ~ H ~jJ ~lO ~ ~`~s .s~~' ^ ~4 d, ~ F oV' P- * °z~'*~x~ ~ ~,w Ly 3r { oQo~ VO ~ ~ vrpG~ 4 ~,:~ t ~ 'a, \~D d c7 ~s '{ ~-~ _ ~ - !.. (' .- o~~~ '"' q.. i~7 S~~p1N01 4-~9~ ''~ ~~~ 1 ~~ n ~ Q ^~~ .. ~t ~. "rJ v. ~~ _ SG~~~F~1~'t O O O d~~ ~ M ~ ray' a"y .O - ° Ut sy '~ r +Wo t ~(rlvr O ~O O ~. "~~1 ~~i _nU~ e r ~ ~~pp~ Q a ~^. 9 } ,?I o a?~ 5~ :F i .. F ~ 541~~~ 4 .vi.. o.EW '~ J.t} * r ~~~ 000 ~ OO r5 ~~~ p/.,~ r et2` >~~~ A ~ ~~ ~ Q8o ~ ~ .~ Y}~ .? ~' ~"~' ..0 ~"~~~ ,. K~ /P ;/ L1 dy a "`ys ° ~ i ~S)CG~:.. ~S~.nA''+.ai.'.'-9 ^` O ~ i 1 / .L1' ~ y1 '" A7 U "Tt1 ~ f-;°; ~.n. ~ 1._' ~„ ~ ~f,(~/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 p 0 Y fr 3P '~~ 9,;/` ~ a ..+=r':•Gr~;CwYS`w-.~Y-:+.r Ada ~,.1~ iA. o U L~ ~l \e~.~o~ ~ ~~_..__ _ _ _ _ .. ~, ,__r _ . • • ~DQ~tiO .,: ~:~ -.. ~~_ .., '. ~~ .~ :`„ -~ ~~~ ~_ ~ Y t ax, 't. +r ' p. +ai - r .'. ~ , ~ w„'",~ ,.Y" ~ ; C ~, ~ ~ -. 3 .l.- t ~ N ,~ ~~. ® :1~ :; e t r i' s:~?; 'S~ fi'~M r. _~v: :. .xw • rAf ,~S a. ao :_ . -.. ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ { h 5~':~, ~ `' T . ~~r ~~'`~~00002~ S ~. • • ~;,. .r~ a r~ •\ 0 ®oo~/ • Reference: DR-00-062 The l~llianss Ave.11'eigltborl~ood Watclt Committee respectfully ask the Saratoga Planning Commission to consider and act on two requests which affects our neighborhood concerning the Proposed Site Plan for 20460 Williams Ave. The first request is to review the `interference with privacy' of the deck shown on the left/front elevation of the proposed site plan. Please read Policy 3 # 1: Control view to adjacent properties on page -19 of the Residential Design Handbook, City of Saratoga. In this context we believe the proposed design does not work. The city planner for this project and the architect have already come to that same conclusion. We would like to find a solution which is agreeable to John & Chris Pace whose house is adjacent to the Left/East elevation. Secondly, the Committee would like to `minimize the perception of bulk' on the proposed site plan by having the house use the same front setback that now exist with the present home at this location. Again referring to the Handbook Policy 1 #5: Design structure to fit with existing neiglzborliood, page 8. Under the. design DON'TS section we quote; "Avoid overwhelming existing residences and do not design to attract attention or stand out". S We do not object to the building of a 2-story, 4057 sq. ft. house set between 2 1600 sq. ft. homes.. We do object to the "sticking out" 13 feet beyond the existing front setback which would not be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. We think the proposed setback does not minimize the perception of bulk but in fact would maximize it and "set it apart" from the existing surroundings. We have a positive example in the neighborhood on how this can work where neighbors and developers both win. Jack Cook of Cook construction Co. set his new 2-story house on Williams slightly behind his neighbors front setback. If you view the house, as many of you on the Planning Commission did, clearly this works with the existing surroundings and it minimizes the bulk issue. (By the way the same designer working on the site at 20460 Williams Ave designed the Cook house.) Both Cook Construction and Blackwell Properties, who are working on `infill' projects on our street have been very sensitive to front setbacks and keeping the look consistent with the neighbors so not to overwhelm them. Therefore our neighborhood committee is asking the Planning Commission not to improve the proposed design without adoption of our t~vo requested modifications. ' See attached list of Williams Avenue Neiehborhood Watch conunittcc ~ ~~~o~~ ~ APR 0 4 2001 CITY OF SAItATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' 0®0023 i Williams Ave Neighborhood - Watch Committee • John Pace 20450 Williams Ave. Chris Pace • George Elliott 20462 Williams Ave. Casey Elliott • Tony Kerin 20461 Williams Ave. Linda Kerin • Theo Hart 20431 Williams Ave. Vicki Hart • Bob Rockwood .20445 Williams Ave. Cindy Rockwood • Allan Hulme 20485 Williams Ave. Julie Hulme • Braden Kwan 20473 Williams Ave. Cecilia Kwan • Gloria Felcyn 20440 Williams Ave. • Lynda Anderson 20490 Williams Ave. ~c~- BPNs • Lori Paxton 20426 Williams Ave. Date: ~~RIL ~/ ~~~ ~i ®0.0024 ~~~ ) ~~- • -" ~ """" FHX N0. 8b79488 MEMU OF UNDERSTANDING To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission From: The Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Commiaee Date: SI3/Ol Reference: DR-00-062 May. 03 2001 11:56AM P1 After meeting with John Rider, designer and spokesman for Pico Ranch inc. & Mark Connolly, Assistant City Planner, the members of the committee have resolved our two major concerns over the development at 20460 Williams Ave. Tl,e resolution came about by a new design by Mr. Rider which set the house back to 35 feet with some reduction of the garage bulk affect. Also some additional side setback space of 6 inches was achieved. • The new proposed site plan we approved was the revision dated 5/1/O1. We understand that `prior to foundation inspection by the city, the R.C.1~ or 1,.1...5. of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans'. The committee of course, would like a copy of that certification before framing takes place The committee would like to say "Thank You" to the Planning Commission for its insight into our neighborhood issues. Yours is, most of the time, a thankless task. However, without your work, residents would not have the check & balance necessary when `competing interests' are at stake. __ Gratefully Youn, The Committee MAY 1 4_ 2001 CITY OF SARATQGA CU~4htUNITY C£~~~.i^DME~(T • ~®®~2S ODU026 • • • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-00-062; 20460 Williams Avenue Applicant/Owner: PICO RANCH, INCORPORA D Staff Planner: Allison Knapp, Contract Pl er Date: March 28, 2001/Revised April 11, 2001 (See Correspondence Section) APN: 397-028-013 Department Head: J ~ 3~~ • ~ r ~ ~ ~ North -~ ~a~~ SITE ~ ~~' _ ~, ~` ~ ~ W ` ~ ( a~ % y "/ Y ~~ - ~ ii -i 1 i ~~__ 20460 Williams Avenue 00002'7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12/OU00 03/06/01 03/14/01 03/15/01 03/09/.01 The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1,974 square foot, single story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 2,663 square foot, two-story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 7,671 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-00- 062. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-00-062. 3. Arborist Report dated 03/06/01 4. Revised Deck Treatment, Exhibit "A" 5. Plans, Exhibit "B" • • • ~®~®~~ File No. DR-00-062; 20460 WilliamsAvenue • • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - M-10 Medium Density (corrected) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 7,671sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than 1% GRADING REQUIRED: 516 cubic yards of cut to a depth of 10 feet in order to construct the basement (no fill is proposed). MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior finish will be light gray horizontal seven inch exposure wood siding; white painted wood corbels and cultured stone `Aspen Country Legstone' column pediments. Roofing will be a `Weathered Grey' rustic shake ("fire free"). Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. (This Area Intentionally Left Blank) P:\Planning4Ulison\StaffReports\20460W illiamsSRS.doc UUUU29 File No. DR-00-06Z; 20460 WilliamsAvenue Proposal Code Requirements • Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 35% 60% Driveway Front Walk and Patio 570 sq. ft. Rear Patio 144 sq. ft. Basement Egress 156 sq. ft. First Floor 177 sq. ft. 1,722 sq. ft. . TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 2,769 sq: ft. Floor Area: First Floor 1,322 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Second Floor 941 sq. ft. Garage 400 sq. ft. (Basement) (1,392 sq. ft.) TOTAL 2,663 sq. ft. 2,664 sq. ft.' Setbacks:. _ Minimum Requirement .Front . 25 ft. 25 ft. Front - 2nd floor 33.ft. 25 ft. Rear 51' 9" 25 ft. Rear - 2nd Foor 55' 9" 35 ft. Left Side 6 ft. 6 ft. z ' Left - 2nd floor. 6 ft. 6 ft. 2 Left -2nd at the balcony 8 ft. 6 ft. Z Right Side 6 ft. 6 ft. Z Right - 2nd.floor 9 ft. 6 ft. z Height: Maximum Allowable Residence ~ 23 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garage N/A 12 ft. 3 PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1,974 square foot, single story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 2,663 square foot, two-story 'This maximum floor area reflects a reduction for building height per 415-45.030(f). '' Per Section 15-65.160, reduced side setbacks are allowed because the lot is substandard in terms of width. ' The Planning Commission may grant up to 15 feet if the appropriate findings can be made. r~ • P:~Planning~Allison\StaHReports~20460WilliamsSRS.doc 000030 File No. DR-00-062; 20460 WilliamsAvenue residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 7,671 square feet (legal non-conforming in area) and is locatedwithin an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Of the 22 surrounding single-family homes, 11 are one-story and the remaining are two- story. Additionally, two of the one-story homes contain a steeply pitched or high roof that brings the height of the structure to approximately 20 feet. The architectural palette of the neighborhood is a mix of vertical and horizontal wood siding, brick and stucco. The landscaping is mature. The subject site is flanked to the east by a taller (approximately 20 foot high) one-story home with a steeply pitched roof. The home to the west is a shorter one-story home. Eight of the 11 homes across the street from the site are two-story strictures. The two-story residence has been designed to avoid unreasonable interference v;~ith views and privacy of adjacent residences. The home is set back 52 feet from the rear property line, double that required by code, which affords privacy to the property adjacent to the rear of the home. The second-story balcony proposed on the eastern elevation of the home follows the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Specifically, Policy 3, Technique #1 "Control View to Adjacent Properties" suggests orienting upper floor balconies toward large yard areas and using structural features to limit view angles. The view from the balcony would be limited and afford privacy to the neigh~~ors, given the configuration of the proposed construction. Where one would stand on the balcony is pulled back from the first floor roofline approximately two feet, directly utilizing Design Technique #1 of the Guidelines. Page A-2 of the architectural drawings illustrates this view comdor. The view from the balcony would be toward the neighbor's roof, accessory structure and a very limited part of the backyard. The natural landscape is preserved in the design of the home. No trees would be removed. Additionally, the lot is flat. The grading (i.e.; cut) proposed is required to construct the basement, which would not alter the terrain as seen from adjacent and neighboring properties or from public right-of-ways. The design elements, which include articulating all four elevations of the second-story with insets, reduce the perception of bulk. The second story addition is 54% the size of the . ground floor (just a little over half of the ground floor area), which further reduces actual and perceived of bulk. Additionally, the facade of the second story is setback eight feet from that of the ground floor and the rear elevation is setback four feet from that of the ground floor. The second-story would not unreasonably impair the light or air of adjacent properties or unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. As seen from Sheet ST of the architectural drawings, shadow from the proposed two-story home would be cast predominately onto Williams Avenue. Avery small portion of both adjacent properties would have shadow cast upon them. The proposal conforms to Design Policy #5, Technique #3 that addresses solar energy access. The staggered setbacks and the use of wood and natural colors and materials, such as the stone, implements Design Policy #1, Technique #3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk", Policy #2, Technique #1, "Use Natural Materials and Colors" and Policy #1, P:~Planning~AllisonlStaff Reports~20460W illiamsSRS.doc 00003 File No. DR-00-062; 20460 WilliamsAvenue Technique #4, "Minimize Building Height" by setting back higher portions of the structure. The proposed home fits with the one- and two-story existing neighborhood thus implementing Policy #1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood". The designer has included bay windows, a combination of vertical and horizontal elements and vertical and horizontal articulations, which implements Policy #l, Technique #6, and "Use Architectural Features to Break Up Massing". The Ciry Arborist, the Public Works Department and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. The Public Works Department had no comments. Comments . from the Ciry Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval. Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached 400 sq. ft. two car garage. Grading 516 cubic yards of cut to a depth of 10 feet is required in order to construct the basement. No fill is proposed. Geotechnical Review This application did not require review by the Ciry Geologist. Trees No trees would be removed as a result of construction. The Ciry Arborist report dated March 3, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There are seven trees on the property potentially at risk of damage during construction: three Coast Live Oak, two Coast Redwood, one Douglass Fir and one Southern Magnolia. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. One tree, a Coast Live Oak (#3) is in such marginal condition that, according to the arborist, its removal or retention should be an option exercised by the owner. The value of the tree is placed at $1,497. Either a 36„ box and 15-gallon Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, California Buckeye or Coast Redwood is the recommended replacements. 'The applicant, in response to the arborist's conclusions,.has revised the proposed type and location of the footing for the rear porch in order to assure adequate root area for the Coast . Redwood: The Coast Live Oak in front of the house would require pruning to accommodate the home and some root loss due to construction is expected. If mulched, irrigated and protected from further injury, as. identified by the arborist, the tree should survive construction activities. P:~Plannin~Allison\S tall Reports~20460 W illiamsSRS.doc 000032 File No. DR-00-062; 20460 WzUiamsAvenue • Fireplaces The plans clearly indicate that one wood-burning fireplace and one chimney will be constructed in the new residence. The applicant proposes the fireplace to be on the first floor of the residence along the left (east) side of the home in the family room. A gas fireplace is proposed on the second floor using the same chimney as the ground-floor fireplace. Correspondence Verbal correspondence regarding this application was received after the packet was distributed to the Planning Commission for the March 28`h meeting. Concerns expressed by the two adjacent neighbors are: The loss of privacy due to the second story deck (on the left side); and, The decreased front setback. Although the design of the second story deck conforms to the Guidelines, Policy #3, Technique #1, there is concernfor intrusion on privacy. In response to this issue, the applicant proposes latticework and planting screening (see Attachment #4, Revised Deck Treatment). The proposal will provide additional screening for privacy and is compatible with the proposed architecture. The proposed screening also adds to the architectural interest of the building. Staff recommends this design solution be incorporated into the project. The second issue is the proposed 25-foot front setback that complies with the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct the entryway and the arbor that screens the garage and promotes a "cottage-look", similar to other homes on the block, which would be 25 feet from the front property line. The current home is setback approximately 35 feet from the front property line. The majority of the homes on the south side of Williams Avenue are set back 30 to 35 feet from the front property line. Some homes on the south side also have a six-foot high fence at the 25-foot setback line that is placed in front of the home, effectively reading as a 25-foot setback from the street. The homes on the north side of the street are placed closer to the front property line in varying 25 to 35 foot setbacks. Of particular note is the home directly across from the project that is at a 25-foot setback. The neighbor to the right of the site has stated that the proposed setback will block his view of the street and street activity. Additionally, he states that other homes on the block are set back further than the 25-foot requirement and that the project should honor the increasedsetback. The proposed arbor is open in nature and would be about a foot in front of the seven-foot high fence that separates the subject property from the neighbor to the right of the proposed home while the garage structure would be three feet behind the fence line. Additionally, the home is proposed on the lot in this location in order to preserve a 38- inch Coast Redwood tree at the rear of the house. The arbor is proposed in order to P:\Planning\Allison~Staff Reports\20460Wi11iamsSR~.doc 11110033 File No. DR-00-062; 20460 WilliamsAvenue pi-omote a "cottage-look" to the home by partially screening the garage. Staff recommends retaining the project at the required and proposed 25-foot setback. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimise the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the.neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-00- 062. - = ~-1 U P:~PlanningWlison\Staff Reports~20460Wi11iamsSRS.doc 00003 ~~ fCUI ~ ~anaoon i c r nn > 1 ~ i Ci~~ rnu~ ~c ,.~:. -ruG ..,:.,r._.:v t" •. BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 _ 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~> TREE SURVEY Al~(D PRESERVATIODI RECOMMEROATIORS AT THE PICO RAFCIi, IRC. PROPERTY 20460 WII.LIA~S AVE., SA1tATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Alison Knapp. Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 F~ruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Certified Arborist February 20, 2001 Job # 02-01-036 Plan Received: 2 / 5 / O 1 Plan Due: 3/6/01 000035 rrcU1'~ rdndSOnlc rnn JTJIG~~ rn„n~c ~.~. -.uo ~.,...~~c ~. TREE SQRVSY A]fD PRS88RVAT10I( R~CO~AT[0118 A? • '1'I~ p'ICO RAIiICH, IlfC. pROP'Sft1'Y 20460 W3LLlAdB AVS., SARATOGA 1~4S~g~CIIt At the request of Allison Knapp Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing home and to construct a new home with a detached garage in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, .and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Commeats and suggestions oontainod in `this repast presume that the locations of trees in re]ation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Snmmaty This proposal exposes 7 trees to some level of risk by construction. No trees would be removed by implementation of this design. However, one tree is in such marginal condition, that its retention or removal should be at the option of the owner. In the event of removal, replacements aze recommended. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to retained trees. A bond equal to 25% the value of the retained trees is. suggested in accordance with the lcvcls of the expected risks: Observations There are 5 trees on this site and 2 trees located on the adjacent property toward the east that are at risk of dam2tge by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approlamate canopy dimensions. The 7 trees'are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 3, 6 coast live oak (Quereus agrifolia) Trees #2, 5 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 'Free #4 Douglas fir' (Pseudotsuga menziesu) Tree #7 southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) The health and structure of each speciumen is rated 'on a scale of 1 to S (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text Please note that each trees structure is distinguished fronn health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to *P++~+A+•+ standing and to maiataiun its branching without breaking or splitting apart Damage of this nature can occur despite good health. Structure is aot an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. Because the various combinations of health and structure may require interpretation, the combination- of health and structure ratings for the 7 trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: • • PYapareQ b~: I[lcLael L. Henoh, Consattiag Arborlst ~'absoasy 20, 2001 000036 r r[UI'~ • rdn;ySOn1C rni. 5i5li=i'~ rn~~v~ ~ti~. .,~;a _~~._„~ /~ TREE 3URVSY AliD pR8S8RVAT10P RT~CO]dMEIiDA'r101fS AT THg pICO RANCS, IAC. PROPERTY 20460 W'ILL1AniS AVE., SARATOOA ..r 7 Exceptional S edmeas Fiiae 3 ens Fair 3 ens MargYnal S aria Poor 3 ecimeas 124,7 56 3 Flee specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to linut damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth n;tauluig but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Trees located on adjacent properties must be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition. Trees #3 and #6 were not included on the plans provided and have been added. Their locations are approximate. In addition to these ?trees, there are 3 white birch trees (Betula pend~rlla) located near the northeast corner of this property. The largest of these trees has a trunk diameter of 10-inches at 2 feet above grade, which is not large enough to be protected by the city ordinance. Thus, no preservation procedures axe required. However, if it is desirable to retain these in good condition they will need to be protected by fencing at their driplines and be watered throughout construction. Impact of proposed Construction Tree # 1 The footing of the new house is proposed approximately S feet from tree # 1, which would result in considerable root loss. Also, approximately 20% of the canopy would be removed to accommodate the new structure. These combined losses are at the maximum limit that this tree could be expected to withstand, if cultural support is provided as defined here. AJ.thougk- the root and canopy losses would be significant losses to tree # 1, the tree likely would survive in good condition if adequately mulched, irrigated, and protected from further injury. Tree #2 The footing for the back porch of the house is proposed approximately 7-8 feet from the trunk of tree #2. a 32-inetl diameter coast redwood. This would result in considerable root loss but not suSicient loss that the tree would be threatened. Cultural. support will be required to prevent decline. Bear in mind. that this species (SecZuoia sempervirens) has an expanded root buttress which is much larger than the trunk. This buttress is usually about twice the diameter of the trunk and grows at the same rate or faster. The diameter of the trunk of Prepoted lti: l[ici<ael L. Baaeb, Consulting Asborist Febmary ?A, 2001 OODU3'7 rKUJ'1 rdn8SOn1G rnn JiJ,Ci, rn..., i,.,,. -.",, __.,_~_~ _. -- ---- -- -- f ~- TRLrS 3vRVEY AFD PRESSRVATIOP RECODR1~liDAT101~S AT 3 THffi P[CO RAl'fCH, IWC. PROPERTY ,20460 WILLIAILS AVE., SARATOdA this tree is 38-inches at 54-inches above grads. Thus, the root buttress is about 76-inches in diameter. This structure has the capacity to easily damage the foundation of a residential two-story building. A healthy coast redwood trunk should increase its diameter at 1- to 2-inches (sometimes greater) each year. At this rate, the root~buttress may move the porch foundation in 20-30~years. However, I have seen a few of these that appear to result in little or no -. foundation damage for many years after the root buttress has made contact with the foundation. It may be advisable to relocate the footing 1-2 feet, but this may only pmlong the risk. This concern presumes that this specimen will remain healthy. Thus, there is no definitive answer in this case, but this certainly deserves consideration. Trees #3, 4, 5 anti 6 coast live oaks, Daag3as Ss, coast redwood) Trees #3, 4 and 5 are at risk of significant damage as a result of demolition of the garage, if the soil beneath the existing garage foundation is disturbed during demolition a large proportion of the roots of these trees would be damaged. Lf the soil is not disturbed but is allowed to dry out, a large percentage of the absorbing roots just under the soil's surface would be likely to die. In either of these events, the significantly a;~'ected trees would decline. Removal of the existing driveway within a distance of 25 feet from the trunk, of tree #6 would. pose the same problem. The soil beneath the existiitg driveway or the existing garage must not be disturbed during demolition, and the newly exposed soil must be covered with 3-inches of mulch immediately following demolition and the mulch is kept wet to prevent desiccation of the absorbing roots. Trees #T ~southera maganolia) Demolition and rennoval of the existing driveway adjacent to tree #7 presents the same risks as described for trees #3-6. In this case, it will be essential to maintain a section (the first 15 feet from the street) o#' the existing driveway throughout construction to prevent significant damaige to the absorbing roots under the driveway surface. This section of concrete must be removed only immediately prior to the construction of the new driveway. In addition, the area between the property boundary and the west edge of the new driveway must be covered immediately following demolition of this section of ezristizig driveway with 3-inches of mulch. Once again, the mulched area must be kept thoroughly wet, to prevent desiccation of the absorbing roots. All Trees In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: . 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials,. especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. Prapered by: l[ichasl L. Benc!-, Consulting A~orlat • • • ~'ebrnuY 20, 2001 V ~DD~C7 i-r[lJi'i r'dnd50n1 c r nn ~ z ~ ~ ci ~ rnu~~c ~,~. •+vG ~~~-~~c , .a. . _- _-..- - - __-.. ~• TgsE 31TRVEY A1QD pRSSERVATION RNCOUQiS1fDAT1O1(3 AT 4 THE P1C0 EtA1fC8, lNC. PROPER?Y 20+660 WIi.LIA~lB AVB., SARATOGA S. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips, which are located just under the soil surface. 6. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 7. Landscaping, including insta]lation of incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. If ne~vv utilities will be required, trees # 1 and #7 m2ry suffer significant root damage if trenching for undergFOUnd utilities is done under the canopies of these trees. Trenching inside the driplines of these trees must be prevented. This may require that underground utilities be relocated. This implies that the locations of these trenches must be planned in advance and that these decisions must not be left up to' the contractors or to the utility workers. Soil excavated during construction of the basement (or any other construction) must not be piled under the, canopies of existing trees even temporarily. Recommendations The following muitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. ff any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of S feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The pmtective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. This must be done in 2 PHASES: Demolition and Conatruct~lon. 2. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted. 3. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 4. A platform buffer must be placed between construction of the house footing and the protective fence for root protection of trees # 1 and #2. A platform Prepared DP: 1l~chael L. Beach, Coasaltiag Arbosiot Febsnary Z0, 2001 . ~ 000039 r Kui'i r'dndSOn 1 c r nn ~ t ~ i cf'i /-~ rn,~r,c ~ ti... wc: .IJ.I i.LJV ~ / i ?REE SVRVSt' AND vATi0I1 RECOHIIIZIfDA'RONS A? THS PICO RANCH, INC. PROPB;RT4 20460 WII.LIAm3 AvS., 9AItA1'OGA • buffer consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to construction. 5. The trunk of tree # 1 must be wrapped with protective materials during construction. This must be in layers of heavy insulation such as an old mattress or 4 or 5 mats of an old carpet (or anything that would provide similar density of cushioning) should be wrapped against the bark. This is followed by vertical 2" x 4" boards wrapped with chaxnlink fencing. 6. The trunk of tree #6 that exteads onto this property must be protected in the same way during demolition of the garage with the same materials elcept that the materials may be attached to the existing fence. 7. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees # 1, 2, 4, and S during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose for each tree. ' 8. The soil exposed following demolition of the existing garage and of the existing driveway must be covered with 3-inches of wood chips in order to prevent desiccation of the absorbing roots. The wood chips must, be spread immediately following demolition (i.e., within 1-2 hours), the spreading must be by hand, and the area must be thoroughly wet down. 9..Spread a full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips over the entire root zones of trees # 1, and S where feasible. Spreading must be done by hand. 10. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. i l .Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fences as Hated on the attached map. For any area where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted. 12. Tree # l will-require pruning. Some of the lower branches of tree #2 must be removed on the north side. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 13. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely oa-gfade without excavation. Prepared by: I[icbael L. BeaeL, Coasnltiag Arborbt !'ebntar~ 20, 11001 • 000040 ~rRUi'i r'dnaSOn1G rnn ~,~,c,~ rn~.,~ „~. -.~~ .,::.Jic.~G ._. -- ---- -- -- -- ~. ~- TREa SURVSY A1QD PRESSKNA'!!OF RBCOMMSFDATIOIfS AT THa ptco wwcx, rxc. Pa+ors~rnr 20460 WILLIAI~S AV&, SARATOGA 14.I.andscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a tirunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. I'iowevcr, radial trenches may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any trees trunk, and if the spokes of such a design are no. closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 6 15. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not. strike the trunks ~ of trees. Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. 16.Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a m~*+~*num distance of seven tirr~es the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 17. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant mot damage. 18. Yf landscape plants are to be instaIled within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 19.l,andscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 20. Drain dissipators or downspouts must be relocated, if trees are in the path of discharge. The discharge must be directed a m;r;n,um of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 21. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed accordix~.g to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. I suggest that the owners be given the option of retaining or removing tree #3, because its condition is marginal. In the event that tree #3 is removed I suggest a replacement. 'Free #3 has a value of $1,497, which is equivalent to one 36-inch boxed and one 15-gallon native specimens. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - puerca~,s agrifolia Prepared 6y: lsiehael L. Beach, Consaltiag Asboclst !'ebrm~ 20.2001 ~y ~~00~1 r Rui'~ rdna~G; ~ i G r n.~ ~~ ~. c. r r....,.. ~,..~. -.c.,o .....,~~.,c • ~ 1/ i TREE SURVEY AND PRESHRVATIOlf RECO1dI~[E1IDATION9 AT 7 THL pICO RANCH, INC. PRQpgRTY 20460 WII.r.IAI[S AVS., SARATOGA valley oak - Quercus lobara Big leaf maple - Auer mac:rophyltum California buckeye - Aescutus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervir~ens The combined value of all of the other trees is $50,644. I suggest a bond equal to 25% ($12,661) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure prvtectaon. Respectfiilly subm , Michael L. Bench, A to " oatie, ci MLB/ sl " Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Chaxts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer " Map " . • • Prepared by: s(ichael L. Beach. Cossdkiag Asborht Fabsna:7 20, 2001 000042 r KUi'i 1='dnd5on i c r r;i~ ~ . ~ i ci`i rnUiv~ ~~~. ~~o .:.~.~.:..~o , ,.:.. ~- -,.~ _ _ _ _~-,.. _ _ - ~ r ~ - c ~ ~ 0 N ' N N O 0 ~--~ d Q u N .~ - fA F Q ~1 ~i 4 ~ 0 A-~ (r~) utaotea~vnow3a ~ 1MAOW3a QIV3W1~a ~ ,~ A %3 O ~ ~ ~ A ~ O ~ ~ O ~ O ~ a3DlLLa3d S033N ~„ ~ ~ ~ .n ~ w o w ZS ~ S ~ F- - (~L~ a31vM So33N ^ ^^ r ^ ^ u ^ ~ t ~ o ~ ~ ~ (9't) 3SV3S10 abr1107100a ~ a 1- O G '7 ~ ~ n s ~ Est) a3a3noo aYno~ loos ~ ~ ~ = ~ o x x x x x x x _ _ ~ __ 4 d (st)avo3o rNnat - IQt) DOOM OM30 ~ ^ ~ ~ ,~ !7 N O _ ~ ~ Y (S•t) 3SM3S10 NMOaO 33a1 w ~ M » (<}l) S103SNt • ^ o ^ r n a CSrt) ,WaOlad 9NiNnad g ~ M 03033N S319v~ F F F z 1H913M'ON3 31 OM1 ~ ° ° ° g ° ~ ~ I3a X ~ + X v x v x v x X x $ a ~Nlsroa NMOa~ a Nouvaols3a NMOao ~ N s 9NlNNIHl NMOaO ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ -~ ~ , w r ti 9NINV310 NMOao a a ^ r s a u (6`fi)'JNIlr2102ltl2YH g ~ o ~ a b , a o s (Ol-Z~ ONI1Va NOIlI0N00 ~ ~ h. ~ a u ~ ~ v ^~ v h ~ 3 g , ~ _ ~ L7 ($it) 3anlonalS N N N N N n N N X X x x X x X ls-t) H11V3H - ~+ N N Od3ads ~ ~ V ~ chi 3S ~ ~ g ~ y ~ V N p P ~ ...1H913N ~ v $ e ~ ~ c ~ - ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ 133d t'Q7 a313WV10 ~ a v' ~ ~ ti N N80 c c ~ ~ e 5 d _. t S ~ .. H80 ~ N a ^ e ~ ~° ~ x X vi X X x w x x YV31SASy.1.1nM 133d Lt v ~ a;313wv10 ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ m ° ~ ~ ~ v o ~ ~ e e c .E 5 .T. W ~~ i/7 W ~ M w ~~ 04 ~ ~ ~ O Q~ 6 ~ ~ vs .~, c '~ W t/~ ~~ q ~ ~ Y • ~ 9 Y ~ ~ 8 ~~ $ 8 i ~ 8 s c m R+ ~ ~ _~ ~ n s ~ g - ~ g ~ 5 r e o ~ q~ 8 g $ a m id ~ v v v w V C 4 c3 v a°a c ~ s N N! Y N tD A F, N ~ Q' ~ Q ~"' 3 ~ p 0. 1A 4 r- ~ O ~~~~ Q p r ~ ~ _ x x p~ ~~o 0 ~ r e~•i h o ~ tg~~ri m`O~~&i U +~ A p p ~ a 0~0 N In N ~' n nnnnd-~ r Ru,', rur'1a son 1 C r nn ~ ~ ._, , c. . ' i ~~~;~~SO.O~ 5y :~~. ~~ +: 6 . ~, ,. ;~-,--:,...:,,;;_s_ .may ,,_,. ar, ~~r~~~~~~~'~~~o.~i,;~ ` `' `G A„:'.. ~tl; ~qtl!': ~~~ .r ~ LL~~ ufy .y x''r' ~ ~,7y. ~1 ~ ' i:~. ' ~' -' r.~j ~.. .. 'riry.~~'" ''~"-ti.~~J5~1'~• ~~itv~,~:!n.l<~' ,~"'rA +F:' i ~` ra ~ *°~'* 1 ~'.'. ~;~; G lids i:~ ~'r'_,-;~(~F~j~~~'"~ \ rl~r '~~ ui ~ ~ I , I . ~ „~ .t ui ! 11s ~.~y~ U I 1 i h~ _ 50.0` n ~~. . . l~oraln This Section Of -. .._ .°_~p,~~t Existing Driveway Threug}lout Construction. Demo And Conswct _ .. _'_ __ Ncw Driveway As Last Construai "~ Item. See 1nSiNCtionS In Report. PROPOSED ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t_H~~ 000044 Prottet~ve I~encing In Backyard '~ 1 f Tree tt3 Is Retained - Construction Phase P ote 'v • Uemoliuon F'hasc "r KUf'I h'df1350r11 C r nip ~ I j i el'I rnlJr+e Ivu. tiela .:J.~~e.av ...:.. __ _~~- -- --.-.. _ r ~ • . ~ ~ 1 • , 50.0' 5 6 Il y ~t. 4_ 1, I tl~ ~ ~~. 1 NL'lNY1 lK 1 7. a. u~H. aaa Yr~atrvugn 0.aemmeaJalwna a nK• RABBIS D. COATF j •--_ --- ~ - - OU, (rr:lotw i anJ Assf)UAttS r~.~ n url~ r~.Mlnl.:oa~~~ w.u..o..l., ~ •ongnrs: .... - ... - our:WSNflI.•Y:Yt ~w I :nnlw.." 1 1"eDan+n rt.~ Wl lu'r> tole 14;f r+' j 1~4A~4 •t!b ' tWR7IC~ITL'F~I ('UNSIi ' ~ 1 ... ..-... ..~ .. Cin• of Sa+aln~a rlanluno Dewnn+ent •"-' ~ Ia f1.Y9aYY altl. I l A~I 7rt 1 CUNSuI TNG ARt1URIS1' ' lob N -"••. ~• feW ;.;001 -~.~"', - •-- .. 02.n1.0)6 3 ~.. `~~ j tY.:I: rra fWmbttslMftl{Wftd In c.alualiMl G n. ~,- I _ l Q • ~~ y All QiTlnMn! aM If1Y Ipg11nM • ~ ~ ++! 70MOa~m"le A" IN~Y 7•Sly~ Satd:! ~e>a.11 •t;`i!"i! 1 • I SIDIS _ t,.c IUt _ rf•0' BARRIt: D. COATS ANO ASSOCIATES 1 Wrticottvlal consultants ('tOS) )53.1052 Ciz (F0a) 353.1236 2)5'33 Srammit Rd. Los Getoc, CA 95033 '. >-C t:ipE Base. ' n9.-s-uee~^E w' Pratcctivc F'cncing In 13ackvard w:',;. I l' 1'^e ~3 is Ketaincd Cnnstruction Phacc Prorective fencing ('lallnrtn ~~,'~ [iufrer • r: '~ Wray 1'rcc I~nlnk S In . r,,,R . .. i,~' i ;! I re,a liN rsG< I i'•r ::I lotat•ntlr ~St3 _ pry ln:d : ,~• .1 ~ ~ ~~ Construction Phan i'rotrctive l'cncing ~ ~. v S 0.0' T~ ~N'~' ~ i~ Protective Fencing In Backyard If Tree #3 is Not Retained I I '' t~ ~' ~~ I ~7 sou ~~cD ~JI I C I Lf-1 I V 50.0' ,_ •. , Rlaain '1'Iti~ Srction C)I' `_ ~~~ r;_ I:xi;tin~l Driv~v,~liv 1'hrnughaut Cunsu•Llctian. Demo And Canstruet Ntew f)rivl:~ay /~s Last Construction Itt:m. Sct: Instructions In 1t~purl. l.l~Pn~ Drip Lilte of Tru C.snOPY """---' •---•PrntcctivcFencing Ylalfornt [3uflcr _rCtvaZeal ~ 04~ • T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0000$6 1S3112.7321 ~JNINN'v'~d 10/1/5 Z 1S311O3ZI ~NINNV'"ld 10/9/£ I I~IOLI.dIaOSdO H.LVO AaN i ~~ 86l £4Li ~~!'i +o»+1uoJ Q1a+o3!NJ • ~3 646Z9£Z (804) • x'!on 0098'84Z (806) LI IS6 ewo,~Ia~'asol vaS • ZOZ ~!nS'P~o2t ~9l!M LOL£ ~ W ~ b ~ r n ~~ ^~.~ p-° ° Ilm ~~~~~ o=a ~~ dos ~ o ~s g~ ~S = m ~ N ~ n ~_ 3~ 05 °b o '~' r- _ n I b II 9 0 N to 0 Vf ~~ m K~ 2 V~ z o ~~ ? ~ ~ Y w - ~ U ~ ~ a S WWN = ~ ~ WrW = O .n O u+ °e p ~ ~ ` ~ ~ oe ~ ~ S °` 5'~' moo. ~~s~x 5"}~..~ E i ~ 9 - s~~. a~W..~ ~ "' oso~ ~M~~Q y o~ o~~~ ~~~~e~.= z N i N r' m Q N1 N Q~ m z a h~ Y 0 0 "e gf OLOS6 ~~ `~~o~~.z~s o °o (~ •an~ suz~TilTt~c~ 09t~OZ ~ ° ` ' ~ has maTna~ u~isaQ °o A ~^ ~~ 4; r~ 3 - ~[~8V - ~ ~ ~ 5~ B _ ~:~. ti,, ~~~ ° '~ ~'~A~al m° ~, " ,_ s''~) ."` b ~. ~ ~ ~~ z `' x'~~ ~j, `~~`1 ~ ~ v .x ~ z u g n - u ~ z ~ ~ ~ _O O ~ c z ~ u \ p ~ . O r. a Z ~ o! w. z ~ > w ~7 z ` ~ ~ d. W ~ i ~ ~ LL o H ~ ~ `~ z ~ g ~ ~ z o ~ ~ z ~ Q .w z ~ o g a ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ a z z ~ ~ z ~ N ~ ~ 0 ~ V! 4 ~ Q _~ o~ o~ ~ ~ 3 R d ~I W ~'tss' . ~~~~ I ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ zma~~a ~ , ~- I o ~~ N O Chi] o ,~ ~ w Rnn r--I ~ p cc. >- ~ >., o ~ MJt ~ I-- ~ U ~ U I I I t I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I I I~ I I I I I 1 NI ~~ ~' w ~~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~I .., 3' ~ Q 'w 1 I 1 O I I I I I I i I I I I o I 0 u o I 0 V N r' m M Q O 0 S °~~ o ~~~ ~ o Nzga~ N w _ o w a `v 0 O ' ~ a ~~ ~~ z Q ~.~ ~i .-__ O p W a~ 6 O 'a O Z~ ... 0 ... 6 (u J e c O H _ a o~m ~ S W~~ _ ~ G O Q Q F- W ~ m "' J ~`' ~ x ~ W a o ~ u ~ V Q ~ ~ N c ~ o O o ~ o c ~ ~- ~ w ~ ~ ~ U Q Q ~ Q V v°~~ ° O ~ ~ OJ Q LL Q LL w 1 I w I z LL LL ~ ~` ~" 861£4Ltl osa~i~ fo~eAanJ elam3FI8J • n~ 69C'L9£Z (8fri) • ~!on 0098-892 X806) ~ ` - Lii56 Q!~J!la~'OSOf ~S • ZOZ ~mS'P~N ~91!A1 LOL£ ` ~.J O~OS6 ~ E~~~p+'~' S 0 V ~ o ' " •an~ sureTliTt1c109t~OZ ~ ~ 1S311i7H2J 9NINN v Id 10/1/5 Z ,• " ' 1S311i J3Zl~NINND ~d 10/9/£ I has Maina~ ulSjsaQ ~ ~ Nof.~.aiaosaa a.LVa naa ~~ --- Uq~Y1 W m -~ /~ X O 1 11 v ;:~ :: :: - .~ ----- ~~ ~ .~ II ----1 4 I I I I ~ ~ s ~ d d ~ I ~ m I ~ - I I ~ I i ~ I _ s r-- I I I a ; ~ ~ ~ o I I I - ~ ----- f- -1 v r I m I I _ a ( o ~ ~ m - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - ° - - - - - - - - \ - - - 1 - -- ~ I I J .`a I I ( ~ ~ x ~ I ~ ° ~ s I ~ a O O J~ '~1 ' _ l~ ,i X lsanvaa ~NINN'v'~d to/ve z 1S311i~3219NMNV'"Id 10/9/£ I NOLId121~S74 3,LVQ A~1 86169GY osva~l~ w~anuuJ u!~?luJ • xeJ 694Z9£Z (809) • wcon 0098-SVL (809) LI TS6 u!~P.le'J `~f ~S • ZOZ ~s'P~~I ~?mro lAL£ w s -I---- U I i I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I i I I I I C ~ I I I W I ~ I ~ I Oo ~~ I ~ n L a I - - - ~ - - - J ~~ ~~ ~~ I I ~ I 4 m I I 3 I O ' ~ I 8 ~ I a (0 I I ~ e o m ~ W ~ t ~ I Q ~ I O _ I ~ Z ° u ~ ~ ~ ~ Z U r+ C e I I I I OLOS6 ~'~ `~~~~~~S •an~ sureittlt1t109t~OZ .~aS t1AaiAa~ u~ISaQ w a ~~ ~~ ~~ ¢°I r - - - - - - - I I I I I ~ I 1 i I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I ' I d ' I " I ~+ ~ o I W ~ u 8 I J ,~ --- ----I 0 M ~--~ - ~--d ~~ ~ o ~ X O V d 0 C_ 0 '~ Q ~ ~ m ~, ~ I III. ~ J ^ _O ~~ w~w, ''WA v+ O C 0 •' 00 W Of ~ ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: TUP-Ol-002;13724 Saratoga Avenue Applicant/Owner: CITY OF SARATOGA/SACRED HEART CHURCH Staff Planner: Robert Schubert, Senior Planner ~J Date: May 23, 2001 APN: 397-30-047 Department Head'. • 13724 Saratoga Avenue 000001 CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5/1/01 5/U01 5/9/01 5/10/01 5/10/01 The City of Sazatoga proposes to temporarily relocate the Saratoga Community Library to a portion of the Sacred Heart Church and School site at 13724 Sazatoga Avenue during the renovation and expansion of the library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue. The interim library will be housed in a structure consisting of eight manufactured units totaling appro.~mately 6,720 squaze feet. The height of the temporary structure is 12 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve a Negative Declazation and Temporary Use Permit for the interim library by adopting Resolution TUP-Ol-002. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution TUP-Ol-002 3. Negative Declazation 4. Initial Study 5. Photo of Temporary Structure 6. Temporary Sign Elevation 7. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • 000002 File No. 7ZIP-01-002;13724 Saratoga A venue . STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Quasi-Public Facility MEASURE G: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: No grading is proposed. PROJECT DISCUSSION Background The Saratoga Community Library is a branch of the Santa Clara County Library. The building is owned by the City of Saratoga, and library services are provided through the County system. The existing library, which is approximately 18,000 square feet in sire, opened in 1978 and serves Saratoga, Monte Sereno and a portion of the surrounding unincorporated area. The proposed project will add up to 30,253 square feet of new one- story space for a total of 48,291 square feet and 29,272 square feet of new parking to the Saratoga Community Library, for a total of 68,832 square feet, or 165 parking spaces. The . facility will expand into the Heritage Orchard, removing approximately 64,133 square feet from orchard use: Construction of the library project is expected to take approximately 18 months. Additional information regarding the library renovation and expansion project is contained on pages 1-9 in the attached Initial Study. ... Interim Library The Ciry of Saratoga proposes to temporarily relocate the Saratoga Community Library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue to a portion of the Sacred Heart Church and School site during the renovation and expansion of the existing library. The interim library will be housed in a structure consisting of eight manufactured units totaling approximately 6,720 square feet. The height of the temporary structure is 12 feet. The interim library will contain approximately one-third of the materials that are currently housed in the library and there will be a limited amount of public space for reading and research. The temporary structure will be located at the northeastern (rear) corner of the Sacred Heart Church and School site, between the administration building and the Heritage Orchard. This portion of the site is paved and currently used as a hard-court recreational area for the Sacred Heart School. The recreational area will be temporarily displaced (for at least 18 months) and will be restored to its present condition following completion of the library project. Staffing Hours of Interim Library: The average number of staff members at the interim library will be approximately 14, and the maximum number of staff at any given time would be 18. A:Uibrary.pcsr.doc ®~ ~ ®O " File No. TUP-01-002;13724 Saratoga A venue The hours of operation of the interim library will be the same as the existing library, as shown below. O en Close Monday and Tuesday 1:00 pm 9:00 pm Wednesday and Thursday 10:00 am 9:00 pm Friday and Saturday 9:00 am 6:00 pm Sunday 12:00 pm 4:00 pm Vehicular Access e'r Temporary Parking. Three driveways provide access to the Sacred Heart Church and School from Saratoga Avenue. Traffic to the interim library v~~ill be from the driveway at the north end of the site. The temporary facility includes appro~mately 53 temporary parking spaces, including three handicap spaces. In addition, a service parking area would be located near the temporary library. The. temporary parking would be provided by painting striping on the existing paved recreation area. Temporary Fencing e'r Gates: A six-foot high chain link fence would be located around the perimeter of interim library facility. This will require the installation of a new chain link fence on the south and west sides of the interim facility (i.e., there is an existing chain link fence on the north and east sides of the facility). Although there will be three gates into the facility, only one gate (i.e., at the northeast corner of the temporary parking lot), will be kept open while the interim library is in operation. The other two gates are strictly for emergency access. Temporary Signs: In order to direct the public to the interim library, ttvo temporary signs are proposed. One sign will be along Saratoga Avenue at the entrance to the interim library -. (see the attached sign elevation). It will read "Saratoga Library - a Santa Clara County Library -Temporary Location -Fall 2001 -Winter 2003. The dimensions of the double- sided sign are eight feet wide by four feet tall. There will -also be a temporary sign at the driveway to the existing library, directing patrons to the interim facility. Utilities: Temporary power will be supplied to the interim library facility. The facility will connect to existing sewer and water service located on the site. Temporary Use Permit Pursuant to City Code Section 15-60.010, Planning Commission approval of a Temporary Use Permit is required for the interim library. Section 15-60.030 of the City Code states that the Planning Commission `nay grant a temporary use permit upon finding that the temporary use is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and in doing so may impose such reasonable conditions as circumstances require, including but not limited to ... limitations on the length of time, the days of the week and the hours of , the day during which the activity may be conducted." Staff finds that the proposed temporary library facility is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance: The proposal promotes and protects the public health, safety, peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfare because it will: 1) facilitate the continuation of A:Uibrary.pcsr.doc ®®~ ~ 0 /~ File No. 7Z1P-01-002;13724 Saratoga Avenue library services during the renovation and expansion of the existing library; 2) pro~~ide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facilities; and 3) mi_nimi7e traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities. Temporary power will be supplied to the site, and the facility will connect to existing sewer and water service on the site. The application has been re~~iewed by the Public Works Department, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department and the Saratoga Fire District. All recommendations are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval in the attached resolution. Environmental Review Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project (an Initial Study was prepared by Maureen Owens Hill Consulting in association with Fehr and Peers Associates, who prepared a traffic study). A notice of intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published by the Ciry on Apri14, 2001. The public review period on the Negative Declaration ended on May 26, 2001. No comments were received during the review period. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration were reviewed and approved by the Saratoga Ciry Council on May 2, 2001. The Initial Study does riot propose any mitigation measures related to the temporary library. Traffic Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. re ared a traffic stud ,which includes an anal sis of the P P Y Y temporary library (see pages 28 - 33 in the attached Initial Study). Due to the reduced amount of library materials and public space, the temporary library is expected to generate substantially fewer 'vehicle trips compared to the existing library. The number of trips generated by the library visitors during the construction phase was estimated at 50 percent of the existing library trip generation (i.e., approximately 163 trips during the afternoon peak hour). This will decrease the amount of traffic at the Saratoga/Fruitvale Avenue intersection and will slightly improve intersection operations during the construction period. However, traffic delays on Saratoga Avenue are expected to increase slightly due to temporary library. This is due to the fact that vehicles turning left into the existing library site use a left turn lane on Saratoga Avenue. Since the existing driveways at the Sacred Heart School do not have left-turn lanes, the additional left-turns into the site for the temporary library will slightly increase delays on southbound Saratoga Avenue. This increased delay is not expected to have a significant impact on roadway operations (see page 31 of the Initial Study). Parking The proposal includes a temporary parking lot with 53 temporary parking spaces, including three handicap spaces. Access to the parking would be provided by the church's existing driveways on Saratoga Avenue. The temporary parking lot would be installed by painting temporary striping over an existing paved recreation area. According to the traffic study, A:Uibrary.pcscdoc ®®0 0 ~~ File No. ZZIP-01-002;13724 Saratoga ~1 venue the temporary library would generate approximately 50 percent of the existing library parking demand, or a total of 42 parking spaces, which can be accommodated by the proposed temporary parking lot. Grading No grading is proposed. Geotechnical Review This application did not require review by the City Geologist. Trees No trees would be removed or affected by the proposal. Correspondence No correspondence has been received regarding the interim library. Conclusion Staff finds that the proposal is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning , Ordinance. The temporary library promotes and protects the public health, safety, peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfare in that it will: 1) provide for the continuation of library services during the renovation and expansion of the existing library; 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facilities; 3) minimi?e traffic congestion; and 4) avoid the overloading of utilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution TUP-Ol-002 approving a Negative Declaration and Temporary Use Permit for the interim library. • A:Uibrary.pcsr.doc ®®o O RESOLUTION NO. TUP-O1-002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMIVIISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA City of Sazatoga/Sacred Heart Church and Schoo1;13724 Sazatoga Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga proposes to temporarily relocate the Saratoga Community Library to a portion of the Sacred Heart Church and School site at 13724 Saratoga Avenue during the renovation and expansion of the existing library at 1360 Saratoga Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested pames were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for a Negative Declaration and Temporary Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: • the proposed temporary library facility is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; and • the proposal promotes and protects the public health, safety, peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfaze because it v,~ill: 1) facilitate the continuation of library services during the renovation and expansion of the existing library; 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facilities; and 3) minimi?e traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities. Temporary power will be supplied to the site, and the facility will connect to existing sewer and water service on the site. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resol~~e as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of the Ciry of Saratoga/Sacred Heart Church and School for Temporary Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed temporary library facility shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference, with the exception that the plans shall be revised to show a six foot high chain link fence azound the perimeter of the facility. 2. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Temporary Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfaze. ®~~00~ File No. TUP-01-OO2;13T14 Saratoga Avenue 3. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with Ciry's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the Ciry's action with respect to the applicant's project. 4. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a ~~iolation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciry could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Cite per each day of the violation. • ~®0~~8 A:Uibcary.pcsr.doc File No. TUP-01-002;13724 Saratoga A venue • Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Count~~, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 1~-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23`~ day of May 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSE~'T: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ~, Secretary, Planning Commission ~~ A `dibrary.pcsr.d« o~o0 0(] T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ©~0~0 • • NEGATIVE DECLARATION Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required For Saratoga Community Library Expansion and Renovation Project ' City of Saratoga The undersigned, Director of Administrative Services for the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the,applicable pro~ZSions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and .Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project v~ill have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description The City of Saratoga proposes to renovate and expand the existing library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue and to temporarily relocate the library to a neighboring site (Sacred Heart Church and School at 13724 Saratoga Avenue) during construction. The proposed project will add up to 30,253 square feet of nev~~ one-story space (for a total of 48,291 square feet), 4,600 squaze feet of paths (for a total of 11,981 square feet), and 29,272 square feet of new parking (for a total of 68,832 squaze feet or 165 parking spaces). The facility will ea-pand into the Heritage Orchard, removing approximately 64,133 square feet from orchard use. Project Location 13650 Saratoga Avenue (Renovation Site) APN:39I-301-053 13724 Saratoga Avenue (Temporary Relocation Site) APN 397-301-047 Name and Address of ;Pi-oporient Mary JoWalker, Director of Administrative Services City of Saratoga ~ ~ •~ 137 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 .. - Reason for Negative Declaration, ~ . The proposed library expansion and renovation project is not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment., Although the proposed project will expand the existing use of the site, the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will insure that the project will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Sazatoga, California this~`-~ day of , 2001. i2~ 1 r~~~~-c~v MARY JO ALICER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR 0(3U~~1 t .y •I T~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN - INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ,~ .., •i 000012 • SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVAT{ON PROJECT Initial Study • Prepared for: City of Saratoga • Prepared by: Maureen Owens Hill Consulting In association with: Coastplans.com and Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. April 2001 000013 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ......:..........................................:................:................................................................. l PROJECT HISTORY ........:........:.........................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIP'I'ION ..........................................................................:.......................................2 EXPANSION OF THE SARATOGA COIvIIvIUNTfY LIBRARY FACILITY .........................................................2 TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF LIBRARY ...............................................................................................6 SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES .........................................:..............:........................6 ' LAND USES .:........................................................................................................................................6 ROADWAY SYSTEM ..............................................................................................................................7 EXISTING TRANSI'T' SERVICE .................................................................................................................8 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACII,TT)ES ................................................................................................ 8 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ...........................................................................9 PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIItED .............................................................9 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................9 DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................................10 ENVII20NMENTAL CHECKLIST .....: ..:..:................................................:......................................11 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM .....................................................................................37 AIR QUALITY .....................................................................................................................................37 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ..................................................................................................37 TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................•.......................... 3 8 SOURCES .................................................•--_-......................................................................................39 APPENDIX A -TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B -PARKING STUDY .............................................................. ..................................... 40 ............................. 4 2 C7 • ODUU24 IlVTTIAL STUDY SARATOGA COh'IlVIUNITY LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION PROJECT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 96070 (408) 868-1212 BACKGROUND - Project Title: Saratoga Community Library Expansion and Renovation Project Lead Ageucy: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Contact Persou: Mary Jo Walker, Administrative Services Director (408) 868-1212 Study Prepared by: Maureen Owens Hill Consulting 18813 Aspesi Drive - Saratoga; CA 95070 (4081872-0794 Maureen Owens Nill, Principal Martin Carver, Coastplans.com, Contract Planner Sohrab Rashid, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Transportation Engineer Date Prepared: April 2001 Project Location: 13650 Saratoga Avenue (Renovation site) APN 397-301-53 ' l 3724 Saratoga Avenue (Temporary relocation site) APN 397-301-47 Project Sponsor: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 General Plan Designations: PF, Public Facility; OS-MR, Open Space Managed Resource Production; QPF, Quasi Public Facility Zoning: R-1-20,000 PROJECT HISTORY The Saratoga Community Library is a branch of the Santa Clara County Library. The building is owned by the City of Saratoga, and library services are provided through the County system. The existing facility, which is 18,000 square feet in size, opened in early 1978 and serves Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and a portion of the surrounding unincorporated area. The service area population for the library has grown in the past ten years to approximately 37,700 persons. The library is located in the Heritage Orchard and was designed to resemble a "drying shed set in an orchard." Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 1 ~~~0~.5 According to library officials, the Saratoga Community Library is inadequate in its current use and technology requirements. The building was designed to house 100,000 volumes and now holds over 182,000 volumes. Checkouts have reached over 80,000 volumes per month, which represents about 46 percent of the collection. On March 7, 2000, the Saratoga voters approved a $15 million bond measure to renovate and expand the current facility. The City of Saratoga has retained the professional services of an architect, landscape architect, and construction manager to complete the project. The City of Saratoga held three public meetings to discuss the Saratoga Community Library Expansion and Renovation Project -September 18, 2000, October 16, 2000, and November 20, 2000. The meetings were well attended with approximately 60 to 80 persons at each meeting. The issues discussed at the meetings included: site access, building design, building height, and parking. Table 1 provides.key excerpts from the community meetings. TABLE 1 Summary of Public Worl~shops Saratoga Community Library Expansion and Renovation Project -= -a- 1'Z' x~ x a ,,,,. sr ~~""~ _ ~-w'"~'~. ~„ ^x7,taa. u, '.~'t?.~ '~r`;C~TZC~'{, To ~cJtssne~- w ~ ~ ~°~ ~' Site access Consensus was reached that there should be access off Saratoga Avenue only; it is important to create adrop-off zone in front. of the new entrance to the building. o f%. 1~~4~T'~F;3a ~f H X~Y'~~t.c vF. ~'~vr „SS~'v ..rs; ,c'~YS ~-'' ` ~,' "* ~ f ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~I1 t~' ~ .2~1 © *F ~~AA`.':. ia~K ~.~~`. ~ C. +«~, - yc~.. tip. ~ '~ ~ < : T1~~,tt ~~ ,. YC.ti ~y`~`Jatl.~ '.S~RY27`+~'~`.~ ~ ~'cJ~ y .l {"' t d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ F~5,..~ ~" ~ J~ y ~ y r -s,-.S t~~ ; ll ,, ""Q~~h` ~A ` ~ ` ~ ' ~ ~~ _ 'tw ,~ _" t>'terefore allownfp mono y Z ~ 5 ~ ~y~ht' v-~~~?,,, 8 ,¢'"lt ~~ ."j ~4ns m and"c~avt( ~ ~~ ~ ~ t~ ~~ ~~_ .. .. ,. ~ Building height Everyone agreed that the massing of the building was a. sensitive issue, and it should not look like a two-story box. The addition should be oriented so as to minimize so~-~: cry ors~w~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves the expansion and renovation of the Saratoga Community Library facility and the temporary relocation of the library to a neighboring site. Each of these is discussed below. Expansion of the Saratoga Community Library Facility The existing Saratoga Community Library facility is a one-story structure with 18,000 square feet of floor area and a 95-space parking lot. According to the Santa Clara County Assessors map, the facility is located on a 20.5-acre property owned by the City of Saratoga, and the existing developed area is approximately I.5 acres. The facility is located in the Heritage Orchard, which comprises the remaining l 9.0 acres of the parcel. The Heritage Orchard is a working fruit orchard that is valued for its historic and open space value. The existing building exterior is designed to look like a "drying shed set in an orchard" and consists of plywood siding with wood battens and a wood shake roof. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 2 • • 000016 • ' ~ The proposed project will add up to 30,253 square feet of new one-story space (for a total of 48,291 square feet), 4,600 square fed of paths (for a total of 11,981 square feet), and 29,272 square feet of new parking (for a total of 68,832 square feet or 165 spaces). The facility will expand into the Heritage Orchard, removing approximately 64,133 square feet from orchard use. The expanded development footprint will be approximately 129,104 square feet. • According to a staff report dated February 7, 2001 from Administrative Services to the Saratoga City . Council, the expansions project will necessitate the removal of approximately 110 orchard trees. Of these, 48 will be transplanted in the corner of the site adjacent to the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue. Most of the existing trees in this area are "either ornamental or `bird-planted' trees which are inconsistent with the orchard or are very old and beyond their productive life." With regard to short-term construction impacts, the construction of the project is expected to take approximately 18 months. Construction activities include tree removal, grading, construction of wood- frame buildings additions on the south and north site of the existing building, construction of an expanded parking lot with asphalt concrete.surface, and a construction of a perimeter sidewalk. Figure 1 shows the site plan for the expanded library facility. According to project plans entitled: "50% Design Development, Saratoga Community Library" dated February 26, 2001, the exterior of the expanded facility is designed to continue the "drying shed" motif of the existing facility. Design elements include shed and gambrel roof lines common in agricultural structures, and siding and roof materials are the same as the existing building (i.e., board and batten siding; wood shake roof). The design includes a sidewalk along the front and rear portions of the new structure, and orchard trees will be retained in proximity to the expanded facility to maintain the sense that the facility is an integal part of the orchard. Figure~2 shows the project's exterior elevations, and Figure 3 shows an artist's rendering of the expanded facility. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 3 ODUU1'7 .. ~ ~ ~^^ ,' ~1 • „'~ ^wI ~/ ~~ ~ ~~ I; i T^ 1~~ i I I ~~ I I ~ l~ ~ I I I I ( 1C1 -Id ~. .-- i --~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I i I ~ _ 'U un K> ;_ ~ i , I ~ ,rn - - - . -. __. -. - -. .-...__ ...-. _ ~ _. -.+ ... I i0 r-~ , ` ~ ~ +' I • I i ! !; `- _ Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 4 • ®0~~8 ~._..J Figure 2: ~~~~f~CL:. ~~ :1 ~11'~~` IC I,QP.111'1'If:fa 11 ~T~~RTj~~.'F CI ~f _~~~ .. _ - s Sri • • ,~ _~ r:. ie.e r t'~~i ~:Inf+e~gtgi~:.u~ n 1 rte:.. - _ ' ti ,lFN1 '•'1;1~:" ±17 , ,i ; - ~ - ~ - 1- .~-.. ------- - -- ..n.~..,,a --- -..- -.._.. .- ~~ :.i- -=-_ i=~ _!i Jua , ,) r~-FVmina - ~ __ - .. ,. 1 _-.. IOfYY~A11fA - _- _-_ ---..- .__...~ . ~._-.-.....--"-. -. -. ..-_ --~~ ..~J - -- - - --~------~ ~_,vJ . - rrre~,.- ,°~ ~~ --_. ~r-><Trranl,-er-,r ~ -^. _- __ _ • ~f;ii~l' ~II'u:~~V~~~~=~~~i~t"~-~ T ~ :AR'T'-n'Tf~ .a-i,T'IW:I:~~ `'.,... _u+ I I ~ mrn n~.m.: - _.._-. .... -. -- -___ _ ------ -~ - - -------- - --NOTFCRCONSTRUCTIfX~ Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 5 000019 FEHR~PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants 255 North Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 408 278-1700 • Fax 408 278-1717 www. fehrandpeers. com MEMORANDUM To: Mazk Schatz, AIA From: Jane Bierstedt Date: November 15, 2000 Subject: Parking Supply for Proposed Saratoga Library Expa~:sion Project 1005-318 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. conducted an analysis to determine the appropriate parking supply for the proposed Sazatoga Library Expansion project. The results of our analysis aze presented in this memorandum. Project Description The existing library building contains- approximately 18,000 square feet (s.f.) and has a parking lot with 95 spaces. The proposed expansion project will increase the building size to between 46,000 and 49,000 s.f. Library staff projects that library use will increase 30 percent with the expansion. Analysis Methodology Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. evaluated three items to determine the appropriate parking supply for, the expanded Saratoga library: (1) the pazking demand generated by the existing library, (2) pazking supply rates of other similaz libraries ~(pazking supply rate is defined as the number of -parking spaces divided by the building size and is expressed as spaces per 1,000 s.f.), and (3) parking supply recommendations of other agencies. Existing Library Pazking Demand Library staff conducted parking utilization and duration surveys on Thursday, October 5 (10:30 am to 8:30 pm), Saturday; October 7 (1:00 pm to 5:00 pm), and Sunday, October 8 (1:00 pm to 3:30 pm). The number of parked vehicles and the length of time each vehicle was parked were recorded during the surveys. The highest pazking demands (largest number of parked vehicles on-site) were recorded on Thursday. afternoon, 84 vehicles at 3:30 pm, and Sunday afternoon, 80 vehicles at 3:30 pm. Fehr & Peers Associates counted 81 parked O®0020 FEHR&PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants vehicles at 3:45 pm on Thursday November 9. Based on this data, the existing peak parking demand is estimated to be approximately 85 pazked vehicles, resulting in a pazking demand rate of 4.7 vehicles per 1,000 s.f. The number of recommended parking spaces based on existing demand was estimated by first increasing the surveyed peak demand by a "safety factor" and the projected increase in use to determine the peak pazking demand with the expansion. The surveyed peak demand is 85 parked vehicles. It is difficult to determine whether this is the overall peak demand, due to the limited survey data. Therefore, it was increased by 25 percent as a "safety factor" bringing the peak demand to 106 pazked vehicles. With an increase of activity of 30 percent, the projected peak demand is estimated to be 138 pazked vehicles. The rule of thumb is that the parking supply should be 1.0 to 15 percent greater than the peak demand (to facilitate the ease of finding the last available parking spaces and to improve on-site circulation) resulting in a recommended supply of 160 pazking spaces. Library Parking Supply Rates The parking supply rates of similar libraries (suburban locations with building sizes between 15,000 and 60,000 s.f. and exclusive parking lots) aze summarized in Table 1. Information ~~ for libraries that share their parking lots with other uses is also available. These libraries were not included in the table because they do not provide library use only parking rates. Table 1 Library Parking Supply Rates Library Building Size Parking Supply (No. of Parking spaces) Rates (Spaces per 1,000 s.f.) Saratoga (Exisitng) 18,000 s.f. 95 5.3 CentraUPleasant Hill 58,000 s.f. 145 2.5 Clayton 15,500 s.f. 48 3.1 Danville 17,000 s.f. 89 5.2 Pinole 17,100 s.f. 55 3.2 Dublin 15,000 s.f. 61 4.1 Average 23,400 s.f. 82 3.5 These parking rates range from 2.5 to 5.3 parking spaces per 1,000 s.f. The existing Saratoga Library has the highest rate presented in the table. Applying the average supply rate of 3.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. (calculated by dividing the average supply by the average building size) to the proposed expansion size would yield a supply of 172 spaces. 2 000021 FEHR~PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants Rates Recommended by Other Agencies Recommended pazking supply rates from two sources aze presented in Table 2. One source is the City of San Jose from the "Branch Facilities Master Plan." The other is from the American Library Association in a document titled "Local Public Librazy Administration." Table 2 Recommended Rates Jurisdiction Recommendation San Jose 4 spaces per 1,000 s,f. for fast 10,000 s.f. and then 2 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for amount over 10,000 s.f. American Library 5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for first 20,000 s.f., 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for area Association between 20,000 and 40,000 s.f., three spaces per 1,000 s.f. for area between 40,000 and 75,000 s.f., and 2 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for space over 75,000 s.f. Applying these rates would yield supplies of 118 to 207 spaces. Conclusions Based on the information presented above, the parking supply fora 49,000-s.f. library ranges from 118 to 207 spaces. However, the most compelling is the parking supply based on the actual use of the Saratoga Library. Our recommendation is that the parking supply be 160 spaces. Library use will change as the needs of the community change. Since these future changes are impossible to predict, we would further recommend that the parking lot be designed so that it can be expanded in the future, should the need arise. • • 3 ~®~~2i~ Temporary Relocation of Library During renovation of the Saratoga Community Library facility, the library staff will operate a temporary facility located on the site of the Sacred Heart Church and School approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the project site (APN 397-301-47; 13724 Saratoga Avenue). The temporary library will be housed in a temporary structure composed of seven to eight manufactured units totaling approximately 7,000 square feet. This structure will be located on the southeastern part of the Sacred Heart Church site adjacent to the Heritage Orchard. This part of the site currently is used as a hard-court recreational area for Sacred Heart School, which will be displaced during the time that the temporary library occupies the site. The temporary facility includes 55 to 66 temporary parking spaces (depending on whether adrop-off zone is included) and a truck loading area. Temporary power will be supplied to the site; and ,the facility will connect to existing sewer and water service on the site. Figure 4 shows a schematic of the site plan for. the temporary library facility at Sacred Heart Church and School. Figure 4: Temporary Facility 1 ~,,.....,~ o~~. --- 1{L - _-sJ ~u....F \ L ~~ ~ ~~ - ~~ z .... f - - ~~ ;~ _ _ _ ~f 4410 ~ Q° PN11.'.1 rw..... Q>ncN (~ r~ r TCM~'ORft~ LlIbi7SlCk~ a z-ate- zm~ v ~us.~... ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ' SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES Land Uses The Saratoga Community Library is located at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue at 13650 Saratoga Avenue. The relocation site is located next door at 13724 Saratoga Avenue, which is also the site of Sacred Heart Church and School. The area is a mix of low-density single-family homes and public and quasi-public facilities. Figure 5 shows land uses surrounding the project site and relocation site. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 6 ODU©~3 Figure 5: Surrounding Uses St And`,rews Church ~ ,~;-- ,, e I , ~ '~ ~ .,.,= ~. .~ ~ • .S: t . ''. . t ~~!'_ ~s f yr ~_ ;:~~ .. ?~ ~ ~. x . ~ Housing `~ ', + Housing ~ ~?~ - ~,.. ~' Project Site p :. ° i '. ~;'~ -~~~~~ Heritage Orchard '~ ./ •~ ~ 4' • I' • I ~J J~ I: / 1 •. ,- ~:~• • r •, ! f, ~: .. .. . ~~-. '1 _ .._ Temporary Relocation Site City Hall Offices Sacred Heart Church Roadway System Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue provide local access to the project site. These roadways are described below: Saratoga Avenue extends northeast from its terminus at State Route 9 (Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) in Saratoga, through San Jose, and into the City of Santa Clara. Saratoga Avenue is a minor arterial roadway that provides direct access to the project site. West of the project site, Saratoga includes two travel lanes. At the project site driveway, Saratoga Avenue widens to four lanes. • Fruitvale Avenue is a two- to four=lane minor arterial roadway extending north from State Route 9 (Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) to its tenminus at Saratoga Avenue. Adjacent to the project site, Fruitvale Avenue includes two travel lanes in each direction. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 7 000024 Existing Transit Service The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus service in Santa Clara County. Near the project site, bus stops on Saratoga Avenue are located directly in front of the library and across the street from the library in front of St. Andrews School. Existing transit service located near the project site is described in detail below: Route 27 is a local bus route that provides service from South San Jose (the Santa Teresa Kaiser Hospital), through Los Gatos and Saratoga, and terminates at West Valley Community College. Route 27 operates during the weekdays from 5:30 am until 11:00 pm on 1 S- to 60-minute headways. On weekends, hours of operation are from 7:30 am until 9:30 pm on 30- to 60-minute headways. Route 59 is a local bus route providing service from Moffett Airfield, through Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and.Saratoga to its terminus at West Valley Conununity College. Route S4 operates on weekdays from 5:30 am until l 0:00 pm on 1 S- to 60-minute headways. Weekend service is from 8:00 am until 7:30 pm on 60-minute headways. Route 57 is a local bus route that provides service between Great America in Santa Clara and West Valley Community College. Route S7 operates on weekdays from 6:00 am until 10:30 pm on 30- to 60-minute headways. On weekends, Route S7 operates from 8:00 am until 8:30 pm on 60-minute headways. Route 58 is a local bus route providing service from Alviso, through Santa Clara, and terminates at West Valley Community College. Route S8 operates on 30- to 60-minute headways from 5:30 am until 10:30 pm on weekdays. On weekends, Route S8 operates on 60-minute headways from 7:30 am until 9:00 pm. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Pedestrian access to the °' project site is provided via sidewalks on Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue. A sidewalk is provided on the south side of Saratoga Avenue along the entire length of the project frontage between the driveway and Fruitvale Avenue. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Fruitvale Avenue from Saratoga Avenue towards Allendale Avenue to the south. No sidewalk is provided between the driveway and the easternmost Sacred Heart School driveway. Pedestrians have created a worn path along the edge of the orchard property and the overall pedestrian volume is relatively low during the afternoon peak hour. On rainy days, however, pedestrians may walk on the paved shoulder of Saratoga Avenue with their backs to eastbound traffic. An informal path from the library building to Fruitvale Avenue is provided through the orchard. This is primarily used by residents and students from Redwood Middle School located south of the site on Fruitvale Avenue at Allendale Avenue. Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths are paved facilities designated exclusively for bicycle use that are physically separated from roadways by space or by a physical barrier. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways reserved for the exclusive use bicycles and designated with special signing and pavement markings. Bike routes are roadways recommended for bicycle use and often connect to bike lanes and bike paths. Routes are designated with signs only and may not include additional pavement width. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 8 0®0025 Near the project site, there are bike lanes in both directions on Saratoga Avenue. Shoulder stripes painted on Fruitvale Avenue serve as bicycle lanes; however these are not officially designated bike lanes because they are narrower than the five-foot design standard used by Caltrans and the VTA. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The City of Saratoga General Plan designates the project site as PF, Public Facilities and the temporary relocation site as QPF, Quasi-Public Facilities. The operation of a public library (either permanent or temporary) is consistent with either of these General Plan designations. The City of Saratoga General Plan designates the Heritage Orchard as OSMR, Open Space, Managed Resource Production. The City of Saratoga will be undertaking a lot line adjustment to expand the parcel for the library project. The new developed area, including the parking lot, will be entirely within the PF land use designation. The project site and the temporary relocation site are zoned R-1-20,000, Single Family Residential District. According to Section 15-12.030 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, "Community Facilities" are a conditionally allowed use in this zoning district, and the issuance of a use permit is required for these uses. Pursuant to City of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-05.030, the City of Saratoga is exempt from use permit requirements. The Saratoga Community Library expansion project qualifies.as a "Community Facility," and as such is conditionally allowed on the proposed site. PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED Project approval is the sole responsibility of the City of Saratoga. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED None of the environmental factors below would be significantly affected by this project. Therefore, none of the factors are selected.- This initial study has found that there are no "potentially significant impacts" associated with the Saratoga Community Library Expansion and Renovation Project. Impacts discussed in the environmental checklist have been determined to be "less than significant with mitigation incorporated," "less than significant," or of "no impact." ~- Aesthetics Agriculture Reesources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology /Water Quality Hazards & Hazardous Materials Land Use /Planning Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Noise Population /Housing Public Services Recreation TransportationrTraffic Utilities /Service Systems .t • • ., .~ Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 9 OQ~0D2 DETERMINATION On the basis. of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. / I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ElR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Mary Jo W ker, Administrative Services Director Lead Agency • Saratoga Community Library f~ansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Apri14, 2001 Date of Signature Page 10 ~®002'7 Pbfe~lally _. Yc~s. T><imt Lcas:711rcn No: ~ ~ ~~~ Ieq~acY I~ad ~!A!~ligaBo~t , ' Inrpad Imarporalioa a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 1, 5 ~/ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock out- croppings, and historic buildings within a state ./ scenic hi wa ?Sources: 1, 5, 21) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ~ surroundings? (Sources: 5, 13) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or / nighttime views in the area? (Source: 16) Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will have a substantial, demonstrable negative effect on a scenic vista or scenic resource. Discussion (Item a) The project site is located in an area that is not designated in the City of .Saratoga General Plan as a scenic vista, nor is the site adjacent to any street that is locally designated as scenic routes. According to the California Department of Transportation, the site~is not located on any route that is officially designated as a scenic highway by Caltrans. Nonetheless, the project is located in an area with views of the Santa Cruz Mountains. This issue was discussed in public forum, and project architects have produced cone-story design that will limit the disruption to existing views. This impact is less than significant. (Items b and c) The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing library facility into the Heritage Orchard, a locally designated open space area. The Heritage Orchard is a working orchard and is valued for its historic and visual quality. The existing library facility occupies approximately 64,971 square feet on the Heritage Orchard site, and the expanded facility will occupy approximately 129,104 square feet on the site, an increase of approximately 64, 133 square feet. The project will result in the removal of approximately 110 orchard trees, 48 of which will be replanted on the site adjacent to the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue. Currently, the area dedicated to orchard use is approximately 827,000 square feet, and the area to be converted to use for the library expansion represents approximately 7.7 percent of the orchard. According to "50% Design Development, Saratoga Community Library," dated February 26, 2001 (hereafter referred to as Project Plans), three areas adjacent to the new facility that currently have no orchard trees or have sparsely-populated orchard trees of poor quality will be planted with new or transplanted plum and apricot trees. These areas are located at: I) the corner of the site adjacent to the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue, 2) the frontage along Saratoga Avenue that separates the existing parking lot area from Saratoga Avenue, and 3) the area immediately behind the southeast corner of the facility. These areas together are Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consu~ing Page 11 • approximately the size of the area removed from orchard use, and the new and replanted orchard trees are approximately equal to the number of trees removed to make room for expansion of the facility. The restoration of these areas to quality orchard use serves to enhance of the overall visual quality of the site and screen the expanded structure with orchard trees to a much greater degree than the existing structure is screened. The physical appearance of the existing library resembles a "drying shed set in an orchard," and the expanded facility employs the same design motif. According to Project Plans, the proposed addition employs a combination of shed and gambrel rooflines common in agricultural structures, covered with wood shake roofing. The exterior walls consist of plywood siding with .wood battens. Due to the care taken during project design to enhance portions of the orchard that were of low- quality and to create a building that continues the "drying shed" motif, the proposed project has a less than significant impact on scenic value of the Heritage Orchard and a less than significant impact on the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. (Item d) According to project architects (telephone communications with Steve Lovell, Field and Paoli Architects, on March 9, 2001), lighting for the expanded library building will be provided at entryways and exits only; the building itself will not be illuminated. Lighting will also be provided in the parking lot area. In all cases, lighting will be hooded to prevent direct glare. This impact is less than significant. ISSUES: Potentially , :. Less Than Less Than No S'%~:1~. ~1~-n . sii`~leaa Impact Impact w/Mitigation I~xid Incorporation 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: - a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and / Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 9) b} Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 12) / c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, / to non-agricultural use? (Source: 13) Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if development results in conversion of prime agricultural land to non- agricultural uses, cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, or impairment of agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 12 000029 Discussion (item a) The proposed project is located in Saratoga's Heritage Orchard, which is Prime i Farmland according to the Important Farmlands Information (California Department of Conservation, 1998). The project will remove approximately 64,000 square feet of orchard from agricultural use. While approximately 110 existing trees would be removed to facilitate expansion of the Saratoga Community Library, approximately 180 new or replanted trees will replace these trees in areas that currently have no trees or trees of low value. Therefore, while 64,000 square feet of Prime Farmland will be removed from production, the overall productivity of the orchard will be enhanced by . the expansion project. The net result is that the orchard will contain more and healthier orchard trees after the project than before the project. Therefore, even though prime farmland is being removed from production, these special circumstances result in the project having a less than significant impact on the Heritage Orchard as Prime Farmland. (Item b) According to the County of Santa Clara Assessor's Office, the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would have no impact on existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. (Item c) The project site is surrounded by prime agricultural land. The agricultural land is maintained by the City of Saratoga, which maintains the orchard without the use of herbicides or pesticides. No conflicts exist between the existing library and the orchard use and no conflicts are expected with the expanded facility. No agricultural setback is required. This impact is less than significant. ISSUES' PotentiaQy Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporation II[ AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1, 24, ~ 25, 29, 30, 31) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ~ uality violation? (Sources: 13, 24, 25, 28, 29) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality / standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 13, 24, 25, 28, 29) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 2, 5, ] 1, 13, / 26, 29) e} Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of eo le? (Source:.l 3, 29) / • Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 13 000030 Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) also has adopted standards of significance to be used during the preparation of an initial study. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD, Revised December 1999), the construction impacts of a small project (less than four acres in size) would be less than significant if the following control measures are implemented: 1. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; 2. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; 3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; 4. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; and 5. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. In addition, renovation projects that require demolition of existing buildings constructed prior to l 980 would be considered less than significant if the demolition activity complied with District Regulation 1 1, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials; Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. With regard to project operations, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that project impacts would be considered significant if 1) vehicle emissions of CO would exceed SSO,pounds per day; 2) project traffic would impact intersections operating at LOS D, E, or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E, or F; or 3) increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or more. Also, project impacts would be considered significant if on-going operation of the project would result in 80 pounds per day or more of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), or Particulate Matter 10 microns or less (PM,o). Finally, with regard to project operations, project impacts would be considered significant if odor sources were located within one mile of the project (two miles for a petroleum refinery) and there has either been one confirmed complaint per year or three unconfirmed complaints per year. With regard to consistency with the local clean air plan, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines states that if the project is consistent with a city general plan and the general plan is consistent with the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan, the project impacts are less than significant. Discussion (item a) According to the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, December 20, 2000), the air basin in which the project site is located is a "serious non-attainment area for the state ozone standard." In response, the clean air plan sets out transportation control measures (TCMs) designed to improve air quality in the Bay Area. The City of Saratoga General Plan has not been updated since 1983 and does not include measures to implement TCMs contained in the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment (2000 CAP). Nonetheless, the City of Saratoga General Plan is deemed to be in substantial compliance with the clean air plan because population and job growth in Saratoga is Saratoga Community Library F~ansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 14 n~nn ~7 substantially less than that projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). According to ABAG Projections 2000, Saratoga was projected to have 32,800 residents in 2000. The California Department of Finance estimated Saratoga's population was 31,300 in 2000. Furthermore, the city is relatively built-out, and potential growth in population and jobs is expected to be low. Therefore, population growth and growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is consistent with values included in the 2000 CAP. This impact is less than significant. (Item b and c) The expansion of the Saratoga Library facility by approximately 30,000 square feet and the addition of 70 new parking spaces are anticipated to generate approximately 1,620 new vehicle trips to the project site, assuming 54 trips per 1,000 gross square feet (Trip Generation, 6`h Edition, ITE, 1997). According to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, approximately 35:53 grams of CO is generated per trip. Accordingly, the proposed project will generate approximately 126 pounds of CO per day ((1,620 trips x 35.53 grams per trip) _ 454 grams per pound = 126 pounds). This is well below the 550 pounds per day threshold for CO emissions set forth by BAAQMD. With regard to NOX, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that government office projects (the category that best fits the proposed project of the categories provided by BAAQMD) smaller than 55,000 square feet are unlikely to generate emissions greater than the 80-pound-per-day threshold. The proposed project is a 30,000-square foot expansion and is unlikely to generate significant NOx emissions. The proposed project involves clearing and minor grading of an approximately 64,000-square foot area to construct an expanded library building and parking lot. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), this level of construction activity does not generate PM,o emissions that rise to the level of significance if the following mitigation measure is implemented. Mitigation Measure No. 1 -Approved construction plans shall contain notes requiring the implementation of the following air pollution control measures: 1. Water all active rnnstruction areas at least twice daily; 2. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials .or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; 3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; 4. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; 5. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. (Item d) According to the City of Saratoga General Plan and site visits made as part of this environmental investigation, receptors that are sensitive to air pollution exist immediately north and west of the project site (St Andrews Churchlschool and Sacred Heart Church/school, respectively). In addition, the library itself is a sensitive receptor due to the number of children and elderly that use the facility. Mitigation Measure No. 1 and regulations contained in the City of Saratoga Municipal Code designed to protect air quality (i.e., Chapter 8 regulates the handling and storage of hazardous materials, Section 16-55.160(k) regulates dust and dirt control during grading, and Article 7-35 regulates smoking in public places) insure that site preparation activities, construction activities, and the on-going operation of the facility will not significantly affect air quality for these sensitive receptors. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 15 0~003~ (Item e) The proposed project is the expansion of a community facility, the operation of which has no potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. . ,,. ,~ Pota~alt}+ Less Than.;: .:,Less Tlrmr No _. Iss[lES .: .. ~:. _ uigaboa Inoorpnration . IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, / policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 5) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California / Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 5) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, _ but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, / etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interru tion, or other means? (Sources: 1, 5) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or / migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurse sites? (Sources: 1, 5) e) Conflict with any Local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or / ordinance? (Sources: 1, 3, 5, 13) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, / regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1, 3) Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant, or the habitat of the species, or substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants. Discussion (Items a through d) According to the Crty of Saratoga General Plan, Saratoga is located in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and the Santa Cruz Mountains contains species that are protected by the federal government. Protected species include California condor, golden eagle, mountain lion, Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 16 000033 tiger salamander, and red-legged frog. In addition, because the San Francisco Bay is a regular stopover on the Pacific Flyway, many types of shore birds are found in the area. According to the City of Saratoga General Plan and a site visit on February 27, 2001, the project site is located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by urban uses. No species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species have ever been found on the project site. Furthermore, according to the City of Saratoga General Plan, the site contains no riparian or wetland habitat. The lack of suitable habitat means that it is unlikely that development on the project site would interfere with migratory patterns of fish or bird wildlife. The proposed project will have no impact on these resources. (Item e) The proposed project is located in Saratoga's Heritage Orchard, which is locally designated open space area. The project will remove approximately 64,000 square feet of orchard from open space use. According to Linda Gates, of David Gates & Associates Landscape Architects (phone conversation March 13, 2001), approximately l 10 existing trees would be removed to facilitate expansion of the Saratoga Community Library and approximately 180 new or replanted trees will replace these trees in areas that currently have no trees or trees of low value. The net result is that the orchard will be larger and healthier after the project than before the project. 1n addition to the removal and replacement of orchard trees, the proposed project will remove several large trees protected by the City of Saratoga Municipal Code. Section 15-50.050 of the Municipal Code requires the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of any oak tree measuring 10 inches in diameter or greater or any other tree measuring 12 inches in diameter or greater. The proposed project will remove one large oak tree from the new parking lot area, one oak tree and two sycamore trees from the courtyard area, and two to four redwood.trees from the frontage area adjacent to Saratoga Avenue. Pursuant to City of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-05.030, the City of Saratoga is exempt from the Tree Removal Permit requirement. The impact on the trees of the Heritage Orchard is less than significant. (Item f) There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in effect for the project site or surrounding area. There is no impact. ISSUES' Potentiatiy Lets Than Less T/ran No SYgnificad . Signifrcart Sigrljicart Impact .. Impact w/1Nltigation Impact Incorporation V CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as / defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? (Sources: 7, 8, 13) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource / pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? (Source: 1) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique / geologic feature? (Sources: 1, 5) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 1) / • Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 17 Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will result in disruption of, or adversely affect the following: ^ A prehistoric or historic archaeology site or burial ground; ^ A property of historic or cultural significance to a community, ethnic or social group; ^ A local landmark of cultural importance; or • A significant paleontological resource. Discussion (item a) The proposed project is located in Saratoga's Heritage Orchard, which is a locally designated historic resource. The project will remove approximately 64,000 square feet of orchard from open space use. While approximately 110 existing trees would be removed to facilitate expansion of the Saratoga Community Library, approximately 180 new or replanted trees will replace these trees in areas that currently have no trees or trees of low value. Also the library building itself, which is designed as a "drying shed set in an orchard," contributes to the historic character of the site. The net result of the proposed project is that the orchard will contain more and healthier trees after the project than before the project, and the historic character of~the library itself will be enhanced with the building expansion. Also, Saratoga Avenue, between State Route 9 and Fruitvale Avenue, is a designated heritage lane, and this segment of Sara?oga Avenue is adjacent to the project site. According to Section 13-20.010 of the City of Saratoga Historic Preservation Ordinance, the expansion and renovation of any structure located within a designated heritage lane must obtain the approval of the City of Saratoga. According to the ordinance, the City Council may approve a project only if the ``exterior of such improvements will not adversely affect, and will be compatible with the external appearance of, the existing landmark, lane, or district." The proposed project will be approved by the City of Saratoga City Council and therefore will be in compliance with the City of Saratoga Historic Preservation Ordinance. The impact on the Heritage Orchard as a histprical resource and on Saratoga Avenue as a designated heritage lane is less than significant. • (Items b through d) According to the City of Saratoga General Plan and a phone conversation with Robert Schubert of the City of Saratoga Planning Department on March 12, 2001, there are no archeological or paleontological resources or human remains known to exist on the project site. There is no impact on these resources. ISSUES' Pa~tenliaUy. Letts ?liar .. Less Than .: No ..... - ._: S~g-uftcmrt SSigr~tfrc~oirt.., ,. SiS»ificant .: lntpact .: Impact ~ w/Mrtigalion lnrpdcl . Incorporation ~.° . . VI GEOLOGY AND S01LS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, in'u , or death involvin i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other / substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source: 6) Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 18 000035 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 6) / iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including li uefaction? (Source: 6) / iv) Landslides? (Source: 6) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? (Sources: 5, 13) / c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- / ' or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, li uefaction or colla se? (Source: 6) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or / ro erty? (Source 6) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available / for the dis oral of wastewater? (Source: 20) Standard of Significance ~~ ~J According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the - environment if it will expose people or structures to major geologic hazards. Discussion (Items a(i) through a(iv)) According to the Saratoga Library Geotechnical Report (Herzog, December 2000), the property is not within a current Alquist-Priolo "Earthquake Fault Zone," and site inspectors did not observe any geomorphic features that would suggest the presence of an earthquake fault. The project is site is located in a seismically active region of California. The San Francisco Bay Area has experienced several earthquakes from the San Andreas and other associated active faults. According to the geotechnica) report: [RJecent data presented by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 1999) estimates the chance of one or more large earthquakes (magnitude 6.7 or greater) in the region within the next 30 years to be approximately 70 percent:... Consequently, [the geotechnica! engineers) expect that the site will be exposed to strong ground shaking during the life of the improvements. Based on supplemental data collected during the geotechnica) investigation, the geotechnica) engineers estimate that there is a potential for approximately one-half inch of settlement due to liquefaction in the site vicinity. These findings have been taken into consideration in the design of the Saratoga Community Library expansion project, and project plans meet Uniform Building Code standards for earthquake safety. These impacts are less than significant. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 19 (Item b) According to project plans and site visits, the project site is topographically flat and therefore not subject to significant erosion or loss of topsoil caused by constriction activity. There is no impact on soil erosion or loss of topsoil. (Item c) See explanation in Item a above. There is potential for approximately one-half inch of settlement due to liquefaction in the project vicinity. This impact is less than significant. (Item d) According to Saratoga Library Geotechnical Report (Herzog Geotechnical, December 2000), the site vicinity is underlain by soils that have "a relatively low expansion potential." This impact is less than significant. • • (item e)_The City of Saratoga provides sewer service to the project site. There is no impact. .. ;.. .. -... ISSUES:. .. Potel~ally ;Lc+s Than.: ,Less 7Ran ; No -. •; . . S'gni~cmtt SlSni, f??~d S~gru I-npact . .- . _ _ .:. =. _. ,.. _ :. InrPad -; x>%~ilrtigiirtlon : `Inrpacf ,. .. Inavrporabon . VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source: / •13) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the / release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 13) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or ./ proposed school? (Source: 5, 1 ], 13) _ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant • to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a / result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 23) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety ./ hazard for people residing or working in the roject area? (Source: 1) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the ~/ roject area? (Source: 1) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response / Ian or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 13) Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting _ Page 20 !~[~nn -~--~ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland foes, including where wildlands are adjacent to ~ urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 5, 13) Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it: • Would create a public health hazard through the use, production or disposal of materials that pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations; or ^ Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Discussion (Items a through d) The proposed project is the expansion of the Saratoga Community Library and the temporary relocation of the library to an adjacent site during construction. Neither construction activities nor ongoing operation of the public facility involves the use or transport of hazardous materials. According to the County of Santa Clara Environmental Health Department, the project site is not a known hazardous materials site. There are no impacts in these issue areas. (Item a and f) According to the City of Saratoga Planning Department, there are no public or private airstrips in the City of Saratoga. There are no impacts in these issue areas. (Item g) The project, which involves the expansion of the Saratoga Community Library and the temporary relocation of the facility to an adjacent site, involves no physical interference with Saratoga Avenue or Fruitvale Avenue. Accordingly, there is no possibility of impairing the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan which may involve these routes. There is no impact in this issue area. (Item h) The project site is locatsd in Saratoga's Heritage Orchard, and according to project plans orchard trees will be placed in proximity to the expanded structure. According to project architects (telephone conversation with Mark Schatz, Field & Paoli Architecture, March 12, 200.1), the.final site plan will include a 15 to 20-foot firebreak around the exterior of the building. In addition, Project Plans currently include two wall-mounted fire hydrants to be installed on the exterior of the building for use in fire emergencies. This impact is less than significant. ISSUES' Potexda!!y Less Than Less T1ran ~ No.. ~gni~cant ~Sm ' Signlji~t , 7n~pucY `.:Inrpad w/Mikgation: .: I~< .. ... Incorporation .. . VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ..discharge requirements? (Source: 13) / Saratoga Community Library Mansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 21 • • ~f~UU~38 • b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- / existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been anted)? (Source: 13) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial / erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Sources: 5, 11, 13) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of / surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or ofd site? (Sources: 5, 11, 13) e) Create or contribute runoff water which-would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 13) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 13) ~/ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard . Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other / flood hazard delineation ma ? (Sources: 10, 13) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood / flows? (Sources: 10, 13) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a ./ levee or dam? (Source: 1, 10, 13) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: 1) ~/ Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially degrade water quality or substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants. Discussion . (Item a) The proposed project is the expansion of the Saratoga Community Library and the temporary relation of the library to an adjacent site during construction. Neither construction Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 22 nnnn-~~ activities nor ongoing operation of the public facility involve the discharge of waste that will violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. There are no impacts in these issue areas. (Item b) The expanded Saratoga Community Library is not expected to draw substantial numbers of visitors from outside the community. Therefore, no net increase in water demand is anticipated. The expanded development footprint includes approximately 64,000 square feet of additional impervious surface, and this could have a minor effect on ground water recharge in the area. These impacts are less than significant. (Items c and f) The project site is topographically flat, and no streams or drainage swales exist on . the project site. Wildcat Creek runs along the southern perimeter of the Heritage Orchard approximately 400 feet of the project site. This creek will not be impacted by construction or ongoing operation of the facility. The project includes an additional 56,000 square feet of impervious surface, however, that will create additional storm water runoff that -could impact the storm water drainage system. During construction the project site could be exposed to storm water that will create erosion and siltation. With regard to water quality, the proposed project includes approximately 26,000 square feet of additional parking -ot impervious surface. The buildup of automotive fluids on the parking lot surface and the subsequent flushing of these products into the storm drain system may have an effect on quality of water leaving the site. These impacts will be less than significant with the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure No. 2 -Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant will submit a drainage and erosion control plan for the project site that insures that storm event drainage from the-site after project completion is equal or less tban storm event drainage from the site pnor to m~hahon of the project. The plan will incorporate best management practices that insure automotive and other pollutants that may exist on the parking lot surface do not enter the storm drainage system. The plan will also include erosion control measures effective from October 15 through March 15 that insure eroded soils do not leave the site during construction. (Items g through j) According to a flood hazard map generated on the ESRI/FEMA Project Impact Hazard Information and Awareness Site (http://www.esri.com/hazards, March 2001), the project site is located in a 500-year flood plain and is not subject to 100-year storm events. According to the City of Saratoga General Plan, the area is not subject to impact from dam or levee failure, nor is it subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. There are no impacts in these issue areas. Iss[rES' Potentially Less Than Less. TTian `, No Sig,r}frcant Significant.. Significant In~pac! ICY ` xs<Mltigation Inippd' , . , _~ Incorporation IX LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established communi ? (Sources: 1, 5, 13) / b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local / coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 13) Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 23 • ~n4nr~~ n c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ~ conservation plan? (Source: 1) Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: ^ Result in conflicts with adjacent uses, including established recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of the area • Be inconsistent with local and regional land use and environmental policies. Discussion (Item a) The proposed project is the expansion of a community facility within the parcel upon which it is currently located. There is no possibility that the project would physically divide an established community. The project would result in no impact. (Items b and c) According to the City of Saratoga General Plan, the City of Saratoga Municipal Code, and Project Plans, the expanded public facility proposed on the project site does not conflict with existing applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of the City of Saratoga. The Ciry of Saratoga General Plan designates the project site as PF, Public Facilities and the temporary relocation site as QPF, Quasi-Public Facilities. The operation of a public library (either permarient or temporary) is consistent with either of these General Plan designations.. The City of Saratoga General Plan designates the Heritage Orchard as OSMR, Open Space, Managed Resource Production. The City of Saratoga will be undertaking a lot line adjustment to expand the parcel for the library project. The new developed area, including the parking lot, will be entirely within the PF land use designation. The City oJSarotoga Zoning Ordinance zones the project site and the temporary• relocation site as R-1-20,000, Single Family Residential District. According to Section 15-12.030 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, "Community Facilities" are a conditionally allowed use in this zoning district, and the issuance of a use permit is required for these uses. The Saratoga Community Library expansion project qualifies as a "Community Facility," and as such is conditionally allowed on the proposed site. Pursuant to City of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-05.030, the Ciry of Saratoga is exempt from use permit requirements. • There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that affect the project site. The project will have no impact on land use and planning. ISSUES: ...:'. PolentiaUy Leis Tbmr- Lca 77ran- - :: No ' st~l~ ::: ~.; ~h~ `: Jed. . _ _ . ln~ix , w/Mitigc7ton ~ .. .. Jnrpad.. r . :..: Inaorporotion X MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the / region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan ~/ or other land use plan? (Source: I ) Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 24 000041 Standard of Signifiraoce According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the • environment if it will result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Discussion a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or / applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 13) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne / noise levels? (Source: 13) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels / existing without the roject? (Source: 13) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? / (Sources: 13, 19) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing / or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise / levels? (Source: I ) Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. Discussion • (Item a through d) With the exception of temporary noise impacts associated with construction, the proposed project, which involves the operation of a community library, would not significantly increase ambient noise levels in the area, nor would it would expose persons to excessive vibration or noise levels. Construction activities are temporary, and according to Mary Jo Walker, Administrative Services Director for the City of Saratoga (phone conversation on March 13, 2001), standard hours of construction (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) will be enforced. These impacts are less than significant. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 25 D~D~~ti (Items a and f) According to the City of Saratoga Planning Department, there are no public or private airstrips in the City of Saratoga. There are no impacts in these issue areas. ISSiTES' - `PaaUy ,...: Lecs 7kan- -Le~7lliaa ~ ::No , . ,. Imlpad H/MrtrgaGio~t In~p~act .;, ,::: ... . ~. ;..-:. . :.. .: I~corporakon. ;. X11 POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for / example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 13) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ~ re lacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 13) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement / housing elsewhere? (Source: 13) Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will induce substantial population growth or displace a substantial number of persons from existing housing. Discussion (item a) The proposed project involves the expansion of the Saratoga Community Library, which is currently impacted by demand for services that exceed the library's ability to deliver. .. According to Projeet Plans, the project will increase the size of the existing facility by approximately 30,000 square feet, and this additional space is designed to correct existing service deficiencies. There is no possibility that the expanded facility will induce population growth in the area. There is no impact in this issue area. (Item b and c) The proposed project would not result in the displacement of any persons or housing. There is no impact in these categories. • ISSUES: PotenBally Leers Tian. I.ess.77ran No ..- . ~gnihaont .. ~. ~g-df cent . SigntfaQnt .: Inipad .. Impact w1 Afuigatio~t :. Jntpael ;. . . . I»cwrporahon XIII PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated . with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources: 1, 13) b) Police protection? (Sources: I, 13) / c) Schools? (Sources: 1, 13) Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 26 ~~n~~ ~ d) Parks? (Sources: 1, I3) e) Other public facilities? (Sources: 1, 13) Standard of Significance For .the purposes of this document, a project will have a significant effect on the environment if it necessitates the construction of a new fire department, police department, park, or school. Discussion (Item a through e) The proposed project involves the expansion of the Saratoga Community Library, which is currently impacted by demand for services that exceed the library's ability to deliver. According to Project Plans, the project will increase the size of the existing facility by approximately 30,000 square feet, and this additional space is designed to correct existing service deficiencies. Expansion of the library facility will not place any additional demand on other public facilities. There are no impacts in these issue areas. ISSUES' PotexdaUy .Less Than Less T/raa` 1Vo ~S~I 's~l~r Sig~i, ficam . ; Inrpad - Intpad wLM~tga&on .., j~~.. , .. . Incorpora>&on XIV RECREATION = a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial / physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 13) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of . recreational facilities, which might have an / adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 13) Standard of Significance According to CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will impact an existing recreational facility or require construction of a recreational facility that impact the environment. Discussion (Item a) The proposed project involves the expansion of the Saratoga Community Library and will not place any.,additiona) demand on existing parks or recreational facilities. There is no impact in.this category. . (Item b) The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. There is no impact in this issue area. • • :: i Saratoga Community Library F~cpansion Maureen Owens Hitl Consulting Page 27 000044 ISSUES' Pota~aUy Less TJ,q~t less.7haq . No, ~ ~ ~8++t~caM . hquct Imlpad : iv/Mittg~alioir . ingaaci . 7nc»rpo~atiori: XV TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: • a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of / vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 26) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for / designated roads or highways? (Source: 26) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial ~/ safety risks? (Source: 26) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or d4ngerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm ~/ equipment)? (Source: 13) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 13) ~ ~ ./ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 27) ./ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source: 1, 3, / 13) Standard of Significance - According to CEQA Guidelines, a, project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if the proposed project: 1. Degrades operations at a signalized intersection from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F), or exacerbates operations at an intersection already operating at LOS E or F; ' 2. Causes parking intrusion on adjacent neighborhood streets; 3. Conflicts with existing or planned transit facilities and services; or 4. Impedes travel on an existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facility. • Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consut6ng Page 28 (100045 Discussion Fxisting Intersection Operations The operations of the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection were analyzed under weekday PM peak-hour traffic conditions. Evening peak conditions usually occur during the commute period between 4:00 and 6:00 pm. However, due to the surrounding elementary schools, traffic counts were conducted at this intersection between 2:00 to 6:00 pm to determine if the PM peak hour occurs earlier than the typical commute hour. The review of this data showed that the highest one-hour volume during the four-hour period occurred between 2:30 and 3:30 pm. Existing lane configurations, cycle lengths, and the peak-hour turning movement volumes were used to calculate the level of service for the Saratoga AvenueJFruitvale Avenue intersection during the PM peak hour. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that the Saratoga AvenueJFruitvale Avenue intersection is operating at LOS D with 31.6 seconds of average stopped delay during the afternoon peak hour. According to City standards, this intersection is currently operating at an acceptable level. Existing Driveway Operations The existing operations of the Saratoga Library driveway and the Sacred Heart School driveways providing access to the Sacred Heart easternmost parking area were analyzed for this study. The Sacred Heart School driveways were included to address potential impacts associated with operation of the temporary library facility while the proposed project is under construction. Existing operations of both driveways are presented below: Saratoga Avenue/Sarato~a Library Driveway The results of the level of service calculations indicate that the driveway approach to the intersection is operating at LOS E. Observations indicated that, under Existing Conditions, the queue waiting to exit the driveway was five vehicles. In addition, vehicles waited less than the 35 - - to 50 seconds indicated by the LOS calculation. Observations also showed that the eastbound queue at the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue y intersection extended back past this driveway during two signal cycles around 3:30 pm. During the short time period when this occurred, delays for vehicles exiting the library driveway were slightly longer. Vehicles turning left. into the driveway were also temporarily delayed because vehicles queued on Saratoga Avenue blocked the driveway entrance. The resulting delay caused library-bound vehicles to queue out of the existing westbound left-turn lane; however, this event - only occurred twice during the entire four-hour observation period. Otherwise, the queue in left- turn lane was typically one or two vehicles. A count of traffic volumes between 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm conducted on Thursday March 8, 2001 showed that the existing library generated a total of 285 vehicle trips (160 inbound and 125 outbound) during the highest one-hour period (3:00 pm to 4:00 pm). The directional split of traffic was 78 percent to the east (towards Fruitvale Avenue) and 22 percent to the west on Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga AvenuelSacred Heart Driveway There are three driveways providing access to Sacred Heart. The westernmost driveway provides access to the school's western parking lot. The western lot has no access to the eastern lot. The temporary placement of the library will be in the eastern lot. Therefore, the two driveways providing access to the eastern lot (referred to as the Easternmost Driveway and the Middle Driveway) were analyzed. Saratoga Community Library E~ansion Maureen Owens Hill Consut6ng Page 29 Q~0046 The level of service calculations indicate that the driveway approach to the Saratoga AvenuelSacred Heart Easternmost Driveway intersection is operating at LOS C during the PM peak hour. Observations from 3:00 to 5:00 pm indicated that the driveway is operating acceptably with limited on-site and on-street queuing. According to the level of service analysis, the driveway approach to the Saratoga Avenue/Sacred Heart Middle Driveway intersection is operating at LOS C, an acceptable level, during the PM peak hour. Observations indicated that the driveway is operating with minimal on-site and off-site queuing. Parking Existing and future library parking demand was previously addressed in a study prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates for the City of Saratoga in November 2000, which is summarized below. Library Parking Library staff conducted parking utilization and duration surveys on Thwsday, October 5, 2000 (l 0:30 am to 8:30 pm), Satwday, October 7 (l :00 pm to 5:00 pm), and Sunday, October 8 (1:00 pm to 330 pm). The number of parked vehicles and the length of time each vehicle was parked were recorded during the surveys. The highest parking demands (largest number of parked vehicles on-site) were recorded on Thursday afternoon with 84 vehicles at 3:30 pm, and Sunday afternoon with 80 vehicles at 3:30 pm Fehr 8c Peers Associates counted 81 parked vehicles at 3:45 pm on Thursday, November 9, 2000. Currently, there are 95 on-site parking spaces located at the library. Current supply is greater than the existing peak demand; therefore, the number of existing parking spaces is considered to be . adequate. Sacred Heart Parkine The Sacred Heart Eastern Parking Lot has 174 parking spaces. Observations conducted at the ' Sacred Heart Eastern Parking Lot in March 2001 while students were picked up after dismissal showed that the entire parking lot was always less than 50 percent occupied. This results in approximately 85 spaces available during the afternoon peak hour. " Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity The number of pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to and from the library were counted between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm. The peak hour for pedestrian activity occurred between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm when 26 people_entered the library from the Saratoga Avenue side and 47 people entered the site using the Fruitvale Avenue path. The peak hour for bicycle activity occurred between 4:00 and 5:00 pm. During this peak hour, nine bicyclists were observed traveling westbound on Saratoga Avenue riding in the bicycle lane. . Six bicyclists were observed riding in the bicycle lane traveling eastbound on Saratoga Avenue. Two bicyclists were observed riding westbound on the sidewalk in front of the existing library riding counter-flow to vehicular traffic. Analysis oJlntpacts (Itencs a through e) The expansion of the Saratoga Library includes the expansion of the existing facility from 18,000 square feet to approximately 49,000 square feet including additional space for library materials and a new community room. During the construction phase of the project, the library will be closed and a temporary facility will be operated in several modular units located in the Sacred Heart parking lot immediately adjacent to the orchard library property: The temporary library will contain approximately 6,800 square feet of space and house one-third of the existing materials. Avery limited amount of public space for reading and research will be provided. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 30 nnnna~ With the reduced amount of materials and public space, the temporary library is expected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips as compared to existing conditions. Since standard rates for temporary facilities are not available, the number of trips generated by the library visitors during the construction phase was estimated as 50 percent of the existing level. Therefore, the temporary library is estimated to generate 163 trips during the afternoon peak hour. Although the size of the ultimate library is increasing substantially, the corresponding number of trips is not expected to increase proportionally. Based on input from library staff, it is estimated that the number of trips generated by the proposed expansion will increase by approximately 30 percent. This would result in an increase of 86 vehicle trips (30 percent of 285 existing trips) during the afternoon peak hour. The proposed community room may generate additional traffic volumes. However, these volumes would typically occur outside the library use peak period (e.g., after 6:00 pm on weekdays, or on weekend days) when background traffic volumes on Saratoga Avenue and other streets are substantially less. Accordingly, these volumes were not included in the technical analysis. Intersection and Driveway Operations Temporary Library The temporary library is expected to decrease the number of trips generated by the library by 50 percent during the PM peak hour. This will decrease the amount of traffic at the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection and would slightly improve intersection operations during the interim construction period. Thus, no intersection improvements would be required at this location during the construction phase. Traffic from the temporary library was added to the existing traffic volumes at the driveways serving-Sacred Heart School based on the existing directional distribution. The resulting existing plus temporary project volumes were analyzed using LOS calculations. Although the temporary library traffic is projected to increase the delay for outbound vehicles, the middle'driveway is expected to operate at LOS D during the afternoon peak hour, which is considered an acceptable level. The easternmost driveway is expected to continue operating at LOS C during this period even with the addition of temporary library traffic. Vehicles turning left into the project site from Saratoga Avenue will create minor delays for through traffic on Saratoga Avenue because no separate westbound left-turn lanes are currently provided on Saratoga Avenue. These minor delays are not expected to create any operational ditiiculties on Saratoga Avenue. It should be noted that Sacred Heart School is preparing a traffic study to address the potential impacts of its campus master plan. Preliminary findings from that study indicate that a separate left-turn lane will'be provided on Saratoga Avenue in the future. The timing of that improvement is expected to follow completion of the library expansion project. Library Expansion As noted previously, the expansion of the Saratoga Library is expected to generate approximately 30 percent more trips as compared to the existing facility. It is estimated that the proposed expansion will add approximately 48 new inbound trips and 38 new outbound trips during the afternoon peak hour. These trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the existing directional distribution, and added to the existing library driveway volumes. Next, the existing plus project volumes were analyzed using level of service calculations. With implementation of the proposed project, operations at the signalized Saratoga AvenuelFruitvale Avenue intersection are expected to maintain LOS D operations during the Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 31 nn,nn~ c~ afternoon peak hour. Since the project is not expected to result in s significant impact, no improvements are recommended at this location. The level of service analysis at the Saratoga Library driveway indicates that the increase in outbound traffic is expected to degrade driveway operations to LOS F during the PM peak hour. As noted under Existing Conditions, delays experienced by vehicles exiting the site were significantly less than those estimated by the level of service calculation. Furthermore, all of the delayed traffic would be contained on-site. Vehicles turning left into the site are still projected to experience minimal delays. A separate queuing analysis indicates that the 95a' percentile queue (i.e., the queue expected 95 percent of the time) for vehicles. turning left into the site will be one vehicle. Based on existing observations and the queuing analysis, library driveway operations are expected to be better than the LOS calculation indicates. Saratoga Avenue Operations Temporary Library Delays on Saratoga Avenue are expected to increase slightly due to traffic from the library expansion. Currently, vehicles turning left into the existing site have use of separate alert-turn lane. The driveways at the Sacred Heart School do not have alert-turn lane. These left-turns into the project site are expected to slightly increase delays on Saratoga Avenue. This increased delay is not expected to have a significant impact on roadway operations. Library Expansion Based on queuing theory, the maximum expected queue in the left-turn lane on Saratoga Avenue is not expected to increase with the library expansion. The estimated 95`h percentile maximum queue under Existing and Project Conditions would be one vehicle. As noted under Existing Conditions, however, delays caused by the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue signal resulted in eastbound queues that extended past the library driveway. This blockage resulted in left-turn queues waiting to enter the project site that extended beyond the existing storage length of 120 feet, or roughly six vehicles. Since this occurred only twice in a four-hour period, lengthening of the left-turn pocket is not recommended at this time. However, painting of a "Keep Clear" designation on eastbound Saratoga Avenue in front of the library driveway is recommended to minimize delays to left-turning vehicles into the site. With this roadway improvement, it is expected that the existing storage pocket will be adequate to serve the increased library demand. Mitigation Measure No. 3 -Before opening the expanded and renovated library, the City of Saratoga shall install a "Keep Clear" designation on the eastbound Saratoga Avenue in front of the library driveway. Analyse of Impacts (Item f, Parkin Temporary Library Observations of existing demand indicated that approximately 50 percent or 85 of the parking spaces in the Sacred Heart School parking lot were available during the afternoon peak hour. Similar to the number of trips, the temporary library is assumed to generate 50 percent of the existing library parking demand or a total of 42 parked vehicles. This demand can be accommodated within the Sacred Heart School lot. Library Expansion According to the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, the parking standard for Community Facilities is one space per employee, and the Planning Commission determines additional parking needs. The City of Saratoga completed a parking study for the Saratoga Community Library Expansion and Renovation Project and determined that 165 parking spaces are needed for the new facility ("Parking Supply for Proposed Saratoga Library Expansion Project," Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.). Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 32 000049 Analysis oJlntpacts (Item ~ The lack of a formal pedestrian path on Saratoga Avenue between the library and the easternmost driveway of Sacred Heart School is considered an existing deficiency. The expansion of the library could increase pedestrian traffic along this corridor, although, the increase is not expected to be substantial. City staff has indicated that Sacred Heart School will construct a sidewalk or formal path to link the school campus with the library property. Closure of this gap will improve pedestrian travel in the vicinity of the project site and no significant pedestrian impacts are anticipated. Expansion of the library may also increase the number ofsite-generated bicycle trips. Since bicycle lanes are provided on both Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue, no significant bicycle impacts are anticipated and no improvements are recommended. ,. ; ISSUES: _ Pote~tatly Le~T7tan LessT7wn No .' ~~ ~„dl7~aia' Jtcaa ,ligpaar - . . ... .- ImlpacY . ~~ .... ~~~ . • XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ~ Board? (Source: 13 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ~ of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 1, 13) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of.which / could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 13) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements ~/ needed? (Sources: 1, 13) e) Result in a determination b}• the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the~project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the ~/ provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1, 13) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's / solid waste dis osal needs? (Source: 1, 13) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (1, 3, 13) ~ ~/ Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 33 • • Standard of Significance For the purpose of this document, a project will have a significant effect on the environment if it will exceed the capacity of the available public sewer system, require extension of.public sewers to the project site, exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain infrastructure, or require significant amounts of water. Discussion (Items a through g) The proposed project involves a 30,000-square foot expansion of the Saratoga Community Library, and this expansion is designed to correct existing service deficiencies. The expanded building will have eight additional toilets and six additional sinks. Two urinals will be retained. The expanded building will have sprinklers installed, and two exterior wall .hydrants will be installed for fire protection. These new fixtures will create a minor increase in demand for water and sewer service at the site, but this new demand will not require the construction of new water or sewer service capacity. On-site drainage facilities will be designed to create no net increase in drainage from the site (see Mitigation Measure No. 2). The expanded facility will . include a new trash enclosure with trash and recycling containers. The facility is expected to produce only a minor increase in solid waste, much of which will be recyclable. These impacts are less than significant. ~:. . ISSUES: ~Y , ::. ~ ~ ~~~+, lYo ~ , SignifJc~wrt _ , SfSnificaRt SJgiuJic~waK . Inrpad ;... In~pacl ..- w%MrLtgatlon ._ , . Ind., ... Inrnrporation • XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially / reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively / considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future ro'ects)? c) Dces the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on / human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion (Item a) The proposed project's most obvious and substantial effect is the conversion of parts of Saratoga's Heritage Orchard to use as a public facility. The Heritage Orchard is a working orchard valued for its historic and open space value. The proposed project removes Saratoga Community Library ExQansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 34 ~~~~5~ approximately 64,000 square feet of orchard (7.7 percent) from productive use. City of Saratoga officials have conducted an extensive public outreach process to inform citizens of the project and to solicit their comments. As a result, the proposed design includes features that restore the remaining orchard to a healthier and more productive state. While the project will cause the removal of approximately 110 orchard trees, these trees (many of which are of poor quality) will be replaced with approximately 180 new and replanted orchard trees. The Heritage Orchard will be slightly smaller but will contain more fruit trees and healthier fruit trees than is currently the case. Architects have also been careful to design a building that maintains the "drying shed in an orchard" look, so that the historical and open space values that exist are maintained with the expanded facility. The impact in this issue area is considered less than significant. (item b) The proposed project adds approximately 30,000 square feet of floor area to the Saratoga Community Library and approximately 29,000 square feet of parking area. The purpose of this expansion is to address current inadequacies in the library's current use and technology. The building was designed to house ] 00,000 volumes and now holds over 182,000 volumes. Checkouts have reached over 80,000 volumes per month, which represents about 46 percent of the collection. Accordingly, City of Saratoga officials expect the facility to keep up with current demand and, as a result of improvements, probably attract some new customers. Overall, the expanded project is not expected to significantly increase demand on transportation facilities, water supplies, sewer systems, or storm drains. Nor will the project place demand on other public facilities or services such as police and fire. The project is not expected to contribute in a significant way to cumulative impacts on any of these public facilities or services. The impact in this issue area is less than significant. (Item c) The proposed expansion of the Saratoga Community Library is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains two private schools, two churches, low-density single-family homes, and government offices. There is no possibility that the use will cause environmental effects that will have a substantial adverse effect on human beings. There is no impact in this issue area. General Notes 1. A brief explanation is provided for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2. All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site, as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact: to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The mitigation measures are described, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 35 5. Earlier analyses are used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration: Section l 5063(c~3)(I)). In this case, a brief discussion would identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identifies and states where they are available for review. b. Impact Adequately Addressed. Identifies which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," mitigation measures are described which were incorporated or refined from the. earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) are incorporated. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list is attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion. 8. This is the format recommended in the CEQA Guidelines as amended October 1998. • 9. The explanation of each issue identifies: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if atry, used to evaluate each question; and . b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. • • Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 36 !1!l!1!~ r rl • MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM n ~J 000054 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Air Quality Mitigation Measure (Page 13) Mitigation Measure No. 1 -Approved construction plans shall contain notes requiring the implementation of the following av pollution control measures: 1. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; 2. Cover all tracks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; 3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; 4. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; 5. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Responsible Party The City of Saratoga Building Official is responsible for insuring that the above air pollution control measures are successfully implemented. Renortine Requirement The City of Saratoga Building Official will verify that project plans contain the above air pollution control measures by signing and approving project plans. The Building Official shall also confirm through weekly oral reports to the Administrative Services Director that the above measures are be successfully implemented and if measures are not being successfully implemented, take action to co the situation. T_ unin~ This mitigation measure will be implemented during project approval and construction. ing rrect Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure (Page 21) Mitigation Measure No. 2 -Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant will submit a drainage and erosion control plan for the project site that insures that storm event drainage from the site after project completion is equal or less than storm event drainage from the site prior to initiation of the project. The plan will incorporate best management practices that insure automotive and other pollutants that may exist on the parking lot surface do not enter the storm drainage system. The plan will also include erosion control measures effective from October 15 through March 15 that insure eroded soils do not leave the site during construction. Responsible Party The City of Saratoga Building Official and the Director of the Saratoga Community Library are responsible for insuring that the above hydrology and water quality mitigation measure is successfully implemented. Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 37 Reporting Requirement The City of Saratoga Building Official will verify that project plans contain the above hydrology and water quality mitigation measure by signing and approving project plans. The building official shall confirm that the drainage plan was successfully implemented by approving the final inspection. The Building Official shall also confirm through a written report to the Administrative Services Director by November 1 ~ that erosion control measures were in place by October 15t°, and if erosion control measures are not in place by October 15'x, take action to correct the situation. The Director of the Saratoga Community Library will verify through yearly written reports to the City of Saratoga Administrative Services Director that the drainage system is functional and that~best management practices are being routinely implemented that have the effect of reducing the amount of automotive pollutants entering the storm drainage system. Turun~ This mitigation measure will be implemented during project approval and construction and on an annual basis after project completion. Transportation Mitigation Measure (Page 31) Mitigation Measure No. 3 -Before opening the expanded and renovated library, the City of Saratoga shall install a "Keep Clear" designation on the eastbound Saratoga Avenue in front of the library driveway. Responsible Party The City of Saratoga Director of Public Works is responsible for insuring that the above transportation mitigation measure is successfully implemented. Reporting_Requirement . The City of Saratoga Director of Public Works will verify that project plans contain the above transportation mitigation measure by signing and approving project plans. The director shall confirm that the transportation improvement was successfully implemented by approving the final inspection. TunmQ This mitigation measure will be implemented during project approval and construction and after the completion of all construction activities. • Saratoga Community Library ExQansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 38 • SOURCES • n~~~~~ SOURCES - 1. City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga General Plan, May l 983 2. City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga General Plan Diagram, June 1987 3. City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga Municipal Code, March 2001 4. City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga Zoning Map, June 1987 5. Coastplans.com, Site Visit, February and March 2000 6. Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, "Saratoga Library Geotechnical Report," December 2000 7. City of Saratoga, "Request for Qualifications, Environmental Services for a New Library Expansion Project," January 2000 -_ 8. City of Saratoga, "City Council Staff Report Regarding Orchard Restoration Project -Phase I and Phase Tl," February 2001 9. California Department of Conservation, "Important Farmland Information," 1998 0. ESRUFEMA, Flood Hazard Map (generated from website at http://www.esri.com/hazards) 11. City of Saratoga, Aerial.Photographs, July 1990 12. County of Santa Clara Assessor's Office, Assessor's Map Book 397, Page 30, March 1991 13. Field Paoli Architecture, "50% Design Development, Saratoga Community Library," February 26, 2001 -- --= 14. Field Paoli Architecture, "Option A, Temporary Library," February 2001 15. Phone Conversation with Linda Gates, David Gates & Associates Landscape Architects, March 12, 2001 16. Phone Conversations with Steve Lovell, Field Paoli Architecture, March 9, 12 and 13, 2001 17. Phone Conversations with Cynthia Morales, Field Paoli Architecture, March 9, 12 and 13, 2001 18. Phone Conversation with Mark Schatz, Field & Paoli Architecture, March 12, 2001 19. Phone Conversation with Mary Jo Walker, Administrative Services Director for the City of Saratoga, March 13, 2001 20. Phone Conversations with Robert Schubert, Contract Planner with City of Saratoga Planning Department, March 12 and March 13, 2001 21. California Office of State Landscape Architecture, "California Scenic Highway' System" (from web page at http://www.dot.ca.QOV/hg/LandArch/Scenic), March 2001 22. Bass, Herson, and Bogdan, CEQA Deskbook, 2001 Supplement, November 2000 23. County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, "Hazardous Materials Sites List," March 2001 -~ -- 24. Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment, (from web page at http://www.baagmd.gov), December 2000 25. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Final Addendum to the 1991 Clean Air Plan Environmental Impact Report, (from web page at http://www.baagmd.gov), December 2000. 26. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., "Traffic Analysis for Saratoga Community Library Expansion," March 2001 27. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., "Parking Supply for Proposed Saratoga Library Expansion Project," November 2000 28. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6`~' Edition, 1997 29. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, BAAQMD, Revised December 1999 30. ABAG Projections 2000, December 1999 31. California Department of Finance, "City/County Population Estimates" (http://www.dof.ca.gov), March 2001 32. City of Saratoga, "Community Meetings on Library Project," Interoffice Memorandum dated March 12, 2001 from Mary Jo Walker, Administrative Services Director Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 39 oooos8 • APPENDIX A TRANSPOIaTATION METHODOLOGY • • 000059 APPENDIX A -TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY The operations of the roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, as the best operating conditions, to LOS F, or the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents "at-capacity" operations. The City of Saratoga accepts LOS D as the minimum acceptable operating level. The level of service calculation method for intersections is dependent on the type of traffic control device (traffic signals or stop signs). The Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection is signalized, while the Saratoga Library and Sacred Heart Driveway intersections on Saratoga Avenue are controlled with stop signs. The levels of service of the signalized Saratoga AvenueJFruitvale Avenue intersection were calculated using methods from Chapter 9 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) with adjusted saturation flow rates. This method calculates level of service based on the weighted average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds per vehicle and is consistent with City and VTA guidelines. Table 1 presents the LOS descriptions and ranges of delay for signalized intersections. TABLE I Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay - . Avei~ge ~;`. . :Stopped Delay • Levee of -' :. _., Pei' Vehicle'` ~ . Service Description ~ ~ (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable < 5.0 progression and/or short cycle length ,: B+ ;. Operattons w_ rth low decay occumng: ~ wtth good progression ~ 7 1 fo 3 0 ` _ . and/or short cycle l~gtbs. '- - C+ Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression 15.1 to 17.0 C and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to 17.1 to 23.0 failures are frequent occurrences. 56.1 to 60.0 Source: VTA's CMP Transportatlon Impact Analysis Guidelines, May 7, 1998, and Transportation Research Board, Hig/nvay Capacity Mnnval, Special Report 209, 1994. The operations of the unsignalized driveway intersections were analyzed using the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Operations at unsignalized intersections are defined by the approach with the longest average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. Control delay at these intersections includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final Saratoga Community Library Expansion Maureen Owens Hill Consulting Page 40 ~~~~~~ E+ Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, 40.1 to 44.0 E Iona cycle lengths and high V/C ratios Individual cycle 44 1 to 56 0 acceleration delay. The ranges of delay for each LOS are presented in Table 2. [. . ~--~DF~~I~`,~~~;~F~~,ii~~, ~zl=~.~ r~ -~ ~~1~~t~ ^ ".(~~~~~--~~~~4~ r -> It~and:5 ~5 .. .... ~)R...L~~'~^':A'!~...~dls..r. ~':.,:t.5.~~~f~2+..°.in~~'~^`CCm'{1P~S:~.A~Z1A .mt;.a. ~ t `fir .... :$~~.. .. ... ....... C ~ Average traffic delays. - > 15 and <_ 25. ter, 'c 1i u"~ ~ 'c.~ ` r k z... ti ~ 4~~,~s~~~~`i c. ~ ' > 25' and X35 ' ~ E - - Very long traffic delays > 35 and _<_50 . - ,$ >~ ' ~~~'~ .~l~me ~affi~ fie~a'y~' w><t~n~s~n~c~ ac exceeded ~`~ 50 - ' ' Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board 1997). ~ - = - .,, :. • . ' ~ Saratoga Community Library Expansion ~ _ : ~ . . Maureen Owens Hill GonsuRing ~ ' Page 41~-. 000061 TABLE 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service DeSnitions ' Using 1997 HCM Methodology _ APPENDIX B -PARKING STUDY •I 0 Q ° o°e ~ v ., ., oa o ° f o o a e 0 ~~ ~- ° ~g~D ° o 0 fc °8 fi'R' °° B _•~yv s a ° l~ ~° o~v ~ ~~~ B ° ,Vw ~ o°o ~ ~ op ° u ~ .- ,: o o OP a o ~ ~.o _ &° ~ ~ ~otl ° ° e a ~ o° o° e e ~a~ ~a ®~ m _ o~ o e U ~ °~~: ~~ _ p~ ~~ ° .. ~ ~ o ° ~° ~~` ~ ;~ 8 ~ ° ~ .. o, ° e o ~ (i~ ^ ~.° gg~° a o ° ~, r 4U `t ° $3:° . ~ ~i ;~ °~~ d ono ° u~ ~~ ° ° ° ~ d . ~ ° O ° ' ° ° d ,g o q o °~ ~ ° Q .. ~ B o o ° o ~3mde ~oo ~ c U ~~ °°04 0 ~~,~o ° ~ 00 o m 00 o a a o e ~~~9~ ~~ °c° ate ° ~, ~ `F4~ o ~ ~~~ a o O.p C ~~ Rb °. °8°° °~~ °~'p, ~ m°''o . 0 8~¢~° y~ °fi..4~ ° °~ ° x °o 9w .. a~ °m ~. og 6 - 9~e ., c i ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~~ m~ ~ ~ °~'°°° U ~' ~°Oe 0 9~ ^° ~ ~ P ~ ,60~ 00 dJ a ~.°°ap, ~ ,o ~~°°gj g ,rD 8x,°~. m°m~~b,.o c ~ ° m °~o ~ sL~ ~ A e ~ 8~°~ o°~ ao°o8 o e . ' °~,,~ ~,- s ~a, °~o'o ~ $ o _ ° ° e ~ ~e e: ~~~_ e ~ o . ~ °y,Ff ~" m u °,s °~"'b,,~ e o °~ o 0 a ° ~ " : ~~ ~ ° eg ~=,o ' 6 0° 4 p °D °. -~~~ ° m p'o ° °c 11„0„ o„ ' ~ °@~0,4, ° ° °~. ,. ° o0 o O ° dd~o °' e o ° ° .~. G e ~ F ° e ° .. -. p o _~ oo ~, ~. ~4~PgA mP4:,o°°o d P~,~o o °0 ° 4: ~„ ~ 8r R ~ ~ a e ~~. ~~~ ~'o~~~s1D~g *~ka ~$o°aO ~IS° ~ a0 0 ~° °9 6 ° B°e° d3 bo .? ~ ~ °b.Q o ;:4am4D ryd 9 ~. ° ga ° b~~6,.,g. ~ oo°. ~qoo g ° e o~oc ~ die`d' a dm ~. bog, ~~~°~ pg '~ e o Q w~. ° a~ Sl '~ ~~~'~+R, °s a,e~ ,d~°Ba ° ~g8°o~ dv~ ~&'. a fi ~ ~°~ , ~~ ~ o~ oQ " ` ° 8 0 Q °" J 0 0 0 0~ Q f O M1~ ~ p a ~. ~ O ~ ,z.9,~ ~ ~ r: ~ ~a .s8 ~o ~ ° ~ o ~ "t_ .o 00 ~ r .« ~.e°~ o ° s ~~ a ~ ~° '~.~ ° ° ° ~QQ p~ a Q, CJO °~ . 0 op O ~..up 0 0 ° ° „__~ P p~ ~ e _ ~., pp esxr a}( * ~° e ° ~~ o ~ ~> . 4'r": , , d c9 ~° 6 ~ ° ° ~8 ~ 8 0 ~v ~ t` p0 ~ e 0 s..~ p °~° ~'~ul ° ~. 1F ~' 0 0~ (aQQJ 3 e ° ~ ~ °~~0 0 0 , ° mii °~°~g ~ a~ .° i o _. (3 0 8 ~ ° o ~O iiiyyy e ° ° ° ° c~ D L..m~ ° ° s o -- - ~ m ®~~ ~~ _ •I •i :~ ~ •i 000U6<~ • • • 000065 T~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN I?~TTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~~ ~~ 000®66 ~, pp~ ~•~J ~ ~ ~~~ ,~ ~ a ~~~~.9~~ a~ ~°s a u } < 0~ u~Q ~ ~~~ zOCD J ~ Hp~ Hum ~ ~^ ~~ . ; p i ~ - ... W G oo C ~ q !1 ` ~ o ~ S o ~ ~ ~ g° i ~;~ ~E e ~ p~ TI ~E~ i~ ~~ ~~i~ 2~~b~ ~ g ~2 ~ '8~ E yy 3~N3AV VOO1VyyS b gg ~ 9~ s~ __-~----__ I I I o I a ~~ I 1 ~ #~ ~ _ I i e ~ '8 R~ y4 I ~~ ~ I g x ng~@y~a ~~ C 4f ~ ~ ~~ 3 g z ~~ ! I (p7 ~ ~ i 9°_~ ~~ I b I 1 1 1 1 I a r ' I ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ I I Q w ~~ ~ I I a ~_ ~1LLLLL~1.11~ ~ ~ ~ ~' - ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~" ~~ ~ I ~ ~_ ~~ ~~~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ b I ~~ ~ 7 9 ~ Y f' . ~ I • L_~__J II J I I 5 ~ ~II `I I ~~ ~ ~~~ - J ~~~I I~ V \ \ I ~ G ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ J Z O U I.i. Z O U O z ~ ~ ~ yM~ ~o~ - --- - ~~ s ~ ~~ h n O ~ G 3 - S = q ~. c C t ~ Snr ~r ~' ~° is Fg ~ ~. ~E~ ~F r ... ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~_~ ~ _ ~~ 3c- A .~ L.L C ,~ J ~ R u ~ ..fl J d ~ ` o - $S of O ~ ~' ~ 8 i ~ a a ^ ~ " d .e =S Rs N ~ ~ G 84 z ~ $ 4 ~ N yy V i I )~ ~~ N F ~ ~ ~' yz' Y i _ .. ~ ~~ ~~ .~ - - - - ~~- - -~- -w . e ~~ m E.~ .. 9~Y /r.... 7` l TT .S't I 1......~. _.1.... 1. ...F...__~ .. ~ .v 1 11 ~ ~ ~ -~ ° J -,., _~ ~~ _~_ --, ~ .o-m - .. a • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Owner: Applicant: Staff Planner: Date: APN: DR-O1-005; 19208 Brookview Drive MIKE AND LISA PALUMBO Cynthia Eichorn, INNERHOUS resign Allison Knapp, Contract Plann ~ _ ~~ ._ May 23, 2001 ~~ 386-06-017 Department C~' • 000®Oi 19208 Brookview Drive CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 02/16/01 04/17/01 05/09/01 05/10/01 05/09/01 The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a 65 square foot addition to the ground-floor of the existing single-story home and a 636 square foot second-story addition for a total of 701 square feet. The existing one-story home would then be a two- story home consisting of 3,049 square feet. The maximum height of the residence will be 21'-2". The site is 9,376 gross and net square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMIvIENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-Ol- 005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-O1-005 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" (No arborists report was required) • • 000002 5 File No. DR-01-005,• 19208BrookviewDrive • • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10, 000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Medium Density MEASURE G: Not applicable. PARCEL SIZE: 9,376 sq. ft AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than one percent. GRADING REQUIRED: No grading is proposed. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior finish will match the existing house. Clapboard siding, painted a soft tan vvill be on the front elevation and soft tan stucco is proposed on the side and rear elevations. Roofing will match the existing gray-green composition shingle roof. A gray-green stucco accent is proposed under the eave of the garage. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. (This Area Intentionally Left Blank) P:~Planning4Ulison~.Staff Reports~19208 Brookview.doc ®0®l.l~ e File No. DR-0I-OOS,• 19208BrookviewDrive •i Proposal Lot Coverage: Floor Area: No Change Proposed from Existing Patio Walkways and Driveway House TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Living area Garage (Basement) TOTAL 41 % (No Change) 821 sq. ft. 574 sq. ft. 2,413 sq. ft. 3,808 sq. ft. 2,664 sq. ft. 385 sq. ft. (0) 3,049 sq. ft. Setbacks: -Front Rear ls`/2nd Left Side ls`/2nd .Right Side 15C/2nd Height: Residence Detached Garage PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review 25 ft. 37ft. 10/17.5ft. 10/19.5 ft. 21'-2" ft. N/A Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 60% Maximum Allowable 3,056 sq. ft.1 Minimum Requirements 25ft. 25/35 ft. 10/13ft. 10/13ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 12ft. z The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a 65 square foot addition to the ground floor of the existing single-story home and a 636 square foot second-story addition for a total of 701 square feet. The existing one-story home would then be a two story home consisting of 3,049 square feet. The maximum height of the residence will be 21'-2". The site is 9,376 gross and net square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Reflects the height penalty that is applied to structures over 18 feet in height. ' The Planning Commission may grant up to 15 feet if the appropriate findings can be made. P:~PlanningiAllison~.Staff Reporrs~19208 Bnwkview.doc •i •i 000004 File No. DR-01-005,• 19208BrookviewDrive The ground floor addition is proposed in order to provide a covered entry-way to the home. The second-story addition is for a master bedroom. A balcony is proposed off the master bedroom at the rear of the house. The existing front elevation includes one hipped roof for the garage and a large steeply pitched shed roof for the residence. The existing roofline is rather massive and void of detail or articulation that could serve to break up the mass. The roofline would increase in height from 16 to 21'-2", however, the massing is interrupted by articulation of the roofline. As an example, the front elevation would include two shed roofs, one over the garage and one over the living room. The apex of the two roofs would be treated with wood, over the living room and stucco, over the garage. Additionally, the second-story roofline is inset a considerable distance from the side property lines,lT-6" on the left and 19 feet on the right. A dormer window is also proposed. The articulation substantially breaks up the perception of mass. Divided light windows and a wood paneled door are also proposed. The design proposed implements the City's Residential Design Guidelines, specifically, Policy 1, "Minimize Perception of Bulk" Technique #3, "Use of Materials and Colors", Technique #6, "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing" and Policy 2, Technique #4, "Integrate All Structures on A Single Site". The rear (south) elevation includes a deck off the second-level master bedroom. The deck includes a trellis and plantings to promote privacy. The existing landscaping would remain which further softens and obscures views to adjoining properties. The home design follows the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Specifically, Policy 3, Technique #1 "Control View to Adjacent Properties" suggests orienting upper floor balconies toward large yard areas and using structural features to limit view angles. The view from the balcony would be limited and afford privacy to the neighbors, given the configuration. of the proposed construction. It is important to note that the home to the rear of the subject site, 12515 Woodside Court, was granted a rear yard setback variance in May 2000. The variance permits the house which is currently under construction to be placed closer to the fence line separating the two properties. Again, the landscaping promotes privacy between the two homes The neighborhood consists of predominately single-story structures on small-sized lots. There are four other two-story homes on Brookvie~v Drive. Building materials include stucco and wood. Landscaping along Brookview Drive is well established. No trees would be affected or removed as a result of the project. The proposed structure, including the architectural detail and materials is compatible with the neighborhood. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the application. The Department had no comments or conditions of approval for the proposed project. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence has an existing two-car garage. P:~PlanningiAllison\Staff Reports~19208Brookview.doc ©®005 File No. DR-0I-OOS,• 19208BrookviewDrive , Grading No grading is proposed. Geotechnical Review This application did not require review by the Ciry Geologist. Trees - No trees would be removed or affected by the proposed construction. An arborists report was not required or necessary for this application. Fireplaces The plans clearly indicate that one gas-burning fireplace is proposed on the second story. One chimney is proposed. No wood-burning fireplaces are proposed. The fire place on the ground floor would be removed as shown on the plans. Correspondence No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. - Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the Ciry Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minim~e the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-OI- 005. • P:~Planning~AllisonGStaff Repoits~19208 Brookview.doc 000006 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR- 01-005 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA PALUMBO; 19208 Brookview Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction asecond-story addition of 636 square feet and aground-level addition of 65 square feet to an existing residence on a 9,376 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested pames were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present e~~idence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: • The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, v~~hen considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence will be pamally screened from existing residences by mature vegetation in that, the existing front elevation includes one hipped: roof for the garage and a large steeply pitched shed roof for the residence. The existing roofline is rather massive arid void of detail or articulation that could serve to break up the mass. The roofline would increase in height from 16 to 21'-2", however, the massing is interrupted by articulation of the roofline. The front elevation would include two shed roofs, one over the garage and one over the living room. The apex of the two roofs would be treated with wood, over the living room and stucco, over the garage. The second-story roofline is inset a considerable distance from the side property lines,lT-6" on the left and 19 feet on the right. A dormer window is also proposed. The articulation substantially breaks up the perception of mass. Divided light windows and a wood paneled door are also proposed. The design proposed implements the City's Residential Design Guidelines, specifically, Policy 1, "Minimise Perception of Bulk" Technique #3, "Use of Materials and Colors", Technique #6, "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing" and Policy 2, Technique #4, "Integrate All Structures on A Single Site". The rear (south) elevation includes a -deck off the second-level master bedroom. The deck includes a trellis and plantings to promote privacy. The existing landscaping would remain which further softens and obscures views to adjoining properties. The home design follows the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Specifically, Policy 3, Technique #1 "Control View to Adjacent Properties" suggests ®®0~~~ File No. DR-01-005,• 19208BrookviewDrive orienting upper floor balconies toward large yard areas and using structural features to limit view angles. The view from the balcony would be limited and afford privacy to the neighbors, given the configuration of the proposed construction. It is important to note that the home to the rear of the subject site, 12515 Woodside Court, was granted a rear yard setback variance in May 2000. The variance permits the house that is currently under_construction to be placed closer to the fence line separating the two properties. Again, the landscaping promotes privacy between the two homes The= natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that the site contains less than a one percent slope and no grading or tree removal are proposed. The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in the neighborhood consists of predominately single-story structures on small-sized lots. There are four other two-story homes on Brookview Drive. Building materials include stucco and wood. Landscaping along Brookview Drive is well established. No trees would be affected or removed as a result of the project. The proposed structure, including the architectural` detail and materials is compatible with the neighborhood. The design incorporates considerable architectural articulation designed to reduce the perception of mass. .The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk .and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize ..solar energy. .The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion controlstandardsused by the City. ^ The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Mike and P:~Plannin~Allison~StafE Rcportsu9208 Bcookview.doc • • V®0008 • File No. DR-01-005,• 19208BrookviewDrlve Lisa Palumbo for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit :A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. Only one wood-burning fireplace shall be permitted and the fireplace shall be clearly marked on the plans. The wood-burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall pro~~ide a written cemfication that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. No Ordinance-size trees shall be removed. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be pro~~ided on the plan. CITY ARBORIST 7. None Required. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 8. None Required. P:\Planning\Nlison~StaH Rcports\I9208 Brookvicw.doc ®®O lJ File No. DR-01-005,• 19208BrookvlewDrive CITY ATTORNEY ' 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 10. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. • • P:\PlanningiAllison~Staff Rcports\19208Brookview.doc O ~O ®~~ • [7 • File No. DR-01-005,• 19208BrookviewDrlve Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to' the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of May 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Abstain: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P:~PlanningW lison~S[aEf Repottsu9208 Btookview.doc ®®OO i l i1IS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK •i •i 0~00~~ Q -.. Q VNtp.Inu/Y.XJIWVS 1]]t115 YLLG OGOOL 59NIO~tf18 IHIlN9O159i1 0~~~~~~ ~~~ g~~ O po W ? Z ~) ~ N p 2 W w a~~ a F?~ wg w r-QC7~ F 0 Z ll LL O d ~ ~ (/1 1NRld OOIO L/l L ~31V01J3fOtld cvvv ~vrv i~~i vaa `dIN2iO~ilVO `VJOlda~1S M31n~OO~lB 80261 ~aa~ao~~~ o a ~~~~d 0 O~ wr LL (QQ~ LL ~~ Q~ o C7 0 z ~ w a"'o Y- °'• ~ rn x \ w ~ ~`-- I ~ I I i i _. l I O ~ O LL I F ~ d I ~ ~ N ~ ~ ?i ¢ ~ Z z§ O >~ J W h- ~ Z ~ O~ S Z H ~~ w~ W Y Z~ 0= m Z~ o wN J W F- O 0 W ~ O~ a L~J O 'nUn~u('~I u '\n1..1lnLJfV'~' IJ /y^Q u I~IllntJ LJ a nn~ f7VU ICJ O 00 Q a Z O U Q' H f~ Z O U O Q W d Q C J C~_ C m Y U L z a a C a u U 0 L U u C Q ~ z~ J t W d (~ SN 3lV~S ~l~Q/p~vn ~~ti~y~g-a34 W W U ~~~ia~oa$;a 0 o~£~~$s~~r~^ v ~ a o X ~ ~" c ~ ~ ~isi Z gg Wg~b$ N W Z N ~ S ~ Z p t 8 O ~N~gm S N d a < ~a d Y a I w ~ Y z ~ 2 ~~ N m N 0~5 z ~ ~ m w ~ ®1"~ ~ ~ N IL "-'~' N LL N V• LL dQ$ pu(A fN m~S !V~QQ1 S _ o LL N ,3 $~ ~- $ Q K 0 U ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N Q ~ . ~wY~$~ N S~ Zpz ~~ ~ N~~~ ~ O ~~_~; X~ Z ~ O 4. _Fl!.~ _ .,y< _ ~ i•~ ~ 1 ~. I ~~ ~ E i~ I ~ .~ ''~~,,~ ~ ;~~u', ~ ~ rt ~: Z_ ua t > ' 1 _ ;~ ~ _ .~ a .. • ~~ 3 . ,h- r . :9a1 e ~~ W ~~~ ~ W~~~ o~ ~ ~ _ _ ~~ ~ ~<~<~o $ w~~~Zr (7 G ~ ~ S ~ U ~ ~ N i C J tsn J ~~a~ W ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~v~ ~~~a~ ~ O $ ,Zg~ 5a ~~ m~ .°~ ~ F LL F U ~° ~d j U L ~ ~3 ~~ i'S ~'r-~ '~ 7 $ x0`°y$ o W~~r~ A O do • • • SNOISIA321 lW&Y ~31V01NIifd 00lLlLL ~31V0103fONd LO-00 ~ON 103f0lJd A.1=.911 ~3lVOS ~ig~~~~i ~°€ ~ u>xlr v-.r ivws u~uu ruc csaoa ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ L 3 • ~ Z ~ ~ o"~ ~` o s~Nio~lne ~dilN3als~a dIN2iO~l~d~ `dJ01`d~1dS 3n12~a M31n~1002i8 80Z6L ~a~6oa~~=~~ N o g ~p ° 0 a °s~~eg~~~@=y to LL a ~~~~~~~ a,~ ~ o Q ~a~~ao~~~ o~~~~dd ~~~~~~~~WO>< ~ J a I I ~~~~ I ~ ~ ~~ IY O 3 I ~ 3 3 ~ Z J =W_" D - - -~' a ~ a ~ II ~' ~~` , ~'~\ ~ i 0 I O a o K > ~ x g ~----- ~ ~ -~ w O o _ W _ _.._ __. _. _ ~ ~ ~d i ` R WWx V .. I __ ___ I I OO Y ~r ~~ ~ E °o I : /~ (' I o a °e \~ I ~ ~§ I y i C I ~ r_sy > it ^ ~_ _ c: I z W¢E ~ =K -3 w I i z ~ ~ J s ~ I ~ ~ I ` ~ D i I s r _ I ~ `~ __ ~ -- L - - - d I_ ypI 1 I I y I I ~ i ~ O O -_ ~ _ 9 ® __ W ' W _ ,a~~ I ~ m .' __~~ gg 1~9 p N3NI~lN) _ m ~ _ 8 C _< _ .v ~ ~ j g W O U W v o~ 8 ~ m ~ _ .. W ~ 4r.. I.L O J H ~_ Z Q J d Q~ 0 J • ~ • O o O 59NIO~If18 ~t/I1N94159t1 ~ 0~~~~~~ F- ~_ z 0 W J W H Q W O H w w J Z O ~- a w J W F- W ~3~'P'~piFV0. ~ Vl ~~aS~~~~}~~ O Q ,, ~=g; ooI Y~~~~~~6 ~~ ~ W v WS~,s~g~'a~ ~i ~ J ~=~sa~~=_~5 n' W °o n • • • • ui ~ i N w Y C7 Z_ O _J m Z ~ g 0010 U1 t 31V0173f021d cwv ~vrv l.~ei vaa dIN2~O~llb~ `VJOld2ib'.S 3nla~ M31n~1002i8 80Z6L ~a~~ao~~~ oa~~~dd r Z 0 W Z O H Q W J W S H O Z wuwo uomv~ .~oisw~. i»~ s ocaoc O~~ro o O 59N10~1(1B IVIlN9015921 o ~~~~~~~ a' o~ ~g -{ job a `I g ~: 3 Y:S ~i ~~ a ~._ ,~ I .: r,. ~_ 8 L l; 'il „~ „_ ~ ~ b / ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ 8 31 1NRid OOIOI/lt 31V0103fOild LO-00 ~ON 173fOild t/IN2iO~ilb'O 'dJOldadS 3n12i0 M31N1OO2i8 80Z6L ~a~~ao~~~ oa~~~dd Q z O F- U w ei e ~i 9y b? e ~~ ~ ~; ~ ~- - ' , , ~ a„ % ' w ~ ~ o ~ ~~ LL ' ,~ .~ ., ~ ~g ~' , 8 ~ ~ m CC 1 ~` i ~~ ~\ ~ ~ ~ =~ ... ~ ~ ~ _ ~, , , , J 2 3 ~ > w \ ~ .. ~ -- .~ a~ P ~t~y 438 m~ r r~~~„ ~~ °$ w ~~ Y~ $~ ~~~~~~~~g~ Z W~~2~F .~~~ H Z tL axe as °~~adfi~~~ex5 ~ Q O V ~g~~ -~F e ~ ~° w ~ F Ws' Y O J 3 ~y. m nE~ 1 -~ 34} Y m m z O U w Z g a 0 0 • • • u 0 v .wv -rr~v-x~.vuos u~~:n.c ocwx. OG6 ~ O 59N10'lI f1H ~'d I1N9Ot59tJ o 0~~~~~~ LO/6/6 dINaO~l~t10 't/JOltf2iyS 3nRi0 M31n~100~18 80261 ~a~~ao~~~ oa~~~ed 2~s;?=S~~~L~ i ~ 'jfl ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~- i3bCCs , Q ~ d a~3.zt~a o~`~° ~ f 3 0 rc 3 ~ o O w z g ¢ a u U 0 O Q 0 f-~ O 0 Q 2 G ~ a ~o 0 N F- Q } 0 F O 0 Q 2 yz L a 0 0 lI') H Q } O H N O 0 Q 2 \\ R\'~, ~~~\ \Y;~ ~6 0 2~ S ~ • • AM EM 3 E DMENT • ~~~~ 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 2001 TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Allison Knapp, Contract Planner SUBJECT: La Paloma Use Permit-(UP-O1-004) C7 BACKGROUND COUNCIL MED'IBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John MehaNey Nick Streit Ann Wattonsmith The Use Permit application for La Paloma was continued from the May 23, 2001 Planning Commission public hearing due to a lack of quorum. The Planning Commission however conducted their site visit on May 22, 2001 and raised two concerns with respect to the request to expand the size of the garage within the rear and side setback area. The concerns are: 1. The existing width of the driveway, which is approximately eight (8) feet. 2. The 20-foot back up area from the garage to the back of the house, which would seem difficult to negotiate. Staff requested the applicant to address these concerns. Attached please find a letter from the applicant and two alternative drawings for the garage. ANALYSIS The Elght Foot Driveway The applicants, Mr. And Mrs. Markwith, secured the services of a contractor to improve their driveway with brick pavers. Unfortunately the contractor did not construct the driveway to the specifications of the Markwith's. The Markwiths' also do not like the narrow driveway. Their dislike is similar to that of the Planning Commission. First, it is difficult to negotiate a car down the driveway and secondly, when exiting a car one steps on to the landscaping not on to the pavers. The applicants have instructed the contractor to expand the width of the driveway to 11.5 feet (see final paragraph of attached letter). To assure that the width of the driveway is expanded the Planning Commission could add a condition of approval #6 under Community Development to state: 000®O~. Printed on recycled paper. Memorandum to the Planning Commission 20253 La Paloma Avenue June 13, 2001 Pa e 2 g The applicant, as a condition of Use Permit 01-004 shall widen the driveway to 11.5 feet. Twentyfoot Back-up Area The Planning Commission, staff and the applicants all have taken pause with the 20-foot back-up distance between the house and the garage. Although the back up may be difficult and may require three or four turning movements it would not be impossible to negotiate. Additionally, the length of the garage, 22 feet, adds a little more back-up distance inside of the garage. Four alternatives were investigated to address these concerns. The alternatives include: 1) Moving the garage closer to the rear property line. 2) Reducing the length of the garage to 19 feet, which meets the requirements of the Code. 3) Reducing the width of the garage to a car and a half. 4) Atandem-parking configuration. Options I and II. Move the garage closer to the rear property line and Reduce the length of the garage to 19 feet Unfortunately it is not possible to move the garage closer to the rear property line given that there is a five-foot utility easement at the rear of the garage and a guy wire. The garage could be shortened by three feet and still meet the 19-foot interior dimension requirement of the Code. The applicant does not prefer this alternative given that they have larger cars. As stated above, the additional length of the garage still provides additional backup and maneuvering area within the garage. Additionally, the length of the garage would be constructed to accommodate both larger and also smaller cars. Option III. Reduce the width of the garage to a car and a half Reducing the size of the garage to a car and a half (i.e., 15 feet +/- wide) would not pro«de a two car garage. Therefore, the parking situation on site would remain non- conforming and as a result a variance to the parking requirement would also be required. (Please see the attached drawing.) The item would need to be re-noticed as a variance and would need to be calendared for a subsequent public hearing (probably in August). Staff does believe the required findings to grant a variance can be made. Option IV. Tandem parking configuration A tandem-parking configuration is permitted by Code. Although permitted, the length of the garage would not be in keeping with the character of the site or other properties in the neighborhood. Additionally, a tandem garage only provides three feet of clearance between the garage and the home. Please see the attached drawing. DDDO~ti v Memorandum to the Planning Commission 20253 La Paloma Avenue • June 13, 2001 Page 3 CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION Staff believes that the best solution is the two-car garage. The garage would provide the ability to park two cars under cover, still maintain some useable backyard space, and although requiring three or four turning movements, the back-up space would be adequate. Staff recommends approving UP-O1-004 with the added condition to widen the driveway to 11.5 feet. ATTACHMENTS Letter from the Applicant II. Project Alternatives markwithmemo • C: 000003 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • o®o~o~ Attachment 1 ooooos June 1, 2001 Jim & Shelly Markwith 20253 La Paloma Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga Planning Department Attn: Allison Knapp, Contract Project Planner 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga., CA 95070 Regarding: Use Permit Annlication 20253 La Paloma (UP-O1-0041 Dear Ms. Knapp and Planning Commission: We have been working with different designs for the replacement of our garage since we purchased our home. We contemplated, as you suggested, moving the garage back on the lot and making the garage shorter, but the easement prevents moving the garage back, and a shallower garage would prevent us from parking our vehicles in the garage due to their length. The age and layout of our lot, has provided other restraints as well that we have been trying to deal with in addition to the concerns regarding the functionality and position of the originally proposed garage. The restraints that we have had to deal with include an apparent utility easement of 5 ft. at the rear of the lot with a power pole and guy wire in the middle of the garage rear wall: The house is 20 feet forward from the existing garage. 'Yhe original submitted plans were drafted to meet the typical two car garage requirements, however, as pointed out by Ms. Knapp in her letter, the existing space makes a full turn around difficult, but I don't think impossible. In any event, I have staked out the position of the proposed garage, and I feel we could beadle the parking positions in the same manner we have since we have owned the house; by backing out, as we have_been doing, . and as most of the older homes in the area also require. First Choice. As explained above, the originally submitted two-car design was intended to comply with the building restrictions, however, in light of recent concerns, we now propose an alternative. We propose and have submitted plans for a garage that is approximately the size of a garage and a half. This new proposal would in fact be our first choice, because it would maximize both the utility of the garage and the existing space constraints. It would allow us to maintain more of the rear yard for recreational use, while~still allowing us to park afull-length vehicle in the garage. This would also give us some minimal extra storage area to the side of the cart that we feel we really need. • 000006 y ~econdC~is&. The garage plan we first subiriitted was our second choice, but was submitted in an effort to streamline the permit process. It too was acceptable to us, although we were losing part of the rear yard, and we would be snore likely not to use the second garage space as much on a regular basis for parking, but would certainly use it occasionally for parking a car, and also for the storage of bicycles and other sports equipment and toys. We would not want a taadem garage, even though the code would permit it, because we think that such a design would not aratch the neighborhood, and it would be difficult to coordinate the parking of two cars in that method and it would unreasonably reduce the separation between the house and the garage. Both our first and second choices were submitted in an attempt to comply wrath restrictions or to address concerns raised during the approval process. Both of the choices are acceptable to us. We now respectfully request that the commission approve either the originally submitted plans (Second Choice), or the alternative plans (First Choice). In the event that both opboroval of the acceptable to the Commission, but one option would require further delay before app project, I would request the approval of that design that would not require further delay to be approved. On another note, the existing drive way did not turn out as we had hoped. We are at this time working with the contractor for a solution that makes the drive wider and more useable, but we are waiting for construction of the garage, so that we do not damage a new drive, and so that we can fit it w the new construction. The proposed width of the driveway is 11.5 feet. Best regard Jim d She ly Markwith UUUUU'7 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ®~®08 • ~ Attachment 2 OOU009 .. _-`.. • d' ~r ~ W~ E opt ,-- -~~ "~~ ~ (X' ~ ~- ~J ~ L ~ ~;~ ~-~~. ~ ~~ ~i ~ .-- ~{ 1 .~, ~ ~~ % ^ _ i J. /r. / ~ ~' i ~ ~+ u J i . ~ ~_ I r ( ~+, tZ + I ~_.. _.._.._......._ _ _ ~ 7~~~ ( ~ r ~ +r ~~_ ~ , ~' ~r (~) G ... ~: P ~ l~ ~1 h 2+V~ 1 - ~~ i ~ n _ _ ~~ ;~~ 14 %o ~~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ c~Gw r ~~ ~ ~ I ~ V L_, ~ i l V^ ~,! ( , ~i ~ ,~ ti~~i J~.>, , ':7 r. ~ r .1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z~~2 ~~ ~~' i 1-- ~. / ~. io o '' 0®00.0 ~.. %' i- _a- ,'~ ~ ` . . ~.:.- i j L.IJE o~~ . ~ c- i r. ~ f i .. ' I~~. v ~ t _ N__ ~!~ ~ ~ ~~ '' a~ ~ -.~ --.- - -- -- ,, T ,.~ .1 Y 10 ~=fj i• i r~( ~~ T ~T' • ~ . ~. _~ -. ~ 1 ' _~ .' ~ ~ ~~vl~ ~ , ` I ~ If i' ~ i ~~~~~ ~ ~ f ~ I A I , ~~~~ i- ~ ~i1 ~~ ~~ ~ ,: ~-.~. . a: i t, c ' • +) .. %~ C 7 ~, ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~Q ©OO~ 1 ~, r; ,,:~~~ ~ ` ---~= ~ ~ 1 .. ~ ,~ r~ - . ~ ~~~~; ~ ~. ~ i ~~1 ~' -- - ~Z ~C3 ~~ ~ W G,r r.~rr=~ ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ G1~ ~ \ ; ; ,~ ~. ~ i ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~-~ ~ _ ~--- .`~,`f. .~, ~~ ~ ~ ; ,~ ` = . I , i ,~ ./ ! ~ l . j ,: ~r`k 5 ~ 7 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ f ~ I i .. i ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i~ ~ ~ ~ k ny ~hV~~ f ~ i t ~ ~1r 77~~ (fi) /(~j,~11 Fib ~[.t.'7 (U~r'A~L~i ~ i ~~ I - ~9 i I ~ ~ I \ ~ ~• /~ ~~! 0 « • ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: UP-O1-004; 20253 La Paloma Avenue Applicant: JANET ADAMS DESIGNS Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Markwith Staff Planner: Allison Knapp, Contract Pl f Date: May 23, 2001 L APN: 397-24-12 Department Head: ~` 20253 La Paloma Avenue 00000 File No. UP-01-004; 20253 La Paloma Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 03/09/01 Application complete: 04/17/01 Notice published: 05/09/01 Mailing completed: 05/10/01 Posting completed: 05/10/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a Use Permit to construct a new 462 square foot garage and remove an existing 297 square foot garage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear and side yard setback. The property is 7,491 square feet in area and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. No additions will be made to the existing 1,959 square foot single-story home. The height of the proposed garage is 12'-6". Total square footage of the house and garage will be 2,421 square feet. The design review, which in absence of the use permit requirement is conducted at staff level, is being forwarded to the Planning Commission so the project may be reviewed as a whole, and not incrementally. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution UP-O1-004. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions UP-O1-004 3. Arborist report dated 4/12/2001 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" 000002 File No. UP-01-004; 20253 La Paloma Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Medium Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 7,491 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than 10% at the garage site GRADING REQUIRED: Total grading proposed is 27 cubic yards to a depth of two feet in order to level the area for the garage. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Color and materials will match existing home. Composition shingle roof., soft white stucco walls and wood door. • • THIS AREA INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ~~0®~~ File No. UP-01-004; 20253 La Paloma Avenue PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 42 % 60% Driveway and Walkway Pavers 348 sq. ft. Porch and Patio .400 sq. ft. Residence and Garage 2,421 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 3,169 sq. ft. Floor Area: Main Floor 1,959 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Garage 462 sq. ft. (Basement) (600) sq. ft. TOTAL 2,421 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirements House (No Change Proposed) Front 25 ft. 25 ft. Rear 43 ft. 25 ft. Left Side 5 ft 6 ft.' Right Side 14 ft. 6 ft. Garage Front 123 ft. 25 ft. Rear 5 ft. 6 ft.2 Left Side 26 ft. 6 ft.3 Right Side 1'-6" 6 ft.4 Height: Maximum Allowable Residence N/A 26 ft. . Detached Garage 12'-6" 12ft. s 1 A portion of the left side of the home was built five feet from the property line when it was . . originally constructed and is legal non-conforming. z Pursuant to Section 15.80 of the Municipal Code (Zoning) wherein accessory structures are ~ermitted a six- foot setback provided a use permit is granted. Pursuant to Section 15.65 of the Municipal Code (Zoning) wherein a substandard lot maybe developed with six- foot side setbacks. 4 Pursuant to the use permit process a setback of less than six feet maybe permitted. s The Planning Commission may grant up to 15 feet if the appropriate findings can be made. ~®0~~~ • File No. UP-01-004; 20253 La Paloma Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Use Permit approval to construct a new 462 square foot garage and remove an existing 297 square foot garage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear and right side yard setback. No additions will be made to the existing 1,959 square foot single-story home. The height of the proposed garage is 12'-6". Total square footage of the house and garage will be 2,421 square feet. The design review, which in absence of the use permit requirement is conducted at staff level, is being forwarded to the Planning Commission so the project may be reviewed as a whole, and not incrementally. Color and materials will match existing home. The building materials and colors are a composition shingle roof, soft white stucco walls and wood door. The La Paloma neighborhood is predominately single-family detached homes with detached garages to the rear of the lot. The proposed garage conforms to the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Use Permit Through the Use Permit process an accessory structure may be within the required rear and side setback. According to Section 1S-SS.070 of the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit if the following findings can be made: a. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, and b. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and c. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Evaluation ofFindings The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The existing garage is already located v~~ithin the side and rear setbacks. The expansion of the garage is necessary in order to park two cars within the structure. The expansion is to the left of the lot, thereby not increasing the existing non- conforming right side setback. The left side setback would be 26 feet; twenty feet more than the six feet required. Many of the homes along La Paloma have garages that are within the rear and side setbacks. • ~~0~os File No. UP-01-004; 20253 La Paloma Avenue That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to thepublic health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: No changes in land use are proposed. The construction is required to conform to the Uniform Building Code. No health and safety impacts would occur as a result of the garage being placed within the right side and rear setbacks. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the ~'oning Ordinance. The proposed garage would comply with the setbacks by which the area was built and designed. The 12'-6" height is on par, and comparable with the other garages along the alley. Trees/Landscaping The arborists report dated March 20, 2001 states that no trees would be at risk during or as a result of construction. Correspondence There has been no correspondence from the owner or the noticed neighbors to date. Conclusion Staff has determined that the location of the proposed use, is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and is in accordance with the W objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and.the purposes of this district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution UP-01-004. • 000006 RESOLUTION No. UP-O1-004 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARKWITH: 20253 La Paloma WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval to construct a new 462 sq. ft. pool house, and remove an existing 297 sq. ft. garage; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at v~~hich time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that the existing garage is already located within the side and rear setbacks. The expansion is necessary in order to park two cars within the garage. The expansion is to the left of the lot, thereby not increasing the existing non-conforming right side setback. The expansion of the garage necessary in order to park two cars within the structure is to the left of the lot. The left side setback would be 26 feet; twenty feet more than the six feet required. Many of the homes along La Paloma have garages that are within the rear and side setbacks. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity in that, no changes in land use are proposed. The construction is required to conform to the Uniform Building Code. No health and safety impacts would occur as a result of the garage being placed within the right side and rear setbacks. ' That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the proposed garage would comply with the setbacks by which the area was built and designed. The 12'-6" height is on par, and comparable with the other garages along the alley. ' The design of the garage is compatible with that of the home, the area and is in conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. • ~~~~~~ File No. UP-01-004, 20253 La Paloma Avenue NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: . Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, grading plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Use Permit approval be'and the same is hereby granted subject to thefollowing conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed 'as shown on Exhibit °A°, incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Cleazance with the following changes: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. FENCING REGULATIONS- No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yazd shall exceed ~ three feet in height. 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. ~. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. CITY ARBORIST 6. None required. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 7. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code, Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210). 8 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[1]). ~~~0~8 File No. UP-O1-004, 20253 La Paloma Avenue Cln Arroluv~ 9. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and e~-penses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of the Ciry in connection with the City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in.any State or Federal court, challenging the Ciry's action with respect to the applicant's project. 10. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciry could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. 0©009 File No: UP-01-004, 20253 La Paloma Avenue Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will ea-pire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other. Governmental . entities must be met. _ .Section 4. Unless. appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga - City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23`~ day of May 2001 by the-€ollowing-roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission AT~EST: v~~.a ~. a.~.u~, icuu11L1C ~V111111LJJLVII .i •i •i O ®O~~O • ---~. - BARRIE D. COQ i~ AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 AN INSPECTION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN GARAGE RECONSTRUCTION AND TREE PRESERVATION AT THE MARKWITH PROPERTY 20253 LA PALOMA AVE. Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. , City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 9507() Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist . March 13, 2001 Job # 03-01-063 Plan Received: 3-12-01 Plan Due: 4-11-01 D ~C~~~dL~ MAR 2 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~~Q~~~ AN INSPECTION OF POTENTInL CONFLICT BETWEEN GARAGE RECONSTRU~.i10N AND TREE PRESERVATION AT THE MARKWITH PROPERTY 20153 LA PALOMA AVE. Assignment I was asked to inspect the area on this property where an existing garage will be demolished and a new garage constructed, to determine whether damage would be • , done to existing trees during that construction process. Summary There are only two trees which would be affected. One of those is a very large coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) (#2) on tfie adjacent neighbors' property to the south. Tree #1 is a relatively young coast live oak too small to be controlled by city ordinance, but which should not be damaged in any case. I only mention it because it is adjacent to the new proposed construction. A driveway has recently been installed running from La Paloma Street to the backyard and within 10-feet of the existing garage. During the process of that driveway installation excavation was made 12- to 18-inches of depth for the purpose of establishing a new grade for the new driveway. In the process a 8- to 12-inch grade cut was made in the soil beneath the canopy of tree #2, the neighbors' tree, .whose canopy is suspended over this property by 20 feet toward the north. Fortunately the neighbors' tree is young enough and vigorous enough that this appears to date not to have caused damage. It will be necessary to excavate the floor of the existing old garage down to the same level for that garage installation. Since only a small proportion of the root zone of the neighbors' tree (here called trec #2) would be affected,. I would not imagine the excavation process would causc significant damage to .that tree. In other words, I .would not expect this construction to cause significant damage to any of the trees on the property, and for that. reason see no reason for a bond. Respectfully submitted, . ,~, C Ba .Coate Enclosures: Map BDC/sl PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORLST M1IARCH 13, 2001 000012 .~ r -- ~ ,~ Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Markwith Property 20253 La Paloma Ave. (408) 3531052 23535 SummA Road Prepared for: Los Cabs, G1 95030 City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT DATE: March 13 2001 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 03-01-063 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. / _ - _ ~ ~,. i - ~~~ ~ ~ . 1 r---- ~, .. ~ ~ Q ! ~~ _. 1 ~I:~_: ~~ ,p i r~ ~ ~ ~.~, ,. ~~ ~. - - ~ ~ .~ ::: .. i ~. ..._..... _. _ ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ _ -~ ...._ lei i!"/~ i _r. .:_T ~, • ~ ~ V .. ~ LL r7EtU/I~ . . UQ .... .~ ~ .. ~~ i! L ~ i t 1 , ~~ ~~ ,; L ; ~'; ' ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 00003 ~. 1 14 ,a ~ ~, • • • ~nVrI NV•:.r.~n r:Ir r:I non +.n .mrr,i.~Vwt: N(1 VAN F.111,!IIY SIIU~Ih1Y )~'~~Ilghlr ,llVrlll (~(~S~d7d ~ S~/~S~Q !~ i ~ +. ~^I 1 ~, I r ~ - _ .. i~, ~. 4``\\'' - \~. <~ _ + ~ ?1 ' ~ '4 `,, .._ .._ Q Qry N :r'I . ,~ ~ + `Y / ~ O ` \. . I. l ";rt~ ~. - 1. U. ~ ~ \\, n ~ L1 II ``yyy')~~ . u r I~~ j ~' ~ tS V r II o ~ ~; V ~ ,, a....... k }o ~ ^ O Z .. ~ ~ V ~ ~~ 3~~ ~ ~ iyV r .~ ~. ~ u uy, x~^'. w x n ~ ra, N ~~ n~ J 1. '~ ly 'a ~ V N _ °: v ~ A rn w h v ~><,. s ~u~ s - a e Soo\ a ~i ~~ ~~z ~Y I _-L- a ~ I J l7 I W Z O' cQ G LL `Z r U W a p~p56 y~ 'eooleieg •enuand ewoled el ESLOZ ~~zn1~.~vy~ sau{z~r .s~lll ~ •111 fo-e~s saloly sda-tl w!S 9 uopeoo7 'veld Told uoAeuuolul dliaddd D V. ~V ! ~' ._ .~ U ~.. 1 N V , fj ~c`: ~, ~`. j r 4L S 1'.0 m J ~ Y J - i _` W ~i y a ;. :a; f~ ;; 'ti. d. .. ~. t ? i, `~ % W ~ 'r•. 4 ~ ' S '3', :~ C ~ 1 ~ :: `' ~ 7 U` ~ ••~ `, W ` ~ ' ' , ~ ~ \~ j 1. Q. j. a y~ ~ ~Y~ 1 :~ ~~~ l r v ~ ? d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y r 7 0 4 ~ ,~ =d ° - ~ ~ ~ P ; : `sfv ~ i . I ~d ~ ~ V ~~ 'f` 7 S '` r k.f c ,`1 ci t T ~ ~ u\ ~ 1 j ~T V Z ~~ ~ :~ :~ ~ v A. .~ 7 a 6~ 1 I- r '~ ~~ 4 v ~~ ppr'~ Q •.~ y . ~~i ~ i N Q .y ~ Vf T O ~C S O ~ 1 7 L. i~ n I C. ti _ 0 S~ z ~ . y~r. 1 ` - ;~. ` ~ , :. : ~~ o ~ i r' . I ~ - ,: >S m ~}~c3 ~ ~. .. ^; - S- Z S ~ ~ ~ G C 1 - .:;, ~_ '- ti, 6 ~ , ~ c;f. 1` .3 C_ Y cc c < c ~ ~ a p ~ ` ° B C ° a 8 E 5 ^ o °jtnn ~~ ~~ < R 8 ~ a 's ~ b ~ ; .~ cv rc^~~~ c ~g ~~gE aQ ~~~~t ~ ~ $ ~E ~;prF' m~ ~ Ug C _N M is~efi~ ~ s 3 o ii ;a ~~~°.g ~~ e~ ~ gg ga ~ °,~ m3~ u ~ ` ¢8r S8g5 c$ ~ „F ~ ~ .3 Y~ ~n E.S qm °m ~ da m . 5~'sg~.~~2 ~ ~ ~m5 mg o~ E@ w a ~ ;,b ~ s ~~~g~s¢o-~ a 8bg B ~ g s; < ~~ F- p3EB.g~ ~ .~ ~vs°u8 '".8~ m~E 3 ~~ Q N ~ 9 ~~~i~€ 6b- ~¢ 8 g g'3pp ~~~q~c ~ R e= ~ ~ Z ~ m zo ~m..~y`E ;° m_ _ = 0 ~~ a c' g3a S c b E 4 g ` . 0 o m ~£`g Bx ~Y4-85 3b ?>?.c~s N 3 ~' ,~~ ~4~L° 3Eo ash z~~ ~ ~~3iE` ~OE 6~ = m°° ~~`,~z~z~ ~ m` ' ~' @a Z 2 c < c ~~ § ,: ~ / '1 8 _._. _._ __ __ ..: I :. ~ ...... ... >. - _- --- .. 1 .` `.'' / \'1 - N .. ;. - -~,, _ _ - - '~ _. _i . ~ n \. - f ~ < , ~'~ r~ ,..t ~. r y _ ~ '. ~\ J .+ \ - A ~ ~. `.aM .-. .. -. i~.' c. a ` if L _ Q ,w ~ /J `/~ .. , \ `_ ~\ ~,,, \ ~ ; r dam/ u1 ' ~'SA .\ ~ ~ ,/ cl ~, .:% N Eg~a.Y ~$~'~g., w $~~~m~ ~ r~<- ~ sg.;a~~ Z o~~s ~ ~~~t~~ ~~"z. e i~g8 P ~ ~ $ w m ~ X ~ ~~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ g ~.~ V $~~sg ~ s~~ s Q ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ a~~ W ~~~~~a u W ~ ~ C7 a g~~= N ~~4 xuE 5= `~~~~ s~° € `Eb a ~av o&g ~~ ;~~s xE w~ t .~ ~8g qs~ m~ 88R S~ 6msg8 as e~~ r.i ~~~~ ~~ t a F~° Ada +.g~ ~b'.ggs ~sho €~~ "g.€ ~~~`E~ goo =°~"_ y~~~V3~~ ~~~3 ~+'4a4 YY 8- y~~S55~ < y~ 3 b yy VV~ nn 44~$ c2+li °g sCy Ye ~B~ &~~ Sgr Fgr~$° ~gd ~ a3 X w ~~B ~~ ~~~b ~~~~ ~ 8 g~8~€.~~ is gQ f.:h EB ~~`~ ~' 8 £~~ ~'~~ ~g~ CF`s°s ~ ~ n ~~ Op +j i R c p $~ Y m 4 i~ c c ~~"~ - ~' 3- d'S3n°Eo a°~ .. ~ ~ ~ I ~- _~ I i ~~ ~ 1 ~v ~' ~3~ny. ~ ~I - - . ---_. ., .._ ~ _. _ -- i x j i i "; ~ n ., , .__. I _. -- I ' ... _.._ V ~ \f ___ if ~ _- _ . -__ - --- j.. _...-- _+_._ -~ + 1 / / -__ -\ __-_- 1 ; ~~\ ~~ -iii 1 .~ . ,L``- - / / I ~, ~~ ~ µ, -r. '~~ ~~}~ r - / / I \ J \~`~\L I ., __ _ ~ - - -_~_ __ ___ -.\i~ ~ ~I .' ~_ ~~ '~_ T , J ^{ 1 ~; . ~ ~ ~ ~~ i 4 ' k d ~ C C\ q i Q T ~n k ~~ a cQ C J W U a a Q 0 W N N Q. W U Z W O N W r J Q LL ~~ J~~ N Z Q J a W H 1 f 3 f ~~' r- •\ _ C`J ... ., _. ...... s`>°F~~~ uoob~ ~€ a?~ -~; g Imo; w~ ~a ~ao~'as b~mR F~ ~„v o' =~Aa 9a3a~ ~~' '~ <~B~ gF~pB ~~ m~s$ n££mm~og~ ~~B'S n3 s°g<~q5' fi E ~A~°vA _ ~~.g~o~~ ~~~o a°~ ~~ s o€=~~~~ ~ ~o~ .~~pEao N - 5 ~ ¢$ ~d ~~r~r~ ~ 2 ~ _ ~ a ~ ~ ~~ 9 ~3'~r3 ~~n4 ER B~ m p°E ~,b$$g ~~aoa~o ~~~E~~ ~~s s~~a e g 4 a ~ I ~, .; y `} I!" ° ; .- z, ~ -=~---_ i , R • • • i amnc e. rer wu~+:nm .n;. v,r.w.•r .m...,n~.v o; xrvn nau7u~ nauovnn snouwnv arrnx sNd~a ~ su~is~a J r,:..~.~,-• f~r.o ,, o- iz _.__ _.___-_ ~ 9 + q ~ m .~. Ni OL056 V~ 'e6o~e~eg 'anuany ewo~ed e7 ESZOZ ~~TM~.~z~y~ sau~vr •s.~y~ ~ •.~y~ .00-5 caJOp ueb /OOy4Bulwey 'uoAap+noj suopana~3 eBe~B~ BuRs[x3 of uolllPPV ~o of-i ~I Y~ N ~ ~_ Y s I I~ io f ~ L ~ ...~ ~' I \Y - \; is 0 r .. ~~., . V ~~ ~- ~~~~` ~ y ~ h ------~---i-------- ,;~, ~F ..s ~~ =~~ .-~f~._~ ;r.._______..._~_ i.._ I` r .~ ~ i r~_I! ~ _ / ~~~~~ I ~~ F~_ `, r,~.,~ .~ _ ~;,5 _.I; ; . ~ . .I i~ _~. -- q I ~ ! ~ ~_ -~ ~ ~~ ` .r 1: ~ --j { 1, _.~i~i f.,.~;f ~ . L E ~ ' ~, 'I' t ; ~ \ ~ ~ r N ~ I ~`, --~-- _ ~e cf;s oc7~cv. i ~ r~F ~~ I~ _}'- _ _~__._~ f ' ~'~ _. ~r ~I I~ i.' / _ ~~ ~~ ~~i~f_-~ i~ /~ ,- '. I I i ~ '~ \•~ ~i{ 1: ;,; .. ~ ,. i. -k- f;l~~ I '~! ~': ~~ G ~: _; /~ ~- i _ ~. ';;~ -I' ,ter- ~' :~i J.; i..-----'n'' ~\ -I ~V - ~ 1 I'~ ' `,i i 0 z O a W J W W Q ~Q V z 0 0 i z 0 .; J W Q W d n ~> ~= ~~~ 9 - ' W \'o 0 m a n ,w r C. L. 1 _ ~ j ~' .- Q v ~Nv,Q ~~~~ ~ '~~ , u•. 3 ~ ~ - il~: •.~~~ ~ „o> 1' Q ~ S ~J. ~ ~~~ ~ 4. ~ ~ (y~f ~ ~ yll N ~' ~ ~ ~. o ~ ~ , ti,I i OC ', i i ~ ``y ~ ~~: Z `~ y ~ _ ~ ~~ x ~ W .. ~a _N.` _._k....... _._._.--__~_. 0 V d N ~~ • • r ` ITEM 4 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-O1-009 ~ UP-O1-005; 20350 Orchard Applicant/Owner: ANNE JOHNSON INTERIORS Rich and Mary Schuppert Staff Planner: Allison Knapp, Contract Planner Date: May 23, 2001 APN: 397-22-035 Department • • ~~00~~ L.V~JV V11:11d1~U. I~VdU File No. UP-O1-005/DR-O1-009, 20350 Orchard Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 3/9/Oi Application complete: 4/19/01 Notice published: 5/9/01 Mailing completed: 5/10/01 Posting completed: 5/10/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a Use Permit to construct a new 418 square foot garage and remove an existing 323 square foot garage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear yard setback. The property is 6,250 gross square feet and 5,250 net square feet in area and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. An additional 593 square feet will be added to the existing single-story residence at the rear of the house.. Overall height of the single-story residence will remain at 16 feet six inches (16'-5"). Total square footage of the house and garage will be 2,025, for a total addition of 688 square feet. The design review, which in absence of the use permit requirement is conducted at staff level, is being forwarded to the Planning Commission so the project may be reviewed as a whole, and not incrementally. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-O1-009/UP-09-005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-O1-009/UP-09-005 3. Arborist Report dated April 11, 2001 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • p®000: File No. UP-O1-005/DR-O1-009, 20350 Orchard Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Medium Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PAKCEL SIZE: 6,250 gross sq. ft. and 5,250 net sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 19% and 0% at the building site. GRADING REQUIRED: Less than 50 cubic yards of cut is proposed to a maximum depth of one foot. No basement is proposed. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Color and materials will match the existing home. The proposed materials and colors include a sunflower (rust colored) the roof. Wall treatment is stucco with a combination of rust, sand and Navajo White. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. • • (This Area Intentionally Left Blank) 000003 File No. UP-O1-005/DR-01-009, 20350 Orchard Road PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 58 % 60% House and Garage 2,025 sq. ft. Pavers and Hardscape 1,QLQ sq. ft. TOTAL 3,034 sq. ft. (Impervious Surface) Floor Area: Main Floor 1,607 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Garage 41R sq. ft. TOTAL 2,025 sq. ft. 2,560 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirements House Front 21 ft. (no change)' 25 ft. Rear 21 ft.z 25 ft. Left Side 6 ft. (no change) 6 ft.3 Right Side 10 ft. _ 6 ft. Garage . Front 84 ft. 25 ft. Rear 2 ft. 6 ft.4 Left Side 25 ft. 6 ft.5 Right Side 3 ft. 6 ft.6 Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 16'-5" 26 ft. ` Detached Garage 13'-10" 12ft.' lOriginally built at 21 feet. ' z Pursuant to Section 15-16.160 (b) a lot substandard in depth may have a rear yard setback of 20% of the lot depth or 20 feet which ever is greater. In this case the required setback is 21 feet ' A portion of the left side of the home was built five feet from the property line wheri it was originally constructed and is legal non-conforming. 4 Pursuant to Section 15.80 of the Municipal Code (Zoning) wherein accessory structures are permitted asix- foot, setback provided a use permit is granted. SPursuant to Section 15.65 of the Municipal Code (Zoning) wherein a substandard lot may be developed with six- footside setbacks. e Pursuant to the use permit process a setback of less than six feet may be permitted. ~ The Planning Commission may grant up to 15 feet if the appropriate findings can be made. i • t 0®0004 File No. UP-O1-005/DR-O1-009, 20350 Orchard Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Use Permit approval to construct a new 418 square foot garage and remove an existing 323 square foot garage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear and side yard setback. The property is 6,250 gross square feet and 5,250 net square feet in area and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. An additiona1593 square feet will be added to the existing single-story residence at the back of the house. Overall height of the single-story residence will remain at 16 feet six inches (16'-5"). Total square footage of the house and garage will be 2,025, for a total addition of 688 square feet. The design re~~iew, which in absence of the use permit requirement is conducted at staff level, is being forwarded to the Planning Commission so the project maybe reviewed as a whole, and not incrementally. Use Permit Through the Use Permit process an accessory structure may be within the required rear and side setback. According to Section 15-55.070 of the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit if the following findings can be made: a. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, and b. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and c. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. FvalUation ofFindings The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the honing Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The existing garage is already located within one foot of the right side setback. The proposed placement would move it three feet from the right setback and two feet from the rear setback. The expansion of the garage is necessary in order to park two cars within the structure. The expansion is to the left of the lot, thereby not increasing the existing non-conforming right side setback. The left side setback would be 25 feet; nineteen feet more than the six feet required. The location of the garage would also allow for a useable rear yard area and aground-floor addition to the existing home. All of the homes along Orchard Road have garages that are within the rear and side setbacks. The garages are accessed off an alley that is served by Oak Place. The land plan in the area is to provide for the parking for the occupants of the homes off the alley and to provide for visitor parking along Orchard Road. ~®0~~5 File No. UP-O1-005/DR-O1-009, 20350 Orchard Road That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated o-- maintainedwill not be detrimental to thepublic health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. No changes in land use are proposed. The construction is required to conform to the Uniform Building Code. No health and safety impacts would occur as a result of the garage being placed within the right side and rear setbacks. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the ~'oning Ordinance. The proposed garage would comply with the setbacks by which the area was built and designed. All of the garages accessed off the alley are within the rear and side setback areas and some are located on the property line. The 13'-6" height is on par, and comparable with the other garages along the alley. Through the Use Permit process an accessory structure may be within the required rear setback. Design Review Color and materials will match existing home. The building materials and colors include sunflower (rust colored) the roof. Wall treatment is stucco with a combination of rust, sand and Navajo White. The Orchard Road neighborhood is predominately single-family detached homes with detached garages to the rear of the lot. Parking garages. are accessed an alleyway off of Oak Place: The residential adction is on the ground floor and would not affect the privacy of adjoining lots. The one tree that would be removed due to construction would be replaced with a 48"-box Coast Live Oak (see discussion under "Trees/Landscaping" below). Shadows or view blocking would not occur as a result of the project, as the project would be one-story. The proposed garage and home conform to the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Trees/Landscaping Three trees are on the site. Two Ponderosa Pines and a Mexican Fan Palm. Tree #2, a 28" Ponderosa Pine would suffer damage due to construction and not be expected to survive. The arborist (report date stamped 04/11/01) states that value of the tree is $4,857. A 48-inch box Coast Live Oak is the proposed replacement tree. The tree is proposed to be planted along the right property line, very close to the Ponderosa Pine that would be removed. The City Arborist Report date stamped April 11, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of trees on the property and the trees on the adjacent lot that are potentially at risk of damage by construction. The report contains recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of these trees. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The addition would create a standard sized two-car garage. ~®0~®~i File No. UP-O1-005/DR-O1-009, 20350 Orchard Road Grading Less than 50 cubic yards of cut is proposed to a maximum depth of one foot. No basement is proposed. Geotechnical Review The application did not require review by the City Geologist. Fireplaces The plans show one fireplace. The fireplace is gas burning. Correspondence There has been no correspondence from the owner or the noticed neighbors to date. Conclusion Staff has determined that the location of the proposed use, is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution UP-O1-005 and DR-O1-009. • ®©00`7 T~iIS-PAGE HAS BEEN .INTENTIONALLY LEFT-BLANK • • 000008 S RESOLUTION NO. UP-O1-005 ArtD DR-O1-009 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 20350 ORCHARD ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct a new 418 square foot garage and remove an existing 3?3 square foot garage and add 593 square feet to the existing single-story house; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested pames were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: ' The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that the proposed placement would move it three feet from the right setback and two feet from the rear setback.. The expansion of the garage is necessary in order to park two cars within the structure. The expansion is to the left of the lot, thereby not increasing the existing non- conforming right side setback. The left side setback would be 25 feet; nineteen feet more than the six feet required. The location of the garage would also allow for a useable rear yard area and aground-floor addition to the existing home. All of the homes along Orchard Road have garages that are within the rear and side setbacks. The garages are accessed off an alley that is served by Oak Place. The land plan in the area is to provide for the parking for the occupants of the homes off the alley and to provide for visitor parking along Orchard Road. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated. or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity in that no changes in land use are proposed. The construction is required to conform to the Uniforrn Building Code. No health and safety impacts would occur as a result of the garage being placed within the right side and rear setbacks. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the proposed garage would comply with the setbacks by which the area was built and designed. All of the garages accessed off the alley are within the rear and side setback areas and some are located on the property line. The 13'-6" height is on par, and comparable with the other garages along the alley. Through the Use Permit process an accessory structure may be within the required rear setback. • The proposed garage and home conform to the City's Residential Design Guidelines in that the color and materials will match existing home. The building materials and colors include a sunflower (rust colored) file roof. Wall treatment is stucco with a combination of 000009 File No. UP-O1-005, DR-O1-009, 20350 Orchard Road rust, sand and Navajo White. The Orchard Road neighborhood is predominately single- family detached homes with detached gazages to the reaz of the lot. Parking garages are accessed an alleyway off of Oak Place. The residential addition is on the ground floor and would not affect the privacy of adjoining lots. The one tree that would be removed due to construction would be replaced with a 48"-box Coast Live Oak Shadows or view blocking would not occur as a result of the project, as the project would be one-story. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: . Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, grading plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Rich and Mary Schuppert for Use Permit and Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated . by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Cleazance with the following changes: 3. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate ~. plan page. a. Show the tree fencing on the site plan. b. Only ,one wood-burning fireplace shall be permitted and the fireplace shall be clearly marked on the plans. The wood-burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. c. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 4. FENCING REGULATIONS- No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. • 00001Q File No. UP-O1-005, DR-O1-009, 20350 Orchard Road 5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 6. No ordinance size tree except tree #2, shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. CITY ARBORIST 7 Protective tree fencing be provided at the side and rear of the property. The fencing shall be moved out to further protect the trees prior to construction. a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (S) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing the five 36-inch native specimens. •• e. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $914 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 8. Prior to Final Occupancy approval one 48-inch Coast Live Oak shall be planted as a replacement for tree # 2. All 48-inch box trees shall have a diameter of no less than 4 inches. Diameter is measured 1 foot above grade. 9. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the Ciry Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 10. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. • Q©0~~~. File No. UP-O1-005, DR-O1-009, 20350 Orchard Road FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 11. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling: The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[1]). PUBLIC WORKS 12 All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management. Practices as adopted by the Ciry for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. CITY ATTORNEY 13. Applicant agrees to hold the Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of the Ciry in connection with the City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.., 14. Noncompliance ~n~ith any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciry could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 000012 File No. UP-O1-005, DR-O1-009, 20350 Orchard Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23~' day of May, 2001 by the following roll call vote: .AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • Secretary, Planning Commission t 000013 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000014 BARRIE D. COA ~~ AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 I~ Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SCHUPPERT PROPERTY 20350 ORCHARD ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 20, 2001 Job # 03-01-068 Plan Received: 3-15-01 Plan Due: 4-14-01 p ~~~~.d~ APR 1 1 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DI:VF-.I.OPMENT ®0~~5 TREE SURVEY AND PRESER~_ .. iON RECObII4IEtHDATIONS AT THE SCHL-PPERT PROPERTY, 20350 ORCHARD ROAD, SARATOGA 2 Assignment At the request of the Planning Department, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to remodel an existing home in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them c;an be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary Three trees are a[ risk by proposed construction. The root loss to tree #2 would be severe and it would not be expected to survive. Replacements are suggested. Trees # 1 and #3 can be adequately protected. A bond, which equals 25%n of the value of trees #l and #3, is suggested. Observations There are three trees on this .site that ,are at risk of damage by proposed construction. -The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions: -These three trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 2 Ponderosa Pine (Pious ponderosa) Tree #3 Mexican Fan Palm (Washington robusta) The. health and .structure of each .specimen is rated.. on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Poor) on .the data sheet that follows this .text. Please ~ note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature .can occur despite exceptional .health. -Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus...A tree that has ~ an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. Exceptional ~ S 'mess Fine Specimens Fair Specimens Marginal S ens Pour Specimens ~ 1, 2 Exceptional specimens must be retained ai any cost aad whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. The. ponderosa. pine trees #I and #2 are located in raised planter beds, which have been created by stacked block retaining walls. These planter beds have been filled with soil, which covers the root collars of trees #1 and #2. An inspection of tree #1 reveals that PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 20, 2001 • • 0~0®~V TREE SURVEY AND PRESER\ . _:ION RECO14II14ENDATIONS AT j THE SCHUPPERT PROPERTY, 20350 ORCHARD ROAD, SARATOGA the root collar is covered by 6- to 12-inches of fill soil. Inspection of tree #2 reveals that the root collar has been covered by as much 12- to 18-inches. Drip irrigation has been installed in the two-raised planter beds containing trees #1 and #2 in order to irrigate the annual color and perennials that have been planted in these beds. Unfortunately, this combination (fill soil over the root collar and irrigation) exposes both ircx;s to the risk of root collaz diseases, which have the potential of killing these tares over a period of time. This species is also very suseeptable to attack by turpentine beetle and pine bark beetle if the roots are disturbed like this. Impact of Construction Tree #1 The only feature that would have an impact upon tree #1 is the construction of the concrete walk which would remove a fairly small percentage of the root system. This would not be a significant impact. However, other typical construction practices could be seriously. damaging to tree #1 such as: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. Construction traffic across the root systems. 4. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. If new utilities must be installed or if existing utilities must be replaced, trenching across the Cast Side of the front yazd could be highly detrimental to ~" the root system of tree #l. 1'rec #Z The proposed location of the footing for the foundation and the proposed concrete walkway would remove such a high proportion of roots of tree #2, that it would not likely survive. Secondly, it appears that excavation for these features may involve severing buttress roots, which would render the tree unstable. No grading is shown on the maps provided. However, grading to assure that surface water flows away from the foundation of the building is virtually always required. This would be impossible to achieve without destroying an additional portion of the root system of tree #2, because of the fact that the majority of the absorbing roots are likely within the top 12-inches of soil. Consequently, [here is no practical way to retain tree #2 given this design. Tree #3, the Mexican fan palm is located approximately 4 to 5 feet from the southeast corner of the proposed garage. Trenching for the footing of the garage would not significantly damage this specimen of this specimen. Both trees #1 and #3 can be adequately protected by the installation of construction period fencing. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 20, 2001 ©0~~ -TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMbtIIVDATIONS AT 4 THE SCHUPPERT PROPERTY, 20350 ORCHARD ROAD, SARATOGA Recommendations 1. I suggest that this fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of charnlink a mmrmum herghi of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the amval of any -other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. This includes equipment for the purposes of demolition. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must ~ be located exactly as shown on the attached map, however inconvenient this may ~ be. Protective. fencing at a location of two feet from the trunk of tree #3 would be adequate to protect it. 2. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted. 3. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located a minimum of IS feet from the trunk of tree #1. 4. 1 suggest that the owner be given the option of excavating the root collaz of tree #1, which would require the removal of the adjacent perennial plants, and likely the removal of the existing retaining wall. However, the owner is advised that the failure to provide root collaz excavation may bring about the demise of this tree in the years ahead. 5. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 6. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, (and/or excavations) under the ~~ canopy of tree #l must be no closer than 15 feet from the trunk of tree #l. However, radial trenches (like the spokes of a wheel) may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 8 feet from the trunk and if the spokes aze at least 10 fcet apart at the perimeter. 7. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunk of tree #l. The drip irrigation in the raised planter bed must be removed. 8. Bender boazd or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopy of tree #1. 9. Landscape materials (cobblestones, decorative bark, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of tree #1 because of the risk of serious disease infection. 0. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials, including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.; must be removed from site. Va/rre Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standazds, Seventh Edition, 1988. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 20, 2001 O®O®~S TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVn170N RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SCHIIPP'ERT PROPERTY, 20350 ORCHARD ROAD, SARATOGA Tree #2 has a value of $4,857 which is equivalent to one 48-inch boxed native specimen. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus califonsica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens The combined value of trees #1 and #3 is $3,654. I suggest a bond ($914) equal to 25°Io of these two trees be required in order to assure their protection. Respectfully submitte • ~~ Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~,~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and ARer Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 20, 2001 5 000019 O i e-~ O i O ,S1 r~ (>` tl uwowd -nrnowaa ~-1VAOW32f ON3WWOJ3t! N ~ ~ a3Zi111?J33 S433N r m (S-L) a31VM Sa33N a ~~ u ~ ~ o W ~ to ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 0 4 ~ ° E V V o ~ ~ ~ Z O ~ C y _ m ~ 8 W t/f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o c G d ~ CC Q = r a a a m a ~ m m _ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ' ~ h a° a a° ~ 3 u y~` N c7 • Y (S-L) 00 lOOa o ~ m (S-L) a3a3A00 aH1-1001O0a ° ~ ° Y o °_------------___~~~ __ X X _ x ,(S-L)AV030 ~Nf1a1 (S-L) OOOM Ot130 c v .__ - n co - (S-l) 3SV3Si0 NMOa0 33x1 w (S-L) S103SNI ~~ ~~ _ n (S-L) AllaOlad JNINf1ad n ~ ~ ° o o # 03033N S318V0 ---------------------_---__--- ------ v ____- v _ -c 1HJI3M-4N3 3AOW3a v u° v JNISMa NMOa0 NOI1b4101S3a NMOa0 .___~~___ w~_ ~ c _ c -- JNINNIHl NMOa0 °' JNIN113'10 NMOa0 ~~ n u (6-E) JNIltJa oarrzvH . o . ° ~ - (UL-Z) JNI1Va NOI11oN00 0 . ' ~ m:. m ------- N `~ ---------------------_~ _~~ 't5 _~_ ~ ----- Ti cs-t) 3anl~nals ~ w N N (S-L) H1Td3H .. av3ads .w_ --- ~ ~ N ° ; ~ o 1HJ13H ~ ~ ~ ~ ,"'., ~ 1333 Z~ a313WM0 ° o x " u u _ ~ ~ H80 _ ._ ___ H80 ' O c ~ ~ w ---- w -------- X X X -- -- - W31S.tSillfiW x ' H80 ~' ~ N ~ ------ I ~ o ~ I m m r. •i .. ~ O $ W O ~ O .~ ^ EH ~ Q ~ II II ~ x x m is O O ~ eo ~ ~ F~e`~n'n F w U ~ Iii u Q u x x x per„ m .a .a .a ~ pp s peppp s OG rej N d' n 0©0020 BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary braucbes - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. DeSnition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Lirob - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Brancblet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. 000~2~ 0 H W ~ ~ ~ H .~ ~ ~ N o U y ~"'~ ~ c ~ . ~ ~ ~; o Q --"'~ W~ ~"'° ~~~ ~(~/ V ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~~ ~ o c ~ ~ N ~ .~ ~ ~ ,^ z~~:~ ~ ~~ ~~ n t~ ~ M O ~ U~ ~ a~, c~1~ 3 ~ O~°'' ~~ a ~ ~ '~ H ~b ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z .. .. o -. U W f~ Qr Z .W. ~ V N W ~ ~ N"~ ..'~ N «, E-~ p v~~~~ ~ ~'o~~ ~~~~~ A ~'~~~> ~ F o~~ ~ a~ob~ M s {{E,-~- Id i 1. l~ ,. c / . ~ ~~ ~~ , . `, ; o r, { ! ~\ i ~ ~ 1 .:V. 1 C' :;~: .. ~ . `~ - --- - - J( ` ' i 1 1 ~ ~ a ~ C .L ~ O F ° ~, ~ ~ ~ °~' v ~"~ z ~ ,r ,e a ~ ~ ~ ~° U >~a.~FF' . . • ~- n ~~ c ~> c~ c c ~, U '- y = U O C cd Q ~ by '~_, ~o~a G~. ~ ~,?° ~o'~w ~° Q U A ~ " a~o 'fl ~ ~ v E N O _ • "' ~ .a $ ~ ~ G o, c N w •~ bo.o c • • • • ti h • • 000022 P .7 h ` m;'_ Lr i~ J ~~;. ~ "~ s, bA~~ ~~iN,C';~:i ~,'~1 µ .. - .. - " f BARRIE D. COr+ I-E AND ASSOCIATES .. , . Horticultural Consultants- F (408) 353-1052 ~ -~"' ., :°~, Fax (408) 353-1238. 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA X5033 _ . TREE PROTECTION•BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. . Plan construction period fence locations which will preverrt equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. • Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-]anuary. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carperners may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. _ .., DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including pairners are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hat months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at•4 %i') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic maybe used. ~i AFTER Irrigate monthly.with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue urni18" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequernly irrigated plarns beneath tree canopies. 00002331 i -~ . ~ ..•__t ao ~ ~, ~s 1 + • ~~; '` `~, ~.,~ ~r ;'..'a'il ..'... ~ .i. o~' ~~i , , ~ ;• i ~ r ~~ , ~ ~ij ~~. .~ •i t•• ;, < :~ c ~ o . °' ' ~ n. ~ _ '~ U ~ ~ o~ s o , o ~ ~ ., o :, ~ m `° ~ O v t t ~ . F- 1-. 'C M y N O.p _ +~ h ~ oc ,n V ~ O ~ O` m ~Q ~~ ~ U . ~ vOi M 3 vi '~~^v~+g i ~ v1 m cv `~+.f ~ m C7 OD v m N N J \~ \..~: Z 0 J .~1 o~ U ~R J ~ U J 'C ~ d. V ~ n U V ~ 1 ~,, a ~,. •, .•.~~ . ~ ,~~ o .-~ N .a .~A 1 ~ ~ +~ N ~, O ~ y a. ~ i •..., ~ °o~•~ rx .=~ ~ A ~~ i QJ~ Q, ~~ \~r Oy . .~~ ~~~ ~ ti~ _ . d 3 ~ i ~ i y "~ ~ ,G ~ ~ cc •~ i- S ~ ~ O l . ~ +, O i o cLa ~ ~ c o N ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -c '~, o~ , ~ ' ~ o~ o~ y_ S s .~, + ~ O cv cv c y ~ ~ ~ ~ O '~ LO ~ ~ ~ 01 {r 3 ~ r""r L cv ~ S ~ n ~ O ~ O O~ s ~ .~, VI ~ ~ '~ bO ' ~ d o> ~ s ~ i ~ rn O ~ 3 m ~ ~ s *' u ~ ~n O 00 ~ ~ eos ~ ~ N ~ o ~ ~3 O :~' S • u ~ ~ °~ ~ d ~ o~ co. i b~0 • _ ~~,, ~ • d. ~ S ' cts -% N ~ L" u U N ~ O co ~ ~ + ~ o~ ~ - i i C • _ . • 000024 • y .. - _ -. J .. ... -. ~ ~ .. .. . . 1 1 ~„ ~^ .. .. ..... .. .. ~Y ' . -. .... J _. ~ - _ _ _ _ - ~•.. ~ ' ..... ... .... . ~.-~ Fes' ~ i ~//,.,~` tau. .. ~~;1 ~o * w ~~ b N I i~i:~- t ~ / ^ M9lM ~fi 9 ~ ; --- - -- a~ua3 ani~~a~oaa ~ ~ - ,/ ;,,. ,~ J 3QI8 ~ /~: ~ ~/,~ _ . ,i~ ~ ~ Z •ib I~ E i _ '~„O'.t J 3a -n ,- ~. r. 71 s~ 3C ~1 N I ~1 ~I6 ~_ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ,% . ~I / % ~ ~ ' ~ .~'% '~~i .''j / _ ~0 -- '// /~/ / a~ua3 ani~~a~o.Id ~-rorn ' M .tL--1 / .LI ~i ~ ~. ~ ~ 3~7D'~ip'~~ ~ .m.4 .~ 0 ~ ~• C3hr~r13C • 3~6V'rt1011V £ ~ OIX~ ~~ 81Od "'- _ a~ s ~"~~.~°_ ""', .~ iv~~ i~1GU13bV JfvLllil~NOJ i00Z bZ y»eW ~31b'Q 1NV1lT1SNOJ lV2lRllfULLbOH ~3daQ 8u~uue~d ~CuunmuwO `e8o18ieS30 ~f~ ' 103 paleda~d so;e~ so-~ ££OS6 yJ e p ob;iwwn5 S£S£Z P~}I P~4o~0 OS£OZ 'mold >JaddnyaS a~Il. ZSOi-£S£ (8Otr) sa}epossy § le suo~~epuammooa~ uoyen~asay pue ,CanmS aaly a}eoJ •Q aweg / ;' ~ .. ~ '~ ~uiauaganuaa~o.~d -------------- ,Cdoue~ aa~,L~o au~~ duQ pua a-~ C~G[L f£OS6 VJ'so;eg sod •pa;iwwn5 S£S£Z ZSOi-£S£ (SOti) ~ s}ue}~nsuoJ dean;~n~i~oH S3IMJOSSV aNV 31b'OJ 'Q 3IbbV8 .. ®~~.~r5 r • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ` INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • . 0®0©26 • • ~ C: \r 14\Projects\WRO\2000\0030-AJI-Schuppert\0030-al.dwg Thu Apr 19 12:19:26 2001 marty r~ 'K 109L70' 9 fib' 3I' W a ~ I 1 ma •' 4 ,. t t: ^; I" f.t.e;1,.._.., i;l%-? h r,.r,_ u'. .,t ~~ I I ~~ ' I iAl mb - -- - Err mA I FRONT eErsocK a I 97 -d' p, /f" 1• ~ A I 1'~ I 7 n REAR EET DKX ~ O O I ~ ~I 4g ~ ~ I l V ~ ~ I f.i' g a 6 rr-~~- I m X I ~Y I 7d s ii e ~ 9~ C u ~ W _ ~-1 W ~.i I ~ e,~ ~~~~ ~ I 9 O Po d I I.1 1 9 ,a~ I ~i. ~ ;~m~ ~T "".` aaas Q n% I I lr 'fir T ~4S ~ - •``. CIN ' ~I I ~ 1 m r ~/ U ` A I I ~ ,: IA X_/ _- . ~~ _ ... I •`~~.. f05ID0'.S 16' ,)f' W P ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~{F 0Lm _ ~, I n•-" f~'" I ~~k gy`m' n'-e• ..\~ .,, ,...-• ~_`' `•.\:•~ .~,'•.•. ,\ = 1 o~ ~~ 1 .~ 109ID0 9 fib' 31' W a _ I I O I I .t tr/ ~ f~ ~~ Y> ~~ir s Fl~i.t.,: Ln i,f -.ih .' .: 5,r;{'ir: (;; Ii'~.7 ;.i r. s .I,. ~ Il. ~'~~ r I 1 s~.y ~^r I I O I p~p~~I I ~c~::.' ~r ~; -..111} ~.'f '/ ~~\ \~\~.~~\\~.`\ ~~~ I 1 !• ~ . I t . , FROM eEteACx \\~ \ ~~ ~ \ ~\ •, REAR eEt C1ACK I I ~ s r-m~ E ~ ~\~ \ ~~ xo~n " I I \' , iri r x ~ \,\\ ~; ,r~ ~ I a I ~ t f`I ~ ~'. -- 11 ~ till \~ ~u~0 ~ ~,~ I I ~ ~ .\ ~\ ~ ~~\~\ ~t 71~j .t.it \ ~~\ • C A ~E ` t y~ 1~4 he \.\ \ ~~.\\~\\ \ s`.~ra~r[ a Ilt ~+ 111. ~\ ~ ~~~\`\ \~ ~:. ~ I '11 m. mm mW ~ ~ ~+.\~~..• w~.\\\ ~~:v :. \` !i 1 t~ 7.~1i' fIt ~~ I 1 ~\`~ ~~ •\. I I m~i ~i ~kXm i,ill ,Is rr k~ \. ~\\\`\\~ \~\;\~ ~~ I - --------- - - --- ~~\~` \ `~"\.\ ~ ~~-~ ~ ~ I ~ m a -. ,~ ~ ' A O 109.00' 9 •6' 33' W - A ~2 v m~a 'pZ ~ ~ I DGA_ '-°' ... •. ~, b ~`~ g~K xo=$ n>~ bypk°ma' -' I ~,~~ •,\~• +`.\..`C/S.\`~'•\\ •` ~. `~~• \` OmAa O~~ L~~~O e~0 O'^~,~ •GAIIAf~ I I I 3~ ~~ E 6,~ fy~ p 66~~ &+lJT V.4~e F'.D ~. ~-°.'. gi-A ~Pv D ~~~ ~~^ '~A n~ "v~y aeARATOCw- A p ~~0~~ ~~~ $~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~€ p -~'1 V -11 ~1 r €€1~~~ z~z mEODgmg O' O <.'~ r~ ~ ~ ~ f9 a f9 Z ,p o w n p. O n°o~° G~o ~qq-~ ~~6~ ~0~8 R pp3~ ~ ~ ~ gQ X ~ ~ ~ p ~Ep~i ~'°'7R~Nt~bl~$uv_oggos>Q°g ~ *I" ti~ o~ O Z" ~ Al ~~'~~~ d~Q~ ~6~" ~ ~~~ ~G~ ~-' ~ ~ "' ~ e ~ ~ L A~~A~~y~~RE~pm~ ~•°67gf~ ~. gg t,k~.. .y~jrI ypt Q 9 4~ t ~ ~°a ys w .pl w y GA'"~ ~3 m~ ~{Qy~ Qa~ AyC~~ O d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ". ~ A~ A A ~ O t~ ,d 4P x ~~~ ~s o ~r"~ Tbu3"S 2r N _ o ~ ~ ~yR~ ~~ ~~ n~ ~o~ m 19 e a no ~ FF qq ~ ~" r ~ y" ~ my m w ~~ F6~ ~g~g~ qST~u m a ~ '~ Z~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 3~ p~~ rr ~` Po b ., ~, P~ d y •iy-i..i-lea>ea -i.i.i~i-iM~, >~»~S"""°~? r" ~ p ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M arAgggQ~~' aaagg, ° s°aaa =~~~zo ~~~~ 3b'o~r7:~S'n~~5~ b'pry7~~'7'~'~~~ ~~~~;,o^~{~''`~f. d ~~~{~Wr^.~ li RRR tD ~~7{{i $^ O ~ N ~ ` , e > c~ r~ 4 ~~ F~~~ ~ ~~~a OO~~I.O tNi~IOD ~IW~ OIOD Nknylw+ O )e~.p.Op N:TC t'om`' I'S'r C TSTt^ S'C tTN ['[T B aRalaa>F >Rw~aly ,aaawa ~~~~~~ d ~~ ~~~~ ~. 5p °i D o ~, ea ~ A r~.l ~~W~wp o ~ro^ L p~oy in! >~o ga c~ O ^ P 0 Schu ert Residence Sin le Famil Residence -Kitchen / Famil room Master Bedroom Addition g Y Y 20350 Orchard Road Saratoga, California ~ 8m ~ a> ~ 4 ~ .. p b i'~. P V ~ 7d n ~o £~' ~ ~~ ~ d N 8 lNeeT Tln& DE7IONeD FOA: Anne Johnson Interiors aeVL4ION& CONSIJLTANlB Title Sheet /Site Plan S h t R id Anne Johnson Interiors c upper es ence Kitchen /Master Bedroom tse4o tcavin lane 20350 Orchard Rd. btonte SermD, Gtit. Phone :408-399-4472 SaracoQa, California 95070 Faz :408.399.4483 _~f~~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~~.+ s ~j'd'"~ ~~~_ ° ~ S ~~x O ~ r rrr. ~~C~S~~Z' ;;?< ~ } }j ~y m~~p f844-66£•804 : ^od a °o M Sp ZL44.66£•804 : auo9d (~. •;pad •oaaaag aiaoW m ~ ~'~„ ~~ ~' aas•~ u~neN 04951 ~~ ~ ~y~p~r s~o~aa3uI uosugor auu~ 3 a ~ygaW aixv.tinsxo~ ~ ~sxo~stnaa ~,Y ',~ .. OL056 e~uao;~~~~ 'itoaaasg ' O PSI P189~0 OS£OZ N cO o. wooipag ~alsey~ ~ na~a~ix aauap-sa~ ;gad nt(as IIL'jd IIol;joWaQ 'V O n ~ '" .:. saoua~uj uosu~o j auu~ ~ II~Id =~~i3 ;P.nfl-s~' d ; ~ Z a M ~aoa mermcta sun a.aais o ~ ~ o °o m J 0 N J d ~ a ° y V '• H 3 .~< ~~. N 3 iJl a~ X ui ~ ~ e ~ N z a •~ ~~ r~ ; O \~ ' / ~/ I~ ~1 O O !~~ ~~ •~ • ~(~~ew b00z Ob~bZ~80 90 ~eW and ~,6Mp•pZe-OE00\~~addnyaS-Ifd-0£00\OOOZ\OaM\s}aa[o~d\bti~\:~ • • ~ ~A ~, ga e r a O ~ F ~ ~ $ ~~tl~ ~ 3 ~ ~~~~ •• £944.66£•804 : xvd OL056 x}uao;}lei ~sso}aasg G ZL44.66£•804 ~ auo4d o~ao • s boaaa 'PZI PJeYaaO OS£OZ N ~ Q ~' ~ lp ~ g yry aa.1 a}wB~ 04951 mooapag aa3sey~ ~ Qaya3ix aaua sa ~aaddnya ' a;~ e ~ '" pi g g . v e a eao~aalu nosv~o avu I r ~ sao aa u uosu auu o ugid '0013 x ~ d i ~ l ~ d t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ autviinetaoo ~xoiwnau :aoe aaNOieaa vuu, laaxs o ~ Q g 0 m J .~ a m «ssa~ ~ a @'3383 W~ ~ N Z a8 s$ ~ ayd t a a • u ~3 tlo <gr~}° / `•, ~. ~ m l^~~ I""'~ i .' _.. _ \ II O ^~ ~(~~eu~ IOOZ £b~9I~Zti 6l add nUl 6MP•ze-OE00\~~addnu~S-Ifd-000\OOOZ\OdM\s}~a[o~d\bti~\:~ • • • . ~ fA o°~ gP r ,. _ ,. .r ~ ; M C m~~ £844.66£•804 ~ :^~ ~~ M ZL44-66[•804 ~ auogl n ~ ~ ~d 11 aa^•1 ulnaN 04951 ~ ,e ~_~- saoua~ai uosu~o1' auu~7 ~ ~ ~p ' Pl! P'^9a'O OS£OZ , N ~ ulOOapaa 1ajSE~ ~ IIaqq,~Ix dd N O ;,~ ~ y aauap~sag ~aa n~os :. saoua~uI uosu~o j auud suotignaig aoiaa;x~ x m Q ~ ;~ d Z o < ma U X ~ iR~~F ~4~0~? d~ it a ~ a ~: ~~q u ,~., iy ;;•~ , y ~ I~ d~ 5' it~•~ ~~ ~~~ "o w' ~ W(%0~ W 1 ~ it ~~u~iJU a. `{~~ ru ~~~ ~~ i 0 ~~~" a a-3 ~`+dW . ~n:~.i? i~d ~~~~ o~v 1}~."ii ~, ~~,-, o s;~ ^'Y ~ ~ x ~u •1 ~ ~° ~~ 3 ~~ 3 ~~ I_ ~ ~ ~ ~ y6ygo8~~ ~ W°'~ ~ "~ww~a~ e 8 8 ~ ~ $~~0~3 ~mii2 a~ ~ po ~~^uo 3a wa_jya ua o..f mW og~~o~ ;~~ o~~!. 1 VVP 1~mV~Y ((~' V tl W i 'I ~i li 11 A, r• V / O •~ AJ~ AI, W W • O ~~~ew 600Z 5E~9z~80 90 yew anl, 6Mp•£e-0£00\~~addnuaS-If'b'-0800\OOOZ\OaM\s~aa[o~d\bti~\:9 • • • u u: J ~''.~ u~~ ~G"~ u y)~ "~i ~, Ali W fOf . ~^^1 • ~ !~ I ~~ W 1"~ O • tomt.. ^^ W W 4 r~ e i.d ^C^/~' i W; ~' i ~', O l ~~ ^~ e i W: ~1~ O q • ~^d e ~~ ~^d e W~ +v~}S e_ ~m~~~ :~g~ -boo "t°~' w~ ww m , o~~~ow ~ai~ ~m vd~~.;' M z e ~ ~~ fA a°o ga~9 ~ o ~~~i °o m ~~ ~ ~ .. <~~~ 1~1 ' ~ !.r d Ed tl «. •a Ss~- ~ ~ m ~;x 3 ~ ~~ad n ~ £844.66£•804 ~ sv~ ZLbb-66£-804 ~ avoy~ •ji~a~ •ooa,as a~oo~ aoe•! olwsN pyq~~ saoua~uI uosu~o~' auu~ x,wvtins~;o° sNOls)n3n ~y u~ 1~~'?~ 1,, 3 e "~;~ VJ , , . ~ . l ~~w ~ r •,.,W~, o.n;~,~ ,aw ~~~an J~ 6i1 r ~~e , o ,! . ~,Q;~ ow ~~~ }' W ~, IQ~ `~i , ~ ~ Y 1 , > r ~ ~ ~ ol l 1 U~,~ ~ •111 A9 l) it y Y' '. ' l, ~, 1 t1 ~~0 ni 1, ii I).l m t J ~f I ^~~i;~ ~ti%t f .~ ~. ~ ~ ~ •i ~6 ~ ~ t- ~ O ;5 f M j li ~ } ~ ~ ~a ~~ ' ~ • Ju ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ •r ~ ' _ __ ' ~ 1. '.i O 'LI MIaJ 911Vx, •^ 1_ , .I•~Y `;~ !~ U a ; i :;~' vi y ~ rn \/~ E)'t ~ Via' ' V J ~n 0 ~~ ( ^ _I s n . O ~ { i 1 ~~ ~ e 3 _, w .I u~ Ala; ~~~:t l 'iP ll~, o ri: . 1 ow,~; a~,,,_ "t~~'~~~s ny~ ~ l'p~:'f , a;~ o,~: „g ~, ~ }3~~ a ~, v „1, „ o .,~ „ ~~ J / .,_; - ~~ ~ ~ ':~. r s.,. ...... ... .... .b ..._ J y _ ~ ._ m r Y O ....... ... ...... .. ~' . ~ °' .. ..L.. N >,, ~~~ .~:o,. f, i ~.._. I• c M V/ O ~ w ~~~~~ ~ ~~k'k'~ ~ ~~~~° ~~Jg~ ~1 J far w^ ~ ~ ~r ~' ~ `~ ° 0 o LL og~~ow S Q ~` oy a iii ~Fag~3 ~ ~d ~k a ;;8 ~ ~ s ~ ^ r> ..oos~ nooAo ~ Iw w '~ \~ ~ ~ •.0 d ' ~ F - G >~_ u > i ~ ti ~ mo Y -1~ I d u i w s o ~ ~ u l '. ~+ u ^: ,' .C : y U - ;~ • ~ ~ ~ .y d I .~ u~. ~ r .. Y ~~ Q M -D Q v ca Ll ~$~~~ ~° a~~8u ~ ~~a~a ° < ~ J~ u ~ ~Vw o~~~o~ ~ ~~~ ~~~s~ ~ - ~ssg~ ~ ~~ s~~~e 4 ~ooa~ o~ ,n omPa L~ ~ ~, J I ~~~ O ....~ U 4~ 4 0 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •r'1 `y; Z y; ' F' L v Al ~ ~:' Yu u~ ~ O o ~ n ~ vi .i:~ n 1 n' °~ wV, ~ ' P ~ ~ • •~ ~ ~, ... ~ ~" m XQ70 9 ~~~ -~ "IzSI ~ ~~ l r,i ~) ~ ~oN ~6~~ O i , - ,:; a ,•t ~~ } v , !s .~•,n W a; i ~ . "' 'i ~ ~~.' u 9 u~ ~~, uui~ uy u v ~ ~lSi u~~, X11. .; ii ui•, s • r(~~ew b00Z 50~£E~80 90 ~e~ and .,6Mp•be-OE00\~~addnyaS-Ifd-0800\OOOZ\OaM\s~aa[o~d\b~~\:~ • ~.. .. OL056 elwo~~p' hsoa~asg • O '• P21 P+s9aa0 OS£OZ 11100a a aa SE IIa ' p 0 ~ o p g J ~ ~ ~~jix N ~ a~uapisag ~aaddn~ag SLTOI ~a SS0 o ~ ~ ,.., ` ° saoi.~a~ul uosu~o j auu~ • ; S 3~ d d ~ o Zd Z ~ vos memuaa a,.,, asaxs ~ ~ K ° g m r ~ omi y~~Y £844.66£•804 : Yed ~~ ~ OL056 sluao)11q •seoaiaeg O ~ ; i M O PnQ $ ZL44.66£•804 : auoyd •Pll Pasyaa0 OS£OZ O a .. ~- •1lIsJ boaaag a~ao~ ~ N O C pp MI !~ ~ 3 aux7 ulneM 0495[ ~ ulooapag aalsey~ ~ uai;0;ix N ;•., y ~ ~ Shy a~uapisag ;aaddnijas O z i ~ ~ x~- saoiaa;uI uosu~or auu~ ~g pp ~ p; ~ z° a z y~ ~ ~~o; sioiaaauI uosu~oj' auu~ Id 3 21 t ; b ~ a 3 0= ~ ~yW awva.insym :suo~s~naa ~ ,~, avamsau avu .~,us o ~ ~ $ o° e 0 ~o" ~Ylv ~ =' ° ( ~'a ~~ ~ wi5' v Y ) K ~ ~ ~ ~ ai ~~ ~~ u~ ~„~t, .~ °~ ;,~ ;f~;, .r ., ~r ;;`, .. ~.,f ~q <aa.. C~ 0 • ~(I~ew ti00Z LO ~8E ~80 90 ~ek~ and .,6Mp~ ~ge-0£00\~~addnu~S-If'V-OE00\OOOZ\OaM\s~~a[o~d\bl~\ :g • • • ~; , o~ ITEM 5 i AMENDMENT REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &z TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue • e~ Applicant/Owner: SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT Staff Planner: Mark J. Connolly, Assistant Planner Date: June 13, 2001 APN: 397-22-019 Department .~ ~ W 4 ` ~ H -~ ~ North ~ Y G~ ~' x?:~ / ~- i ~( ~ \ ~ 5 t DR %~ S f`r / l ~ B~51N ~'~ ~ yi C,Q r T C E 5Z (~s C r G q ~ Y ~ i .. ~` 14380 Saratoga Avenue 00000, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3/6/01 5/2/01 5/9/01 5/10/Ol 5/8/01 Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Statoon with a Maximum height of 35 feet, at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (The original application and previous notice stated the square footage of the new Fire Station was 12,689 square feet). A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. A Temporary Use Permit is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporary building is 7,500 square feet. Both are located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zone district, and are existing non-conforming lots in that 12,000 square feet is the standard for the P-A Zone District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Take public testunony, and approve with Conditions by adopting DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, and LL-O1-003 ~u TUP-Ol-003 ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions 3. Arborist Report dated March 15, 2001 4. Minutes from the April 10, 2001 Heritage preservation Commission meeting 5. Initial Study and Negative Declaration. 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" '~ #'s 1-8 in previous report 7. Plans for the Temporary Fire Station, Exhibit "B" 8. Bay door color photo Exhibit "C" 9. Letters from citizen Aaron Katz in opposition of the project dated May 22, June 4, 2001. 10. Traffic Study prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. dated February 6, 2001 11. A letter from Central Fire in support of the project. • 000002 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 ~ TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Professional Administrative (P-A) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public facilities (P-F) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 9,274 sq. ft AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2.8% GRADING REQUIRED: 221 cubic yards of cut to a depth 2.16 to 5.75 feet and 10 cubic yards of fill to a depth of 5.35 feet. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior finish will be off white stucco with wood file in an attempt to match the adjacent Federated Church , which is a Julia Morgan design. Roofing material will be a Mission file roof. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Proposal Code Requirement/ Maximum Allowance Lot Covera e: g 100°0 / 30°0 / Maximum allowed Floor Area: First Floor 8,506 sq. ft. 16,000 sq. ft.1 Second Floor 4,819 sq. ft. TOTAL 13,325 sq. ft Minimum allowed Setbacks: Front 0 ft. 25 ft. Front - 2nd floor 0 ft. 25 ft. Rear 0 ft. 25 ft. Rear - 2nd floor 0 ft. 25 ft. Left Side (interior side) 0 ft. 16 ft. z Left - 2nd floor 9 ft. 16 ft.2 Right Side(exterior side) 0 ft. 15 ft.3 Right - 2nd floor ~ 0 ft. 15 ft.3 Maximum allowed Height: Fire Station 35 ft 30 ft 1 The P-A Zone district does not have an allowable floor area standard, only a coverage maximum. The allowable floor area is 8,000 X 2 =16,000 sq. ft. Based on the building type, and fire rating, which is doubled because the building is sprinklered. Z Per section 15-18.080(2), the interior side yard setback may be 16 feet ' Per section 15-18.080(1), the exterior side yard setback may be 15 feet I':\['Iannin~Mark\PC Staff Reports~,Saratoga Fite Station doc ~ ®0 O ~ ^ File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &t TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant has requested Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station with a Maximum height of 35 feet, at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (The original application and notice stated the square footage of the new Fire Station was 12,689 square feet). A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. ~ A Temporary Use Permit is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporary building is 7,500 square feet. Both are located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zone district, and are existing non-conforming lots in that 12,000 square feet is the standard for the P-A Zone District. Staff feels that the project can be supported. The design of the Fire Station is modeled after a Julia Morgan design in an effort to fit in with the neighborhood. The adjacent Federated Church located to the rear of the Fire Station is also modeled after a Julia Morgan design. The materials proposed help the project fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The design has been pulled back from the existing location on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos road to improve sight distance for drivers along that intersection. The report by Fehr ~St Peers Associates Inc. dated February 6, 2001, includes further recommendations, and states that the proposed project will improve circulation in the vicinity. Figure 5 is the recommended improvement alternative for Saratoga Avenue. The report is attached, and recommendations are contained as mitigation measures in the Initial Study. Staff feels that all the necessary findings can be made to support the project, and the following have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed Fire Station, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the height will be increased by about four feet, and the footprint of the proposed Fire Station is expanding slightly, and is compatible with the structures on adjacent properties. The existing footprint is approximately 7,696 square feet, and the proposed footprint is 8,506 square feet, which is a net increase of 810 square feet proposed on site. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimising tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minim zed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that the applicant is proposing improvements to Memorial Plaza, and mitigating impacts to the olive trees by transplanting and replanting equal value trees. These P:~I'Ianning~Mark~PC SraFf Reporrs~.Sarrroga File Srarion.doc 0®oOO~ File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 Fst TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue improvements include the applicant providing a new druiking fountain and refurbishing the existing park benches. The proposed Fire Station in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimise the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimise the perception of bulk and integrate the Fire Station into the surrounding environment in that the rooflines are well articulated and uses materials and colors to minim~e excessive bulk and mass. Also, the design is modeled after the adjacent Federated Church to the rear to increase compatibility with the neighborhood, and is basically replacing what is existing. The Fire Station will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots, in that the design is modeled after the Federated Church on the adjacent lot to promote a similar design to the immediate neighborhood; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. ^ The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading, topography and erosion control standards used by the Ciry, such as minimising the amount of cut and fill. The proposal includes 221 Cubic yards of fill and 10 cubic yards of fill. Also, the plan incorporates proper drainage measures to retain as much storm water n site as possible. The Fire Station is located at the gateway to Saratoga's historic downtown. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the design on April 10, 2001 (Minutes attached). The Commission reviewed the project and the preliminary color board, and the design of the proposed bay doors, and approved the item on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Grens abstained), with the condition that the Commission review the final color and materials board. An Initial Study was prepared in which a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued in the Notice of Determination. The impacts and their mitigation measures are as follows: Due to the encroachment onto Memorial Plaza, the applicant shall maintain the existing pathway, and refurbish the existing park benches and provide a new drinking fountain. ^ There are two bus stops affected by the implementation of the design and use. One is near the entrance to the temporary Fire Station on Saratoga-Los Gatos road, which is proposed to be moved North toward Saratoga Avenue. The other is near the alley that will be used for egress on Saratoga Avenue for the Temporary Fire . Station. The proposal is to move the bus stop eastward away from the existing P:~I'lanningiMark~PC Staff Reports~SatatogaFire Station.doc [~ ~l.P~®OS File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 ~St TUP-O1-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue driveway. The applicant is currently working with Valley Transportation Authority to obtain the necessary approvals. There will be two emergency generators. One each for the proposed Fire Station and the Temporary Fire Station. These generators will only operate in the event of an emergency, but will need to be tested periodically. The application proposes to mitigate for noise impacts over the ambient standard by locating the generators away from adjacent buildings and enclosing the generators with five (5) foot masonry walls. The application proposes no new on-site parking spaces for employees or visitors. The City of Saratoga parking standard for this zone district and use is 1 space for each employee. The applicant has purchased the adjacent lot where the Temporary Fire Station will be located and will provide 22 additional spaces, which will total 32 with the 10 existing on site. The City Arborist, Public Works Department, City Traffic Engineer, Heritage Preservation Commission, Pacific Gas &z Electric, and Parks and Trails Committee, and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. Their recommendations are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval. Use Permit The applicant is requesting Use Permit approval to allow the height of the ro osal to be 35 P P feet where 30 feet is permitted, allow development on a lot that is less than 12,000 square feet, to allow the structure to be within the required setbacks of the zone district, and allow 100% lot coverage where 30% is allowed in the zone district. Per section 15-55-.030 the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit to have different site area, coverage, structure height and yard minimums than standard for the Zone District. Staff feels that the necessary findings can be made to support the Use permit in that the proposal is basically to replace the existing building, with exception to about 4 feet of height and minimal footprint expansion. Also, the following findings have been proposed: That the proposed Fire Station is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that will not increase existing traffic flow. That the proposed Fire Station and the conditions under which it would be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal is a continuation of the existing use. Also, the Fire Station will not generate any objectionable noise, odors, and air pollutants or solid or liquid waste which would endanger human health or cause damage to animals, vegetation or property. • P:~Planning~Mark~PC Staff Reports\SatatogaFire Station.doc 000006 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue ^ That the proposed Fire Station complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district per section 15-18.030, and the proposed height is only slightly increasing what exists. Lot Line Adjustment The footprint of the existing Fire Station is outside of the southerly property line. There is an area that the fire district has suggested be dedicating back to the city. The Saratoga Fire District owns the land that the current fire station exists on, and the City of Saratoga owns the property that the existing Fire Station encroaches on to. The proposal further encroaches over this property line. The City and Fire District will resolve the issue of how this encroachment will be handled at a later date. The amount of site area that is proposed to be dedicated to the city is 513 sq. ft., and the amount of site area to be transferred to the fire district from the city will be 529 sq. ft. This adjustment is ultimately up to the City Council. Per the Open Space Element in the Cities General Plan, the encroachment is consistent with the General Plan in that, improvements will be made to the Plaza in that, the applicant is proposing to locate a new drinking fountain, and refurbish the park benches in exchange for the 529 sq. ft. encroachment onto the Plaza. Temporary Use Permit Pursuant to City Code Section 15-60.010, Planning Commission approval of a Temporary Use Permit is required for the Temporary Fire Station. Section 15-60.030 of the City Code states that the Planning Commission "may grant a temporary use permit upon finding that the temporary use is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and in doing so may impose such reasonable conditions as circumstances require, including but not limited to: limitations on the length of time, the days of the week and the hours of the day during which the activity may be conducted. Staff feels that the proposed Temporary Fire Station is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal promotes and protects the public health, safety, peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfare because it will: 1) facilitate the continuation of fire services during the renovation and expansion of the existing fire station; 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facilities; and 3) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities. The Saratoga Fire District owns the property that the temporary use will be located on. The existing building is about 20 feet tall and the exterior of the building will remain unchanged, with the exception of one entrance door. The building has existing power sewer and water service. • P:\Planning\Mark\PC Staff Repocts\Saratoga Fire Station doc ©oo~l.! File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue Parking The Municipal Code requires the fire station to have one space for each employee for a total of 14 spaces. The fire station will have 10 parking spaces on site, and will satisfy an additional 22 spaces located off site. Therefore providing a total of 32 spaces, which is in excess of what is required by code. Given that part of the parking requirement is provided off site, a covenant that goes with the land should be made to ensure the Fire Station will always meet it's parking requirements, and still allow flexibility for the Temporary Fire Station location to meet it's parking requirements. . Grading 221 cubic yards of cut to a depth 2.16 to 5.75 feet, and 10 cubic yards of fill to a depth of 5.35 feet. Trees The City Arborist report dated March 1S, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There are eight (8) trees on the property potentially at risk of damage by construction, which are all olive trees, only two of which are ordinance protected The applicant proposes to transplant the species that are able to be transplanted, and replant native specimens to replace the value of any trees lost. The report contains recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on site. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Correspondence There have been two letters received to date in opposition of the proposal from a concerned citizen Aaron Katz, and one letter supporting the project from Santa Clara County Fire District Chief Douglas Sporleder. Conclusion The proposed Fire Station, and Temporary Fire Station does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minim~e the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage through the Conditional Use Permit process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Take public testunony and approve with Conditions by adopting DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, and LL-O1-003 ~ TUP-Ol-003. • P:~Planning~MarldPC Staff Reports~SatatogaFirc Station doc o®~~~V File No. DR-O1-006; UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &t TUP-O1-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT;14380 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 13,325 square foot fire station on a 9,274 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed Fire Station, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed Fire Station is compatible with the structures on adjacent properties. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimising tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minim~ed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that the applicant is proposing improvements to the impacts on Memorial Plaza, and mitigating impacts to the olive trees by transplanting and replanting equal value trees. These improvements include the applicant providing a new drinking fountain and refurbishing the existing park benches at Memorial Plaza. The proposed Fire Station in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimise the perception of excessive bulk and .will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimise the perception of bulk and integrate the Fire Station into the surrounding environment in that the rooflines are well articulated and uses materials and colors to minimise excessive bulk and mass. Also, the design is modeled after the adjacent Federated Church to the rear to increase compatibility with the neighborhood. • P:\Planning\Matk\PC Staff Reports\Saratoga Fire Stariondoc ©~0©~9 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue The Fire Station will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots, in that the design is modeled after the Federated Church on the adjacent lot to promote a similar design to the immediate neighborhood; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading, topography and erosion control standards used by the City, such as rr~inimi7ing the amount of cut and fill. The proposal includes 221 Cubic yards of fill and 10 cubic yards of fill. Also, the plan incorporates proper drainage measures to retain as much storm water n site as possible. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of DR-O1-006; SARATOGA. FIRE DISTRICT for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall 1 incorporated by reference. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist shall be adhered to and included as a separate plan page. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." Four (4) sets of complete grading plans Arborist report as a separate plan page. File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &z TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue i. No Retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height and three feet within the front yard setback. ii. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site; and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. CITY ARBORIST 7. All recommendations in the Ciry Arborist's Report dated March 15, 2001 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing transplant locations of trees #1-5. e. No storage of construction materials shall be permitted within the canopies of trees #6-8, and the protective fencing shall be installed per the Arborist recommendations. f. All trenching for any utilities shall be located outside the driplines of all retained trees. If this cannot be achieved a project Arborist shall be retained to determine acceptable locations. P:~Planning~Mark~PC Staff Reports\SaratogaFire Stationdoc 000011 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 ~ TUP-O1-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue g. No excavated soil shall be stored below the canopies of any trees. h. An International Society of Arboriculture certified Arborist must do any tree pruning. 8. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $4,166 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 9. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 10. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 11. Any future sale of the Temporary Fire Station site at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, shall have a covenant running with the land stating that the New Fire Station shall retain enough spaces to meet its parking requirement of 1 space for each employee. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. Roof coverin shall be fire retardant Uniform buildin Code Class A re ar d g g p p e or built up roofing. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. 14. Early Warning Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire district for approval. 15. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 12,000 sq. ft. building. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. NFPA 13 is required. PUBLIC WORKS 16. Figure 5 as contained in the traffic report prepared by Fehr ~St Peers Associates Inc, dated February 6, 2001 shall be completed prior to final inspection. • P:\Planning\Mark\PG Staff Reports\Satatoga Fire Station.doc 00012 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &x TUP-O1-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue CITY ATTORNEY 17 Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 18 Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. • P:~Planning~Mark~PC Staff Reports~Saratoga Fire Station.doc 000013 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TLJP-O1-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of June 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • io P:\Plannin~Mark\PC Staff Reports\Saratoga Fire Station.doc 0®4014 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. UP-O1-002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT;14380 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval for a New Fire Station, with a height of 35 feet, nearly 100% lot coverage, 0 setbacks, and on a lot less than 12,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ That the proposed Fire Station is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that will not increase existing traffic flow. ^ That the proposed Fire Station and the conditions under which it would be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that the hours of operation are similar to other businesses in the area and the business will not generate any objectionable noise, odors, air pollutants or solid or liquid waste which would endanger human health or cause damage to animals, vegetation or property. ^ That the proposed Fire Station complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: ~~ ~J P:\Planning\Mark\PC SraEf Reports\SararogaFire Stariondoc 0~~~~~ File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 ~Si: TUP-O1-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as modified and presented at the Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. All conditions of Resolution DR-O1-006 shall be adhered to. CITY ATTORNEY Applicant agrees to hold City harmless .from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 4 Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. • P:~Planning~Matk~PC Staff Reporrs~Satatoga Fire Station.doc oooo~s , File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 Est TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue Section 2. Operation must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of June 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • P:\Planning\Matk\PC Staff Reports~Satatoga Fire Station.doc -'`y o®~~~, THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ®~0®~8 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &t TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. TUP-Ol-003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT;14380 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga proposes to temporarily relocate the Saratoga Fire District to a site located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road on a parcel less than 12,000 square feet, during the construction and expansion of the existing Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Temporary Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: • The proposed Fire Station facility is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; and • The proposal promotes and protects the public health, safety, peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfare because it will: 1) facilitate the continuation of Fire Protection services during the Construction and expansion of the existing Fire Station; 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facilities; and 3) minimise traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities. The existing building shall remain unchanged with the exception of the addition of one entry door. The building currently is supplied with City water, sewer and power services. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of the SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Temporary Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed temporary Fire Station facility shall be located and constructed as shown on the plans, incorporated by reference. 2. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Temporary Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. P:\Plannin~Mark\PC StaFf Reporrs\SatatogaFire Station.doc ©~30®1.9 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &~ TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue 3. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 4. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. -- Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of June 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • P:\Planning\MarkU'C Staff ReportslSararogaFice Statioadoc ©~®IG,rQ June 4, 2001 City of Saratoga Planning Commission Dr. Cynthia Berry, Chairperson 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Sazatoga, CA. 95070 (408) 868-1269 Re: June 13, 2001 Saratoga Fire District Request for Design Review and Use Permit - Application Nos. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 & TUP-O1-003 - 14380 Saratoga Ave., Sazatoga, CA. ["the project"]; Dear Dr. Berry and the Honorable City Planning Commission: On May 22, 2001 I directed written objections concerning the project to the Commission. Since that time I have learned additional facts concerning the project which I feel need to be brought to the Commission's attention; hence with the Commission's approval, I submit this supplemental objection to the project. Reduction of Bay Doors: The present fire station exhibits four large bay doors for emergency vehicles to ingress/egress the station. The proposed development provides for but three bay doors not- withstanding the fact the Saratoga Fire District ["SFD"] has announced it intends to add/park additional emergency vehicles. If there are to be more than three emergency vehicles housed in the project, then it means emergency.vehicles will need to pazk in tandem. Every time the rear tandem parked emergency vehicle needs to exit while the front pazked emergency vehicle is present, both vehicles will have to exit onto Saratoga Ave. which IS going to adversely affect traffic flow at this busy/sensitive intersection. By restoring the missing bay door we can mitigate against additional disruption to Saratoga Ave. The "So Called" 12 On-Site Parking Spots: The SFD claims it already has 12 on-site parking spots which service the existing fire station. I dispute this contention and request the Commission care- fully examine the application to identify where these "so called" pazking spots exist. And notwithstand- ing this disputed fact, the SFD proposes eliminating two of these spots. At the rear portion of the current fire station I believe the Commission will discover 6 marked parking spots for use by the SFD. Adjacent to a reaz door which leads into the current fire station the Commission will discover a "tubby hole" area which really isn't an on site parking spot, however, the SFD uses for parking. In the very front of the fire station there is an 8~' marked parking spots. Across the reaz alley way and adjacent to the Post Office, the Commission will discover another 5 marked pazk- ing spots which we all know aze used by patrons of the Post Office2. I don't know which pazcel actually owns the latter 5 marked parking spots, however, I am betting it is NOT the SFD's! If that be the case then we're really lookin~ at but 8 SFD parking spots, of which the application before the Commission proposes reducing to five ! ' This writer presumes this spot will be eliminated by the proposed application inasmuch as it would appear to be in the public right-of--way to be deeded to the City. 2 Take away these five spots and there's essentially no parking available for visitors to the Post Office and Sheriff's Office [the only parking being 4 diagonal spots at the front of the building]. [l!3[l~^-ti Stafl's Report [at page 000039] asserts the project will "...provide...more than adequate parking with 10 existing to remain and another 22 proposed totaling 32 spaces..." As has been demonstration, the assertion is wrong! Additional Personnel Taxes an Already Overcrowded Parlring/Adverse Traffic Situation: The SFD has announced it intends to add more staff to man [or woman] a communications and training center within the proposed development3. Adding more personnel together with conducting training for off duty personnel [while on duty personnel are on site] IS going to increase the pressures upon on site parking. It is also going to add to the already negative traffic flow to/from the fire station. Staffis Report [at page 000039] asserts "...no new access or trips will be generated by the pro- posed facility." I don't know where Mr. Sullivan has secured this information but clearly, the assertion is wrong! The Future of the Former_Contempo Realty Office Building: The SFD has stated it does not know what it will do with Mr. Hackett's former Contempo Realty Office Building. once reconstruction of the fire station has been completed. Chief Kraule has quipped4 the SFD may very well sell it; either back to Mr. Hackett or to someone else. When resale takes place, what is going to happen to this building's 22 on site parking spaces? Or stated another way, the new occupants of this building will probably require 22 on site parking spots of their own which means there will be none left for SFD personneUguests to park. As long as it is possible for the former Contempo Realty Office to be sold or let out to third per- sons with their own tenants/occupants/invitees, the reconstructed fire station should incorporate ade- quate on site parking on a "stand alone" basis without utilizing the parking spaces on the former Con- tempo Realty Office. Development standards dictate at least one parking space for each employee. This standard should be enforced. Massiveness: I invite the Commission to visit Argonaut Shopping Center and visualize that the columns between arches are columns between bay doors at the proposed reconstructed fire station. Stand next to these columns [assuming 100% lot coverage/zero set back] and observe how "massive" is the face of the structure. Now take a look at the highest part of the roof line which is less than 30 feet tall. Pretty massive, wouldn't you agree? Now add 5 additional feet because the SFD has asked for a variance to raise the height of its building. Walk up to the reconstructed Saratoga Elementary School on Oak Street or Redwood Middle School on Fruitvale. Imagine the massiveness of these structures being pushed forward to the street curb [i.e., 100% lot coverage/zero set back]. Now tell the community these massive, two story, stucco structures have mitigated their bulk. Now take a look at the highest part of either roof line which is less than 30 feet high and tell the public an additional 5 feet won't add to the massiveness! The applicant is likely to argue that the highest point of the current fire station is already some 30 feet high so it is asking for but 5 additional feet. Although the tower may be that high, the rest of the s Additionally the Saratoga News reports it is the SFD's intention to increase the number of on duty per- sonnel at all times to a minimum of seven, and an Assistant Chief either has been/shortly will be hired. a The SFD Commission has admitted it has no idea what it will do with this structure once reconstruc- tion of the fire station is complete. 0©0® _ building [i.e., its massiveness] is a good 8-10 feet shorter. Approving an across the board increase in height to 35 feet for the project would be irresponsible. Pole Netting: Some three weeks prior to this hearing I made request upon the Planning Depart- ment that the SFD be required to erect pole netting so we citizens can see how high and massive the project will be. Mark Connolly assured me he would make request upon the SFD, and that these poles would be erected. As of today, they still have not been erected. Until the SFD has erected the requested poles and we citizens have had an opportunity to view how massive the project will be if constructed, any project approval should be withheld. Conclusion: From a development stand point the project is far, far too massive and would have a very negative impact upon the flow of traffic at this intersection if approved. The reconstructed station should imbue the "charrn" of the Village emphasizing "softer" wood elements/earthtone colors5. It does not. The project as presented should be referred back to the Planning Department for modifications in accordance with the opinions stated in this and my previous objections. y u, RO .KAT P.O. Box 116 Saratoga, CA. 95071-0116 (408) 741-1008 • [~6~U~f~ ~~i JUN 0 ¢ ppp~ NJ CITY OF SARA"fOGA COMMUNITY DEVEIAPMIiN"I' S Especially given the fact it is located in Saratoga's Historic Heritage Lane. None of the structures in the Heritage Lane exhibit the massive exterior stucco and Spanish roof the design elements suggested by the project. Thus it will NOT "...be compatible with the external appearance of the existing... [Heritage] lane..." 000023 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000024 01/04/1996 01:51 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR SMARTEN PAGE 01 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 (408) 868-1269 ~~~~o~~~ MAY 2 2 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COM(\lUNITY DEVELOPS\gENT May 22, 2001 Re: May 23, 2001 Saratoga Fire District Request for Design Review and Use Permit - ,A.pplication Nos. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LI.-O1-003 & TUP-01-003 - 14380 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, CA. -Agenda Ztem No. 5 Dear Honorable City Planning Commission: My name is Aaron Katz. X am a resident of the Saratoga Fire District ["SFD"] and the owner of residential real property located less than a block from the fire station [i.e., at 14272 Saratoga Ave.]. I oppose the current application for the following reasons: Introduction: Staff concludes, ".. ,the proposal... satisfies all... zoniuag regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage." But the facts evidence the exact contrary! The application as it presently stands should thus be denied. Facts: The relevant development facts are as follows: 1. The lot size of the proposed development is Gaon-conforming [9,274 square feet versus a mini- mum of 12,000 square feet]; 2, The proposed development is contingent upon the City of Saratoga transferring 529 square feet of land to the S1~D which ultimately may or may not be approved by the City Council; 3. The proposed development seeks 100% Iot coverage [versus the current 30% maximum]; 4. The proposed development provides for essentially zero setbacks [versus the current 15 -- 25 feet minimum]; 5. The proposed development seeks an height limitation variance of 35 feet [versus the current 30 foot maximum limitation]; 6. The proposed development offers inadequate on-site parking, relying instead on an adjoin- ing parcel's alleged parking capacity [which itself will be overtaxed]; 7. The proposed development seeks to more-than tripie ezisting square footage [from the cur- rent 4,250 square feet to a proposed 13,325 square feet] asserting there is no commercial Floor Area Ratio in place which would otherwise limit square footage; 8. The proposed development seeks to enlarge a current single story structure into a massive two story structure; and, 9. The proposed development's design is neither compatible with the design nor massiveness of the surrounding neighborhood [which is one of the City's most visible]. O®UO;ZS 01/04/1996 01:51 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR SMARTEN PAGE 02 Global Observation: If I came to the Planning Commission seeking approval for a residential development [the project IS located within the City's most core residential HERITAGE neighborhood] which incorporated the aforesaid features, I would be laughed out of the building. The SFD should receive the same, non-diseruninatory treatments The Structure is Too Massive: Never before have X heard that a structure's "massiveness" can be mitigated by design elements. If this were the case then every residential building application would seek 10,000 or more square feet of living space pointing to this project's design elements which "mini- rnaze the perception of bulk" as justification. Approval of the current proposal would set a very danger_ ous design precedent. When an applicant seeks to build a "monster" structure on a small lot which triples existing square footage, he/she is generally told part of the character of the neighborhood in which the property is located is small structures on small lots. The response should be no different to the proposed develop- ment; especially considering the fact it is part of Heritage Lane. The Voters DIDN'T Vote for the Fire Chiefs Taj Mahal Fire Station: When the SFD went to the voters seeking funding for a new fire station, it was not umder the guise of constructing what has been now proposedl, Simply stated the SFD proposed "replac[ing] the unsafe, 70-year-old building with a seisrnically safe lyre station." However, Chief Kraule has used the "hook" of Measure F's passage as an opportunity to construct his Taj Mahal! Replacement of the currern 4,254 square foot fire station doesn't require ignoring the City's development requirements in the historic Heritage Lane. There is No Need for a Taj Mahal Fire Station: Measure F represented that, "your firefighters respond to over 1000 calls per year." The Cupertino Monte Vista fire station responds to slightly more calls per year yet is roughly the size of the current fire station [i.e., 30% of the size proposed by the cur- rent application]. Further, SFD Commissioner Credes has gone on record representing that no more than seven firefighters a required to respond to a fire call. 7 £refighters do not require 13,000 square feet of space. The SFD wants to change what has been a small, community satellite fire station into a massive central fare communications headquarters "hub." It wants to add administrative and communications personnel together with on site training and a fancy new ofi`sce for the Chie£ Neither the City nor the SFD require such a structure; especially one which fails to conform to the City's development standards. Although "the City of Saratoga [may] need a safe, modern fire station [at the current location] no matter who staffs it," it certainly does not require what has been proposed! Instead of attempting to pack new administrative, communications and training facilities into a reconstructed "monster" fire station, there is no reason not to incorporate these functions into the less visible and existing former Contempo Realty office building. This allows the massiveness of the pro- posed development to be pared down as it should be. There is No Money to Construct a Taj 1Vlahal Fire Station: T'he SFD has NOT been forthright with the conununity when it comes to the purposes for Measure F, and the money generated therefrom. The bond measure provided for a gross $5.9 million in funding. Of course there were administrative and legal costs associated with holding the election, issuing the bonds and prosecuting an eminent domain lawsuit against former neighbor Charles Hackett. At best, $5.7 million "net" was left over. z And by the way, I find it interesting the proposed development has INCREASER in square footage by some 636 square feet since first submdtted. ~©026 •01/04/1996 01:51 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR SMARTEN PAGE 03 From the $5.7 million, $2.2 million was paid to Mr. Hackett for the former Contempo Realty office building. That left about $3.5 million of bond funding to demolish the current fire station and reconstruct a new f re station. i; have had conversations with SFD Commissioner Egan concerning the costs of constructing a modern fire station. He has represented the costs are far higher than ordinary construction; using ~$ figures, in the neighborhood of $500.00/square foot. If this be the case and the proposed development is approved, we're looking at a construction funding shortfall of nearly $3.5 million! This then. sets the stage for the SFD to return to the voters seeking more funding for a partially reconstructed fire station. As a property owner who has been assessed for the reconstructed fire station's cost, I feel misled! The 1;'lanning Commission nips the foregoing scenerio in the bud by NOT approving a 13,325 square foot reconstruction. At $500.00/square foot the SFD is already going to have difficulty paying for: a) the remodel of the former Contempo Realty offiice building; plus, b)' recodstruction of a 4,250 square foot "seismically safe" fire station. Let's not make the funding problem impossible! The Structure's Design is NOT Compatible With its Neighbors: Lest not the' Commission forget the subject site is one of the most visible in all of Saratoga as the entrance to the Village.. Rather than focusing on the pending Federated Church remodel going on AROUND T~ CORNER [i.e., mostly facing Fark Ave.] from the subject developrner~t, the Commission should be concentrating else- where when it comes to neighborhood "compatibility." How compatible is the proposed development with the small, flat roofed, single story post and sheriffs offices next store? What about the Church's administrative offices just to the north of the Sheriff's Office? What about the three office buildings across the street and to the north of Saratoga- I.os Gatos Road [i.e., fronting Saratoga Ave.]? What about the condominium complex adjacent to these office buildings? What about the design elements of the buildings across Saratoga~Los Gatos Road at the entrance to the Pillage? Simply stated the answer is little compatibility! The proposed development seeks to replace a relatively small, cute, architecturally compatible single story "community" structure with a massive Argonaut Shopping Center type oversized [in relation to lot size], stucco and file two story wall. We don't want a modern shopping center "look" and "feel" at the entrance to the Village. The Proposed Development Wi11 Adversely Affect Traffic: The corner of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Saratoga Ave. is already a traffic mess; especially durutg rush hour in the morning and late afternoon. Anything which adds to this already bad situation traffic wise becomes unacceptable, and make no mistake the proposed development WILL. The SFD proposes adding personnel to man [or woman] a new communications center. It seeks to increase administrative staff. It has already announced it will hire a new Deputy Chief, and there will be more square footage to hire more firefighters. The SFD proposes offering training to off duty person- nel if the proposed development is approved who will be occupying the new fire station at the same time on duty personnel are occupying the building. The net effect of all of the foregoing is increased demands upon an already overtaxed [and barely acceptable] traffic situation. On the other hand if the SFD is seat the message it cannot constzuct [and thus man] the type of fire protection headquarters/hub it proposes, there will be no room to increase the SFD's infrastructure and by analogy, the demands on our city streets [traffic wise] will be no worse than they are today. ~®~~~~ 01/04/1996 01:51 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR SMARTEN PAGE 04 Additionally, more training means more non-emergency trips during the day down Saratoga Ave. Being an homeowner less than a block away from the fire station already creates environmental incon- veniences. I object to those inconveniences being increased because the SFD is not satisfied with what should be no more than a small, architecturally compatible satellite "community" fire station housed in an historic district. The Proposed Development Seeks to Influence a Political Battle- Versus Addressing the Community's Fire Protection Needs -The Conrtmission Should Not Allow Itself'to be Used to Add "Fuel to the Fire:" It is no secret there is a political fight going on over the future of the SFD. Siz~uply stated, many izx the community feel we would be better served incorporating the SFA and a recon- structed Village fire station into the Santa Clara County Fire District's ["SCCFD"] existing infrastruc- ture. But because of the hidden agendas of the three SFD Fire Commissioners, logic and the will of the people have been thrown by the wayside. If the SFD were incorporated into the SCCFD; or, even if the SFD survived, but contracted for fire protection services with the SCCFDZ; THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FORA 13,325 SQUARE FOOT VILIrAGE F)(RE STATION. Instead all that would be nec- essary would be a small, functional, up-to-date, seismically safe satellite "community" station [adminis- trative, communications, training and "backup" support would all be provided at different physical locations]. Such a station would be far more compatible with the City's development standards and would go a long way towards addressing the proposed development's non-conforming [see above-Facts] features. By approving the proposed development the Commission will be giving the SFD the "green light" to disrupt the'status quo while the political process plays itself out [who knows, the City Council may wish to use its "trump card" to DENY the SFD the 529 square Feet of City land deemed necessary for the proposed development unless it agrees to a vastly pazed down reconstructed fire station]. Addi- tionally, there is an election coming up iz~ roughly 5 months for two SFD Commissioners which may very well change the SFD's composition and fire station priorities. Premature approval of an unneces- sary "monster" fire station may unduly tie new SFD Comuxxissioners' hands. Prejudice to the Applicant: There is little prejudice to the SFD if its present application is denied3. Measure F passed in April of 2000. Over a year has gone by since initial application to the Commission. Several additional months of responsible development delay is certainly not unreasozuable given the importance and massiveness of the proposed development. Conclusion: Let the political landscape play itself out while requiring further study and redesign [which includes downsizing and design elements which are more compatible with the historic neighbor- hood in which the fire station is venued] during the aforesaid 5 month period. The proposed develop- ment is premature; it should not be before the Commission UNTII. the SFD has secured the necessary 529 square feet of City owned land included within its application. Therefore I ask that the Comrnassion deny the current application because it fails to satisfy the letter acid intent of the City's "...zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height.. ,impervious coverage," design compatibility, on site parking and adverse traffic impact. Send a There is currently pending at least two Formal responses to the SFI7's RFP for an outside source like the SCCFD to physically provide fire protection services on the SFD's behalf. • s Nor has a real estate development applicant's financial prejudice ever been a basis for granting am ap- plication. Furthermore, under anyone's math $3.5 million in remaining bond funding is insufficient to demolish the current fire station and reconstruct a modern, state-of--the-art, seismically safe, 13,325 square foot substitute. 01/04/1996 01:51 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR SMARTEN PAGE 05 • • • the SFD the message that the City is looking for a much smaller, single story, NUN-Argonaut Shopping Center type "monster" reconstructed Village fire station. Let the SFD use the tune suggested to explore occupancy of the former Contempo Realty office building [which is far less visible than the fire station per se] for its proffered administrative, co~cuaxuzucations, training and hou,~,needs while the political landscape sorts itself out. ~ _ ~ _ ,• i O®O(~29 P.O. fox 116 Saratoga, C,A,. 950'71-0116 (408) 741-1008 r~ TrIIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ®0~~~ ^t, gy: FEHR 8~ PEERS; 408 278 171- ~: ~:. FEHR~YPEFR5 ASk)C_lA"CES, 1NC:. Trunsportu(~on Consul(un(s 2~i ~cir[h Ni~rlc;.r :in•e.zt. ~uitc: Zt~c` Sit: Jose, C;1 ~)~111 -FUy 27Fi-17U1~ • ra, 4C~d l7ti-1% 17 w,n~v.tc.n,-.a„dJ,eers.c:c,n ~ MEMORANDUM To: ldary McCnalh, RR1VI Design Group from: Soluab ltashi~ Date: February 6, 2UU 1 Subject: Proposed Replacement of Saratoga Fire Station - Truffic Study Fehr & Yeers Associates, Inc. completed a traffic study for the proposed building replacement of the fire station located at the southeast corner of the Saratoga Avenue/Sazatoga-Los Gatos Road (State Route 9) intersection in the City of Saratoga. This tnemorandum presents our key findings and conclusions followed by the study approach and mei'hodology. Key Findings and Conclusions The replacement of the Saratoga Fire Station building at the southeast corner of the Saratoga Avenue/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (SR 9) intersection is not expected to result in a change in the number of trips generated by the project site. Thus, no capacity improvements to the intersection arc n;,quircd, However, fire district personnel will still be required to temporarily control traffic on Saratoga Avenue as emergency vehicles back into the new building bays. The westernmost wall of the new building will be pulled back from the southeast corner of the intersection to improve sight distance for drivers on northhound Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. This design feature will allow removal of the existing "No Right Twr o,~ Red" signs for westbound Saratoga Avenue traffic. The increased sight distance will also enhance the visibility of pedestrians traveling hetween the southeast comer of the intersection and the adjacent raised median island. To maintain adequate sight distance, all objects within the sight line area must he less than two feet above grade. Qverall, the proposed project will improve circulation in the vicinity of the site and no major street modifications axe rccornmcndcci. A "Keep Clear" desi.gnatioit should be painted on westbound Sazatoga Avenue immediately in front of the building bay doers tv dclincato an area for vehicles to exit the building during emergency calls. 000031 nt By: FEHR ~ PEERS; 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:08Pti1; Page 2/12 • lLcidilional improvements could be made at this intersection to further enhance capacity and safety, but dre not rcyuired as part of the proposed project. These improvements include a separate westbound right-turn lane and modifying the curb at the southeast corner of the intersection to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. The design of the proposed .project accommodates these potential future improvements. Study Approach and Methodology ]existing Condi ions .Street Luyout 'The fire station is located on the south side of Saratoga Avenue immediately east of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, which is also designated as State Route (SR) 9 and is maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). North of Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road is known as Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Similarly, Saratoga Avcnuu is designated Big Basin Way west of SaratogarLos Catos Road. Big Basin Way is also designated as SR 9.. This intersection is controlled by a traff a signal. (Although it is generally aligned in anortheast-southwest direction, Saratoga Avcnuc is assumed to catcnd in an east-west direction for purposes of this analysis.) The existing street layout in the immediate vicinity of the fire station is shown on Figure 1. The westbound approach to this intersection includes a separate ]eft-tom lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The oast-west approaches nee controlled by separate signal phases such that all eastbound traffic proceeds and then stops, followed by traffic on the westbound approach. Overall, the intersection operates at .Level of Service (LOS) D during both the morning (.AM) gad evening (P11~ peak hour based on traffic counts presented in the City of Saratoga General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element. Level of service is a qualitative measure of intersection operation from LOS A with little delay (the best) to LOS F with excessive congestion (the worst). The City typically considers LOS D the minimum acceptable operatinb level and is now an official policy included in the recently adopted Circulation and Scenic Highway Elc;mcnt of the City's General Plan. Parkirtg for the fire station is shared with the post office (located directly east of the station) and with the Santa Clara County Sheriff s Department Station located behind the post office. Fite angled parking spaces are provided directly in front of the post office and are posted with a 15-minute time limit. The westernmost space is designated far disabled persons only. When vehicles back ouL of these spaces, they encroach into the eastbound travel lane. The only other ncazby on-street parking spaces are located on the north side of Saratoga Avenue immediately west and east of the uncontrolled, painted crosswalk shown on Figure 1. • ®©0032 '~t By: FEHR & PEERS; 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:OBPM; Page 3/12 • Access to the fire station's rear lot is provided bye 14-foot ~vidc inbound nnly driveway between the fire station and the post office. Vehicles must exit the lot via an outbound only driveway on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (SR 9). Bike lanes sre painted on the north side of Saratoga Avenue (between the unc~ntrolied c:rvsswalk acid the signalized intersection) and on the south side east of the uncontrolled crosstivalk. Both bike lanes are six feet wide. Tr~~c Upcrations The existing station is built at an angle relative to Saratoga Avenue en.d th.e westcrra builditg edge is built immediately behind the sidewalk at the southeastern corner of the intersection. This configuration limits the sight distance for northbound through vehicles on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road a5 they approach the intersectiun. Drivers of these vehicles cannot sec westbound vehicles turning right from Saratoga Avenue to northbound Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The posted speed limit on northbound Saratoga-L.os C_'ratns Road is 35 miles per hour. The design speed of a roadway is typically five miles per hour higher than th.e posted speed, resulting in an estimsted design speed of 40 miles per hour. According to data presented in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the minimum stopping sight distance for a design speed of 40 miles per hour is 315 feet. The corresponding sight distances for design speeds of 35 and 45 miles per hour are 255 feet and 360 feet, respectively. All three of these sight lines are presented on rigure 2 and show the line of sight from a northbotand driver's view fo the point where an westbound vehicle turning right would enter the traveled way. 1`his illustration shows that none of these sight distances are provided with the cuttent fire station layou[. '1'o minimize the potential for vehicle conflicts, the City has posted "No Right Turn on Red" sigcTts at three locations on the westbound approach of Saratoga Avenue. In many cases, right-turning vehicles would be precluded from tutnirtg right on red because of the shared lane configttrltion on this appmach (i.e., thmugh vehicles queued in this lsnc would block vehicles from fuming right). The number of westbound vehicles currently turning right from. Saratoga Avenue is 100 in the AM peals hour anfl 70 in the PM peak hour. The existing fire station building layout and street layout also cause two other operational problems. Drivers in northbound vehicles on Saratoga-Las Gatos Road turning right to Saratoga Avenue cannot see: 1) pedestrians enter the crosswalk between the curb and two raised median islands in the intersection, and 2) emergency vehicles exit the two western bays of the existing fire station. In addition, some drivers turn right at a higher than reasonable speed to gel ahead. of eastbound traffic originating from Big Basin Way or turning left from southbotmd Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The wide lane immediately in front of the fire station is used as an extended merging area by some of these drivers. • 000033 nt By: FEHR & PEERS; 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:09PN1; Page 4!12 When emergency .•chiclcs exit the fire station, the adjacent traffic signal is overridden from within the station. This override turns the westbound signal "green" to clear out traffic on this approach and to give emergency vehicles the right-of--way through the intersection. Because the fire station does not have "drive though" access, emergency vehicles must be backed into bays while traffic nn Saratoga Avenue i.s manually controlled by fire station personnel. ' Ymnose~ Proj eel 'i'he replacement of the City of Sazatoga Fire Station will include upgrading of the building structure, modernization of the facilities, and consolidation of the bays for emergency vehicles. The building replacement will improve public access to the station and will comply with design standards set forth by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed bui.ldi~lg design and existing topography was obtained in digital format from the January 24, 2001 site plan prepared by C3 Design Alliance and. RRM Design Group. With the proposed project, the replacement building will be built within the property line and will. he pulled beck frurn the southzast corner of the intersection, wbaeh vvzll imaprove sight distance st this location. The approximate location of the proposed wall with the building rcplaccment is shown nn Figure 2, and indicates that adequate sight distance would be proviclecl based on a design speed of 45 miles per hour (this assumes an actual navel speed of 4() miles per hour). It shuuld be nulul Iliat all oUjects (e.g., walls, snips, landscaping) within the sight line should be less than two feet above grade to ensure that a--- - vehicle at the intersection would be visible by a driver traveling north on Saratoga-1'.os Gatos Road (SR 9}..The proposed improvement would permit removal of the "No Right Turn on Rcd" signs for westbound Saratoga Avenue traffic. The increased sight dislsnc~; will also improve the visibility of pedestrians between the fire station and the raised median island at the southeast comer of the intersection. In addition, the total of Five emergency vehicle bays will be reduced co three, and the new bays will sll be located on the east side of the property (i.c., farthest from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road). This site modification will reduce the potential for conflicts between nurUibuund right-turning vehicles and emergency vehicles entering yr exiting the !"ire station. Since drive through access is not feasible as part of the building replacement project, fire station personnel will have to continue to manually control traffic on Sazatoga Avcmue while vehicles back into the. three remaining bays. Under any scenario, a "Keep Clear'' designation should be painted on westbound Saratoga Avenue immediately in fmnt of the fine station's vehicle bays. Keeping this area eleaz would help emergency vehicles exit the building in a more timely manner and clearly delineate where westbound vehicles should stop when emergency vehicles arc in Code 3 response with sirens and lights. If this designation is not effective in maintaining an app.rnpriate gap in front of the station, the street can be re-painted and small "chatter bars" 4 C7 nt By: FEHR & PEERS; 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:09Ptii; Page 5/12 can be installed that would physically restrict this area; however, emergency vehicles could drive throuKlt ~r over these bars. The proposed replacement project is not expected to change the number of vehicle trips generated by the station. Thus, an analysis of intersection operations is not considered necessary for this study. Overall, the proposed project is expected to slightly improve traffic operations on Saratoga Avenue in front of the fire station and at the Saratoga-I.os Gatos Road/Saratoga Avenue intersection. The improved sight distance and bay closures will help to r~;duc~ potential vehicle conflicts with other vehicles and pedestrians. Also, the removal of the "No Right Tum on Red" sign on westbound Saratoga Avcnuc Will reduce delays for gimme vehicles. Notwithstanding the expected traffic benefits of the proposed project, the Saratoga Fire Protection District has requested that additional street design modifications be investigated to further improve traffic operations in the immediate vicinity of the project. The development of potential roadway improvements is presented in the next section. The following roadway improvements were assessed in terms of their putr,7itial benefits and impacts to circulation: ]. The addition of a scpazatc westbound right-turn lane from Saratoga Avenue to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; 2. Re-construction of the curb return at the southeast comer of the Sazatoga-Los Gatos/Saratoga Avenue intersection to slow northbound right-turning vehicles. These improvements are not required as part of the proposed project to provide adequate circulation, but represent additional enhancements that could he made in the vicinity of the project site. Both of the potential improvements is discussed separately below and a third alternative combining both improvements is also presented. Sepnrate Westhound Righi-turn Lune A separate westbound right-turn lane on Saratoga Avenue could be acl~led by rz-stl•iping tl~e roadway. There are several issues to be addressed with this modification: • Provide proper channelizalion of eastbound traffic; • Maintain access to the driveway between the fire station and post office; MaYimi~e the eastbouaad lane width near the angled narking spaces next to the post office; and • Maximize the lcagth and msin.ttiin the width of the existing bike lanes. . 5 .. 000035 rt By: FEHR & PEERS; 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:10P~A; Page 6/12 Based on these considerations, aplan was prepared to re-stripe Saratoga Avenue as shown on 1•'igure 3. This figure shows the new right-turn lane plus atwo-way center left turn lane (TWLTL:). This lane is designed to maintain. access to the driveways on either side of the post office and to help channelize westbound traffic ac it approaches the signalised intcrscction. The TWLTL should not be extended east of the etosswall; east of the post uff ce so as- to allow lull access at the easternmost driveway shown on Figure 3. With removal of the sight distance restriction caused by the existing building and removal of the "No Right 'tum on Red" sign, the capacity benefit of adding a separate right-turn lane would be realized. As noted previously, a "Keep C.lcar" designation should he painted on westbound Saratoga Avenue immediately in front of the fire station's vehicle bays. This will help emergency vehicles exit the building without having to drive around queued vehicles. 'T'his proposed re-striping would have to accommodate full-size buses operated by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Application of bus turning templates shows that northbound buses turning right would not be affected. To minimize the potential for southbound Left-turning buses conflicting with westbound vchiclcs queued in the left-turn lane, a painted stripe should be installed approximately five feet behind the crosswalk (see Figure 3). Since the turning totnplates are considered cotlservative, this vehicle setback should be adequate. Modify Adjucent Curb (No Separate Right-turn Lane) Another potential improvement is to relocate the existing curb at the southeast comer oi'thc intersection. This improvement, which is shown on Figure 4, would accomplish the following: • Eliminates the sight distance hazard experienced by pedestrians con.flicti.ng with northbound right-turning vchiclcs from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; • Better channelizcs eastbound traffic by eliminating a lazge, uncontrolled merging area; • Reduces the orossing distance for pedestrians and their exposure to vchiclcs; • Eliminates the hazard of having a raised median and fixed object ui the "middle" of the intcrscction The proposed curb modification would require substantial. roadway construction including installation of new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The modified section on. Saratoga Avenue in front of the new bays would ]ikoly h.~vc to include rolled curb or no curb to accommodate inbound and outbound emergency vehicle movements. 6 • V®o0~6 ~t By: FEHR & PEERS.; 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:tOPM; P2ge 7/12 The signal pole on the existing median island would have to be relocated to the sidewalk and could require installation of pole with a mast arm. With this configuration, the crossing distances for the eastern and southern crosswalks at the intersection would be reduced by approximately 24 feet. Further, the southern crosswalk could be re-aligned straight across Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (SR 9) and the cxisling pedestrian button in the median could be eliminated. Similar to the lane re-stripinb shown in Figure 3, bus turning templates were applied to Figwe 4 to ensure that VTA buses could negotiate turns without encroaching into adjacent or opposing travel lanes. Also, a "Keep Clear" designation should be painted on westbound Saratoga Avcnuc to accommodate emergency vehicles exiting the fire station. This improvement would increase the sight distance for northbound traffic turning right, reduce the potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, and provide better visibility in front of the fire station's vehicle bays. Provide b'eparate Right-turn Lane and Modify Adjacent Curb This third option shown on Figure 5 is a combination of the improvements illustrated on Figures 3 and 4. The separate right-turn lane would be edde~l on the westbound Saratoga Avcnuc approach and the "flee" northbound right turn movement would be eliminated by modifying the curh nn the southeast cort~r. The "Keep Clear" designation-on westbound Ss~ruloga Avenue would still be required, and this option would provide all of the benefits of both improvement altcmativcs described above. • 7 ©~®c~"/ ant By: FEHR ~ PEERS; 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:10PN1; Pa a 8/12 9 C i. 0. ~' _. , , . .. .. Obi ` ~ ~ Q U ~ '- ~ 'fi b ~ I O ~ ~ y7y V m C N i •y ~ I G h 5 ' i C ~ ~ e + W I Get i s y~ s 0~ ~_ O C ;~ o i I i . a c ~ ~ i ~ ~ I I ~ e ~ a ~ i c~ E a i i i b. ~ I f- . O 3 g W W ~ ~ o N ~ ~ _ to ~ ~ ~ Z I I = ~ -~~ ~ ~ o ~ X W . J a ` m ~ .d Pb e~e~u(uu ~'e~le.reg ~ $ ~ ~' ~ y --~1 -s~~~D'Rd V7 ~ T '~ ~ b ~. ~ sa~t~'sRs~ ` d 3 ~ 4 _ o W ~ .~ 000038 ~t 6y: FEHR & PEERS; ~~~ a ~ti =o m a ~`: ~t a. ~c O 0 i b • • 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:11PM; Page 9/12 QI C _~ (D C .~ s .~ z 0 U C 8 .~ cfl _m 0 .Z W Z W U Z H 0 ~- c~ g N a _~ ppp~ h ti .~ V D h Z 4 000039 ant By: FEHR ~ PEERS; 7~ o~, ~ a •~ ~~ v y ~ I d j i L b s i AZ! e~eMuung.~ga~~~ i o ~ ' f J~ j W ' a ~ c o ~ R U x t+-tO~ G~ ~~ ~ e Sa~~ ~gF 91 d ~ pp' ~f __ Z •i -v ti y h a V .d ~' ~ I o ©OO~ O 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:11P141; ai ~ it N ~l I ~ ~ o~ Page 10/12 _f ~, _al ai ~ , ~ i Z lO i g °- ~ ~ N tV N Z ~ ~ a ~• ~ F C3 ~ = D ~ ~ i ~ ~ U I e ~ ; m CA .s ~ W ~ .~ a ~ p ~ m ~~ ~ m Q D ~ m ~~ + Q ~ _ ., ~s i a~ ~ W ~ ~ Z Q, d , ~ .~ W Q n ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ .~ c c ~ .14 ~ ~ W ~ ~ I =' nt By: FEHR & PEERS; j .... ~~ ~~ :d c ~ i a ~L o i `a m 0 N 408 278 1717; N (.~ •~ i' Pik elmn~uuns-e~2~eg C s s`a a d U n d Y J~ 3 N m v ^ Y ~ ~ V Y N A ~ ~~ I ~~ I ~~ I ~Q ~~ ~~ A ~~a g~ ~ ~`q 9 G ¢~_~ 9 . . ~G O S bf Feb-5-01 3:11Pti1; Page 11/12 n m ~z T ~' a ~ Z a ~ ~ ~ I O I Z .. c, c [Q ~ .s ~ `~° U C a .~ •N~ Z Q ~ U ~ cn c~ Q ~ ~ '• O o O f ~ a m _! U I 0 () ..1' ~a~ ~° ~ b ~ sa~~ sR 91 a. ~ gi ~ R~ A ...... .... .. z ~. h a .` h y "~ y i. 0000~~ ~± By: FEHR & PEERS; c v~ U V I ~ ~ i obi q ~!: c '~ x G f y d ~! 4 0 P2J eleMUUnS-g~ls~eg G 408 278 1717; Feb-5-01 3:11PM; Page 12/12 -----... ~ ~~ ! ~ U ~ ~ a W UVR ya~ ~ I W A W .6 ~_ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~, u' E S -°_ .~ ~ a O m 6 -' ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ .; w N Y1 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ - 6 a~ m ~z - ~ „ ~~ da ~, ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~y ~~ ~~ ~o o ~~ _~ ~ ~ ~ o `~ i ~ I ~~ .ID ~ ~~ u ~' ~ 3 ~ ~ T C ad 9a~ l 41 .... W 1 z I ~ m I-- Q 0 Q ui I z w ~ > ~~ a ~ ~ ~ i-O mct ~ ~V ~ ~~ a0 ~ ~~ o ~~ ~ aWC y ~ o .~ i ^ ~ ~ ~ 61 ~ 0000 ~; t ~P°''"~°~o FIRE DEPARTMENT °'~ FIRE tea'` SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 COURTE9v~5ERxcE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • WWW.sccfd.org May 10, 2001 Bob Schubert, City Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: New Saratoga Fire District Station Thank you for asking for comments from the Santa Clara County Fire Department regarding the new fire station proposed by the Saratoga Fire District, to be located at 14380 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga. My belief is that our input is being requested because of future potential merge activities or contractual arrangement between our two departments. My only comment is that the new fire station is indeed necessary, and would serve the needs of County Fire if we should become the service provider. Ve trul urs, Y Dougla G. Sporle r Fire Chi f DGS:jmt c: File ~~~~o~~~ MAY 1 4 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SFD Fire StationComments/jmt/5.10.01 Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ~43 Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell. Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills. Los Gatos. Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ®o'~~~~ ~ ITEM 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &t TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue Applicant/Owner: SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT Staff Planner: Mark J. Connolly, Assistant Planner ~~~~ Date: May 23, 2001 APN: 397-22-019 Department Hea . • s 000001 1~FS~SU Jaratoga Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3/6/01 5/2/01 5/9/01 5/10/01 5/8/01 Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station with a Maximum height of 35 feet, at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (The original application and previous notice stated the square footage of the new Fire Station was 12,689 square feet). A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. A Temporary Use Permit is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporary building is 7,500 square feet. Both are located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zone district, and are existing non-conforming lots in that 12,000 square feet is the standard for the P-A Zone District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Take public testimony, make recommendations and continue the item to June 13`h 2001 to allow the Ciry Council to address various ancillary issues at their June 6`h 2001 meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions 3. Arborist Report dated March 15, 2001 4. Minutes from the Apri110, 2001 Heritage preservation Commission meeting 5. Initial Study and Negative Declaration. 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" 7. Plans for the Temporary Fire Station, Exhibit "B" 8. Bay door color photo Exhibit "C" • • • ~~©®~ File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TLJP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Professional Administrative (P-A) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public facilities (P-F) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 9,274 sq. ft AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2.8% GRADING REQUIRED: 221 cubic yards of cut to a depth 2.16 to 5.75 feet and 10 cubic yards of fill to a depth of 5.35 feet. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior finish will be off white stucco with wood file in an attempt to match the adjacent Federated Church , which is a Julia Morgan design. Roofing material will be a Mission file roof. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Proposal Code Requirement/ Maximum Allowance Lot Covera e: g 100% 30% Maximum allowed Floor Area: First Floor 8,506 sq. ft. 16,000 sq. ft.1 Second Floor 4,819 sq. ft. TOTAL 13,325 sq. ft Minimum allowed Setbacks: Front 0 ft. 25 ft. Front - 2nd Iloor 0 ft. 25 ft. Rear 0 ft. 25 ft. Rear - 2nd Iloor 0 ft. 25 ft. Left Side (interior side) 0 ft. 16 ft. 2 Left - 2nd Iloor 9 ft. 16 ft.2 Right Side(exterior side) 0 ft. 15 ft.3 Right - 2nd Iloor 0 ft. 15 ft.3 Maximum allowed Height: Fire Station 35 ft 30 ft 1 The P-A Zone district does not have an allowable floor area standard, only a coverage maximum. The allowable floor area is 8,000 X 2 =16,000 sq. ft. Based on the building type, and fire rating, which is doubled because the building is sprinklered. Z Per section 15-18.080(2), the interior side yard setback may be 16 feet ' Per section 15-18.080(1), the exterior side yard setback may be 15 feet ®00®®3 P:U'Ianning~Mark~f'C Staff Reports\SaratogaFire Station.doc File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant has requested Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station with a Maximum height of 35 feet, at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (The original application and notice stated the squaze footage of the new Fire Station was 12,689 square feet). A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. A Temporary Use Permit is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporary building is 7,500 square feet. Both are located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zone district, and are existing non-conforming lots in that 12,000 squaze feet is the standard for the P-A Zone District. Staff feels that the project can be supported. The design of the Fire Station is modeled after a Julia Morgan design in an effort to fit in with the neighborhood. The adjacent Federated Church located to the rear of the Fire Station is also modeled after a Julia Morgan design. The materials proposed help the project fit in with the chazacter of the neighborhood. The design has been pulled back from the existing location on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Sazatoga-Los Gatos road to improve sight distance for drivers along that intersection. The report by Fehr &z Peers Associates Inc. dated February 6, 2001, includes further recommendations, and states that the proposed project will improve circulation in the vicinity. The report is attached, and recommendations aze contained as mitigation measures in the Initial Study. Staff feels that all the necessary findings can be made to support the project, and the following have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed Fire Station, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the height will be increased by about four feet, and the footprint of the proposed Fire Station is expanding slightly, and is compatible with the structures on adjacent properties. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minim~ing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimised and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that the applicant is proposing improvements to Memorial Plaza, and mitigating impacts to the olive trees by transplanting and replanting equal value trees. • P:~Plannin~MarldPC Stall Repotts~Saratoga Firc Station.doc ®©~ ©® File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 Est TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue • The proposed Fire Station in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the Fire Station into the surrounding environment in that the rooflines are well articulated and uses materials and colors to minimise excessive bulk and mass. Also, the design is modeled after the adjacent Federated Church to the rear to increase compatibility v~rith the neighborhood. The Fire Station will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots, in that the design is modeled after the Federated Church on the adjacent lot to promote a similar design and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading, topography and erosion control standards used by the City. ^ There is minimal grading proposed. The design incorporates current topography and drainage patterns as well as erosion control measures by not proposing excessive grading quantities and incorporating the use of landscaping. The Fire Station is located at the gateway to Saratoga's historic downtown. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the design on April 10, 2001 (Minutes attached). The Commission reviewed the project and the preluninary color board, and the design of the proposed bay doors, and approved the item on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Grens abstained), with the condition that the Commission review the final color and materials board. An Initial Study was prepared in which a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued in the Notice of Determination. The impacts and their mitigation measures are as follows: Due to the encroachment onto Memorial Plaza, the applicant shall maintain the existing pathway, and refurbish the existing park benches and provide a new drinking fountain. ^ There are two bus stops affected by the implementation of the design and use. One is near the entrance to the temporary Fire Station on Saratoga-Los Gatos road, which is proposed to be moved North toward Saratoga Avenue. The other is near the alley that will be used for egress on Saratoga Avenue for the Temporary Fire Station. The proposal is to move the bus stop eastward away from the existing driveway. The applicant is currently working with Valley Transportation Authority to obtain the necessary approvals. P:~Planning~Mark~PC Stall Rcpocu~Sacatoga Fire Station.doc ,{~ ~®/~ ®5 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &t TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue There will be two emergency generators for both the proposed Fire Station and the Temporary Fire Station. These generators will only operate in the event of an emergency, but will need to be tested periodically. The application proposes to mitigate for noise impacts over the ambient standard by locating the generators away from adjacent buildings and enclosing the generators with five (5) foot masonry walls. The application proposes no new on-site parking spaces for employees or visitors. The City of Saratoga parking standard for this zone district and use is 1 space for each employee. The applicant has purchased the adjacent lot where the Temporary. Fire Station will be located and will provide 22 additional spaces, which will total 32 with the 10 existing on site. The City Arborist, Public Works Department, City Traffic Engineer, Heritage Preservation Commission, Pacific Gas &r Electric, and Parks and Trails Committee, and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. Their recommendations are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval. Use Permit The applicant is requesting Use Permit approval to allow the height of the proposal to be 35 feet where 30 feet is permitted, allow development on a lot that is less than 12,000 square feet, to allow the structure to be within the required setbacks of the zone district, and • allow 100% lot coverage where 30% is allowed in the zone district. Per section 15-55-.030 the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit to have different site area, coverage, structure height and yard minimums than standard for the Zone District. Staff eels that the necessary findings can be made to support the Use permit in that the proposal is basically to replace the existing building, with exception to about 4 feet of height and minimal footprint expansion. Also, the following findings have been determined: ^ That the proposed Fire Station is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that will not increase existing traffic flow. That the proposed Fire Station and the conditions under which it would be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that the hours of operation are similar to other businesses in the area and the business will not generate any objectionable noise, odors, air pollutants or solid or liquid waste which would endanger human health or cause damage to animals, vegetation or property. ^ That the proposed Fire Station complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district per section 15-18.030. ~®~~©~ P:~I'Ianning~Mark~PC StaffReporrsGSaratogaFire Station.doc ~ File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &t TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue Lotlineadjustment The footprint of the existing Fire Station is outside of the southerly property line. There is an area that the fire district has suggested be dedicating back to the city. The Saratoga Fire District owns the land that the current fire station exists on, and the Ciry of Saratoga owns the property that the existing Fire Station encroaches onto. The proposal further encroaches over this property line. The City and Fire District will resolve the issue of how this encroachment will be handled at a later date. The amount of site area that is proposed to be dedicated to the city is 513 sq. ft., and the amount of site area to be transferred to the fire district from the city will be 529 sq. ft. This adjustment is ultimately up to the City Council. Temporary Use Permit Pursuant to Ciry Code Section 15-60.010, Planning Commission approval of a Temporary Use Permit is required for the Temporary Fire Station. Section 15-60.030 of the City Code states that the Planning Commission `Ynay grant a temporary use permit upon finding that the temporary use is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and in doing so may impose such reasonable conditions as circumstances require, including but not limited to ... limitations on the length of time, the days of the week and the hours of the day during which the activity may be conducted." Staff feels that the proposed Temporary Fire Station is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal promotes and protects the public health, safety, peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfare because it will: 1) facilitate the continuation of fire services during the renovation and expansion of the existing fire station; 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facilities; and 3) 11Linimi~e traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities. The Saratoga Fire District owns the property that the temporary use will be located on. The existing building is about 20 feet tall and the exterior of the building will remain unchanged, with the exception of one entrance door. The building has existing power sewer and water service. Parking The Municipal Code requires the fire station to have one space for each employee. The fire station will have 22 spaces located off site and retain the 10 existing parking spaces, bring the total parking to 32. Grading 221 cubic yards of cut to a depth 2.16 to 5.75 feet, and 10 cubic yards of fill to a depth of 5.35 feet. • P:~Planning~Mark~PC Staff Reports\Saratoga Fire Statioadoc r''y O©O®® O File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue Trees The Ciry Arborist report dated March 15, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There are eight (8) trees on the property potentially at risk of damage by construction, which are all olive trees, only two of which are ordinance protected The applicant proposes to transplant the species that are able to be transplanted, and replant native specimens to replace the value of any trees lost. The report contains recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on site. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Correspondence No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. Conclusion The proposed Fire Station, and Temporary Fire Station does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimise the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Take public testimony, make recommendations and continue the item to June 13`h 2001 to allow the Ciry Council to address various ancillary issues at their June 6`h 2001 meeting. • P:~Planning~Mark~PC Staff Reports\Saratoga Fire Stadon.doc ~ ®O ®~ p File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &t TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT;14380 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 13,325 square foot fire station on a 9,274 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed Fire Station, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed Fire Station is compatible with the structures on adjacent propemes. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimising Xree and soil removal; grade changes will be minim~ed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that the applicant is proposing improvements to the impacts on Memorial Plaza, and mitigating impacts to the olive trees by transplanting and replanting equal value trees. The proposed Fire Station in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minim~e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the Fire Station into the surrounding environment in that the rooflines are well articulated and uses materials and colors to rr>inimi~e excessive bulk and mass. Also, the design is modeled after the adjacent Federated Church to the rear to increase compatibility with the neighborhood. • P:~PlanningiMatk~PC StaHRepores~Satatoga Fire Stationdoc O ®~ O (~9 File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue The Fire Station will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading, topography and erosion control standards used by the City. Now, THEREFOxE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of DR-O1-006; SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a W separate plan page. i. All applicable recommendations of the Ciry Arborist shall be adhered to and included as a separate plan page. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." b. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution and Arborist report as a separate plan page. i. No Retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height and three feet within the front yard setback. ii. All applicable recommendations of the Ciry Arborist. P:~Planning~Mark~PC Stall Reports~Satatoga Fire Statlondoc ~ ®O ~ ~ O File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue 3. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. CITY ARBORIST 7. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated March 15, 2001 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note °to remain in place throughout construction.° The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing transplant locations of trees #1-5. e. No storage of construction materials shall be permitted within the canopies of trees #6-8, and the protective fencing shall be installed per the Arborist recommendations. f. All trenching for any utilities shall be located outside the driplines of all retained trees. If this cannot be achieved a project Arborist shall be retained to determine acceptable locations. g. No excavated soil shall be stored below the canopies of any trees. h. An International Society of Arboriculture certified Arborist must do any tree pruning. P:~Planning~Mark~PC Sta& Repotu~SatatogaFire Stariondoc O~O®~~ File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &t TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue 9. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $4,166 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 10. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 11. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. Roof covering shall be fire retardant; Uniform building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. 14. Early Warning Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire district for approval. 15. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 12,000 sq. ft. building. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. NFPA 13 is required. CITY ATTORNEY 16. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 17. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. • P:~Planning~Matk~PC Staff Reports\Satatoga Fite Stationdoc O ®~ ®~ ~ _ File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &t TLJP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of May 2001 by the following roll call vote: Arias: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: L Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: secretary, riamm~g ~,ommission • P:\Planning\Mark\PC Staff Reports\Saratoga Fire Stationdoc 0©00.3 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000014 r~ • File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 ~ T'UP-O1-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. UP-O1-002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAR.ATOGA FIRE DISTRICT;14380 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval for a New Fire Station, with a height of 35 feet, nearly 100% lot coverage, 0 setbacks, and on a lot less than 12,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ That the proposed Fire Station is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that will not increase existing traffic flow. ^ That the proposed Fire Station and the conditions under which it would be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that the hours of operation are similar to other businesses in the area and the business will not generate any objectionable noise, odors, air pollutants or solid or liquid waste which would endanger human health or cause damage to animals, vegetation or property. ^ That the proposed Fire Station complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: P:~I'lanning~Matk~PCStaHReports\SaratogaFireStationdoc ®~OO~ File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as modified and presented at the Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. All conditions of Resolution DR-O1-006 shall be adhered to. CITY ATTORNEY Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 4 Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $2S0 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. P:~Plannin~Mark~PC StaHReports~SararogaFire Stationdoc • • • ®®~®~[,~ - File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 ~ TLJP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue Section 2. Operation must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of May 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P:~Planning~Mark~PC Staff Repotts~SatatogaFire Stariondoc O~~O~~ • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ~®~~~.8 • File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &x TUP-Ol-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue RESOLUTION NO. NP-O1-003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT;14380 SARATOGA AvENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga proposes to temporarily relocate the Saratoga Fire District to a site located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road on a parcel less than 12,000 square feet, during the construction and expansion of the existing Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Temporary Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: • The proposed Fire Station facility is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; and The proposal promotes and protects the public health, safety, peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfare because it will: 1) facilitate the continuation of Fire Protection services during the Construction and expansion of the existing Fire Station; 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facilities; and 3) 11Linimi~e traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities. The existing building shall remain unchanged with the exception of the addition of one entry door. The building currently is supplied with City water, sewer and power services. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of the SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Temporary Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed temporary Fire Station facility shall be located and constructed as . shown on the plans, incorporated by reference. 2. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Temporary Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. P:U'Ianning~Mark~PC Staff Reports~Saratoga Fire Statioadoc ['~ n n File No. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, LL-O1-003 &r TUP-O1-003;14380 Saratoga Avenue 3. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and enses, includin ~P g attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal ' Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 4. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. . Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23~ day of May 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P:~Planning~Mark~PC StaHRepottslSatatoga Fire Stationdoc ®0400 ~~ BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC011~IlVIENDATIONS AT THE SARATOGA FIRE STATION 14380 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 15, 2001 Job # 03-01-067 Plan Received: 3/12/01 Plan Due: 4/11/01 • D ~C~~~d~ ~-~ ..~ APR 1 7 2001 ; cn"Y of s~w~~rocn COMMJNITY DEVELOPMEN"r 000021 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SARATOGA FIRE STATION, 14,380 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to remodel the existing fire station located at 14380 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes eight European olive trees to some level of risk by construction. Five trees would be removed by implementation of this design. Replacement trees, which equal the value of the trees removed; are suggested as planting space allows. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to retained trees. A bond equal to 50% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are eight trees on this site that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. These trees are clearly noted on the maps _ provided and for this reason, they have not been tagged with labels. The eight trees are all virtually in the same condition. The only significant difference between them is that trees #1-4 are somewhat smaller than trees #5-8. All eight trees are in Exceptional health, and all have good structure. Trees #1-5 have all been topped, which results in weaker than normal branching connections, but topping is not quite as destructive to this species as to most other species. For this reason, the structures of these trees are all considered fairly good. On a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent 1; Fine 2; Marginal 4; Extremely Poor 5} the overall condition of all eight trees is rated as fine. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH l5, 2001 ~~0©~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT ~ THE SARATOGA FIRE STATION, 14380 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Impact of Construction Trees #1-5 are all in conflict with proposed construction. Trees #1-4 are in conflict with design features of the proposed new building. Tree #5 would suffer severe root damage as a result of trenching to install a new drain line adjacent to the building, as well as severe root damage from the trenching for the foundation footing. Trees #6-8 would only be affected by construction should the existing lawn and the area surrounding trees #6-8 be used as a staging area for construction materials and equipment. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. Since European olives can be transplanted at virtually any time of year so easily and successfully, it may be preferable to transplant trees #1-5, rather than work around them. 2. If the existing lawn and the areas surrounding trees #fi-8 under their canopies .. were to be used as a staging area for construction, I suggest that this area be removed from such use by installation of conswction period fencing. In this evcnt, the fencing must be chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the an-ival_ of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until _ all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. In the event that the existing lawn and the area sunounding trees #6-8 would not be used as a staging area at any time during construction, or for any purpose, then it would not be necessary to provide construction period fencing. However, this must be an all or nothing alternative. This is because the first damaging event (soil compaction by equipment) typically causes the majority of the damage. 3. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTIIVG ARBORIST h1ARCH 15, 2001 000023 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SARATOGA FIRE STATION. 143SD SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 4. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 5. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. Trees #1-5 have a combined value of $6,950, which is equivalent one 48-inch boxed, one 36-inch boxed, and one 24-inch boxed native specimen. Replacements are suggested as planting space would allow. The planting space at this site is very limited. If olive trees are used as replacements, I suggest the use of Swan Hill Olive, a fruitless eultivar. However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. The combined value of trees #6-8 is $8,332. I suggest a bond equal to SOgo ($4,166) of their total value be retained to assure their protection. ' ~.._ ` _ fa~ ~, B e D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Map • PREPARED BY: NIICEIAEL L. BENCEI, CONSULTING ARBORLST Respectfully submitt ~~~ ~" ~- Michael .Bench a s b1ARCH 15. 2001 000024 n ~ ~D ~ M O O i--, 9 Q b0 O ++ F, rl y OJ '~ O ~-~, C O ji 6J Ir w ~a bA O a ~. e~ H .~ a lr-- ulaolaa wncwaa E TdAOW3a ON3WYY00321 ° -'~ o ~ o Qi ~ W ~ ~ m ~ a3Zlllla33 S033N w o ~ ~ ~ o w o ~ o w o --------------- - (S-L) a31VM S433N ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (S-L) 3SFI3S14 alfll00 lOOa n o 0 0 o n a ro - --------------------------'--------- (S-l) 03a3A00 ab'110~ lOOa ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ~ ~ ---- ~ --- ~ ~ -------------------------------------- ------ X ---- ------- X ----- ---- X ---- - x e - a (S-l)AtJ030 ~INnal a ---------'------------'------------- - ----- ----- - ---- '-'- ------- ----- A a (S-L) OOOM O`d30 ~ ~ m ~ ~ m n p .n - .n a ao v - a m (S-t) 3Sb~3S10 NMOaO 33x1 H N w w N a ------------------------------------- ----- ------ ------- r (S-l) S103SN1 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (S-L) AllaOlad JNINnad e o rn° °w °a a° a° rn° a # 03033N S319t10 --°-----------'°--'---'------'---- ------ ° '----- c -'--'-- c ---'-- ~ ------- c -"'-- ~ = ` c ~ $ $ ~ $ ~ 1H J13M-ON3 3/~OW3a ~ --------------------°--------'------- ------ x ----- X ---- x ------ X --'- K ------- X ~ ~JNISIVa NMOaO V ------------------------------------- -'--- --- - - -- c 5 NOI1VaO1S3a NMOaO ~ 7L d -----_-----"--___-____--____________ 'JNINNIHl NMOaO __-_ _ o N ~ __"' N ~ '-__-_ N m --__-- ~ ~ ---_ ~ ~ _~--- ~ w ~ w w N v- ----- v- ~ ~JNINV3l0 NMOaO ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (8-£) `JNIlVa OaVZVH $ ~ o~ $o orn (OL-Z) ~JNIlVa N011JaN00 °' ~ m W ~ ~ i0 ~ ~ N ~ m tll ~ ~ N ~ ------ --------------- --- _ ------- -°--' ~ ------ ~ -----° v ° U (s-L) 3anl~nals N ~ N aJ N m N N N N N m --'-_- X -'----- X -______ X _'____ X .-~~-_~ X ---''-' X (S-L) H1lV3H ov3ad$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m N N ~ fN7 ~ h -------------------------------------~ -~---~ ~ --~.-~ r. -~~.-~~ ~ -~..-~ N ----~ ~ -.----~ Y 1H~J13H N q N ~y cov ~y N ~ - ~y N w N ~ ~ 133 z~ a313WMa ~ m '° _ b ~ --~~_-_ `~ --~'-- y ------------------------------------- -'---- n c ------- n c ------- u c ~ -'- u c ------ u c E ------- n ~ ~ ~ H90 o ac - ~ o v - ~ o ac - ~ o rc - ~ o ac - a o °D - a ~' H94 o w o w o m w ° i. ~ c y ° a ~ --------------'----------------------- ------ X '----- x ----- x ------ x ------- K ------ x W31SAS-IllnW " x x x x x H80 o r ~ o ~ ~ o ~ m o m ~ o ro o n Q ~ c ~ c ~ c c H c c (q O < ~ ~~ E ~' V ~ o~~~s Z ~ g O c ~ O c O c O O O ~ ~ m m a c c c m ~~t.E. ` W e W w W e W o W '~~~ y Y N f7 < ~ f0 Er N 3 ~o n pA, N C0 n r. N O Kf vi ~ n n n .$ W ~~~~ U ~ n n a ~~~.~.~ 1~_. ~ V1 N d0 n 0~00~5 n 0 1"1 4 O 3k O GJ ~i OA O a.r e~ t. rC O 00 M N w GJ ~. '~ '~ Q O r-~ ~i O +~r w A w ed ti H r+ l/y lrt) uraolad ivnowaa c T//10W3a ON3WW003a m ~ ~ '~ ° ~ 213ZI1112133 S033N H b~ ~ ~ ~ o F- ~ --------------------------------'--'-- -'---- ------ (S-L) a31VM SO33N ~~ ~~ (S-l) 3St/3SI0 21YI1001002! a ro - ---------------------------- (S-L) 03213A00 2!V-I1001002i ---- ~ -- ~ _ ~ ----------------------------------- ------ x --- X a (S-L).lV'03O NNf1211 m a _ ----------°---°--------------- - -- _ _ - - ~ ~, (S-L) OOOM OV30 v m -----------°----------------------- ------ ~ ---- r~ (S-L) 3Sb'3S10 NM0210 33211 a -------------------------------- w y (S-l) S103SNI ~~ ~~ (S-L),W210R1d °JNINf121d ~ c ~ ~ # 03033N S319`d'J ~ v m Z -------------°----------------------- 1H`J13M-ON3 3AOW321 ---_~_ $ _"""_ $ o c _ _ __ ---------------- X _ X a °JNISIV21 NM0210 v ------------------------.~~__ -- - ••- -- o c NOIlbR101S321 NM0210 2 a - °JNINNIHl NM0210 ----- °D ~ ------ N JNINY3l0 NM0210 ~~ ~~ (6-£) `JNIlb21 O2IVZVM o 0 0o a c r (OL-Z) JNIlV21 NOI110N00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ° U (S-L) 321f110f1211S n m nr m X X (S-L) H1lV3H Ob921dS ~ ~ ~ $ -°-------------------------------- ------ v ----- ~ 1HJ13H n ~ N ~ c 133 Z~ 21313Wtl10 ---------------------------°--------- a ~ '- •- °---~ a " ~ •' ------ u ~ ~ H90 ° ac c - o m c ~ H8O 0 o ~ oo --- X X W31SASillflW x x -------------------------------------- H8O ------- 0 0 °D ----- o ~ m W to 4 W c ~ c - h O ~r~~ m a s Z ~ o~ ~ 3 3 W t ~ ~ ~ a o ~ ~ ,_ 0 Y 0 o~ .Q 0 7 W 3 W y n m Y M ~+ N 3~ u C~ W GO II ~"~ • ~ n u ~~~ n N ®©®026 . BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Egcurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root- A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narcow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also refereed to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. DeSnition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurcent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. 00002' _ _ BARRIE D. COATS.-AND ASSOCIATES , =. ~ :• ; - Horticultural Consultants. ~~ - ~~ ,' ~ - + u, - (408) 353-1052 -: ,:. _ ;:. ~ ,.mot ~,~:~ .- . . Fax (408) 353-1238 _ 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 - TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION .., These are general recommendations _ ._ - And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE - ` _. - - -- - - - Plan location of trenching~to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains.-~~ Plan construction period fence locations which will preve~ equipment trayel_ or material storage beneath tree canopies. - - Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed:on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISApruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should-be:re-cut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. _ _. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. - Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 '/:') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is nontoxic maybe used. ~~ AFTER Irrigate monthly.with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rotatilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which - absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. • • • 000028 TREE N OT~S CALIFORNIA DEPARTIVIENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION George Deukmejian Jerry Partala, Director ~ Gordon K Van Vleck Governor Secretary for Resowces State of California •r~-~`~ The Resowces Agency •,~ ~. 0 O `_ JANUARY ~ 1989 Protecting Trees From Construction Impacts Sherburn R Sanborn Staff Forester, Dutch Dm Disease Project, P.O. Box 820, Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0820 Why Should We Protect Trees An important benefit of trees to society is their aesthetic value. Our parks, streets, homes and businesses would seem sterile without them. Trees also have monetary value. Residential and commercial properties with established trees have a greater market value than those without them. Trees provide other benefits which include: shade, noise abatement, wind breaks, erosion contrd and pollution reduction. Like all green plants, trees vert carbon dioxide into otxygen during p otosynthesis. This process contributes significantly to the recycling of the atmospheric gases we breath. Unfortunately trees are often irreversibly damaged or killed during censtruction , and/or landscaping. grows well bey and the trunk. Depending on soil conditions they may extend two to three times the radius of the crown. The roots of most tree species are associated with beneficial fungi called mycorrhizae. These fungi increase the roots ability to absorb water and minerals. Soil disturbance during construction can permanently disrupt this association. How Construction Affects Roots By understanding where roots grow and ho~v they function, we can begin to see how constructiu,~ activities such as trenching, slope cuts, suil compaction, soil grade changes and paving can affect roots. Understanding a Tree's Root System The primary impact of construction around a tree is to the unseen portion, ROOTCRO~fN the root system. Activities which disturb or alter the soil in which roots grow can injure or " kill a tree. To reduce or prevent adverse impacts, we must understand how roots functien and how they develop in the sdl. The greatest proportion (90°~ of tree roots is found within the first three feet of sail. Roots function to port and anchor the tree. In addition, specialized ~orbing) roots function to exchange gases and to orb water and minerals. Mast absorbing roots are found in the first 8-12 inches of soil where water and oxygen can readily penetrate. Roots require both water and oxygen to grow and function. ~ A network of supporting roots and absorbing roots When trenching for utilities and founda[icns or where grade lowering is done close to a tree, there is a likelihood that roots will be cut. The closer DRIPLINE the trench is to the trunk the greater the damage. Each root that is cut reduces the tree's capacity to supply water and nutrients to the leaves. ~~ Trenching within just a few feet of a trunk can reduce the functional root system by as much as 50%a Sail is compacted during construction by heavy equipment which squeezes out the air spaces making it mare dense and stable. Unfortunately, this process greatly reduces the infiltration of water and oxygen into the soil. As a result roots cease to function and eventually die. In addition, root penetration is decreased. Sail grade changes alter the natural soil level around a tree. The addition of fill oil _ it ~~~in~q pazticulaz, can have an effect s=- =tar to sail compaction. The depth and porosity the fill sell are the most important factors affecting the tree. If the depth is significant a the porosity is low, root death can occur. Far some tree species, a grade change of two inches can be significant. Sal fill that is compacted a has lower porosity. than the native soil will restrict root activity. If roots cannot develop ar grow into t he fill, recovery by the tree after constr uction may be impaired or prevented. Fill soil around the root cellar (the flared part of the trunk at or just above sell grade) and trunk will result in death and decay of the bark tissue. This can cause the death of all or part of the root system including the supporting roots. Often this results in a "Hazardous" tree. Grade changes that require the removal of sell often remove absorbing roots and expose and injure other roots. Coaicrete or asphalt paved over soil where roots are present will seal the surface, reducing water availability and gas exchange to the roots beneath. Usually soils aze compacted prior to installing pavement which compounds these problems. Symptoms Of Construction Impacts An injured tree may take several months to many vears to exhibit symptoms of construction impacts. These can include: slaw decline, insect or disease attack, sparse foliage, significant branch dieback and wilting or yellowing of leaves. Reducing Construction Impacts The following techniques can be used to prevent or reduce the impacts of construction on trees: » Fence around the area within the dripline to protect it from construction activities. Because roots often grow beyond the dripline, enclosing a larger area is desirable. ~~ Dig trenches by band or tunnel under the tree if underground utilities must be installed within the tree's drip line. ~~ Prune roots that must be removed, do not rip them out with a trencher or back hce. Bridge over roots when trenches for new „ foundations will damage them. » Construct wells around minks and root collars to keep soil away and install aeration systems when the soil grade must be raised. Use a coarser fill soil than the soil being covered and do not compact. Add fill in the late fall or winter when roots are less active. Avoid working on wet soils. What To Do Ai :The Damage Is Done ~- Soil aeration (vertical or hydrojet mulching) ca~ be effective where soils have been compacted. Only remove dead, hazardous or obstructive branches. Never remove more than 209c of the fdiage during a single year. Leaves produce carbohydrates and buds produce hormones - both are necessary for rocs growth. u Where, appropriate, apply pesticides to reduce attacks by insects or other pests until the tree's vigor is restored. Place organic mulch over bare soil. » Restore soil grade by removing fill. N Restore irrigation regime that existed befure construction took place. Summary Construction around trees can be done successfully. However, this requires planning before construction or landscaping. Not all trees on a site are worth saving. Each tree should be evaluated by a consulting azbaist to determine its condition and value in the landscape. It may be more desirable in the long run to plant new trees after construction is completed. The value of a tr~~ should be used as a guide to determining tl:;:~ measures used to save it from construction impacts. Where trees of high value are present the effort and expense to save them is worthwhile. Mature .. trees take years to grow and their beauty and aesthetics are irreplaceable. Further Reading Caprile, Janet L. Guidlines For Develop»:e~it _ Around Old Oaks. Cooperative Extension, University Of California, San Joaquin County. Harris, Richard W. 1983. Arboricccltitre. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Tree Protection Manual For Guiders Arid Developers. 1980. Florida Department Of Agriculture And Consumer Services, Division Of Forestry. Protecting Shade Trees During Home Construction. 1965. U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Home And Garden Bulletin No. 104. SUPPLIED EY COURTESY rc: 13AKR11_ t). CUA 1 E Ilorr~.ulWr~l ~. unsulunl Con.uUrng Arburi.~ a06 35] ~OSe 275)5 Sr~mmd Auaa lux Gd1u5. CA 95J1U MtMUU~ 0~~030 0 M O O c `' o-°~ .N .U ~ C o a~i E >. n. ~ a o°~'o •O d d ~ ~ ~ a a~L~ C ~ O 0 - ~ ~ c U O O O ~ N ~ ~ C y ~ 30 V ~ ~ cv • ~ ~ ~ o .,..{ '~ U ~ c~ q > m G4 ~ v ~ m ~ °' ~ •.~ a ~ V v v ~ ~' o a O ~ O Q~ as V ~ C ~ V o ~ ~ ~ U ~ y ti h . O O y ~ ~ ~ c0 C (, W .-. Cy N ~"' Q t o M N Q ~t ~• 00 ~ C . ... .J V 7 ~~~i~~ U ~ . ,~,.;:~f ~ f .~ ~ `, {' , /W ~/ . ,~ J\~ ~~ d ' ',r ,. a.;. , ,.,, r~ , ~ i a~ c ~E ~~ ~ g ~ E n.~~E N w ~~ ~~ os~~ N ~ ~ U ~ a O ~ cv ~ a a ~ ~ o o ~ . .. ow'~~ w- c 2L~'~ c °' ~ ~ $ ~ ao .'~.. ~ h ~ ~ Ili iti~r i .._.. ~ O ~ `\ •rl L Ni 1J (Q a~ G ~ u v •i v v w v 3 v a N ~ w w O c a~ o ~ o v cn o oG u ,~ CJ fA 7 ~ a. T c0 .~ ,a .~ ?L G ~ +~ cC 3 R1 G u ~ _ m ~ u C/ q 61 .-~ L+ 'O N ~--~ GJ cC a.+ u 3 u ~ ~ d CJ Q) r: a 3 ~ a~ a~ :~ . G N 'LJ, . 'p O L p, tu; a; ~ C 0:: ya , w~ 4, ~ u y ~ ro ~ w ~ ~ u N v v ~ H •v u ° ,~ • - a ~' u u •v a~ a~ u-+ u o c v° ~ `' `~ c, ~ .-r •ro U Q1 Q 4~1 D1 e u >, .~ v .p' ~ :~ ' o u u .n w a. u ° o H w d1 ~ ~ co c9 ~ o u ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , -- ,. ~ ~ , ~ t l ` 1 l ~ • , \ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~ I~ I I ~ I ... i o~: v c v •~ G +•+ 41 ~~ Lz,' to r ~ ~ ~ ~ _ s a ti O ~ ~ O~~ Y ~ ~ y ~ U U U j ~ ro ~ C .-r a~-o~, O L u L Y ro c~ ~ O ~ L ~ ~ N ~ O O O •- C >` u 7 C ~ O ~ O C N a ~ ° O' O M C ~ U ro O u '0 3 ti i i i _ ~ _` \` ~I~ ~~ ` .~ i~ ~ - '~ ~ - i > '~ ~ d Q y ~ e~ ~ • ~ 1~ ~ o ¢ ed Q ~ 0 `~ ~ ~ 1 ~' T ~ '~ ~~ of ~~ i _o ~' I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 a~ E` E L \ ' '$ L FYI ~ ~~ ~, /~ W a ~ a '~ _ I ~ ~ c ~ '~ 3 ~ ry a. s 'v m F- ~ C 0 U o ~iO~~ -~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ O V •~ m ~ < t=ip ~ pCo ~ ~ ~'C lC 47 ~ M ~ J ~ 1, ^O \ ~ m ~ ~ _ /~i?~ ~ Z ~ p a u ~ ~~1 ~ ~ .e' ~ ~ 1, ~~/ Y y ~, o , , ~ ~~ •~ ~e /' / ~~ ~ a ~ 'fie. i c ~ 4 ~ `'~ << ~~, ~ g ~ ^° ~ I 3 1 n' ' oo n ~ `4!` ^~'o ~ ~ '~ ~ o ~o n "`+ r \ \ _ M N, .1 ~ ~r~, • :~ ~- ,. - .~ _~ ('~ ~ r ~ F .. ~1 ~ Y ~o `~1 r.• ~~ ~I _ ~. ,:. $ ~~ ~- ~ ~ o ~d • ~,~ ~- , ~~ a~ U I ' ~ ~ I ~ I I U I d; O I ~ I I I I I n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I q I d I ~ I ~ I ~° I N I I I I s~ I .~ I I I ~ I ~ I N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' a O 4 0 • ~-~ ~J 000032 ~~ ~ i I ^~ • Heritage Preservation Commission minutes April 10, 2001 page 2 E. Written Communications -Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission invitation Comm. Wyman suggests everyone attend if they can make it. II. Old Business A. 14625 Fruitvale Avenue -Design Review-00-059. Request to demolish the Saco Herb Garden and residence (the property is on the Heritage Resource Inventory) and to construct a new two-story residence. (Revised plans) Because the Fire Station Arohitects were on a tight schedule our New Business item was heard before this item. Commissioner Kcepernik explains to the Commission that he and Commissioner Peepari met with the applicants a few weeks ago to provide more direction on design changes. Mr. Venkat explains how they went about making changes to the roof, using more stone and removing the quoins. They are pleased with the outcome of the slate roof, and indicate that the existing trees on site will hide the mass of the house. They will take it upon themselves to preserve the herb garden. Commissioner Wyman asks about the Saso's children wanting parts of the old house. Mr. Kalkunte says that they will most likely take some of the wall paneling from the second floor although nothing will come down until their plans for a new home have been approved. Commissioner Hunter says that the slate roof is a big improvement. Commissioner Peepari has no problem with the demolition or the landscape but will read a written comment for the record (attached). Commissioner Peepari makes a motion to deny the proiect. Motion fails 2-4-1 (Commissioners Peck and Peepari vote to approve motion, Commissioners Hunter, King, Kcepernik ~Zd Wyman vote to deny motion, Commissioner Grens abstained). Commissioner Peck states that he realizes these are value judgments and that historically structures change in their significance over time. He realizes this house may look good in architectural digest magazine but not on this site. Mr. Roscoe states that the City Hall building doesn't blend with the community but is doesn't distract either. The house fits well with the site and landscape. He states that a the neighboring property is adding a second story. That in 20 or 30 years people will look at this house and think it is a great design. He states that we don't have to design for yesterday, but for tomorrow with yesterday in mind. Commissioner Wyman thinks it is unprofessional of the Commission to drag this project out. Commissioner Peepari says that the Commission asked them to make changes at the last meeting and those changes were not addressed. Commissioner Hunter says that the neighbors approve of the plan and that is important. She thinks that the homes farther up Farwell are compatible with this home; she understands what Commissioner Peepari had to say but would support this plan. Commissioner Grens states that the flavor of this site is not being carried through in this design. But she will abstain from voting due to lack of attendance at the previous meetings. Commissioner Kcepernik appreciates what Commissioner Peepari had to say but has already stated his support for the project. Commissioner King motions to approve the plans with the condition that the historic landscape be maintained ~d a condition stating such be included in the resolution. Motions tied 3-3-1 (Commissioners Hunter, King and yman in favor, Commissioners Peepari, Peck and Kcepernik opposed). For the record, Commissioner Kcepernik is opposed only to the condition that the landscape be maintained. Commissioner Peepari would like to clarify the Mr. Roscoe is not a licensed Architect as indicated on Mr. Kalkunte's letter. 0®0033 Heritage Preservation Commission minutes April 10, 2001 page 3 • III. New Business A. 14380 Saratoga Avenue - DR-01-006, UP-OI -002 & LL-0l -003. Request to demolish the Saratoga Fire Station and construct a new station. Chris Ford, Architect addresses the Commission regarding the history of the project. For the last six months they have been working on traffic and road impact issues particularly on the right hand turn lane, designing the facility as a training, meeting and headquarters for the fire fighters and developing the details in context of the design The elevation drawings provided were only intended to show the massing of the building and the new sheet shows more of the details of texture and materials that will be used. They were chosen after careful study of Julia Morgan buildings in the Bay Area and the Federated Church and Villa Montalvo structures in Saratoga. They are already scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in May. Commissioners Hunter, King and Gress ask about where the parking will be. Mr. Ford indicated that the real estate office next door will be purchased and utilized for meetings and the parking will be used for the station. Commissioner King asks about pedestrian access. Mr. Ford indicates that the station will be pulled in about 5 feet from where it is at that comer now. This will provide better line of site at that corner. Commissioner Peepari asks where the Fireman's Bell will be. Architect John Turchen indicates that it will be suspended from within the tower and will be visible through tall windows. Commissioner Koepemik asks about the wood railings used Mr. Torches indicates that they will be heavy timber. Comm. Koepernik would like to see a heavier screen used there. Commissioner Wyman says that they have done a good job; it blends well with the corner and understands the difficulty in working with such a small site. Commissioner Hunter does not like the color of the file shown and would like a more earth tone green used instead Mr. Torches states that they will have color sample coming soon and is not happy with the way the coloring on the elevation has come out. Commissioner Koepernik would like to approve the materials board before final approval of the project. Commissioner Wyman motions to approve the project with the condition that they Commission review the final color and material board Approved 6-0-1 (Commissioner Gress abstained). The architect will bring the final color board to the Commission on May 9, 2001. IV. Items Initiated by the Commission A. Discussion of Joint City Council/HPC meeting and possible future joint Planning Commission HPC meeting Comm. King said that she would like to see the Commission approach the joint meetings differently. She would like to give the Council some background on issues the HPC wants to discuss prior to the meeting, like a staff report. She also would like the Commission as a group to decide on the topics of discussion. Commissioner Hunter agrees, as the joint meeting with the City Council is the most important meeting of the year for the HPC. Comm. Kcepernik would like to have a special meeting to discuss topics for a future joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss ideas and decide as a group what should be discussed. The Commission discusses dates for a possible special meeting and joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Because there ENVIRONMENTAL I1~TITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared For Saratoga Fire District. Proposed New Fire Station May Z, 2001 Project Description: Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue where the existing Fire Station is located. A Temporary Use Permit is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporary building is 7,500 square feet. The two properties are adjacent to one another and both are located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zone district. Project Location: 14380 Saratoga Avenue (New Fire Station) 20473 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Temporary Fire Station) Applicant: Saratoga Fire District Lead Agency: City of Saratoga . Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Planner: Mark J. Connolly, Assistant Planner Community Development Department • City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District 000035 CONTENTS Environmental Evaluation/Checklist Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment A: Project Description and Additional Information • • • City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District OOOO~fj . ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see anachments for information sources) • ~I~:L'" ~t ~ ~'tUSEA~Nlltl'L'~%~NN~fNGWrould~thetpro~osal.~`' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? The proposed Fire Station will encroach into a portion of an adjacent City-owned parcel currently occupied by a small public Plaza named Memorial Plaza by 529 sq. ft.. Memorial Plaza has an existing path along the Saratoga-Los Gatos frontage. The application includes plans to maintain the path within the limit of construction, refurbish the existing plaza benches and add a water fountain (per the recommendation of the Parks and Trails subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Commission). How the proposed transfer of land will be achieved will be determined at a later date, and ultimately by the City Council. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ ^ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ^ ^ ^ ^ established community (including aloes-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND'I30USING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population ^ ^ ^ ^ projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ^ ^ ^ ^ indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ^ ^ ^ ^ .IIIGEOLOGIC PROBLEaMS'~'~~ouldxtfie.pTOposal.result;in~,o>" e~posetipeople to~poiential irnpaets-involving; ' _. a K >. ;5' a) Fault rupture? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ^ ^ ^ ^ City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District i 0®003`7 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^. ^ ~ O ^ ^ Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact IV. WATER: Would he proposat result~in` ~ ~ ~.~. a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate p and amount of surface runoff? The project is not expected to significantly impact absorption rates or the rate and amount of surface runoff since there will not be a significant increase in the amount of impervious coverage compared to existing conditions. Most of the existing drainage conditions will remain. The application includes 2% drainage swales to accommodate and improve site drainage where necessary. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards p such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of surface p water quality (e.g.,-temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? p e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water p movements? f) Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through p direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? p h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ~ Mitigation Incorporated ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ o ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ ^ • • City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District ~~0®~L7 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (see attachments for information sources) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ^ ^ ^ ~ otherwise available for public water supplies? ~' AIR~QLbAIhT~I'.;.Wouldthc proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing ^ ^ ^ ~ or projected air quality violation? , b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any ^ l~ ^ ^ ~ change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ^ ^ ^ ~ :~V~1. TIZaNSPURT.~-TI01\/CIRCLiLAT101`d. ~'Vo~ld the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ~~ • b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The new Fire Station will be pulled back off the corner of Saratoga avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, which will make it possible for the City to incorporate a traffic signal interrupt. Consequently the existing traffic congestion impacts will be mitigated, and no new access or trips will be generated by the proposed facility. c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? The property on which the Fire Station is currently located has insufficient parking. However, the Fire District has purchased the property where the temporary Fire Station will be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, thus providing more than adequate parking with 10 existing to remain and another 22 proposed. Totaling 32 spaces. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? There is a bus stop (Line #27 West Valley College) located at the edge of the driveway where ingress to the temporary fire station will be on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. A mitigation measure will require the permanent ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District 0®0039 ENVIItONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (see attachments for information sources) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated relocation of the bus stop 50-75 feet North, thus reducing potential impacts to aless-than-significant level. h) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? ^ ^ ^ ^ IC VII. BIOLOCUICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats ^ ^ ^ ~ . (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ^ ^ ^ ~ c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, ^ ^ ^ ~ coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ^ ^ ^ ~ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ^ ^ ^ ~ .VIII. ENERGY AND' MINERAL kESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ^ ^ ^ ~ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient ^ ^ ^ ~ manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ^ ^ ^ ~ resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? ~ ~' IX: HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous ^ ^ ^ ~ substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or ^ ^ ^ ~ emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health ^ ^ ^ ~ hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health ^ ^ ^ ~ hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, ^ ^ ^ ~ or trees? City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District ®~1~~'~~ ENVIItONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (see attachments for information sources) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated or trees? >X:NOISF~Would;the:proposaLresult in: ~,~_ a) Increases in existing noise levels? ^ ~ ^ ^ The proposal includes two emergency generators. One for the temporary fire station and one for the permanent Fire Station. These generators will only be used in times of emergencies. There are neighbors behind the church on Park Place potentially impacted by noise in the event of an emergency. The application includes a 5-foot tall wall to enclose the generator at the South of the new Fire Station. For the temporary fire station the units will be located to the South, which will impact neighbors. Recommended mitigation measures are either to relocate the unit or to sound insulate the unit or enclose it to meet the standards set forth in the City Noise Ordinance. b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ^ ^ ~ ^ Existing Noise procedures governing the use of sirens in the vicinity of the Fire station will be maintained, so that there will be no increased impact as a result of the proposed use XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal ha~-e an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services,`inany of~thefollo~~ng areas: ~~ a) Fire Protection? ^ ^ ^ ~ b) Police Protection? ^ ^ ^ ~ c) Schools? ^ ^ ^ ~ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ^ ^ ^ ~ e) Other governmental services? ^ ^ ^ ~ XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for`new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations~tothe following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ^ ^ ^ ~ b) Communications systems? ^ ^ ^ ~ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ^ ^ ^ ~ d) Sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and ^ ^ ^ ~ disposal facilities? City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District 4®0~~~;~ ENVHtONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (see attachments for information sources) Significant Significant Significant Impact .. Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Storm water drainage? ~ ~ ~ ~ f) Solid waste materials recovery or disposal? p ~ ~ ~ g) Local or regional water supplies? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.~AESTHETICS::Would the proposal:. a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? p p ~ !] Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Highway 9) is designated as a scenic highway in the Scenic Highway Element of the Saratoga General Plan. In addition, Saratoga Avenue between Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Highway 9) is a designated heritage lane. According to Section 13-20.010 of the City of Saratoga Historic Preservation Ordinance, the expansion and renovation of any structure located within a designated heritage lane must obtain the approval of the City of Saratoga. According to the ordinance, the City Council may approve a project only if the "exterior of such improvements will not adversely affect, and will be compatible with the external appearance of the existing landmark, lane, or district." The proposed project is subject to review by the City of Saratoga and will be evaluated for compliance with the Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan and the Historic Preservation Ordinance, with conditions imposed to assure compliance. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? p ~ ~ ~ c) Create adverse light or glare effects? ~ ~ ~ ~ JXIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ~ ~ ~ ~ b) Disturb archaeological resources? p ~ ~ ~ c) Affect historical resources? ~ ~ ~ ~ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which p ~ ~ ~ would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the p p ~ ~ potential impact area? City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District • • ®~®~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES .. (see attachments for information sources) XV.; RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? The proposal incorporates improvements to the existing Memorial Plaza. See response to I.c. above. • Potentially Potentially Less Than No ' Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District 000©43 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments jor information sources) Potentially Potentially Less Than No •• Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated l~T. tiZaNDAT4RY F1NDI1\'GS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality p p p ~ of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife _ population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, ~ reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, p p ~ ~ to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually p p ~ ~ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects that will p p p ~ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District ®O®^ `T -"~ ?~~'-'~ a ---'< • N?k7~II:,DET'ER1Y17N~TI0?V On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ~ ' I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT is required. DA • • S NA For COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District ©0®~~ • T~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000046 NEGATIVE DECLARATION - Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not required For Design Review # 01-006 and Use Permit 01-002 and TUP-Ol-003 and I.L-O1-003 Saratoga Fire District. The undersigned, Director of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of_the California Administrative Code; and Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description: Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. A Temporary Use Permit is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporary building is 7,500 square feet. Both are located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zone district. Project Location: 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (New Fire Station) 20473 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Temporary Fire Station) Applicant: S Saratoga Fire District Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Planner: Mark J. Connolly, Assistant Planner Community Development Department Reason for Negative Declaration The proposal is not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposal will modify the existing use of the site, and have minor modification impacts, the attached mitigation measures will insure that the project will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Saratoga, California this 2nd day of May 2001. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District. ~0~®'~ / MITIGATION MEASURES 1- MAINTAIN THE EXISITNG PATHWAY IN MEMORIAL PLAZA, PROVIDE A NEW WATER FOUNTAIN AND REFURBISH THE EXISTING PARK BENCHES. 2- THE EXISTING BUS STOP TO LINE #27 SHALL BE PERMANENTLY RELOCATED ON BOTH SARATOGA-LOS GATOS HIGHWAY 9 AND ON SARATOGA AVENUE. 3- NOISE INSULATION OR RELOCATION MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE PROPOSED EMERGENCY GENERATORS TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE. 4- THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE 22 OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES FOR EMPLOYEES TOTALLING 32. i • • City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire District ~~~D~fl .®. ..~ .71r~ • L N L c3 C3 N w ~. / 1 1. _m ~ -1- N -1-- L C3 N D • ~~ O O V H p f-' ~ H ~ W 2 H ~ (Q V ~LL T 00 ~' ~~ Q i- i- .~ 3 N .~ N .~ O e O N M SV W t-1 O N N L L N LL ~_ H U W 7 a W U z ,wn V a ~ E ~ ~ ga ~ g ~ _ s g j LLLLLL 0 LL $Q N `-: . O plll r. O N ~ p f $j ~ Iflmn W ° o, m " aov~ r < u. O ~ ~{u 0 4 ~ ^ ~~ $ 0 ~ ~ a v ~ O ~ rY m < 2 N x <°a0 f~`~ dttm> rv EJF 00~ '"' U w O W o m ~ ~ ~ 5~ ~ 0 d ~ f o x < E g w W w W, p ~ ~ ~ m '~ x; m ~~' O ~ Z p ~ ~ ~'~ 3 3 ~~~ N ~ O O Nm ~~ ~ Z H ~ v o ZfL iZ N<O~ < t g a° i a ~ . W W l9 z o e a H ~ Z ~ ~ > .. F- O~ to J S ~ e Q Z a T W ~ O 'Z W W I -~ ~ O ~ w~ SZ~ J~ ~ ~ ~ ~~vwiZ°-~~ Z Z ~ ~ io~ai~i, ~ ~°t« o~ °l ~ i W ~ O ~ Q~ ~~~ ~ W W~ C W w F~~ w~ N WW O~ ~ l7 IJL W J aD a ~ N N~ < W Vt Z< W V1 ~ ~ s~ dm~oa~~ sZ~~ ~~ °~ ~ a ~o to<= ~~~~~~~ .-~ N (h ~f t[1 .O 1~ o~z3 ~~yv,~pJ~~~yu,~ g ~ ~ ~ X T ri F X C Hx S << zWz r Q WQ;; Z W 1-o~nO F Ori v0~0< Q~ ~ N p[ < p( ~ ? ~ a W W V W O H a~g ~ ~~a ~ g~j ~ W T ri ZwV dF gwV < 30 O at O R ~ ~~~ ~ ~~m ~ a< ouc w~p~ w ~ O~ 3 ~m< Ua< ~J~- aapp ~~~~ ~ ~~1~0 v LL V 1 J~ w~ p OO J~ UU>O>!! W m< N LL .. Z W^< p >~ Q< I{l h~v<1m hmmm 7 ~... ut J Vl U Z N ~ ~ < °' w ~ vii w ~~~~ ~a =<Zq Z N n0» W Jxr~~ d d^~ o m< r h C o $ < w ~ ~ ati .. ~ru .. ~ ~i ~ ~~g t~g ~ ~ roWL yP o~((y1P < Q = F KK V dK V N M' < LL I-._~.. o ~~d M~a w ~p ~ a~~+ M N H N ~ W< ~ <=mY V=m ~ V1 V)O W =SV t TNIJ~ zNJ„g ~ hJLL a V m~Orv °~$Z~ =o Zh s$Z~ ~i amZm f~~, v<i°m °mv<i°m ~ izi .^. v<ia ~ vOirvv<ig < < W~ w o~ W Z K ~ O ?7~Z y Z N ` C• ~ h ~ W RSoo~ w SS Cw O 33 uw w ~° vMN~ ~ 6066 u ~ ~ a J o 0 0 ~ ~~ m V V < P a' <~1(p~l ~ j, P ~ ~ ~R a` ~ 1 y ~ 7 ~g q ~n p o W Z Y W J F l<i ~ ~ V ~ ~ po ~ d~ V tD Gl ~ < < O m~ V N ~ ~<~o< ~w<o~~~ ~ J~~ Z N ~W, {-y ~aJ~ < ~ a ~ ~ ~~~ ~ s~~~ ~ ~ a~o ~ ~ ~LL~:~ O W~~ W O< °? F m T 7d `°am < ~e n~ LL Y cc< m O imam . LL Z < m. O 2 ~~m < ° W Q F < m O~ ^~m < ti w. . v ~ i~ ~~... vig ~v ig ~ ~m^u i~ bB ~ ry •T di ,~ +,~ .~, 'fir a U s. um.,[..' J. a ~ `a 1; . 3 . 9,r ki Y to ~s.'~:, a;~,:~ ~: $:a ~ ! •• VN1. 1. 1y~ ~,'i U Yi i J; ~ N°"~„v` are ...,., .: i ~<+ex 54 .. I '.M,~e...,:. re,.,J'cei rl fh N O ~ ~ Q { ~j ~~ ARC j ~~~: ~ ~ • .~= U~ ~~~~~ O '~ ~~` T Q L T 8 ]~~a~ o ~~l C7 ~65~ ~ z ~a~ .~~~~-9~ ~ w~~iE Q A ' ~~~~~ a~~~~ e R f i ~_ ~ r ~ • • =1 ~' _~ ` _ ,~~ 3nN3iI b b~~ly~~~,,,~ ~ 'oPJ I~ Q I I I I 61 0 O O ~O .r O V M ~< C f Q' t .'~ R 9f ~~°~ A ~<: ~~~~~~~ 0 d D V Z Q J H r 0 IL L ~a 0 Z ~^` W '''_ N L 0 ~a a ~~$al p ~~~) a~~~~ ~~ ~~~~! ~ z~~o ~ "•~ °~ ~ ~.~~,E W~53~~ aga•a affil{ a~a, 5~ __ ~ N N QN~ ° Y ~ y T X 7C i ~ '~ '~ ~tft ~O yyq+ ~ L 4 ~ N N ~< 0 N~ A N N O W~ m ~ N ~ Q O ~° N N O~ p~ d O V µW+ N ~ C 8 m G ^' vi w 1<- O w LL w 4-' ~ v~ ~ °~ ~~ <~ m O w ~ a h O m Z w< ~ 'n 'n ~ u O w °w. # ~` p ~ H~ H~H ~c N N Z v~i x ~ n° O ~ a ~ n N ~° 0o H tt C ~y ~ Oi Oi >IpNN f~F n PO• N ~ ~ , y< ~ p Z ~ = E i' i i < tii lD <g' ui ,~~ vvi w ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° t N d o~~iLLw ° ~o ~ '^~L j O n ~ ~ ~ 1- O ~ J~~ xor~i O rt m`o~FO ~ Zvi a ~. 7'~, 7 ~ om~<N~., w °o~ ~ <m \\. ~ ~~ \\\ // h~ w / osn~ / / ~~ / / ~\ ~ ~. / . / / I I / `, ~~ +~ / \' ~d ___ ~ / _ -~ ,--/ ~ ~/ / ~ `~ .,. ~ i / ~ ~~ i /~ ~ / \ ~ N o ~ ~ ^a,, o ~ . ~ 1 < \ `' ~ 2 ~ 1 Mi111 ,. A \ ~~ • • • _ - Mg ,;l ___~~_~ , „~ AIL `` !~ Q `~ r U W a ~ u _ _ N ~ o 5 TW r~i cNN 6 LL N ~yt<~ O N8 O L LL ~NV~ Vf F ~ ~ ON ~gm ~ W ~ O Z ~ $ ~ ~i,mm O LL w i ~ G ~ a ~- ~ O< m LL N`~< IL LL LL W P I~ - p h O m v~ ~a u ~+ g v d d ou m VI ~ y ~ J P` " fl.`o h h KK ^ O ° ~gNN ofX '^~ ~ • d~ ~ VI LL LL Oar. 'Op VI ~ <~ ~ m ~yg 1pm a w OO V~ ~yy ~ 2R .Qi IL P P >mNN ~Q 1 ~ m m P N ` N N~ 0 W ~ yy< ~ ( Z .. < O w O _ W ' ~ ~Z ZD < F m W ~ ~ ~ \ q K 30~, t ~ ~ g = LL~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ W W LL< h V Z lIL1 ¢ H ~ < ~ ~ a ( y d d a ~ u' ~ F F ~ ~j~v~a ~ p fO W ~ m O°>o < ZLL~J. ~ s W W '^ Z. ~ s~ WW Z O ? V~ V1 1D ~ W m NQ ~ 3 ~Z~ ~ ~ ~ W 'n Z<_ ~ O 3 W < O O m ~ LL K ' WZ ~y ~y~g o~o<~a~ h _ yWm~o ° ~ ~~~ C a 3 << O W N w g < g o-{i \~ \1 R 1 'I ~__ I 9«`~\ / ~\ ~ elm ~ ~I \11 //~ ~\~ /~ /^~) / •~ / /~ ~ / ,~ ~ /~ / / / _ °C,;~ ~ ~ ~~i ~, „~ ~~ ~< ~ ~, I i ~ I I /~/ j/ i I ~ ~ ~^" ~ 5 l~ a / ~ 1 ~/ / _''' 1 ~`~2~ m ~~ I ~I I ~I ~ II I II ~ I II II I ~ F I I s 3J ~ ~o o ~~ ~ I I ry I ~ s~` ~ W~ I I 2 I W N n I I i .~ od __ ___~o , o -~~,. = _ 3~N3iIV y~~l~ t _ z~~ \ a' S M N ~ fh Q ~} ~~°`" Q ~~•+~ ~)~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~1 • • • F ~ i ~ ~ W ~ i z o 1 ~ tX ~ ~ ~ . 1 1:{ ~. ~ U S qa Z ai = p p W ~ $ _ = p B g G ~ N O' z ~O ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ & °~ ~ ~o w ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ WIZ ~ J I < 3 ~ m ~< ~,~~ ~ f n I N ~ I I ~ ~ ~ __ ~ ° ~ °;~' ~za vd I I W w ~ ~ ~ U ~tSN .~ ~ ~/ V ~ / I' / V I~ / ~ ~; ., ~. ,~~ ,'~ ,____ ~ /~ %/\ / ~ ~ ''-~ I I ~' ~.~ I ~ 1 I I ~ i ~p~n I 1 ~ ~ S i I I I i ~ I ~ i ~ ? A - - 1 / ~ r / ti ry / ~ ~'/ ~ I ~I. ; I 6~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~2, I I / I n~ I l / ~ _ I II 1 II I v ~~ I -i I 1 H rfi 1 I~I ~'. i I I 1 I ~I GI ~ 1 J I 1 I I I I ~ V ' ~I I K I 1 9 I a 1 I T@ ~ 11~ 11 ~ ~ II o I I q~1'~-~ s~ ~ ; r _------_ 8 $ I \ Z . - ~. ~~' Y i i~ i ~~ y i ~~ ~ ~ i i~ ~~ { %~ s, ~. ~. ~1 1 i ,, I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 0 0 ~.~ O O J O N ~g ~ N O < 7~ U O v O W ~ t~ ~~ ~~ aw W ~~ 0 d °u Z Q W Z H Z Q Z H DL r 0 L L j moo, a Z r L a obi 4 L _~ _~ o €~~ ~~~~ ~ .. ~ z~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~E w ~ ~ a ~~~ .. a .' 1' ~~ ~~ • • • T J W W J CY W 0 _1 __.) W Ll.> Ll.~ ^~ ~..1~ og ao ch rn a c '~ i r ~ ~ ~8 ~@p, R ry E Q }~~.~ ~l ~~~aE 1 0 „ ~ O L -~ L ~~ z .~ ~a Z Q~ J a. CY .o ~ ~ 0 LL ~ a ~~ o i~~~! ~.~ .. ~~~~~ '~ ~ ~`°~ 9 W ~~fjE ~~~~1+` a'~~t xya ~~ • r • T'; Mr e NI 0 y- _ I I iZ ~Q :W :J E ~J H 1~ o i ~ O 0 ;,. _ ~ o - ~ =~ ~.. _ ~~. - ~~ A i 0 ~ a Z O O e ~ E E .. ~ _ w n, _ ~~ ~-- ', 1~ m ~ ~~ -Z - ~z IO ~~ ~ W _ ~ I J \ - w v ~ -; -~ , ~. _~~ . o ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 O O i E 4~ ~L' rl s iZ 0 I~ la W J W :1~ Q W ~r $ M N O ~ M Q °' s ~i r ~~ ~R ~t ~~ry~ ~ ~e~ „~ t ~! ~~~~~ o ~, ~ O .~ V ~ H „~ rL~^ ~ /'~ ^ - I, W ~V 2 z~ o~ Q~ ~ N wq w •\~ 0 ~ ~, ,O w~ ~,- w __I ~ 1 E _I L ~ y ~-- e 8S • I`~ ~4~ a ~~! N e I ° C7 $F~ ~ .. ~ . ~. ~ ~~~. __ ~• ~~~~ ^~ ~.~ lE w a~, o a~q . ~a~~ a~aa~ ~~= .. • • • c c c c c c c c c c _o _o _o _o _o o _o o _Oo ~~UpUPtg lB cl~Up o vPt~ M M .r .r M .r lL .-~ .-~ LL .r .-~ r~ v a 0 V O V ~`~ / ~~ ~~1~ / ~~~, ~ \ / \\ i\ ' ~ ' ~' / / `1' I / ~ ~ ~ / ~~ ~/ 1`. ` t~\ ~ i a I ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I \I I . r,, I . I I ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p I ~ I p I ~ I I I O I I I I I I ~ I I I. I .-, 0 O N ~ M Q ~}l i <A U ~ AUPry A~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ 0 , d 11°u^ v/ O T ~~ Z L ~ Q a. ~ a ~L Q V Q Z ,`~ L ~ ~ ~ w _ _ _ _ _____ 3nN3^~b~ol~ _ _ 8 ~~ ~~$~~ o ~~~ ~~s~ ~ ~.~ it '~' ,~ 9 ~; q~,a'a a~~~l a ]~ e R ~ ~ Q ~' ~ r. it i _ ___ i su ~~ ~ ~~ ~~/ ...... ...... 11 / ~ ~~ ~ i ~~ ~ / ~ i ~ a"~ ~ / / ~~ ~~ / ~ °~~ ~/ /. ~~ I ^. ~ I ~ i `. j ~~ / ~~~ I / ~ ~ ~^ti / I ~ .~ ~ / `'~ ~ 1/ 2 ~ /~ 1~ Z 1 I\-2~- I m ~ ~ <~ c I ~I I ~I II II II II a Q ~ II-m~~ I I I s 3J II ~ II Z I o I I o •~ „~ d ~j O o ~ ~ ° ~ `3 v vv m ° N o~ d Q a .c r ~~ .~ ~~ ~o~~d s u c of ~ ti " Op~ U V rn ~- 'c c v ~ L d t m ~ ,~ ,N > N~ E d '~ . V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V d ~ q ~ -~ _C N N e 6 Y VI L ~ N O ~ D. C r? 'O C N d M a ~~o ~ d~r~ S r-1 ~ ~ j O ~ 7 ~ W N ? ,C 1NI~ vN~ VI ~ .7 C LL ~ N C N y= t1~ ~ V O ~ s ~ E {/~ ~ ~ L p N a ~ ~ 6 OC1 ~ p ~ a E p ~- h p .~ O_ ~ v i l N ~ IL- C lO C ~°~r~ ~- . ~~~so _ ~ ~ • • a og ~m e S 0 0 a c~ N O J Q0 Q H ~~ C~ I I b Y 1 r 4 b ~ _ ~ 08 w i w. ~ i 1 i~ ~Q W 1 ~ tl~~ ~ ~~~~s: ~~ Jed ~~ L~ ' ~ ~a "~ ;,. ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Q i a q ~ ~' ~ O •' .q ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ q ~ §v ~ V o o ~- LU ~8~ ° ~ ~' a T 0 J 7 W a Q o ~ a Y ~ ~ Qs i b § i~ ~~ ~ , ~a~ ~ I~~ _ 1__a a ~~~ ~~~ .. ~~ ~~ a ~~ ~ u ~, sa a 8~ ~ ~ V b ~ V Z ~ Z § e ~ ~ ~ ~ b8rn ~ ,_,~ ~' H °~~ F- L '_ ~ L1J n a ~ 0 r( r a z } g~~~ ~ } b~ ~ a ~ g~ :~ t ~I~~~~E I 0 H 11 ~ O ti O1 ' O V N Z O. w c~ Z. H ~i J H m T T moo, Z 4 i ~~ L ~a ~a ~ Rai o ~a~ c7 6F~ k ~~ z g~i ~."~~~°~ ~~ ~ ~ iE W~3~ o e'~~ a~~~~ a~~~ (~R 1 'i ^ I • • • wZ _ ~ 2~ v ~ Cu ~ i= ~ z> N N H p K 8 d ~o~ ~ ~° <. ~ N N << ~ N t5 N N H OJ Wp d m ~ W D < (~ O `pp~ N ~ l~ 7 ~{puu ~y K F ~ ~ ~ Ifl m.n O p O F < 1 < < Q F ~ ~ m LL a0 O~ it d W < lD W lD z W N~ ^ D O VI g 0 N O z65 ~ J VI LL li VI < O ~ < LL < F- ~j F ~ m W t` n F m yWy F ~aO ~~ N ~ O W VI O ~1 H ~+ ~~ O w ~ ~ < N N $ 1A % pO 1i1N ~N N ~~m 00 V- i2 ri i a O. ~LLNN fOF ao mo a N~OF W ~ O ?F W t O < = J f < LL~W ~5m ~ <~ ~ ~ ~ <~ `~' "' N w ~ ~. ~ ~ ~a 3 ~ ~ ~~~ a~~=~~ ~ sd a µ{~~~ ~<~ i s ~ 7 vl O O ~ .D ~~ 3e~`++n m H ~= G O B w w ~~ o o ~oQ<;.o~~ a ~~;~~ ,~ CLL~ ~ ~ w'~ ~ ~UZ~, ~ ~ <dZo<~ h Sd~W~ e~' ono ~ a ~ ~uy1 Z ~vyl S U mO~~~vS ~v a w m 00 ~ °~ <w~i a C i << O w N w g < ~~ d T <~ ~<n w ~~ o~'e < LL~c <~ ,~ < oa < f ~ ~i 0 ~O' 3 / < 3 y< W V m~ o~ 6 j o C(H ~~ ~~ ~~ ~o r ~,. u.~~ ~ \ i ~< ~\ . e ~ ,` ~~ l , ~ w0 II ~,~ / i / ~~ ~ % `~ ~/ N / / .~ ~ _ ~~ /`~ i ` // ~ _ i~ // /3 ~,~ F vp< m W ~ ~ a N N ~~ 6 ~~ a ~ ~ I ! F 9~__ ` I I ~`~ 3 o ~~ b 1~ I (' - ~» r~-- - _ a~ 1 l• 4 W o ! I ,\ .~ d~ ~,'~ \ _ I I I ~ °~s ~ ., ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~° ~ I ~ o~~ ~ ~ I a` ~ ~, i I ' ~\ e ~ I ~~~ I - I \\ ~ . ~• `~ I Z uT ' 1 Z" I _-_ :e ~i~ s ~ to , ~~ - -7 ~ t ~ _ ~ >~ ~ ~ mW g ~ T _ _ ' ~ ~g M N O ~ M o~ ~ Q C r~ ~} ~~~„ggs ry B 1 LL J 0 _~ .. O d •~ s -1. ~_~w\j I T V /~~ V lw`~ i W V N Z D Q J .L a. Z ~o H .~ Q ,~ a V, ~~ o ~$~! ~. ~~~~~ .~ z~gp~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ^~ ~ ~ jE W~~~, ~~~! a•~~~ xaa ~~ _ .t W god 2 y~ z 1- N >0~ ~. ~;_~ ~ ~ ;< °~~~ ~~ t~ M ` ~~ ~"` ...~~ /., 1 ~P ~Y ¢~ <<, :. K.~. .:R~ • ~f t 9 ~~ 1 f 7 M a S ~ ~ ~~ r ~r y } ~ T S ~ '~ ~ ' y ~1 h. 4 ~ a~s/p~~ ~ ~7 ~~~~ } ~ . ' _ fii-, ;~, !, ;~ tis. ~`~, uy y;:. IE ~~ . &_ 1 -SS ~ ~ F* ~ . ~ :- ~j : ~\` :{: ji f~ 1t d w flllll ~~ ~r • • 1x11 u ~_ ,, ... • DIRECTORS ITEM C B~4 04 ~~°/~~OO C~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Connolly, Associate Planner DATE: May 23, 2001 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehafley Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith SUBJECT: DR-99-053; BLACKWELL PROPERTIES,14000 Alta Vista Avenue (Lot 54) DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a new 2,242 square foot residence with a maximum height of Z2 feet on an 11,200 square foot parcel in the R-1-12,500 zoning district. For additional information ie~itrUlllk Llll' vi`l~.ildl ~7TU~OSai, See ~i;~ :.. .". :'_^_"~ Tl`Ll,_.~ily i.,v,..r'".1'~_.....: ~'`.'~~ ~ nr--err BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This application was originally heard at the October 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting (see the attached excerpt minutes of the October 25, 2000 meeting). The project has now been redesigned to accommodate the needs of a potential buyer. Re~~isions to the plans include the following: • Although the floor area remains the same, the footprint was changed slightly on the south (side) elevation (i.e., the first story side yard setback at the kitchen was increased by two feet and the setback at the living room was increased by two feet). • Windows were relocated due to changes in the floor plan (there was no increase in the overall amount of glazing). - , ~ r , , ., .. .. ... ` 1110 SiU,i.il~ VVelb ~.;1aa1~.:U ii~Jl.l u l.UiiiUuiai.avii Vi :slta..~.L :-,.~, r:vv~.. ~:: tom.:.: v:.,v,:..~:.I..~.' horizontal shiplap). v s • The roof over the family room on the rear elevation was changed from a hip to a gable. 0©0~~~ Printed on recycled paper. File No. DR-99-053; 14000 Alta Vista Avenue (Lot 54) RECOMMENDATION Approve the revised plans as shown in Exhibit "A" attached. ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpted Planning Commission hearing minutes, October 25, 2000 l.. i'l.anning., C:ommassinn .~rarr Ken~r~ aacea ~.~c~o~ier ~~, ~ODU - 3. Revised Plans, Exhibit "A" ~I 0~0~~~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 2 2. DR-00-030 (389-15-073) - CHIEN/TONG, 13220 McDole Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,140 square foot single-story residence and construct a new 3,038 square foot two-story residence. Maximum height proposed is 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 10,297 square feet and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 11/21/00 AT THE REQUEST OF APPLICANTS) 3. AZO-00-001 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: Amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance will be considered for a recommendation to the City Council. Amendments include: 1) excepting the calculation of driveways from the impervious coverage calculation for lots in the' Hillside Residential zone district so that the Ordinance will be consistent with the General Plan; 2) clarifying that solar panels mounted on an approved main structure are allowed to be more than six . feet f.~^~, ~, «cle; 31?C1 ?~ °,Y•~1,••io pX~;avatinr~ f ~r ~~virrTT?1Tla T~(~OIS t~1_lCl . b~SP.meT?tS fT7m t~'1.E~ calculaiiotr uf-tl.c total bYr:~dir.g cjaa,..~~,• 02 .~ill:;id.~::,. (COI'h"YP;UED TO 13/21/x0 f~T THE DIRECTON OF STAFF) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, Consent Calendar Item No. 1 was continued to the November 8, 2000, Commission meeting and Consent Item Nos. 2 and 3 were continued to the November 21, 2000, Commission meeting. (6-0-1; Commissioners Bernald was absent.) *** PUBLIC I?EARING -ITEM NOS. 4, 5 & 6 DR-99-042 (397-28-028) -BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, Lot 52, Alta Vista Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,256 square foot two-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height proposed is 22 feet. An 800 square foot basement is also proposed. The parcel is i,`J~~ S:~t:::?:,' F,~.~' 3T; 1 :~ l~jr.atpr7 ;~•it~'_`t_ ~° T..': -l2,~vU ZViiil~ ~liJtiil:C. ~C.O'~1rii't1~TUJ~~ ~~~*:~ 9/27/00) ~ . DR-99-043 (397-28-028) -BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, Lot 53, Alta Vista Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,189 square foot two-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height proposed is 22 feet. An 819 square foot basement is also proposed. The parcel is 8,721 square feet and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 9/27/00) DR-99-053 (397-28-047) -BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, Lot 54, Alta Vista Aveuue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,242 square foot two-story residence on a vacant lot., Maximum height proposed is 22 feet. A 637 square foot basement is also proposed. The parcel is 11,200 square feet and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 9/27/00) Mr..iames W~,l,Pren, Com.mi~nity nevelonment l~irecrc,r, presented. the staff report as follows: l~ei;Olilliieli~led prese:~~i::b :1~ .,,ul! Gviluii.,li~ ::ii iii liii:t a~i~,uV~liiiii~. of l'if.~~~ :iTl(1 L11E:i1 •hi1VIY7~ 1~~:; Commission take action on each one individually. • Advised that these applications are for Design Review consideration to construct three new, two- story homes on three existing lots of record located at the end of Alta Vista Avenue. These lots are currently undeveloped and are located just above afive-lot subdivision, which is just now nearing O®0~~~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 3 completion. That five-lot subdivision was originally two lots that consisted o~f a main residence, guesthouse, accessory farm-type buildings and a kennel. That property was recently subdivided into five lots. There was a Vesting Subdivision Map that included the architectural design of the five new two-story homes, all in a very rural, farm or Craftsman-style architecture. It is an architectural style that is particularly compatible with this older Williams and Walnut neighborhood, which is a very homogenous, well-maintained and isolated development. None of these streets go through to any other arterials, they simply loop through their own development and come back out onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.. . • Advised that the three subject lots are slightly substandard, ranging in size from 9 500 to 11 2'00.' _ , , square feet. They are more seriously constrained by the fact that only the front half of the parcels are a level plateau. The topography drops off steeply to the back and these lots are very heavily woo~ea. .. , .. .. , ,. , .. • -.S"aid that the typical lot ~iri ttus ~u~ea -is sicciilarly `~~co LV .i.V:,c tlir~e because they are older lets.. However, the current zoning standard requires a minimum lot size of 12,500 square feet and there is a further reduction based on slope densities. It would be impossible to create these lots today. Staff did an extensive title research on each of the parcels as required, which resulted in the .City Surveyor issuing a Certificate of Compliance for each of the lots verifying without a doubt that they are legal lots of record. • Informed that the applicant and his architect worked very closely with staff and the City Arborist to come up with the proposals that are before the Planning Commission this evening. The current proposal is the result of several designs and building placement changes. Also involved were the City Geologist, the Fire Department and the Public Works Department. • Said that originally thc:e ~h~e.e ~':.ri~~~~.e requests associated with these applications because of the . constrained nature of the par;.,°?; :::::.' the City's setback and height requirements. The need for Variances has since been eliminated. ~ ~ ` ` • Recommended approval of the applications with the conditions in the attached resolutions • . Stated +hat the necessary findings can be made as to architectural, compatibility, protection of ~ ~ _ . .. .. ~,;P~vc'~ ~T1Va.CV and.sOlar ~('C~'S~l~`1~.1*V. ' s • Advised that these are the last three lots to finish out the development of the Williams and Walnut area. ~ Corrected the staff report to clarify that Lot 52 would utilize a wood shingle design • . Identified Lot 52 as the first home of the three, adjacent to the existing Alta Vista homes. Lot 53 is _ next. Lot 54 is the more constrained of the three and has the smallest level pad. The applicants have been able to utilize this by tucking the garage into the backside of the property. This necessitates the removal of nine oak trees. None of these trees are ofOrdinance-protected size. • Added a correction regarding Lot 52, The staff report notes that a fine coast live oak tree (labeled tree number 5 at the back of the property) needs to be removed. The plans have been modified and it no longer needs to be removed. Added that this tree is not a fine coast live oak but rather a marginal tree that the City Arborist felt perhaps should be removed. It does not need to be and will be retained and protected during construction. If it continues to decline, it may have to be removed later. ~ Recommended. an additional condition in the resolution. that .,front yard._landscape plans be c~evNl~ned that incomor ,,: _ r.~ ~Ye - ;, ~ . ~t,,y~t trees,tar. tnn Y~.: neznu,,recnnved._..'1't?at c~ be spread out amongst the three lots primarily in replacement of the trees being removed from Lot 54 . . 000004 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 4 Commissioner Roupe: • Noted that it may be necessary to include a condition of approval that requires some sort of abatement or mitigation of off-site runoff from Lot 54. Director Walgren advised that this recommendation is consistent with the City's standard requirement to retain water on site to the degree possible. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren when these substandard-sized lots were created. Director Walgren replied that the lots were created well before the City was incorporated, probably at the turn of the last century. Added that it is an older subdivision. Conurli'ssiorier,.-•i3arry asked, a}~uui ilie pore,iciai for ~iiicluuing sori~~- soYt ui scrCeIliiig iii frc:7t of thee. > school's fence across the street from this project. Stated that the contractor seemed amenable to that idea when it was raised during the Commission's site visit. Asked if it was possible to make that a condition even if it is not a part of the subject property. Director Walgren answered that the condition would need to be generally worded. As long as permission is granted by'the school district, the applicant shall (or should) make an effort to landscape and maintain the landscaping in the right-of--way on the opposite site of Alta Vista Avenue in front of the school fence. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing No. 4 ~± 7:50 p.m. ~ -- '• % .`.: , ~.,._F.1 Mr. David Britt, Britt Rowe, 108 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos: • Thanked staff for working with them so closely on this project and helping them to design the best houses for the lots that they had to work with. • ~ . " . _ .. .,. , •Stated that he all(1 thG uevelopers, lVlr. tacit a1i~1 ;iiilJ Bia~::well;-ili'~ ~JrCo::ii:' ~:.;id a~'alwb?:,' .ior- questions. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Britt if the requirement to minimize any runoff from Lot 54 and to provide landscaping screening in front of the high school fence across the street were acceptable. Mr. David Britt replied that these requirements are acceptable. They are willing to work with staff and the consulting civil engineer in creating the best solution to deal with the issue of water runoff. As far as landscaping on the Saratoga High School site, they are willing to look at options to do that as well since that will increase the property values for the entire neighborhood. There is the issue of irrigation for that landscaping that will need to be considered. Commissioner Kurasch mentioned the steep drop off, particularly of Lot 54, and asked Mr. Britt if he had any objection to a condition requiring the use of native plants to minimize the amount of irrigation required in order to reduce the impact of'on-site percolation of water. Mr. =llavia t3ritt replied that native "landscaping, ciesigned'`weil; could crliy `~c~fs i%J.~il ~tle aesthetics U' the property. Commissioner Jackman asked if the driveways would use pervious pavers. Suggested that pervious material would be preferred since these are smaller lots. ~©~~®S Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 5 Mr. David Britt advised that there is no landscape plan to this date so the actual driveway material has not yet been specified. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Public Hearing for Agenda Item Nos. 4, 5 & 6 was closed at 7:52 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioners Bernald was absent) Commissioner Roupe: • Reiterated 'the conditions outlined by the Commission including: 1. Maximizing the on-site retention of water; 2. Landscaping plans for on site and across the street; and ~. Tl:c ;:s~ ~ f _..~'_++a~,:, S1'.a`r~',ti31~~, I-~ ~:,,~1.:: „_..lle'~~_.....~:. i,_'~T.+'t SQ•, to minimize the amount of irrigation nc;c~~sary. - ,, ~ .. , . . _ . _ . , - .. ,... • Stated that with these conditions, this is an excellent set of proposals. • Advised that he had no other reservations regarding all three applications. Commissioner Kurasch sought to amplify one condition to state "retention of and use of native planting on the stricter slopes behind the properties in. the area contiguous to the existing natural landscape. " Added that she has no reservations and that the homes fit in well. Commissioner Jackman suggested handling all three applications as one. Chair Page advised that each application would have to be approved individually. Commissioner Patrick concurredJwith previous comments. Commissioner Barry also concurred with previous comments. She wanted to repeat for the record the langua¢e~:l~ii`ector •Walgren stated with respect to tl-ie sirlp :;f landscaping acros's' ti:e `sfi•eet from -tli~, ~~ homes to .read, "If permission is granted by the school district, the applicant should screen and maintai~t the landscaping strip in front of the high school fence." Added that the designs for these homes are very nice, as are the other homes in the immediate area. Chair Page agreed that the designs of these homes are as'befits the neighborhood and that this project fits in very well. Asked Director Walgren to provide an overview of the amended conditions of approval. Director Walgren recapped the amendments to the resolution's conditions as follows: • That landscape plans be developed for the front yards of the properties, incorporating native replacement plants for those being removed as well as a plan to retain and re-vegetate the back slope of Lot 54 with native plant materials, not just •trees but native plant materials. • The applicant shall make an effort, and show that they have made an effort, to receive permission from the school districtt toS-plant and maintain the right-of--way opposite the new homes along Alta V~ist1.T131J,1\C:y:i"J tiiv'ial~iiT,l~:J Al:~ ....0 ..~." ~aiy:~lti. • Emphasize, particularly with Lot 54; that there shall be an et3ort to control storm water drainage. ~ ~~ Chair Page reminded the Commission about Commissioner Jackman's suggestion for the use of pervious pavers on the driveways and walkways. ~®~~~6 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 6 Director Walgren advised as long as the wording of the condition is sufficiently general, that is fine. Added that the exclusive use of pervious pavers might be difficult, particularly on Lot 54, due to the slope of that lot. Commissioner Barry sought to clarify the condition regarding the retention of water on site. Pointed out that there already is on the plans a collector to prevent erosion as the water goes down hill. What is being talked about is some kind of dissipater. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission voted to approve DR-00-042 with. the, conditions outlined by Director Walgren. (6-0-1; Commissioners Bernald was absent) IvlotiJn: '~ij)iiY2 Iliirii~;t: vi i~~G:~i:i~3~~~iiii:i' i~i:~~:, ~::,ililu;u i~~ +a :; i.i1`xy5~t/~leY' .I~ii~CkYii~-7, tkOE' Commission voted to approve DR-00-043 with the conditions outlined by Director Walgren. (6-0-1; Commissioners Bernald was absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission voted to approve DR-00-053 with the conditions outlined by Director Walgren. (6-0-1; Commissioners Bernald was absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. . .. .. *** ,. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 7 DR-00-010 & V-99-005 (517-14-078) - TAORMINA, Quickert Road: Request for Design. Review '~!1C~ ~~~'iat'~Ctupp;;~"•r31:.~.,CLI:SiI'Ut;i a Ilf;w i~;1,a~/ X1.1 -, r z ~ _.'`^':j CW:"?~? ~iit;`~ ti'` r". , required to allow a retaining wall to exceeu •ivc feet in neighi and to aIow the siu;ture to be built on a slope of greater than 30 percent. The property is 3.1 acres (net) and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren provided the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is an application that the Planning Commission has had presented to them several times previously. • The proposal is to build a new home on a three-acre plus vacant parcel located off Quickert. This is a very constrained parcel. • Said that there is an existing driveway cut into the side of the hill and a small building pad that pre- exists. The remainder of the site is very steep terrain and heavily wooded and heavily vegetated. • Reminded the Commission that it first considered a proposal on this site in April 2000 to build a very similar sized home of 6,296 square feet. The Commission was fairly unanimous at that meeting that the ]building did not integrate well into the site. The focus was on the architectural ~, .'~~~ '~ .~. :.., ~ityl~' of ill l'.r.~i.l',lll)~~t~~-c{??.(~ )i~ mn. 1•~ :~r; !~ ~ .~'1..~«rtv~: ,'l~,'?!~1.. i. ~.~ .,l i!!1 ..nT+..or+ Pv.1~t r~Q%1 'ahoy}*'±11P sil;i;„u. i`iie buildin i'he a licant was iven the o orturiit to reciesi ~ the home. "lie basicai g• pp g PP Y ~ Y Y took that design and incorporated a more woodsy architectural style, using stone and wood siding in lieu of the previous stucco finish. The Planning Commission realized at that meeting that it was not just the architectural style it was having difficulties with but the placing of the building on the site and its massing and prominence on this hillside parcel. The application was then continued to ~®0~~'7 .. ~ ... •I . THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK .. , _.r 000008 • ITEMS 4, 5, 6 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMIS SION Applicant No./Location: DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &z DR-99-053;14018,14010 ~ 14000 Alta Vista Avenue Applicant/Owner: BLI4CKWELL PROPERTIES Stahl i~a1'Tn'C!: - . _ ~-' _ F- ..._ ~ •; c ._ ~..~.~_..,.~•.~ ~. ~•~::~~E.:ic, l~i:.l3, i ~SSIBLa?"it i'iarlYte1' ~~ ~ Date: October 25, 2000 APN: 397-28-028 &t 397-28-047 Department Head:j~n,, ~._ ~: C.... L .-r- ~~--,. North ~~{ - ,~. . _ ` ~~ - fir..,-~•~ ..~. `~ ,/~ y~ ~~~~ t\ ~~-~O ~ •~ ~ ... "' w...~L~C3~? v ,i ©©0~~9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: 9/03/99 9/OU00 9/27/00 9/28/00 9/2U00 PRn1EC~; DESCRIpTIOr? Request for Design Review approvals to construct three new two-story residences on three vacant lots. Although adjacent to the Alta Vista subdivision, these lots are existing lots of record and are not a part of that subdivision. The lots are 9,580, 8,721 and 11,200 square feet, respectfully. Total floor area proposed is 2,256, 2,189 and 2,242 square feet. The projects were initially noticed for the October 11 Planning Commission meeting, but continued to this date at the applicant's request. Although the three projects are included in the same staff report for convenience, they are three separate applications, and must be acted on separately. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review applications with conditions by adopting Resolutions DR-99- 042, DR-99-043 6~ DR-99-053. A'1°1 ACHIv11=N1`S ~ ~ •- 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &z DR-99-053 3. Arborist Reports on all three properties. 4. Plans for each lot, Exhibit "A's" ~1 • • ®~0©~0 File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 Est DR-99-053;14018,14010 &t 14000 Alta Vista Ave. • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-12, 500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Medium density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Lot 52: 9,580 square feet Lot 53: 8,721 square feet ,,,r ~ ,.. -,ten . AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Lot 52:29 Lot 53:29 Lot 54: 33 GRADING REQUIRED: Lot 52 Lot 53 Lot 54 Cut 50 CY-1 ft. depth 45 CY-1 ft. depth 50 CY-1 ft. depth Fill 46 CY-1 ft. depth 130 CY-1.5 ft. depth 250 CY-7 ft. depth MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Lot 52: Light brown wood horizontal siding with cream trim and burgundy accents and a . dark brown f' t shingle r~;~of. , ` Latr7~: ll~tl'k ~,~ITU'V~'Ii 11liI~Gl?ii~~ i'~CCr~"~3CL'';o; ~Jelf`7TP ~•~i'.:.'~, .,it?ii~iiliti'~~~l.th~ 'l~ri~Y'J~'1'f.~t* ' shingle roof. Lot 54: Light brown stucco, dark brown vertical wood accents, gray stone veneer and a gray-brown flat shingle roof. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Lot 52 • Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: First Floor Second Floor (Basement) T^T ~ r 1L~ ~ ilL Front 1st/2nd Rear lsc/2nd Proposal 2,655 sq. ft. 1,498 sq. ft. 758 sq. ft. (594 sq. ~t. ) L.ja'..~:.: J~.l. _... 25/44 ft. 96/103 ft. Code Requirement/ Allowance 5,269 sq. ft. .t'.y ~-~./ JL..I. ~1. . 25/29 ft. 25/29 ft. P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staff ReportsWlta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc ®©U~~. File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &r DR-99-053;14018,14010 ~St 14000 Alta Vista Ave. _ Left Side ls`/2nd 6/13 ft. 6/10 ft. Right Side ls`/2nd 6/25 ft. 6/10 ft. Height: Residence 22 ft. 26 ft Lot 53 Proposal Code Requirement/ Allowance Lot Coverage: 2,689 sq. ft. 4,796 sq. ft: ` Floor Area: First Floor _ 1329 sq. ft. . ~ ~~ ,:SPCOnci door. ~ ~ ~:~. {• . _ ~oti~ su. C. .. - - (Basement) ~ ..,(775 sq. ft.) .,. TOTAL 2,189 sq. ft. 2,256 sq. ft. _ Setbacks: Front ls`/2nd 47/38 ft. 25/29 ft. Rear ls`/2nd 9U91 ft. 25/29 ft. Left Side 1st/2nd 6/10 ft. 6/10 ft. Right Side ls`/2nd 6/14 ft. 6/10 ft. Height: Residence 22 ft. 26 ft - . ~ Lot 54 Proposal Code Requirement/ .. Allowance Lot Coverage: 3,187 sq. ft. 6,160 sq. ft. ~~~l~;;r: r,.:ea: Fast Floor - ..1~7`; sq: ic: .-.- ~- , ' ~ ~ Second Floor. ~ 6ti7 q. fr. (Basement) (637sq. ft.) TOTAL 2,242 sq. ft. 2,256 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front ls`/2nd 25/29 ft. 25/29 ft. Rear lst/2nd 70/82 ft. 25/29 ft. . Left Side ls`/2°a 10/14 ft. 6/10 ft. Right Side ls`/2nd 31/40 ft. 6/10 ft. Height: Residence 22 ft. 26 ft PROJECT DIS CUSSION Background - _ T11C dEj~~;i~ di"ii., ~^ I.eciUCtii_i.iik~, JJi=~1>'.il ~C:.v1~ ,~;~~ vV. a~J1.3~~, '~1i5 Lli ~.,...L.ii.i::t ~iii'CE. it~31~' -L~~~r~l`Ui'~l. ' _ residence's on three adjacent vacant lots. The City Arborist, the Saratoga Fire Department, and the Public Works Department have reviewed the application. Their recommendations are included in the plans before you or as conditions of approval. P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staff Reports\Alta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc ®®U01.2 File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &c DR-99-053;14018,14010 ~ 14000 Alta Vista Ave. The three lots are considered substandard in size. In addition, they all have significant slopes (between 29-33%). These existing conditions would make it difficult to design a residence for only one lot, even more difficult for three adjacent lots. The applicant has worked closely with staff on all three projects and has revised both the grading plans and the designs of all three homes, in order to reduce the impact to Ordinance-protected trees and to eliminate Variance requests. Design Review All three residences are designed in a "Craftsman" style. The rooflines are well articulated dliil tit`:: ~Jlace:~~.~.__ ,,: :.~:'~ -----'•---'-~~ _., _.:i'.=~wr __ <.t„ .___+~i~ !v~;i.`.~.~ 1:r~Jpv ~:d aujacer~t residences, as well as the natural environment. r~iCwu~il the applications -need to be considered separately, staff had initial concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed homes to each other and recommended that the applicant submit all three designs at the same time. However the proposed designs and setbacks have been carefully articulated to address these concerns and staff feels that all three applications can be supported as now presented. Trees The applicant has worked closely with staff and the City Arborist to minimise the impact . of th.e proposed residences on Ordinance-protected trees. One Ordinance-protected tree is proposed to be removed on lot #52, a fine Valley Oak. This tree is almost in the center of the lot, and given the other restrictions of the lot and the existence and protection of remaining Ordinance-protected trees on the site, staff and the Arborist feel the tree removal is reaso_n~able.l1 Native replacement-value trees are included in the conditions of .approval. This ' ~ acid all ~~~1"ll.r i1LVVll.~t'U i~... :'a:i:....'~ -.ZJ ~1or~ extenueu L1Ct 1JiULtCtil~ii. fi:Li~a?~v trec~ ' protection bonds, etc. have been includea as conditions of approval. No o~leT Ordinance- protected trees are proposed to be removed. Staff notes that while the original Arborist's reports for all lots are attached, the report dated May 10, 2000 addresses the latest revisions to the plans on all three lots. Landscape Plans None required. Correspondence None received for this application to date. Parking ~r~~;~al~atogar~ ty' (-'~'iCl^ rii~~i.i'e~ _,::,'_: ,.~.,..'ci..;i:.~C t `,-. li..u~ .1.,"/G .__T:~.,~G~CC~ ~~ar~_uib~.,, spaces within a garage. All three residences will have an attached two-car garage. P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staft'Reports\Alta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc o®~~1~ File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &t DR-99-053;14018,14010 &~ 14000 Alta Vista Ave. Grading The grading proposed is minimal and limited to that necessary for the building pad and driveway. Geotechnical Review No geologist review was required due to the stability of the site. Conclusion The proposed residences are designed to coiuuirii Lo ~:ie poucies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residences do not interfere with views or privacy, preserve the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minirn~e the perception of bulk so that they are compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the. Design itevZew appii~~ations by~adopting Resolutions DR=99-042, DR-99-043 Esc Dr-99-053. .. ~:, ,:_L P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staff Reports\Alta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc • •i 0©0®1.4 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-99-042 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Blackwell Properties; 14018 Alta Vista WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 2,256 square foot residence with a maximum height of 22 feet, and a 594 sc{uare foot basement on a 9,580 square foot parcel; and. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present e~~idence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and ~*.nr ~-~ tze neigl~uorhood; and (ii) community-view%sheds; will avoid unreasonable interferen:= ~~srh vie~.~%s and privacy, in that the desigri~ and placement ~ of the house is such that it will not impinge upon neighboring properties. T~'.'. na,Car?.l ]andsc:ane. ~,vi_i! be rrPse~~Qd, ir.,sc~r2r zs nrar_C.i..~•ai~~e l~v dr..sigr~:~r';~ structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimising tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimised and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that only one Ordinance-protected tree will be removed, and that measures will be taken to protect other Ordinance-protected trees during construction. ^ The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minim~e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment in that the structure's design is similar in scale, size and style to other homes within this area. • ®©0®~5 File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 Est DR-99-053;14018,14010 &z 14000 Alta Vista Ave. The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate ' neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the design of the residence is sensitive to the natural environment and the height of the house is compatible with surrounding residences in the neighborhood.. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erusiuri coiiClOi ai.aiiu~u~ls used by file City. ^ The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. • Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Blackwell Properties for Design Review approval be and the same is hPrn>.;y b:.:rtE;ed subject to the following.conditions: ~, ... __.... •... ~ , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The dPVe]_oprnert ~:?~~(~ h° ~~~.~ter1 a^d constn,ctPd ~s m~di_~iec! anC presen.re~l at the .Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. , b. Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. c. The plans shall indicate that there will be no more than one wood burning fireplace in the main residence and the wood burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. Al'_ rc-~~oTnme-;la,:::':~ cat t.`~c '_:;~~ 4: ~'-;nri~r~~ ~,~--_,~ :-~~:r~l -:~,.r<.,-~,-;,.,.. ~~~ _.i~~9 a_~.d .. _, May 10, 2000 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staff Reports\Alta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc ®©~®~~ . ,,~. File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &r DR-99-053;14018,14010 &t 14000 Alta Vista Ave. a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. ~t101' tU .~S[3:~::~'p ~f ~lnrrn;rr c^^~~ rl~c~n.t ;,1.,,;11 _.:.~_' ;` c..^•°_C_':'..~t~~1 In the ano';rt of $6,970, per the Arborist's recommendation. e. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the applicant shall install native replacement trees in the amount of $3, 052. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. f. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 4. ~ No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located. within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. b.' ' "No ordinance size tree shall be removed1(wi[h the exception of trees#5)-without ~~ first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. FIRE DISTRICT 7. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. 8. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. PUBLIC WORKS ~`t)U1t~U.Clg-at1U l:UllSuul;Lllili lCidLCI.~' ~C,LjJl't1l:J''.7~11[U1 dl.~Ill:lc: Zu i~iL'LY"17eCCi`C1p111eTIC and Construction-Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. P:U'lanning\Christina\PC Staff ReportsWlta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc ®~Q®~~ File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &t DR-99-053;14018,14010 &t 14000 Alta Vista Ave. CITY ATTORNEY 10. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 11. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. _ Section 2. Construction' must ~be commencea v~ntiur~ ~ 14 m~ritlis or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission; State of ~.3'i_fQI'I112, this,25th day of October 2000 by the following roll call vote: ~- r... M,.~...~ .. . AYES: V C1:r'S: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: . `.a,: • . Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: CPrTPta,N; ~~^..Pninr* ('n~rrlicei{ln . .r ,. ,. P:\Planning\Christina\PC Stafl'ReportsWlta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc • o000~,8 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-99-043 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Blackwell Properties; 14010 Alta Vista WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 2,189 square foot residence with a _maxirr~~n height of 22 feet, and a 775 square foot basement on a 8,721 square foot parcel; and , WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots ar~d wir_hin the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid ar~reasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the design' and placement of the house is such that it will not impinge upon neighboring properties. y 1 ~ ~ r ~ nil l'. rrn~ Apr{ 1ncnF;~`' ?c r^.r`~.',1Jlf .Z_~~J ~PCj~T1)17~T, l he llar~ars.:.~ar~usca ~ ~~ , ~: ° .,e~r`, p. ~ .~. - , -, structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that no _ Ordinance-protected tree will be removed, and that measures will .be taken to protect all Ordinance-protected trees during construction. The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bullz and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which 1TLnimi~e the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment in that the structure's design is similar in scale, size and style to other homes within this area. _ . _. __ ,x..:.._... _ • ®®O®~9 File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 ~ DR-99-053;14018,14010 &r 14000 Alta Vista Ave. The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent ,lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the design of the residence is sensitive to the natural environment and the height of the house is compatible with surrounding residences in the neighborhood.. ^ The proposed site development or .grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control stanciarcts uses ;~Y i.iic Ci t~. ^ The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Blackwell Properties for Design ~. Review anrrc-'e' ~,L aria tlx:: ;;aide is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT l.. ~ The ~deve~opr^ _n* .sh.aT(r° lncar~a and co~ris':n~.crPr_, a^ m.ocl~[ieci anti presented at zh.e Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. c. The plans shall .indicate that there will be no more than one wood burning fireplace in the main residence and the wood burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. ~?. :~].l reC0211m~?"~Cl j~~,. ~,} ~1... i n ~;,:~a.,i - •~;". gas-': r _Nu~?1lST ~ .11.11:~1,i an;-i n~~1::"~' 10, 2000 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to:. P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staff Reports\Alta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc 000020 File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &r DR-99-053;14018,14010 &r 14000 Alta Vista Ave. a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (S) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that rio construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. Price tc isi.<!rl~`~. of 1,~~::ut:, :: Y'ucar..t ~'- ti'' S~a'~:"'•` ~: ~c.:-.;~ity in the amount. o.t $4,256, per the Arborist's recommendation. e. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. f. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 4. ~ No fence or wall shall exceed six feetin height end ;.~o fence or ss~a.l located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in h.Pi.ght. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. ,: 6. No ordinance size lice S11aL1 1)~ ic:._;?~r~~i ('vJ3:.i1 1:L1~ L:iC~r~ILL C~~ "T'e£S ~1~ `%:riti1C'~i'_. first"obtaining a 1 ree l~emovai i'errrut. ~ ~ i" ~ ~ ^ ~ -~~ FIRE DISTRICT 7. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. 8. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. PUBLIC WORKS ~? . A" h~.~il~la.n~ ~ rcl ^onsm~ctaon rPlarPr~ aCrl3rtiPC ;?,ap ~clhPre to New ?~evelonmenr. ar1C1 ~;GI1StTUC.~li~T1-iiesl' iLlaild~cliieiil-''g1dLi.iC:cS dJ auUriLcu~'uy talc C..i~y~1CiT i.t,~:: purpose of preventing storm water pollution. P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staff Reports\Alta Vista 52,53 8c 54.doc 00002. File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 Est DR-99-053;14018,14010 Est 14000 Alta Vista Ave. CITY ATTORNEY 10. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 11. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction muss be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of .Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 25`h day of October 2000 by the following,roll~.call vote: AYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • • Secretary, Planning Commission P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staff' Reporls\Alta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc '~ 000022 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-99-053 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Blackwell Properties; 14000 Alta Vista WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 2,242 square foot residence with . a maximum height of 22 feet, and a 637 square foot basement on an 11,200 square foot ~ rcPl and ' ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on _,. ~._adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the design and placement of the house is such that it will not impinge upon neighboring properties. i'Ze ;].?t.t11T~;!. .l~.rr{cr~t~P , ~.~nll ~`° T!','°S~.rV!'.r> ln:c(1fA1' aS UT.acrirah~P. bj~ (~esi~Tl.iT1.~" _ ~. structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimised and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that no Ordinance-protected tree will be removed, and that measures will be taken to protect all Ordinance-protected trees during construction. The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minim~e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which rninimi~e the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment in that the structure's design is similar in scale, size and style to other homes within this area. • C~30(~23 File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &t DR-99-053;14018,14010 &t 14000 Alta Vista Ave. The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the design of the residence is sensitive to the natural environment and the height of the house is compatible with surrounding residences . in the neighborhood.. ~ . ^ The proposed site. development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion conrl~o st.airitali.S usca by i,I:e C.;:y~. ' ~ ~ ` ^ The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Blackwell Properties for Design Revzv~ af;,roval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: , _ .. _ ... . r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The'development shall~be located and constructed as modified and presented at the Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit "An, incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. c. The plans shall indicate that there will be no more than one wood burning fireplace in the main residence and the wood burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. 4. All recommendations of the City Arborist`s Report dated August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2000 shall'be met. This includes, but is not limited to: P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staff ReportsWlta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc 0®0024 . File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 &r DR-99-053;14018,14010 Fst 14000 Alta Vista Ave. a. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored with_ in the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. c. Prior to issuance of permits, applicant shall submit a security in the amount of $1,352; per the Arborist's recommendation. d. P?-i~r. r~ .Para' r'~~?r-~*lcy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to / VeI':fy '.'.i7'i?>~ ~ L': 'v';`:t: _ . _ prC;t~ C"''•'' ,'"•;e^clJrpe I Tr()Tl. a f2VOTaJIe cite inspection by the Arborist and, replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. e. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 3. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. _ ., 1_,. ~~.. '~ er C. a.. S. No ordinance size tree shall. bP rem.oved (~x~ith the exception of.tree~„~~).witliout first obtaining a I"ree Removal Permit. - FIRE DISTRICT ~~ ~ ~ 6. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Gass "Ar' prepared or built-up roofing. 7. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads " per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. PUBLIC WORKS 8. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction-Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. l I i~ 111 i~~~.:'VTL i~ ~ - . .. 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection . P:\Planning\ChristinaU'C Staff Reports\P.Ita Vista 52,53 & 54.doc ~(3U0~5 ' File No. DR-99-042, DR-99-043 tst DR-99-053;14018,14010 Est 14000 Alta Vista Ave. with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 10. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciry could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. SI;C.iJYY ,:.. i~li :~Y;r;:::;.%ilJiC. iLi:.Iuii~:iliLnt;i Ji -~ ..;:i. ;.~;;':°, ~C'dI:~r', ~1ry and- Ot11~. Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15.) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 25th day of October 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: .. _.. .. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: " Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ~ecreLary, riannmg ~-om.mission •i • ~i P:\Planning\Christina\PC Staff ReportsWlta Vista 52,53 & 54.doc c ©0®~V ~~.' _ .. :. ~ BARRIE D. ~ . E ~ ., - AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road ' Los Gatos, CA 95033 -~ • .-,. r~~~~ -:~} R~r'~'iVED MAY 2 6 2000 _ _ ruiivwuvti DEPT. _ COMMENTS ON TREE .PRESERVATION AT THE BLACKWELL PROPERTIES LOTS 52, 53, at~d 54, - - ~ 14000 ALTA VISTA, SARATOGA - ... ~. .. .Prepared at the request of: Christina Ratcliffe Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. .Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate - Horticultural Consultant May 10, 2000 ... ° Job #dy-9b-flu-,2-0~ ,....". • ®0~~ I /~; _,r~ i Comments On Tree Pre`ation At The Blackwell Properties '~`: f Lots 52; 53, and 54, 14000 Alta Vista, Saratoga a4 ~s~grtnte~tt I was asked by Christina Ratcliffe to visit the three Lots on Alta Vista .. Avenue, which are to be developed by Blackwell Properties. Summary . I met with Chris Blackwell on May 10, 2000, to review the plans for construction on Lots 52; 53, and 54 at 14000 Alta Vista in Saratoga. The current plans shows the houses on Lots 52 and 53 has been moved 5-feet toward the west in order to provide more clearance from trees at t'~.e tz~..i. ,,.. ~~,=~~.'`l P~ „rt}.Q,,,t~. Treo.#ti ,n,~._T..+ ~Q ~-t3!G~1 leans over into Lui J2 s~rloui(l, 1~, ~3Ij~ Jlili:~s.~, 1'tIl1~JE:'~. The plans for Lot 54 show the construction of the garage and its access using the upper end of the existing old roadway and the removal of nine of the ten small coast live oaks which exist on the corner near that top of the bank near that old roadway. Only one of those trees, which will be preserved (#4) is 10-inch diameter or larger. Recamf~endatrioRS 1. I recommend that fences be installed 3 feet from actual construction margins in all areas which are beneath the canopies of trees. This would affect several trees:on Lots S? an.c~. S3, bLTt en.l_v the few trees ~ or! the Pa cr s, „P ;,~ ~.`~t ~4: ~ : . 2. I suggest that all foundations which are beneath the canopies of preserved trees be of pier and grade beam design with the beam poured on top of natural grade. 3. No excavation for crawl space or other equivalent purposes may be done in areas inside foundations in areas beneath the canopies or inside the dripline of trees. 4. The precise location of the planned soil cut near tree #4 on Lot 54, ; ' which would be preserved must be staked out for the purposes of our observation. 5. All areas,,..jjbeneath the canopies of trees between the tree pro'jtection • ~ ~~:;":,~ ~ l:.a~. ~~!~ l a ~ (`n~'1 QtT^ • ~. "T ~ n!' +r .-. ~ !+e ~+!+~sAr!rn ,(~ +J. La ~-in ~ ~ • ... ... .i.... ~c.Y`~ _......... •~,. .. ~i Via.. . layer tree chips covered with full sheets of 1-inch plywood in order to prevent construction personnel foot traffic from compressing the soil between the tree protection fence and the building constru~~~- ~=~~ Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Horticultural Consultant May 10, 2000 ~~~Q.~~~ ~•~-• . Comments On Tree ~n..nration At The Blackwell Properti Lots 52, 53, and 54, 14000 Alta Vista, Saratoga i~ 6. All oak trees which are being retained must be,subsurface fertilized in ., . October 2000, to help compensate for. potentially destructive activity which occurred .during construction: - -_ _ - Trees which would be affected by construction and for which a bond should be requested on Lot 52 include #1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Their value is $34,849. ~ ~- Tree #5 will be removed. It is valued at $3,052 .which is equivalent to two 3~,.~~;~.:1? ;~.*~.d, one ~4-~~h .hnxP~l. n~atwe~s. _ . .. ~;._ .. . . J Trees that would be affected on Lot 53 are # 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Their value is $21,281. I suggest the removal of tree #4, which leans at a 45% angle into Lot 52. It is valued at $1,504, or equivalent to one 36-inch box, and one 15- gallon native trees. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercvs agrifoiia j • •~~ ~ - r s,'n Valley oak - Quer+cus lobata ' Tan oak - Lithocarpus densiflorus ~- Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum , -- ,-, ~ , . _ .~C':ai.isi~ra_~d )uc~:r~~ ti~~~:..%U~; ~,r..o~:~,;•mca ,.::~ ,_.~ ... ' ~ Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Trees that would be affected on Lot 54 are #1, 4. Their value is $4,507. I suggest a bond for Lot 52 of $6,970, a bond for Lot 53 of $4,256 and a bond for Lot 54 of $1,352. Respectfully submj~t ~~'°v'~` B :Coate BDC/sl • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Horticultural-Consultant May 10, 2000 r ®00®29 BARRIE D. COAT. • `- ~ ----- ~-~--- ,~ _ _ t4.. -~ ~.__. RECE~~~~ • AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants DEC 2 3 1999 .,~ (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road . pI,ANNING DEPAF:~fMENT Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~' AN ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN TREES AND CONSTRUCTION AT LOT 52 LANDS OF MII~lOR 14000 ALTA VISTA AVENUE . '' -i,~r~ ~t the 1~~,xiPCt of City of.Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue .Saratoga, ,CA 95070 Site Visit by: - Barrie D. Coate September 29, 1999 Received 9/15/99 Due 10/13/99 Job #09-98-216-99 000030 •i •i • • AN ANALYSIS OF THF;:~TIIVTTAL CONFLICT BETWEEN TREESD CONSTRUCTION AT 1 LOT 52 LANDS OF NIINOR, 14000 ALTA VISTA AVENUE .~ . . _. Assignment - - - I was asked by Christina Ratcliffe to inspect the trees at 14000 Alta Vista Avenue, Lot 52 to determine whether the trees on the property can be preserved in a healthy condition during construction of the proposed building. ~ . Summary - There aze six trees_on the property, which might be directly affected by construction activity. .. Fl~~e ~f t~lr'c: a~<a c3^`:! 1"ire ~_ 1'~ !~l I' /.'~\ i.r.J .. n ~~~ n •r7~~o~~ n ~ ~ / lobata) in mazginal condition. The value of these six trees is $37,901. The tree that would be impacted most severely is tree #5 the lazge valley oak. Considering the limited space available for construction, the presence of other major trees on this and adjacent properties and the difficulty of siting the building without causing major damage to tree #5, I recommend that the developer be allowed to remove tree #5 if he wishes. r ...., The value of tree #5 is $3,052 and is equivalent to two s6-inch and one 24-i.nch box replacement trees. For trees # 1- 4; and 6 recommended fencing locations aze shown on the enclosed map. -- If' free +r~i3 tG ~~ i`cta;neu; Li:alCili~ l;;i:ival ....~ ;ij.;,:n: 'r' ~idi5ti i.iL"~Ii7T1 il:^.~!'r'Ity VY'ill' ~v _. absolutely necessary to prevent activity beneath the canopy of that tree. Exceptional S ecimens Fine Specimens Fair Specimens Mazginal Specimens 1,2,4 3 6 5 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures aze needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. ~' Mitigation procedures recommended here aze intended to limit damage within accepted " horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. ~'~ee• spt-c~~nens are worth retaining but again without maior design revisions. Mitigation 1`.iL['u~~ ~'/i~i:'~"i`.~t l~:icl~~l '#~``~~ilYiii. ~ - . Prepared by: Barrie D: Coate ~ " September 29, 1999 0©0038 _.. _ . r ~Y ~,- AN ANALYSIS OF THE PO~Lr.TIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN TREES ANT1~ JNSTRUCTION AT 2 LOT 52 LANDS OF MINOR, 14000 ALTA VISTA AVENUE Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigation's recommended here are urtended to prevent significant decline. Recommendations - 1. If tree #5 is to be removed I suggest it be removed from the site before the work begins. 2. Install fences precisely as shown on the plans to exclude all activity from azeas hP.,Path ~ee:canopiPs WhPrP they are not,absolutely nPr_,PCCArv. . ~ .. This implies that access to the site must be from lot 53 access or at the corner between lot 52 and lot 53 on the northwest side. Value of trees #1-4 and 6 aze $34,849. Value of tree #5 is $3,052. This is equivalent to 3 native tree replacements (two 36-inch boxes, one 24-inches box). Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak = Quercus lobata _. Tan oak - Lithoca~pus derrsiflorus _.• ' i ;i~, l~iiai•ili.lli'v" --~•''~~" litt6:~! ~:~d,~y:~a?<:y: • .. - . _ -h.311Y'VIiiih iiui~I~c:yt: -~C3~5CT:2l.i ":: jLl7:::;u ~ .. :~ ,. Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully submitted, ,~~ ~~ arrie D. oate BDC/sl ,~ .. .. i1`,,' • • Prepared by: Barrie D.-Coate ~ " September 29, 1999 000032 - I _ ._. _ .. I .~ ~ ! I - -.-- 1 ~ - - i~ ~' ~` ~. -:z ! ~ _ ~ r ~ i . i, - \ ~? F~a < < n ~ ~ ~ r I Z ~ ' - vol~~> '' - ~ I ,~ W ~ a i ~~ °~~ o j s ~ V U • • f_ ~ ~ ;~ ~o.~ ~ ~ :Ls '~ -. - ~.. Joo~ f puZ ~ ~i ~~cq~a~. auo~f -ulw `o .~ N ~ ~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ / r °~ ~\ •O~ '~d N ~--~; _~ ~~ ~ f N I c{ i 00003 .. BARRIE D. C~~TE - ~ - . - ~=~~~' and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~r;, Horticul#ural Consultants ~ ~ ~ v D 408-353-1052 V~ Fax 408-353-1238 ~ - AU ~ 1 rJ 2000 . , 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 _ . _ - - . `CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AN EXAMINATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT BE7'VVEEN TREES AND PLANNID CONSTRUCTION ON LOT 53 ~ '. . 14000 ALTA VISTA SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: '~ Christina Ratcliffe _ Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 - Site Visit by: Bame D. Coate ° ~ Consulting Arborist August 3, 2000 . .. ,. . . .. • e .. a ., .. ~ ,~ni,. ~y-`.~~-~G:~r-1111.: ~ J^.._. '':i'~.t:.:, - - . ,~.~ - Plan Received: 8-3-00 Plan Due: 9-4-00 •I 000034 M Eaaoae~aw OjAoAf ~~ _~t BetMewe Tlners Awi P~ Ca~~~ ~_ a Ow Lt S3 ' 1~a09AEta [3~ ~ ~~ -_ _ I was asked by Christina Ratcliffe, Planner, City of Saratoga m reexamine planned construction as relates to tree preservation on lot S3,14000 Alta Vista Avenue for Blackwell Properties _ -.- _ Our office has prepared reports regarding the trees on this site since the property was purchased by Blackwell Properties, the latest report being~dated September 29, 1999. The site is level in its upper elevation where the house will go and then steeply sloping down the hill to the east. Fir ~9$ ,"~'~:.: S"~gawnn. tti'P o~*e-A *•+o~ nlxmir.~~ viii ~x~ reiStiti~4 ~(fi' iia~ il'i~'i'ai~ lili3 i~~Yi as used originally ~in the latest repork ~ ' Discrtsston Since this is such a relatively small site for a house and since the tree canopy is spread over more than 50% of the square footage of the buildable portion of the lot, it would not be possible to build anything on the property without impacting some portion of the trees root systems. " In my opinion, the current plan which is slightly changed from previous house location plans will reduce the root damage to several of the trees while impacting tree #5 slightly more than previously wind have occurred in-the previous plan. Recommendations If the building portions closest to trees #3, 5 and 6 are constructed entirely of pier on g~:.r1e "5?a~m or fr-otin,~ no ~ thn*? 12" with~no crawl gpa~ excavation in areas ~i'i~:ai~2 '~`li. gip} e;f ...c= ~ i:, i ~ W17~:~ '~:~°~:i<;"t-t~ ~.i~:~~~"- t:~ ~ . ~ s.~.. ...~y.b~:,~ A.,~ tT'~^,~.p..~^~.t ~ _ to the trees in general than the previous design It should be remembered that one of the saving graces at this site is that the soil is extremely well~lrained and composed to great degree of river rock and gravel, and as a result absorbing root tips and their supplying larger roots will be more evenly distributed through a greater depth of soil than is seen in many other parts of Saratoga, and as a result shallow excavations, will do very little damage. I suggest that bonds and other requirements specified in previous reports remain in place for this lot ; ' Recognize that the trees have grown slightly in diameter and size since the original report, and for that reason arc slightly more highly valued than the original calculations would indicate. Respectfully sutiniitted, ~ ~ ~ Pr+eponed by: BmrieA-Coati Cow,wltf~gArbonst - -, Axgrrst 3, 2090 f~6l~l~,'~c 2 •I 7 i Phepmrd by: Bann D.-~~ Co~tsrt~Aing Arbortst .. ~ J. ~~ "~ L ,- August 3, 2000 ®60036 ~~, ~~.: r _ ~i ~~ o - ~ ~ ~,~-='~ -~ ` `1;~ ./ v v~ ~ W ~ 6~ ° ~ 1 . X ~~~~ ~, o r' '~Q ~ ~~ /~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ W \ a ~ . ~~' `~ 6 0 ~ . , `~ ~ ~~~ . \ ~~'° ~ ~ ~° ,w ,~ ,~ ~~~~o. ~~ ~ .~. ~ \ ` ~ ,,. :.. ~ -- _. .. ~, _ 0 z ~ C ~~~7~~ to ~ ["^ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ O N T i ~ ~ N ~ 0 y E , ~ > O ..~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~'~ m ~ ~ ~ R , ;. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~. .~ h ~ ~ °~ ~' a Q ~, 8 ~ ~ ~ . °° ~ > $ ' , 5 o ~ ;' oooo~~ . BARRIE D. C TE _ _ t'` and ASSOCIATES ~~ Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 , Fax 408-353-1238 _ 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 P AT THE BLACKWELL PROPERTIES ALTA VISTA AVENUE LOT 54 - SARATOGA .?.~ ~-; ~.~ ~~ ~.~ `she ~.€-: _-, ;,~ ,-. f . - Judi Crowley City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. • Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: 1Vlichael L. Bench Oct b 19 1999 ,, RECEIVE NOV 1 51999 ~;:_-- CANNING DEPT Job # 10-99-257 -_: ~^, AT THE BLACKaPrttTIES ALTA VISTA AVENUE LOST ARtiTOGA 1 ;~.~ Assignneent - -- -. ~ At the request of Judi Crowley, Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to construct a construct a new:. home on a vacant lot in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted within acceptable horticultural practices to prevent significant decline. The plans reviewed for this report are the Site and Floor plans prepared by Britt and Rowe, Architects, Los Gatos, sheets AO-A6, dated 9-IS-99, and the Grading and ' . Dray-~~e.l.1,An. prepared hv..T_MH Weiss. Inc., sheet 1 undated. ' Summary There are twenty-six trees at risk by planned construction. Two trees are in conflict with construction and would be removed. Replacements are suggested. A significant revision of the basement plan must be done if tree #2, an exceptional large coast live oak is to be retained. A significant rPVision of the grading plan must be done if trees #6-Z4 are to be retained. • A revision of the storm drain must be done if trees #9-17 are to survive this ' construction. The tre~s~ew~C:'~~•~ X.~I1:13P, Ff,';~^JP.E'./.~ h~~:,P z ~~r~1~va1~zP ~f:~IM~,F55 .~.2n~~~,b~a~d 1~ ., ~_ suggested because (>f the numbet~ a11G 5i~:. ill u~:~:y Y3L l"a uii. ~ - i ~' .. ,. Observations There are twenty-one trees on this lot and at least five trees on adjacent lots that are at risks of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number, which will be the primary reference for this report. Only trees #1-4 were noted on the plans provided. Trees #5-26 have been added Their locations are approximate. Tree #2 is shown to be located on the map provided __ . approximately 20 feet from contour 450, which apparently signified the top edge of a i' steep embankment. It is my observation that the base of trees #2 and #26 actually are located within approximately 3-feet from contour 450. However, if the trunks are plotted ' at this observed location, the relationship of the canopies in relation to the canopy of tree #2S ~~pPars inaccurate. I must conclude from this that there may be a number of _ ~ _ ,c,-.t '! t~fnop o c r o.. .,~~~..r +Iti.a one.. •0 1 ti lil,.:.~.~.::'uiL Tl`..~1'f14'713S1Y3j.6~ S'+..°•~StW3~,C...~..S '1,~.I`._. .~: ..~a,...,~;,,.. .. ....~.sr,~.:.,.• £?C2 <C1S~ ,, of any of the trees on this site must be considered approximate at best. Prepared by: Michael i.. Bench ~' October 19, 1999 0®0039 AT THE BLACKWII.L PROF; =`~S ALTA VISTA AVENUE LOT 54, SAF~~~ :_ OGA All trees that will be affected by proposed construction are included. Typically, the root systems of trees extend outside their canopies by as much as 50% of their total canopy diameters. If the canopy reaches into the construction area, the root system in all likelihood does as well, and has been included. The twenty-six trees are classified as coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) a species which is indigenous to this area. In addition to these, there are eleven small coast live oaks that are located in the footprint of the proposed residence and will be removed by construction. = • TI:P i+P~~h u-d ^tr3.~c*•~*P R`', ::-'-• ;~:~^imPT.1. is rated an a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on data sheets .hat c; •:u~:~ ,; t,~:~~. icc.::c~ t> the• cz:~.~~:~'icn.s cf ~hecA .atin~s are difficult to interpret, the overall condition of each of these specimens is rated as follows to aid with planning. Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens 1, 2 5, 26 3 4 6 10 15 7 9 23 8 12 13, 17, 11, 14, 16, 24 18, 19, 20, 22,' 21 25 Eaceptional~specimens mu~,Y be retained at any cost any.: whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation Iiroee:ure~ 1~ect~i,Lneria~:! :l:rc a:e"i~te:~.~'~' #:r, "-^it C~.~t~gu~=~vitHin accepted --' - horticultural `standariis in order to prevent decline. ~ " ~ ' " " ~ ~ " ""' Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended.- For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. The root collar of tree #25 is covered by fill soil, which likely occurred when the - exi..stirg e~riye~t~ay w~!s aracled se; .-Ta.1 years ago. This~condition exposes this tree to - ' '~ • .... • several fungus cliseasos of iiy icti~~"w.a:`. i,~ ~~tr~i~.;,:?:.,:':'~:; ~iru"C~ c^~'3~SP~f~';~f63'.~ ~'17icy . already present and will become active once the tree becomes stressed. The risk of infection can be greatly reduced if not eliminated by carefully removing the fill soil around the base of the tree. This must be done without injuring the bark of buttress roots. Prepared by: Michael L- .Bench - - ~ October 19, 1999 2 ~~~~~0 • • • .... AT THE BLACKWELLy`~ttTIES ALTA VISTA AVENUE LOT~;..dARATOGA 3 . Significant grading has already occurred on the north side of tree #1 and on the northwest side of tree #2. The surface of the soil has been scraped in some locations and .. fill soil has been piled up at other locations in this area. Both the trees #1 and 2 must be considered in stress from the absorbing root loss, the roots which exist just under the. surface of the soil. It will be essential to provide supplemental imgation during the dry months of the year to-compensate for the absorbing root loss until these trees are able to recover, which typically takes at least one year. Trees #3 and 4 are in conflict with driveway construction and would be removed by ,; .- this ~P~ign ~ .~ ..~_ ... _ ... . The excavation for the basement as proposed will remove approximately 40 to 50% of the root system of tree #2. In this event, tree #2 would not survive. It appears that the soil excavated for the basement is planned to be used to build up the slope for the driveway. Trees #7-24 will be significantly damaged by this grading and it is unlikely that these trees would survive for long after construction. Trees #6 and 25 may survive, but they would be expected to decline, especially tree #6 because of its existing reduced condition of health. The grading to reshape contour 460 would result in at least moderate root loss to tree # 1 and severe root damage to both trees #2 and• 26. A storm drain is proposed perpendicular to the slope on which several of the coast live oak trees are located. The fact that the majority of these trees are only in fair. condition as ' ~• t pr~h ~ a ~r ~* ~ ,9~-r..,~~:::1 v^lt.l~kel.~~ .esrtl* ie~~hP •+, a result,,oY,iriten5e ~i~;nfEiiaon, a F . ~,..~ty~,3~'t~,,a.t:'si: !` r~ J >r. J iT r decline and death of the trees #~, l v; 1 , :2, 13, 1 ~~, i ~, 1 anu ~i 7 {assuming than+the ° .~ ~ , grading plan were revised to prevent grading damage.) Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. These suggestions are based on the construction plans provided. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. In order to retain tree #2; _ a. The basement must be redesigned such that the nearest excavation cut be a %~ minimum of 15 feet from the trunk. This must include all features such as light wells, or trenching for other amenities (lighting, irrigation, etc.) b. Any portion of the first story foundation footing within 15 feet of the trunk must , ,. ~ _ ,>?e constructed of a pier and on-grade beram desi¢n. . ~, .. , V. ullY~9~il.E:.~il~ill4rC~i itTi~as3::i1 rii! S'. a.''r.' .tT"S ~575/~}~... ..4 sa>:. Sa. L..V•.~~.'w.. .. ~~. 3- .i 2'. ...'~:. C d. Provide a platform buffer as descried in item #9. , Prepared by: Michael L. Bench October 19, 1999 ~~00~~ ~._ ~-~-. ~,-p~ -<~;~ AT THE BLACKWEI.I. PROI-~i'!ES ALTA VISTA AVENUE LOT 54, SA'.OGA 4 2. In order to retain trees #6-Z4, and 26 the grading plan must be revised so that a maximum of 20% of the root zone of any of these specimens would be affected. The total root zone is the area of a tree which equals a radius of 15 times the trunk diameter. 3. The storm drain at the location proposed must be installed on the surface of the soil if trees #9-17 are expected to survive this procedure. ~~, LJ 4. Provide temporary construction fencing located in such a manner that it protect the entire root zone (a minimum of 5 feet outside the perimeter of tree canopies) a~n1Ps~ noted otherwise. FPncine must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 f et, i::~E:1ta o~ Srt'~1 r.~.,r•c' a*%~~PTI. l.R-ini~}tPC::r1t!~ ~i,~ ~U~1.P.,!~, Fencing rrlldSt,be ln' . place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. Fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. 5. There must be no grading, trenching or surface scraping inside the canopy perimeter of retained trees, unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the canopy perimeters of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project~rborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by the city arborist. 7. .~,.tlgl..~~^.^lE.~f:?e~3'_2rC!.~G'S;:rii ::lu:i~'.iG F.:.u.t:.:- ~~•.... Tr ~ n ' r"•~•d:to ~~~~ ~~~ ~' ees #1, 2 and,-S~.:durinQ.the.dry rnontis'(aiiy molitt rec~~isig iGJ:i ~~..:YC : Ir:Lri'~:f=~.+='•rw:j: TTT:~at° 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter, monthly, throughout the construction period. 8. Spread a fu113-inch layer of coarse wood chips over the entire root zone exposed to construction activity to trees #1, 2 and 5. Spreading must be done by hand. 9. A working space must be provided where construction will occur beneath the canopy of tree #2. This requires a platform buffer, which consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to construction. 1.0. Excavated soil may not be Wiled or dumped (even temporarily). under the canopies_of. . - ~~~:;:s..'_`.Jv:ie~~~?l :,;...?S~ l:h.'}'f ;}2*` ;~1E'.'~ t~^,,: S~S~E! rin~tim cN~6lt;,Jn,(,`,(,~\CP..r tfl~ ra~Y;.coliarsiof retained trees. If this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original grade and may require a retaining wall (dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap set without a footing) to prevent further soil encroachment. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench - • October 19, 1999 • ,~ • ®®0®~ti ~5 = ~ ,, • AT THE BLACKWELL~:OPrttTIES ALTA VISTA AVENUE LOT )ARwfOGA 5 t ,.. 11. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features. must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks: However, radial trenches may be made if the trenches reach no closer than S times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart. 12. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven tunes the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. .. __ . ~u.. , . - .. - 13.~If the a~:a-~L'~ r~r zt~ra ~s`~.i: ~,~ ~.~:~ ~is to':e p4a~^t~ t~:~t ~ho~~ld be:only ;.: Y. with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from ~ ,' the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 14. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so avoid striking the trunks of trees. It is strongly suggested that spray irrigation not be allowed to strike beneath the canopies of oak trees. 15. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 16.'Any pi~idng~must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to _ISA Western ~CY~~pter~tattdards. 17. If trees are in the path of discharge, drain dissipators or downspouts, those'devices .. ~ ~ Irfllyt.~::t!~51~G£St~~. ']'}af:, ~t~d`~'?u~..°~!' .!1,pctL'.>~Ct'Y~S:fN.u3 7li:i3:2:iii ~ }~. ~P€a~~..th~.;Si~E.:ftf the truiilc~of any tree. . - -~°~,; • - ,- ~ ~. . _ _.. _ _ :,.,~. 18. Any portion of the foundation within 15 feet of the trunk of tree #2 must be constructed by pier and on-grade beam design. There must be no grading inside this area, or standard footings. The beams, which span the piers, must be on or above grade. 19. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on-grade without excavation. 20. Excavate the root collar to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the ~~ root bark of existing tree #25. This must be done by an ISA certified arborist or by a landscape contractor experienced with the procedure. Value .~ssessrnen~ 'ii~it ~'ai~as;.~fil•~°-*~~~ ~~.~ ^dd.:,s3L.: ;;~:l:.a.._~b.i..r ~~:".. ~`a^.+^ ~~, `: T~dnrlr ~;~i:la~ai~. . „ , . .1988. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench -" October 19, 1999 00004 ~ o MLB/sl 1/~c-~sures: 'Tr~~-Datu 'l:a f 1Vrap ~ .. . w ~~ ~:~ , • a ~~,_ s~ ~- ~ _jj AT THE BLACKWELL PROI~TIES ALTA VISTA AVENUE LOT 54, SA1b~i~GA 6 The total value of trees #3 and 4 is equal to $3,227, which is equivalent to two 36-inch boxed and one 24-inch boxed native replacement specimens. = Acceptable native tree replacemems are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Tan oak - Lithocarpus densiflorus Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica .:. (.'~-a, ct R P~w*~~ -.;So%lt~ni[a SPmno..ruirPrt.s The total value of all of the other trees if retained, is $104,665. Because of the number, the size, .and the value of several of the trees on site, I suggest a 20•~o bond of $20,933 to assure tree protection. Respectfully sub tt , Michael L. Bench, Assoc~iate~ _ B 'e D. Coate, Principal Prepared by: Micliael L. Bench October 19, 1999 00004 w~ • _ .. . 1 ~ Of ~ h ~ o~ - ~ a ;~ IrL)uLaoR>Id~rnow~a - g 11 Q ~ h ~ Tdnowaa Ot~awwo~ O fn ~ ~ ~ aaaulaai SOaaN - » ~~ - ..: N ~ w ~ _ » ~ N '~ - » ~ ^ .p -- ~ (9'L1 aa11/M SGaaN ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ (s'L) aSVaSlO Zld'i1001AOa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (S`L) Oaaanoo a~n'7oo loos ~ $ ~ ~ ~ $ . . x x x x x x ~- • (5^L)llWJaO HNn?Jl I . I - ~ ... ,.-... ..,, , 1 ~.., a-~ ~"_I I Y... ,•' niiil -~..._.., I iiii --11 a e) - ~, v•L) ~S4'iSIL NN1Gz~ ~iY.l: » ~ ~ N • ~ w~. ~! ~ , cs'L) ~~aolad oNlNnad ~ g $ = ~ g ~; i OaOaaN Sri'f17W~ • ~ __Y._.1N013M'ONa a/10Y1(aL! ~ ~ ~ $ ~ X $ ~ g_-_ x x x x x x ~ ONISIV21 NM02lJ J --~- NOIl~dLIO1Sa21 NMOLO b A O Q ONINNIHl NMC>tq N A A A ~ _ ___ N N N M N N ' _ 'JNIN'dal0 NMO?l0 - ^ I _ ^ ...~.~ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ Q __ .' ~ ~ .- .-_(OL^Z) ONIlVM NOILONOO ^I ~ M ~ N ~ ~- ~ N 3 u - N a + - - ~ .._.. ~.(S-L) aan~r~als~ IIf1 ~ N I^l~ ~ N ~ c.l1 Xi ~.-fail fJ~ I~ _- ` ~ (5-L) N1lVaH ~ N ` O OVa?JdS e~ ~ ~ ~ r g r oN r A ~ ~ N A A ~ o -_...-.--.___._.. A N_ N 01 IFIOIaF'I N N o° ,,, N N N N N N O » _ ~~q O O tD _.--_- lead Z® >elalarvvla ' ^ N ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ C C C C i C C O `_ _- N ~ ~ H~ A HGC ~'- N ~ M ~ N N M .__--._-.-_ X X A X ~ X X )( WalSAS'111r1W x x ~ y ._~-._--_.... - ~ ~ - Np0 ~ R ~ ~ u 8 0 $ o. ° c ~ / L"' N ~ ~' A A +~ p i d Is !i .G .D ~ M~ ~ 1 O ~ H cn Q ~ ~~ H R$ i' ~ R ~R«^ J.L.J N .~'V- x~ ! .r 1 I ~ ~~ n a• r 4 i~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ i~ I ~ Q-u' a ~. . .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y W p P Q ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . g ~ CIA °~$ m ~ ~ ~ ~ u2i ~~„ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ n M» Y~ -~ N A '~ N b ~ ~ I(1 N O IN. ®V~®~[S ... ~. .~ '~ ~~~- i ~ ~ ~. a .~, ~ a ~ ~ le~tluraaad~rnoW3a ~. ~ ` E T/AOW3a ON3WW003a 'a ± g ~ ~ i ~ ,~'.~ vn ~ ~ s h ~ .~ > > q N W ~ O ~ a3Z1111213d SQ33N N $ x r. $ N $ » ~ M ~ M $ mr O O ~ 7 (S-Ll a311/M S033N r r ^ r r r (s•~) asv3slo aemoo loos o S ^ ~ A o . ls~) a3a3noo am~0o loos ~ ~ ~ $ ~ x o_ x x' x x x x d (s~)~ba3a ~Nnal ~ - „ - Mi b (S-l) DOOM OV30 ~ ~ AI ~°.~ r T, d ~ (S'1) 3Sb~SlO rl~noaa 3~a.1. .! i ~.......~ . 1 .~_ „ , J ~ I 1 i Q y • 0. _ ____ w _ ri a ~,.,. e.~, ~' ~. _, ._ (9-L) S1,03SN1 r r r r r r -__ (S-l)1JJaOlad ONINnad N $ $ g ~ $ ^ „ a 03G33N S319d0 1H013M~N3 3/10W3a x ~ $ $ ~_ _~___~_y x x x x x x ~+ c JNISNa NMOaO Qi 5 NOI1daO1S3a NMOaO ~ ~ ~_~ ~ ` .~__~___~_ N N a _N__~Y__ JNINNIHl NMOaO 1p N N Q^ 1p N N N N N N JNINb'310 NMOaO r r r r~ r ' ~ a •~ w I ~.._ Q (6-E) ONI11/a OaYLdH ~ $ ~ g ~ g eo ~ g ,n g ,n g ----- y r lOl-L)'JNIlb2i NOILONOO < ~ ~ e ~ x N ~ m ~ N w , o ~.. s ~j - ~ , f U lS-t) 3af11~na1S ''~' x!. ^' ` x~ A k. v) ~ ~ ~ '' • _ ~ . _ - _ _ . - - , . .. 1 O OM3adS ~ ~ ° r "' r R - ~' ~ '~ ~ ~ - ~~.__».~» ~ N ^ N ~ N ~ 1H'JI2H Q N a H N M r- N V M N N M N 1334 r® a313Nmo ~ ~ ~ ~ N o -----°------ -' -- ~ - r r r ° ° N ~ HtaO o c "- c A H60 N '~ N M N ' N N N N ._~____~_________._«. x x X X X x w31s~s-Ilinw x ~ - --_____ _ o o ~ ~ G1 N ~ W L ~n a 4 ~ ~~ /~ ~ ~ 8 .a .~. v Y Ygg Yr Y ~ ~~ Yf W ~.~ ~~ g O ~ v S w~ .~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~M~~. ~ +~ ~ p'. r ~ N Y ~ o ~ N W~(fN~A ,~.~.,.__.__o.. ' =: Ire) A1(aolad Trnor+r3a _ ~tnOwaa aNawwo~a ~ N ' A ' ~ yN~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aazrulaad SOaaN N ~ N ~ .. O ~N ~ N ~ ~ M M ~ N lSl) aa1dM SOaaN ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ (s-~) asvasla aerrloa Loos ~ g '~ A g ~ ~` ~ ~ (~~> aaaanoo avnwa Loos ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x x x x x x ~ (s-~),~vvaaa ~Nnal ~ x ls•l) DOOM QMaO ,~I, ~ I ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ I ! i ~ ~ ~b1 6. (~-~i as~a57a NMOF~ aaal » » » N L ~ N -» ' (s-~) sl~asnn ^ ^ (s•~) ~~aaad oNwnad _-_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ 0 GaGaaN Salmi --- - ~ 8 g 8 g 8 ~ g 8 L-+aann~Na anowaa x x x x x x x x ~ ~ c ^JNISMa NMOaO x ~ NOILdaOLSaa NM02i0 r ~. t$ ~ O O ~ f 'JNINNIHl NMOaO N ~ ° '^ - M » N tc C ONINYdYO~NMOaO ~._b ^ ^ ^ ^ N A . lei oNllva aavzvH n 8 ~ S_ 8 '~ S o 8 '" .. 8 (Ol•Z) ^JNllda NOILK7N07 •- 0 ~ r ~` ~° ~ '~ X ~ ~ g»1 x ) o r avaads .__~-.._.----•-_-• ~ ~ h ~ ~ o O ~ ~ g ~ g e to _ 1~ N n ~ l~a~ Z® aalawdl0 n ° '~ ~ -- ------- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ E ^ H9O .~ .G °° ~ 5 .~ o O ~ o o .E M ~~__~~_--.. fV ~ HaG A tt A ~ r M1 ~ A ~ w ~ M .°r ~ w -__W_~__ ___--_ X x x WalSAS~ILI~1W x x x x HBO ~ r ° ~' ° ^ o ~o ~ "+ r ~- ' ~' ~ fQ j ~ L7 M, l.J %: " 2 H i I w ~ 1 ~ ^ ^ I k ~ i ~ it t A f ~ t ( I r ' 1 i ' to m a , .x ~ ~~~~~ $ a ~ a s a ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ Q Y ' ~ tl ~ ~ . . .,. -.. -+~ t /~ h y a n 0 h L N m ~. ~• - ~~ $~ W ~Q IA M M V ~ N 11 11 ~ ~,~~~ ~ N O ~ V ®o®~~ --., . ~, R ~~ ~ -~=; l ~: ~. o~ ~ ~, ~~ r ~ P ~ " !rt) uraotaa ivrnorr~ I ~ Tf/101M3a ON3NfW003L ~ 8 ~ ~ +~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ . . _ y ~ ~ ~ a~mtlan~ scrJaN » ~ M ~ M ; _ $ $ $ m O p ~ w (S-L) »1dM SQ~'ii N ^ ^ ^ y^t ^ e (art) iS`diSIO ad11001O0a ~ ~ ~ b o (s-t) a~aanoo a~moo loos ~ $ ~ . $ $ $ $ x x x x x x d (s•t)~do~a~INnal ~ ' w gg _ (4lIffOC1MQd3~ _}I r~ ~~ ~ ^ >RI.. ~ ~~ . N a .. Y (s-t) asd;asta NMOao aaal » . ' »~ » ' ` »' » ~ N d (s-t) u~aotad oNlNnad ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ >t 07GD3N S~'19~d7 1H013M~N3 i/10W9>d x ~ x c C ~ flNlSid>d NMO~ J ~ NOIldaOlS7>d NM0210 r+ Q ~ JNINNINl NMO>:q ~ '~ p N ~ '~ ~. ._. . JNlNV310 NMOLIO ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ e' .. _ . Z~' .. Q (6-f~ 1DNIld2! 4?lV2VF1 ^ $ ~ $ p $ ^o $ a $ ~° $ ~ ~ (Ot-L) ONIld21 N0111GN00 ^ ~ ~ ~ p x ~ ~ ~ ~ y y $ a 4 ~ ~ ~ Q ---- ------ x~ ~ x xl ' xl ' xl _ x~ ~ - ~ (fit) N1MN N N v O Od~adS ~ ~ ~i ~ H ~ ~ r ~ '~ $ r ~ _ •• ~ p A N N O 17101~H ~i .~ s w ~ w r M ~ N ~ M N A c 13~ Z® 2l31s~YYYlO '~ ~ O1 ~ ~ E .- ~ ^ ^ N ^ ~ e ^ .. f .E .~ C c .5 HBO ~ .-.----...~--~...- C A C ~ N O N n C _ __-~~~____-_ x x x ~ x x x W31SAS•Illf1YY x x x x -. ~ ~ ~ N OI O N a ~ c ~ .f .S c O W ~~ a ~, ~' - R~ ~ ° h C.d { .1f3 R' ,i. ~ ~~ ..I I ~ I ! ~ i '~Y ~ _~~ ..~ I. I II I .I ! ._ - :a ~~ t a ~ ~ x ~ _ ~ Y W ~ _ ~ ~ Y '' ~' R Y N N N N f~//~~gg~ ~1 ~A N[/.. V[~~[r~~N(. OVOO~V ~ .. . ~ ~ . lcr.) Alaoiad ivnow~l woaaa ~ ~ ~ Trnow3a aNaw - aaaiu,aad SaaaN . w ~ w r- "i a __ lsl) aa1dM SQaaN ^ r . ~ >~ lSrl) aSdaS10 a1TOO1OO?J $ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ c5'l) aaaaAOO a~rnoa loos x x x csl)AVOaa ~+Nnal , . ~~ ' csl) asvasla NMO>~ anal .~. :. ' . csl) slaasNl • • csl) ~waaad owNnad ~ ~ OaOaaN Sa1QYO 1HOIaM~ONa aAOWa>d ONISI1Rl NMO?!'J X ' • NOIl'RIO1Saa NMO>~ $ ~JNINNINI NMOZI'J N JNINMaIa NMO?l'J ~ r r .~__ (OL `Z) ~JNI1V21 NOILONOO '~ ~ ^ ~ ,~ n l >. ~ - ~ :.. I (Sl) H11VaH ^~ OValddS ^~ ~ $ ~ ----- $ o u+olaH ~ g 133 ~ aalawvlo ~ N . . . . _~ o s ~ Hea ~ ~ ~ . .~~~~~~~~ ld~ O ~ ~ /- A A X X X W31SASi1lnW x o ~ o o FtBO R' ~ ~ .i ~ .E ~ ~^ ~ s ~ a a ~ ~~- m ~ ~ ~ ~ w NN p Y .N N N _. ... ~ h h H W . .. ., ..,.._ ... _, ... m . ^~ :r - - } _ ;: .. '*' ... a•; ,.;•~~> . 2 ~ 4. i % , .~ jR~~ .~ s: ~. r Ji ' w ~'R~ ~! R$~ ~~x~: ~~~~~ 00049 _ ~ , ~...............,-v--- _ Tree SW'vi?~ ° '.~ •+,•~h<•.;, ~ ~ r, .. Barre 0. Coate " Er Associates Recommendations At The Property Of ' r (408) 353.1052 •''R ` 23535 Summit Road Existing f ~ Les Gatos, CA 95033 Blackwell Properties, Alta Vista Ave. Lot 54 )ob 1110-99.257 ' ~. ~`... nJRTICULTURAI CONSULTANT DATE: October 19, 1999 CONSULTING ARBORLSr SCAIF: ma reduced / - - ~„_ ., __ 1_ ` \ L` \ ~4'~. 15 .- w ~~ Existing Fii: ~ - \ .t ~\ • ~ ` ~ ~ 12' 11~~~:'~ 17 • ~~ _ ~t~;ive Fence ~' ''' :`, .~: ~~' ~ ~.; ~- - ~~. ` - ~-~' ' .Basement ~~'k~ci:!\ ~: ~ ~ ~. '~ '~ s Light -~c._,.`--:. ~ s~ ~\ ~, L X11 3 S t. r ;Light . ~ r~ / ~(7 ~`~ ~ r ~~ Well c0 y . -- Relocate - ~ !~ ~>- ~ Light wells -Install Platform R~ / _ ~ ~~ l f "/~ ~ ~\ / ~~ ,`~„ \ Existing Grading ~ ~~ -~ p ' ' ~y~ (Approximate) ~ / ~ , y r .•. ~ ~' ~\ _j .. -y . ~`~~~~- ~~ f--.Protective Fence ~ ~ i `- '~ ~~. fi / \.. ~ ~ •- ti~ , / i~ 4 _ \ ~ ~ .. ~~0~~0 r .fl ~ .n 'u~!'~t'rS'~n'~'[d`+~5~"1 ~nmvaa CO -6 -6 "d 3N!JJl •J.LILN J"~uasuo+- g A ~ °~~~~+~'v }y.. It°+y„°°y„~ S.311~I3dOZId '['13M}I~`d'78 bbbl 'sl ' has ' 3,LNU Q i! ~ ` ]f ~ ~ ~..afo+d +wyn~ Luc u~~ p..en .y p~u 'L 9U ..e .uopc:n.p:.rl. l,u. .amwn+p ,n' ~Xf,( L. i .np P'us~u,~oo, ..y~, ~suuuc+~u.wl~ :'60} `YJlA2'~;J4~d~ °l'~FS''16'b1~1A3.~'Y~~f~ b` 1'3}~u ~3'T~':~ ~ °o o ~ ~~ I.~a sa~~ma+F 11. „~ any,+.,~.,~ 1.~. N N \ c+yau 11e..nniw+3,r,J,1..~.IHn..,. .. (TO/Z/5 pas ~na2l) _ ofU~ a~afoad~a~}r} ~,L33115 ~ N ~ , T A O 30 ' ~ C ~ ' x m 6 h mV m M r-: N i ~ 3'_ .. ~ O ~ N H O \ A 3 0 0 „ ~+ , ~o' 'o 00 ° ~o OU. ~..~ l i q '..a a -~ Cg a ~n v (_~ 0.1 J a ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~' ~~ ~~ $ i ~ o~ s ~ ~ _ ,;~ ~~ ti W ~ q ti ._ _ 5 Vj ~ 3 E I ~' O i 3 5D ~o a°' ~~ i ~ I~~ o ~ 4 ~! I ~ I i ~ ~ •, i ,~ ^ ~ Q+ o$ .. ~ ~ 5 z k ~ ~N Gb ~~ ~ ~ ~ a~ i ~ i i I ~~ ~ ~~' i ~ L j i L o i ~ °o ~ s 0`+-v ~ R~44•,~~'9 ~ ~++ ~ ~nh_r~ J ~+ fiu I ~ ~ b ~ -H 44444 ~_55 ~ do .''.~ c I 1.rJ d-~ ~ = . a _ C S N $ OrvD F ~ ~ ~ ee• ~ ~ ~ = 9 N ,w ' ~ ~ .. ~ '~ ally, O m O YJa< <° ~ ~c"g$~$~ o fi 8 c~ ° ~ ~~ S ~r 8 ~ca$~c'$ _ r ~~, ~ ~ 3 ~ cJ z & S ~ ~ ",Cc ~ ~U~Ci g 8 s d 0D .. 9'~f., O I ~+~N1S <~ ~~ 8 @1~yU0$OV~ 4 " y$ v `° a $ .O ~ i m~„~.~ .]~ mt+oG .r r, wiEa~Z Z. ui ui rv ~.. F:a rv m F :o ~ i ~ U o 0 0 O t t c~ m vi - s ~ a < V - ~ p a- N F - C p^ o V " ~ ~ ~:. 8 E O ~ n g ~° ° h E~ an d < i a °s.' $ ~ ~, <~ss~s ~ ~- E 7 ~ ~~-- s s c ` s ex= v t N t ~~ ~ o ., 5 ~~~ CC b~ W. T ~ ~ C. O'v~ CL 2 ~ E '3 G ~ ~ g m x p 9 ~ ~~' ~.i (~ ~~ ~ a i~ ° -`gym `3 °'S c3 ~ 8 ~ $° 2S (° hr' ~ ' ° ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ c N 4 ~~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ' o ~ W~o o~~~ ~ ; ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ , o as ~ ~ . ' g~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ m e Y ~ ~~ ° ~ 5 ~ s ~a~ U Q~ ~, r..+ ~I f , ~ O ~ .. ~ - ~ ,Y a G; 2 y •W o , $" 9 0 E z ~ m `o g s y O . m ~ 3~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~~~ @~~ ~e = = " ~~~ ~~~L ~ W W I h o c o~ c C m= m om .y. o ul y ,~ ~ 6 V~ E .~ Cd O O ' ~ v ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ° o c ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ .. - ~ ~ m .b E..y C/~ ~ I..c.l W w C/] ~ ~sv' ~~€$ ,~~ V uvu~b _a ~k~ ~~~ E x ~ ~ C _ V - ~, ~, a ... ,c .- ~ dQ d~ ¢dd ~,- ~l m ~ ,~,,,.,,, ~"a`s~''tNpcCrrS~il'~1b' `~h5~~ ' nlmvaa 3r110N •.LJ.I lIfl J" ~, ~ - u,.,~,.•F..,.n,dx:...y,^,~„y,~„ S311~13dO~Id '7'I3M}I~~d'18 das v: ~- ,...r.,,a,.y.,..,,e ~.,,.. ~y ,..~, 6661 ' 51 ' 3 ~ 3,I,NU ~N 7 ti8 w new wnne.~p,:el. ~me .du~.r.,p p ° ,y~rv,~ya,~,,.,a,u ~,.~,e.~~,:.i. :~ <~l~pti42~1 ~~1S'b,~~ b` ~ pa}ou ' 3'IY:K N N -- .,y~„~ex~,e,a, :a,nl,l,..~.~~~n CZO/Z/S pas ~na~) ~ ~ ueld a}!6 ~ .1.33HS M x ~ i A ~_~ J F ,O A O t s 3.-. s 3' °1 - o~ o~ ~ F G N ~ ~ ~ J Q N~ ~~o-,b£ ,.9 ; H A~lL .~ -V ~ ~ ~, ~ S [~- ++ N N ~ r ~i L1 r -~c ~~ ~ ~ E U u ~ I ~ ~ l1. ~a Ea s ~ ~ sJ X~t od o~ ~ ~ ~ ~A ceps ~d f 1 ~ L p W ~ _'~_ x ~~ O (~0 D • •1 •/ 0 .1, O t N CI ~ ~ n~ o ~o x.51 N 0 L ~ Q' ~ co _ $ ~.~ `~ a~ p ~ ~ O ~L y O ~ Uw DD s~ ~d __ ~y+m "'m ~'ie p3 ~2 03 ~' - S - T S3 ~ O r~~ / ~, so s p ~ g' -~L~ U n~c x~ ~ uw~ ~£m+~ ~ ~c L 3 ~_ 6 '- __ S ~ £ s O ~9~ so` ~~ emu ~i ~ i'u , ev3~ W w / }•' l m -~i~ luer„na,en., l amlia• t '1A~:'4!'~^'E~Y"S'~~'~1b' `~i5~? ~ ~~bVZld . . . „a„~„ •,~a+.:.ad.a ay„~~~n„ ~, w C f d S31.L2~ 3d 02i d '1'I3M}~ ~`d'~ 8 I QoZ ' L Z ~ lad g : 3,L~'(1 (~ ;ry - ue no pa+n nl u aayp~ ,aa ai .ca nl. ue dm n en a O p . p p ~l . eew su n ay, p~nua,un.'ayy smnn.~gp~a,l- .~/„"""°C;'°~ °L~S'°""'°'4J "'~~ ~ ~a~°U ~ a I~ ' fn ~~ __ yue ciulMeap Ile n, dlywau,xu yue /~ . ' W ~. ~ ciy9u pe •u~c,aa 3:bON•.L.LINFI - CZO/Z/S paS L/\~~) Sued c~ ~oo'J- : y33Nti CCa o;L „0-, 65 1 ~~Q-,LS ^ ~ c -~- I I ~ I ~r/nl^ I Intel O u Q a ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ s L L ~ - ~ ~~~ U ~ ~ c6 ~ c- Q ~ m S ~ ~ L ~ i6 6. . 3 ( . u md- 0 ~~ ~ Z A~ iic~ 0 0 O O J'' lJ. 1- N LL ii 'le Ii `~ - b IIV•,bl ' M a „v •, LI Z~ ~ ^^ ~i . ~I ~~ ~' J o ~ a Z ~ V O s J U ~ W ~ ~ o ~~ „o-,za „o-, tZ „~•,9 „o-,b „el „O-, bl ~ ~ ~, ~ ao-,b o•,L J d ` s ~ ~ ~~q ~ _4 r \ ~ _ I ~ £ cue •r ~ ~ ~ s ~ _ s s '~ ~ ~ - O- p a is - A. m ~ n- o _ r o O ~ s 3 L° ~ ~ ~ S n u=-.. m :o r m s ~ ~ v- .a. F s p F 3 4- 3 w y= ~ N ~ r ~ LO _ _ ~ S m Q~.+UN ~ ~ O V ~ ~~ A ~ ~a~sm ;: i 3 UuO31 >: n ® I ~ ~~ II ~ I ® ~ Q it o i ~ ~ ^ i ~~ ^ ~ ~~ ~ ~ t S ~o ® ;" I~ .~ a ~ ~ j i I ® ~~~II I~ II ®~ o I ~ ~ s ~ ~ ® ~ N W I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ jI II I I ,., o ® ~~ ~ ®- W , of J L ~ L W ZO 3 <p $ ~ o ~ c~ ~ L 0. I'~ ~' ~a L ^ ~. s ~s ,~, T ~V~ S d A t~ _C ce ( S3J ~ s ILOyyf1 ~~~ ~" ~~ ~~ ~oo vs~t 1i $-o `t F ~> o~= acv ~^ t.r N~ ~-i `SQ s ~ m3 ~3~ I.In~ W II ~ W W 0 0 - 0 o, ~ ~ ~ L J ~ ~ L p cue <e y. m ~ t - S - ~ .N _ ~ s - r ~ _ ~e z ae ~ z O 3 ~ 3 .~ .~ ~ up-,g ep- b gj v ian ~,~ ,,,,,„~~., amoa • u '("-o:'%i'~?7xt'~S'~~'~"ib` `t~5~7 ~ n~avea v . . °.,".-.~"•".i`",,~°°4'°' b d S311~I3d0?~~{ '1'13M}l~`d`l8 ~ Q77Z ~ LZ ~ iJdy ~ 3,1.x'(] ) - O ~uy,o ur un p , ui mu ,..•fw , du +ru frw wu r ud, V . O t ~ pu u' i n~w p , n a,„~„a,~.,~~~.~~~u- r,~~~...a, a '-~~~'~'4'd2d~~7S~ J N a oU P ~ ~3'Itl:K ~ ~ ~~ F~„r ,y~~.,r,f~iir,~, n~y.,.~.,~i~„r ~- +, ~ ~ r,yBu pa GUmw. 3A10A •.w.iae (TO/Z/S pas ~na~) } Suot E/1aa JoiJa~xa 1 33115 . . ~ • • ~~ b 3M~18 Q.LLIlIN J° mxw~, ^ n.~~~,„•~..1,..,~~~~,.,~„." S311~13dO~Id "1'73M}IJ~d'78 ~OOZ ~ !i-' ~ .yU,~.w.u~^..yy 'suonn.~~cn.l. '^' ~~ ~~~,au~.u,~pe~~i.yyv.u...~pun .""7~d~~ $-~~ b` Pa~ou ~3"T1'JS .,~,,,,..,,,P,., ;a,una•J.J.Ial1 CZO/Z/S pas nab) . Suo!}ena~a Joua}xo ~,L33HS Wa ~n~y 0 ±~ ~ s L° =o s. 0 N V ±' Q ~~~ r s~d~0 ~~ ~~ i ~ o~ p c ? 4 ~ 3 .°. ~. t _ ~ n f0 t ~ 'C „` ~$ ~ C£ s~ ~ ~ ~~ s~ „0-,61 0 ~i 3 i1 ~ r~ ~~ ~~ ~~ W ... Z O .. m ~. L ,~ ~' W d ~ -~ a W r ~ i~ 0 -o .. H tY Z 'Z O H J W W O ~~ „~;~~ . • • ~~ _ nta,-t~n~pcCnS'n~!n'n~1b` `~iS-?ol ' ~,b~aa ~~ m 3MfN~y.W.illfl J" w+cun, \ _ ~,,,,., ., , ~ ,. y, ...n.,,., S 3 Il?.~ 3 d O ~[ d 'I'13M~1 ~`d'18 ~ :~yN~ l ~ \I N ~...L.ud ry~...:un uo p„n .q ,ou 6rw :unneay~~.i. pun dui.wup p .y~~,,.,~.~n,,.,.,u. •.~,.~~n.~~~.~«i. :''~''~'aNa'(~S-'~'~+~a~ H pa~ou ~ 3"It"Jc ~ __ pu. ~y~,.,~,,.,,~ n, d~y.,.~.,o pue CT 0/ Z / S p „0-, 61 ~ uO;b nO;L t --`` ~ t W ~ ~ ,Qp ~rQ ~ ZZ O s ~ ~- \ L ,Q;Q u~;p nDl ~ A L ~ ~ i 3 4- ~ V y L 5~~11 ~ ~ ~ / L ~ ~ ~ d 8~ o ~ ; ,~ ~ ~ S r £ -_ S SU s A ~o x c ~ z `~- -?INCA C~ f 3 ~ 3 ~+- ~ ,b ;u E m ~ / _T ~ I o° ~ ~g6iaH ~6~a ~ r I i ~ S 4Q•1 6 d V .n y £ Y Ten ,mil-,OI -/ ~ ~ ao-,6 I m S ~- ~ ~ ~ I s r t I ~_ ~ ~ ~ u ~ o I u ~_ £ ~ o i ~. ~ L I s m z o U Z ~ O .. S 6` U ~ W ~ IA L J ~ ~ ~ ~ NJ A F n ti A 4- S`S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi 3 4= 3 4= `~ O u0-,8 ~' - ,O-,b ~O•,6Z • • a woo•s.prywl•... V`JOlVNVS d0 J~LI;~ essr-eac (eor)~xve scs--wx (wr) ~ ~~~~ ~ 0x1s8 0J '.pr ~5 ee-ic-zi OIOZ .1!n5 'onwrV w0000B 41^05 B r~ `~ °"""°~ °"°' " °"'~'""~ " °"'"'~ ""' "°" S311.l~3dOtid l•13M)i~~d'19 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ° •~~ ss~~~ ~ ~ ~ a~ Noisiniasns ~o-lsin died - - ~ ~ ~~,~ Nt~ld ~NIOt21~ bS lOl _~ ~ n~ ¢I ~ f` I ~ ~, • \\ ~\ `. ~~ ,, • \~ •- .. 3rr - ~' . - - _. ~ ~ ~b ~ o\ b~(~ ~g d ~' ~~d. ~s~. \\ ~9 ~. ~ ~ ~~ & e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ <oz ~ ~ ~ ~RRR~S C~ ~~ yy 0 ~l E ~ ~~~~~ ~ Ec -~ ~ e ~~§3y~~~ ra g ~ ~ ~~4 ~~ °a ~ ~ ~ a >~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ u z N 3 LL ~ u U ^ ~ ry Q: ~ J b ~ (( e o W ~ij ~~ r $ g~ W O Q ~ y 1. L~ M ~~ ~~~~ .. N ~{ ~i K K r: ~~ ~~ s ~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~~ .` ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~•~~ ~ ~ ~.. ~. ... ~ ~ \ \ \ \ ~ \~ ~~ •` \ =~ '\ %~° /~• ~ • ~~\ Y \ `• '?. `t ~~~ `~. ~,. o~ ~ . ...~.: `-.x y ~ __ ~_,,` ~. _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~, ~ • • s ~~. t ~ I` t i '~ '~~ :~ ~ 7 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~.~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ; R 8 ~ _. ~8 ~" ~~~ ~ ~~ _ M1 H Y ~{ ~ ~ / : l ;~. .. .; .1 ,~, - .~ ,r~ ~, ` ~ I ' ~''CI .. v I ~! / / 1 I ~ I 1, ~ ~ . .. v! ,~ ~~, ~ _ _, ~: ~0 ul~ ~OlV21HS wao.m.w~a..., .A . d ~ a am-oes tao.):~e sos+-9ez (eo-) „~u az« ~ ~«~ ~s _ 10-90-9 lL Ndd ,~ ,~,f L, ° l~3d0l~d 'il3NU1~V~6~ 5311 ~ ~~AU ssi~ ~ f ~ . ,op t~ ~ ~ Noisiniasns disu~ dim r~v~td oNigvao ~Tda3no b ~ ~ee~r~~ 4 ~ ~ 4 0 i i,'•"'` ~~. ~, ~'~:. -~=-- -- ~ I~ ~ ~.\ 1 ~ \ ~ I SJ ~ ~ 1 ; % ~, ~ ~~ ~; v ~ j r ~ t- ,~-~'-' . ~ ~ )1 .. '/ J _-, f, / 1 ,: f ~ • ~ COMMISSION ITEM • 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Irwin Kaplan, Director of Community Development DATE: May 9, 2001 , SUBJECT: Appointment of Commissioner as Liaison to Library Committee BACKGROUND COUNCIL MEb4BERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehafley Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith The Planning Commission has been represented on the Library expansion project. The position is now vacant with the retirement of Planning Commissioner, Mary .Lynne Bernald who had been the Planning Commission's liaison for the Library expansion project. It is suggested that the appointment by the Chairperson to fill this vacancy be deferred until the Planning Commission of May 9, at which time the new Commission appointments will be complete and the newly appointed Commissioners will be seated. The Library Committee generally meets about once a month, on Thursdays at 1 pm. Printed on recycled paper. MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED MEETING JOINT SESSION YOUTH COMMISSION SARATOGA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MAY 8, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Adjourned Council Meeting on May 8, 2001 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Baker called the Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and requested James Atkin, Chair/Youth Commission, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. R(IT.T, f'AT.T. PRESENT: Councilmembers Ann Waltonsmith, Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian ABSENT: Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Joan Pisani, Director of Recreation Lauren Merriman, Staff Liaison/Youth Commission REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MAY 8, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of May 8, 2001 was properly posted on May 4, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC No one spoke at tonight's meeting. JOINT MEETING WITH YOUTH COMMISSION Mayor Pro Tem Baker welcomed the Youth Commission. Joan Pisani, Director of Recreation thanked the Council for giving the Youth Commission the opportunity to meet with them. The following Youth Commission members were present: James Atkin, Chair Saratoga High School Tannaz Altafi Saratoga High School James Ballingal Redwood Middle School Darrell Wu Lynbrook High School Ramy El Diwany Saratoga High School Valerie Farnum Saratoga High School Nicolette Kirk Archbishop Mitty High School Elliott Onn Redwood Middle School Jen Levin Prospect High School Christina Siadat Presentation High School Jackie Luskey Saratoga High School Abhik Pramanik Prospect High School Mieka Sywak Monta Vista High School Lee Blair Saratoga High School Director Pisani noted that the Commissioners would like to take this opportunity to inform the City Council about their recent activities and fund raising efforts. OVERVIEW OF THE YEAR - 2000-2001 James Atkin -Youth Conference Chair Atkin noted that on March 30, 2001 the Youth Commission held its first Youth Conference. Chair Atkin pointed out that Assemblymember Cohn was the keynote speaker. He explained that the surrounding schools were invited to discuss and brainstorm issues that might concern today's youth. Chair Atkin noted that the Youth Commission is planning another conference sometime in August. Tannaz Altafi -Warner Hutton House Commissioner Altafi reported that 65-80 students from St Andrews, Sacred Heart, Redwood, and Rolling Hills visit the Warner Hutton House after school. The average visit is approximately one hour. Commissioner Altafi reported that 20 teens stay at the Warner Hutton House until it closes at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Altafi invited the City Council to the Warner Hutton House BBQ on June 13, 2001. James Ballingall -Attic Renovation Commissioner Ballingall reported that renovating the attic in the Warner Hutton House would add 1,000 sq. ft. of study area and 600 sq. ft. of extra storage space. Commissioner Ballingall explained that the proposed renovation would consist of converting the attic into one big study/computer room, and adding a few individual and group study areas. Commissioner Ballingall noted that a few years ago Gilbane Construction donated a free estimate of the proposed attic renovation. Commissioner Ballingall noted that at the time Gilbane Construction estimated the total cost of $170,000.00. Dan: ell Wu -Skateboard Park Commissioner Wu reported that the Youth Commission has had many discussions on the issue surrounding building a skateboard park in the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Wu noted that the Youth Commission feels a skateboard park is a necessity and if directed by the City Council, the Commission would do all the research for construction and possible sites. City Council Minutes 2 May 8, 2001 Ramy El Diwany -Safe Ride Commissioner El Diwany reported that Safe Ride was established in 1999. Commissioner El Diwany noted that Safe Ride provides approximately 10 rides per night. It is run by teens with one adult to supervise. All rides are confidential. Valerie Farnum -Street Dance Fundraiser Commissioner Farnum reported that last year the Youth Commission made approximately $1,800.00 selling glow necklaces at Celebrate Saratoga. Commissioner Farnum noted that the Commission helped set up for Celebrate Saratoga and in return the Chamber of Commerce waived booth fees. Nicolette Kirk -Friends of the Warner Hutton House Commissioner Kirk noted that this year Friends of the Warner Hutton House received $9,600.00 during their annual appeal. Commisisoner Kirk stated that all donation are tax deductible. Commissioner Kirk informed the Council that some of the money that is received helps offset the cost of the Recreation Coordinator. Elliott Onn -Rotary Art Show Fundraiser Commissioner Onn reported that this year the Rotary Club offered the Youth Commission $10.00 per hour per person to help at their annual art show. Commissioner Onn reported that they had 22 volunteers including Youth Commissioners and various other friends and family members. The Commission made $1,200.00. Jen Levin -School Diversity of Commission Commissioner Levin reported that the Commission tries hard to communicate to all of the surrounding schools and include them in all of the events sponsored by the Youth Commission. Commissioner Levin reported that a recent dance several Miller students attended. Christina Siadat -Events (girls overnight, concerts, etc.) Commissioner Siadat reported that the Youth Commission had a girls only sleepover at the Warner Hutton House. The Youth Commission made $300.00 on this event. Commissioner Siadat noted that this year the Commission has had two concerts -both generating approximately $250.00. Commissioner Siadat announced that on May 16`" the Youth Commission would receive 10% of the total earnings during the hours of 5-9 p.m. at McDonald's in the Westgate Shopping Mall. Jackie Leskey -Future Ideas Commissioner Leskey commented briefly on the following ideas the Youth Commission would like to implement this year: • Skateboard park . • Music Festival at Wildwood Park • Coffee House Night at the WHH, including poetry reading and music • WHH open during finals week • SurvivaUReal World parties • Smoothie Booth once a week at the WHH • Fashion Show City Council Minutes 3 May 8, 2001 Abhik Pramanik - Website Commissioner Pramanik noted that he designed the website to help communicate to the youth in this area. He noted that some schools do not allow the Youth Commission to advertise upcoming events. Commissioner Pramanik briefly demonstrated the website, located at www.saratogayouth.com, he designed for the Youth Commission. Commissioner Pramanik explained that the site would include current information pertaining to the Youth Commission such as upcoming dances, concerts, trips, and positions available on the Commission. Councilmember Bogosian asked why some schools do not allow advertising, and if the Commission cannot advertise how do the teens find out about upcoming events. Director Pisani responded that the Cupertino Union School District would allow the Commission to advertise their events only if the City of Saratoga provided fee waivers. Commissioner Pramanik rioted that some teens find out about upcoming events by word of mouth. City Manager Anderson noted that the Youth Commission would like to have a link to their website on the City's site. Mieka Sywak -Dances Commissioner Sywak reported that the Youth Commission has sponsored six dances so far this school year. Commissioner Sywak noted that May 11, 2001 would be the last dance. Commissioner Sywak noted that in December the Youth Commission sponsored it's first formal dance. Commissioner Sywak reported that after expenses, the Commission made $3,500.00 a profit from that dance. Lee Blair -Dance Curfew Commissioner Blair reported that there is an ongoing problem with parents not picking up their teens after dances and other events sponsored by the Youth Commission.. Commissioner Blair noted that sometimes parents are up to two hours late. Commissioner Blair noted that usually someone from the Commission would stay and wait for the teen's parents to arrive. Commissioner Blair stated that the Youth Commission feels it is not their responsibility to stay, but they do not want to leave a teen unattended. A discussion took place on the number of teens that are left after events are over and possible reasons why. Commissioner Blair explained that the Youth Commission proposes an amendment to the curfew ordinance; perhaps if the parents do not arrive %2 hour after the event ends the teen should be turned over to the Sheriff's Department. Mayor Pro Tem Baker requested that the Youth Commission agendize this issue at the Youth Commission's next meeting and report back to the City Council at a later time. Every member of the City Council expressed their appreciation for the hard work and effort demonstrated by the Youth Commission. City Council Minutes 4 May 8, 2001 Mayor Pro Tem Baker adjourned the meeting with the Youth Commission and commenced the meeting with the Saratoga Business Development Committee at 7:50 p.m. JOINT MEETING WITH SBDC 2. OVERVIEW OF THE YEAR - 2000-2001 Marilyn White, PresidentlSBDC, thanked the Council for allowing the SBDC to meet with them tonight. Ms. White explained the SBDC is made up of business owners and managers from the Village, Gateway, Prospect, Quito, Argonaut, and home based businesses. The mission of SBDC "Is to act as a forum for businesses and residents to air problems and develop solutions". Ms. White noted that the SBDC has been active for over six years. Ms. White highlighted key issues discussed at the SBDC meetings since January 2001: • Economic Development Coordinator position • Village Renovation Project • Beautification Project on Big Basin • Tree Trimming schedule • Planting more low maintenance trees • Eagle Wing Theatre -search for a new venue • Energy conservation efforts Ms. White reported a few brainstorming ideas the SBDC have been discussing such as: • Generate mission statement • Develop a Traffic Circulation Plan for Village • Identify historic buildings in the downtown area • RetaiUCommercial buildings with residential units above Ms. White noted that the SBDC would like to work more closely with the Chamber of Commerce. Ms. White noted that the SBDC hopes to attract more representatives from home based businesses and other businesses that are not can ently represented on the SBDC. Bill Cooper, SBDC/Owner, Bella Saratoga, noted that the directional signs for the wineries have been installed and they look great. Councilmember Bogosian asked how the SBDC views the current parking situation in the Village. Ms. White responded that the there seems to be inadequate parking during the day and sufficient parking at night. Ms. White noted that Village business owners have expressed that inadequate employee parking is their biggest concern. Ciry Council Minutes rj May 8, 2001 Mr. Cooper noted that there are more offices in the Village, which has caused part of the current parking problem. Councihnember Bogosian asked Ms. White how the downtown merchants reacted to the decorative lights being shut off. Ms. White responded that everyone misses the lighting. Ms. White reminded everyone that the SBDC meets every 4th Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. in the Administrative Conference Room at City Hall. Mayor Pro Tem Baker thanked the SBDC for coming tonight. Mayor Pro Tem Baker adjourned the meeting with the SBDC and requested aten-minute recess. Mayor Pro Tem Baker reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m. and commenced the meeting with the Chamber of Commerce. JOINT MEETING WITH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Patti O'Brien, Executive Director, thanked the Council for the opportunity to meet with the Chamber of Commerce. 3. OVERVIEW OF THE YEAR - 2000-2001 Ms. O'Brien presented a brief overview of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce: • Not-for-profit organization • Acts as'a liaison between the City and it's membership • Recognized as the voice of the business community • 21-member Board of Directors • 60-70 volunteers Ms. O'Brien noted that the Chamber provides direct services and programs to help businesses and the community. One of the Chamber's main objectives is to enhance the quality of life through economic prosperity. Ms. O'Brien noted that the Chamber is made up of an Executive Board of Directors, an Advisory Board, and several committees. The Chamber of Commerce currently has 395 members. Ms. O'Brien explained that not only does the Chamber of Commerce provide resources and services for the business community; the Chamber also has become a tourist and information center. Ms. O'Brien noted that the Chamber of Commerce sponsors and offers financial support for the following community events and organizations: • 4th of July Celebration • Village Open House City Council Minutes ( May 8, 2001 • West Valley Community College Events • Saratoga High School Music Boosters • The Saratoga Rotary Club • Hakone Gardens • Shakespeare in the Park Ms. O'Brien noted that Celebrate Saratoga is scheduled for September 15, 2001. Ms. O'Brien commented that tourist information and inquiries have doubled from the previous year, which encouraged them to develop a new website located at www. saratogachamber. org. Ms. O'Brien noted the following publications that the Chamber provides: • Saratoga map • Relocation package • Business Focus Newsletter • Economic and Development Profile • Directory to Public Officials • Guide to Saratoga • CaUOSHA Workplace Poster Set • Fact Sheets on Saratoga Ms. O'Brien noted that one of the most popular Chamber of Commerce products has been the Directory and Relocation Guide. Twelve thousand copies were published in 2000-2001. In February 2000, approximately 9,000 copies were delivered to Saratoga businesses and residences. Based upon popular demand 15,000 copies will be distributed for 2002-2003 Directory. Ms. O'Brien explained that this year the Chamber would like the City to contribute $33,404.56 to help offset various costs to run the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce. Ms. O'Brien explained that in return the City would receive a cover headliner on the 2002-2003 Directory, 25 pages of community promotions, updated map, and product delivered to 10,000 residents and businesses. Councihnember Bogosian questioned the current funds the City pays for the Chamber of Commerce. City Manager Anderson responded that the City covers: • Building lease agreement • City maintenance workers help with Celebrate Saratoga • Paid PG&E • Provides and installs decorative lighting in the Village. A discussion took place in regards to the current funds the City already allocates towards the Chamber of Commerce and the current lease value of the Chamber building. Councihnember Bogosian questioned if the Chamber Board has taken a stand in regards to the recent issues surrounding the proposed stadium at West Valley College. City Council Minutes '] May 8, 2001 Ms. O'Brien responded that the Board has not taken a position on that issue and has no plans to do so in the future. Councihnember Waltonsmith commented that she was glad to see the Chamber taking a new direction and staying away from the political forum. Councihnember Bogosian noted that last year the Chamber was asked to provide the City Council with sales tax revenue as a standard in which the Chamber's contributions could be judged. The Chamber chose not to discus that request. Ms. O'Brien noted that. she was not aware of the request, but will see that a report is provided to the Council in a timely manner. Ms. O'Brien noted that this year the Chamber's membership increased by 95 new members. Monica Bailey, Board of Director/Chamber of Commerce, requested that the City provide sales tax data on the City of Saratoga. City Manager Anderson noted that it is against state law to provide individual business records, but if formally requested he could provide the top ten. Judy Coulter, Board of Director/Chamber of Commerce, noted that the cost of the decorative lights and the PG&E bill has nothing to do with the Chamber of Commerce and should not be held against them. Mayor Pro Tem Baker thanked the Chamber of Commerce for coming tonight and reminded Ms. O'Brien to attend the May 16th City Council meeting when the expenditure side of the budget would be presented. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that there is a public meeting scheduled for June 7, 2001 to discuss the Trail Feasibility Study along the Union Pacific Railroad. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None City Council Minutes 8 May 8, 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Mayor Pro Tem Baker declared the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes 9 May 8, 2001 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED MEETING JOINT SESSION SARATOGA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 22, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in open session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:00 p.m. to interview applicants for the Finance Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission, and the Planning Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Adjourned Council Meeting on May 22, 2001 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Mayor Mehaffey called the Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Mary Gardner, Superintendent/SUSD, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. R[li,i, ('Ai,i, PRESENT: Councilmembers Ann Waltonsmith, Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Joan Pisani, Director of Recreation REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MAY 22, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of May 22, 2001 was properly posted on May 18, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC The following people spoke at tonight's meeting: David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, reported that the FACT Committee would be filing a citizen complaint with the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury in regards to the Saratoga Fire District. Mr. Dolloff distributed a copy of the citizen complaint form to the City Council requesting them to review the form. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the Saratoga Union School Board has a scheduled board meeting commencing at 8:00 p.m. and requested that the joint meeting with the District begin and continue oral communications afterwards. Consensus of the City Council to continue Oral Communications after the joint meeting with the SUSD. Mayor Mehaffey welcomed Saratoga Union School District JOINT MEETING WITH SARATOGA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Introduction Stephanie Petrossi, President/SUSD, thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet with them. Ms. Petrossi introduced the following Board members: Cindy Ruby, Bonnie Yamaoka, Eileen Kao, and John Waite. Ms. Petrossi introduced Mary Gardner, Superintendent/SUSD. Status of MOU Ms. Gardner briefly explained the District's accomplishments of the MOU between the District acid the City of Saratoga. Ms. Gardner noted that in regards to Saratoga High School the District has satisfied the agreement with the City. In regards to Redwood Middle School the traffic study still needs to be produced and submitted to the City to improve traffic circulation and congestion. Traffic Issues Ms. Gardner noted in regards to the current traffic problems at Redwood Middle School the District recently contracted with Fehr Peers to evaluate the District's new traffic flow. The District is also consulting with ALTRANS to continue to investigate ways to implement bussing and carpool programs. Ms. Gardner noted that Fehr & Peers opposed the proposed idea of adding a separate turn lane on Fruitvale into the school parking lot. Fehr & Peers reported that an additional turn lane would not be safe. Vice Mayor Streit asked if and when the SUSD implements a bussing program would the District be willing to extend the use to St. Andrews and Sacred Heart. City Council Minutes 2 May 22, 2001 Ms. Gardner responded that she did not think those schools were interested in a bussing program. City Manager Anderson noted that St. Andrews and Sacred Heart have a representative on the School Transportation Task Force and suggested that at the next meeting Ms. Gardner should take that opportunity to discuss the bussing issue with them. School Construction Progress Report Ms. Petrossi reported that construction is still active at Saratoga High School and Phase I of construction has been completed at Redwood Middle School. Ms. Petrossi noted that construction at Argonaut and Foothill School should be completed by 2002. Councilmember Bogosian noted that citizens had asked him why construction has been scaled back at Foothill and Argonaut. The current estimate for all of the construction is over $55 million and the bond that was passed was roughly $50 million. Councilmember Bogosian asked how the District planned on making up the difference. Ms. Petrossi responded that there are three ways they could back fill the bond money: 1) developer fees 2) state bond money 3) extend current bond. Ms. Petrossi explained that when the Master Plan was adopted and the bond was passed the City's demographics increased tremendously. The increase in students requires the District to provide more classrooms than predicted in the Master Plan. Councilmember Bogosian questioned why the demographics called for classrooms before the bond but after there were a cost over run the demographics no longer called for these classrooms. Teacher Housing Cindy Ruby, Boardmember/SUSD, briefly explained some proactive initiatives that the Teachers Housing Committee were doing: • Developed a website with house listings • Sponsors seminars on such topics as first time home buyers, individual financing, and equity sharing • Requested the City Council to allocate $2 million dollars to start a loan program Lisa Liu, 20291 Merrick Drive, noted that the Teachers Housing Committee has repeatedly requested the City Council to assist the Committee in finding ways to solve the affordable housing issue. Ms. Liu noted that the City Council has not provided any answers nor have they made any decisions on City Council Minutes 3 May 22, 2001 allocating any money for housing programs. Ms.,Liu requested that the City Council express some opinion to let the Teachers Housing Committee know their position in regards to their proposals. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the Council would address this issue in the Housing Element. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that although the City Council has not verbally responded to the Teachers Housing Committee, it does not mean that the Council is not concerned about affordable housing. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he is unwilling to tie up $2 million dollars of the City's funds during a time of an unstable economy. Public safety is our first priority. If the City lost the VLF (Vehicle License Funding) we would have to cut back in law enforcement. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that the Saratoga Union School District increase teacher's salaries. Ms. Petrossi noted that the Board is aware of the fact that the District is loosing several teachers, but their salaries are benchmarked accordingly. Use of Park and Recreation Funds Ms. Petrossi questioned if Park Development funds would still be used to renovate the playfields at Foothill School. Vice Mayor Streit, Council liaison to the Parks and Recreation Commission, noted that Foothill School is no longer on the Parks and Recreation Commission's agenda. Vice Mayor Streit explained that the City staff has been preparing Redwood Middle School's fields for the AYSO season while the fields at Congress Springs are under construction. Vice Mayor Streit also reported that funds would be allocated to renovate Azule Park and upgrade the City's playground equipment. Vice Mayor Streit noted he would communicate the District's questions and concerns to Parks and Recreation Commission and request that this issue be agendized at a future meeting. Ms. Petrossi asked if Parks & Recreation funds could be used to install a bike path around the Redwood Middle School. Mayor Mehaffey requested that this issue also be agendized at a future Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Mayor Mehaffey thanked the SUSD for coming tonight. City Council Minutes [} May 22, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC The following people spoke at tonight's meeting: Bill Morrison, 20135 Chateau Drive, reported that on Mother's Day a Saratoga Fire District paramedic called in sick, and while the District tried to find a replacement, they eventually had to call County Fire and request the use of one of their paramedics for the day. Gale Morrison, 20135 Chateau Drive, stated strongly that she feels the citizens of Saratoga would benefit more if Saratoga Fire District merged with the County. Mrs. Morrison noted as a wife of a Saratoga firefighter she is extremely worried of her husband's safety. Mrs. Morrison stated that her . concern is that the District does not have enough manpower to properly protect her husband. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, noted that he recently received a newsletter published by the Saratoga Fire District. Mr. Farrell noted that the newsletter mentioned the two reports on fire safety written by the Public Safety Commission and DMG Maximus. Mr. Farrell explained that the District bragged about the adequacy of their services. Mr. Farrell requested the City Council to make a decision to accept or reject the Public Safety Commission's report on fire protection services. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the report given to the City Council by the Public Safety Commission is, by default, accepted. Mayor Mehaffey noted that on June 6, 2001 staff would be presenting to the Council fire service options. Beverly Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, indicated he does not understand the conflicts of opinion in regards to a second access trail on Bohlman Road. Mr. Phipps noted that Chief Kraule of the Saratoga Fire District agreed that the proposed trail would benefit the residents, but unfortunately the Public Safety Commission said the existing road is unsafe and the grade is too steep to connect a second access trail. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, commented that the proposed second access trail is a straight shot and is half the grade of the existing road - it is a straight shot. Mayor Mehaffey noted that staff is preparing a report to Council on the options and costs for a second access trail on Bohlman Road. NEW BUSINESS Friends of the Library -Fee Waiver Request Recommended action: Grant request. Joan Pisani, Director of Recreation, presented a brief staff report. Director Pisani pointed out that the library renovation project is scheduled to begin in August, thus creating a problem for the various groups who use the community rooms on a regular basis. Director Pisani pointed out that several City Council Minutes Cj May 22, 2001 of these groups would be displaced for approximately 18 months during the construction project. Director Pisani noted that several groups have found temporary facilities to use but there were still a few groups who have had difficulty finding alternative sites. Director Pisani reported that several groups have recently requested the use of the Recreation Department for their monthly -meetings, events, classes, etc. Director Pisani noted that recently the Friends of the Library have requested to use the Recreation Center for an upcoming book sale, free of charge. Director Pisani noted that a similar request has come from the library staff to use the patio room at the Recreation Center or use the Warner Hutton House to accommodate the children's story time program. Director Pisani noted that waiving the rental fee for any group is lost revenue to the Recreation Department's budget. Councilmember Waltonsmith questioned that if the attic in the Warner Hutton House was renovated it could accommodate story time and other such programs. Director Pisani responded that the attic would be an ideal place to hold events such as story time. Councilmember Bogosian explained that the Friends of the Library hold a few book sales a year with profits up to $4,000.00. During the upcoming library construction project the Friends have nowhere to hold their book sales. Councilmember Bogosian explained that the Friends contribute a lot of money to the City for various purposes and would soon be contributing funds to purchase most of the new furniture for the temporary library facilities. Councilmember Bogosian noted he fully supported the Friends request for a fee waiver. Mayor Mehaffey noted that non-profit groups are required to pay half the cost of the rental fee to use the Recreation Center. Mayor Mehaffey suggested that perhaps the same policy could be applied to the Friends of the Library. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Friends cannot afford to pay the high hourly fee but perhaps Director Pisani and the Friends could negotiate payment for custodial services. Mayor Mehaffey requested that staff write a policy addressing the use of the Recreation Center during the library's construction project. City Council Minutes 6 May 22, 2001 BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO GRANT A FEE WAIVER TO THE FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY FOR THE USE OF THE RECREATION CENTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the process to renovate the attic at the Warner Hutton House attic be expedited. Councilmember Baker noted that one of the problems of renovating the attic is finding a place to construct a second stairway. . Councilmember Bogosian requested that the Warner Hutton House be added to the CIP project list. Mayor Mehaffey noted that an elevator should also be included in the attic renovation, and noted that the use of CDBG funds could pay for it. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that the Council look into purchasing the property currently owned by the US Post Office adjacent to the Sheriff Office. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested placing this item on a future Council agenda. Councilmember Bogosian noted he supported Councilmember Waltonsmith's request. Councilmember Baker noted that he received a notice announcing the Strawberry Festival. The notice indicated that the event would be held at West Valley College on June 9-10, 2001. Councilmember Baker suggested staff contact the Sheriff's Department and request that the surrounding neighborhoods be noticed about this event. Mayor Mehaffey requested a status report on the email the Council received in regards to a cabana house being build at 21842 Via Regina Road. City Manager Anderson responded that that issue has been directed to the Community Development Department for further investigation. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson announced that Lori Tinfow accepted the position as Assistant City Manager. Ms. Tinfow will start on June 25, 2001. City Council Minutes '] May 22, 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9.00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes 8 May 22, 200]