The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-10-2002 Planning Commission Packet CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent: Commissioners Hunter &Zutshi Staff: Planners Oosterhous & Welsh, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 26, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 3, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #02-015 (503-72-034) -HSU, 21775 Congress Hall Lane; -Request for Design Review approval to add 1,840 square feet to an existing 4,325 square foot house for a total area of 6,165 square feet on a 2.78 acre property. The maximum height of the addition will be 18 feet. The property is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. (WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0) 2. APPLICATION #02-045 (503-78-004) - BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTION INC., 21888 Villa Oaks Lane; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,825 square foot two story home with 1,346 square foot basement on a 1.01 acre property. The maximum height of the structure is 26 feet. The property is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. (WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0) 3. DR-00-051 & BSA-00-003 (503-30-002) -WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road; -Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 19,210 square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. .The site is zoned Hillside Residential. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 4-1 TO CONTINUE TO AUGUST 14, ROUPE OPPOSED) 4. APPLICATION #02-035 (503-72-014) - LUI, 14805 Masson Court; -Request for an extension of approved plans to construct a 6,500 square foot two- story residence on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 87,712 square feet and is located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. The previous Design Review application was approved by Planning Commission. The approval was appealed to the City Council by neighboring property owners. Council denied the appeal on May 17, 2000. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 5-0 TO CONTINUE TO DATE UNCERTAIN) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS - Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:48 PMTO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive this Agenda via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning(a,sarato a~ ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, July 9,.2002 - 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, JULY 10, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-00-051 Fst BSA-00-003 - WALKER Item 3 13800 Pierce Road 2. Application #02-045 - BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTION Item 2 21888 Villa Oaks Lane 3. Application #02-035 - LUI Item 4 14805 Masson Court 4. Application #02-015 - HSU Item 1 21775 Congress Hall Lane LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 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. L~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, July lo, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TrPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 26, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member o f the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 3, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #02-015 (503-72-034) -HSU, 21775 Congress Hall Lane; -Request for Design Review approval to add 1,840 square feet to an existing 4,325 square foot house for a total area of 6,165 square feet on a 2.78 acre property. The maximum height of the addition will be 18 feet. The property is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. (WELSH) 2. APPLICATION #02-045 (503-78-004) - BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTION INC., 21888 Villa Oaks Lane; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,825 square foot two story home with 1,346 square foot basement on a 1.01 acre property. The maximum height of the structure is 26 feet. The property is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. (WELSH) DR-00-051 ~ BSA-00-003 (503-30-002) -WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road; - Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 19,210 square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. (OOSTERHOUS) 4. APPLICATION #02-035 (503-72-014) - LUI,14805 Masson Court; -Request for an extension of approved plans to construct a 6,500 square foot two- story residence on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 87,712 square feet and is located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. The previous Design Review application was approved by Planning Commission. The approval was appealed to the City Council by neighboring property owners. Council denied the appeal on May 17, 2000. (OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive this Agenda via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato a.ca.us ~h, f~, 1~,r / ' 1 ~~ /`^^ ~ r~ v ` J' L1, MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Kurasch called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. RnT,T, f AT.T, Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioner Jackman and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Christy Oosterhous and Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of June 12, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, regular Planning Commission minutes of June 12, 2002, were approved submitted with minor corrections to pages 6, 7 and 10. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: Roupe ORAL COMMUNICATIONS the as Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Raised the issue of the recent prohibition of U-turns at a nearby intersection near Pierce Road and asked that U-turns be legalized at that intersection once again. • Explained that since U-turns were no longer permitted, there are many drivers that turn onto Pierce Road to make a turnaround, often using her driveway entrance to do so. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this matter is within the jurisdiction of the Public Safety Committee and offered to pass this concern onto its staff liaison, Paula Reed. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 16, 2002. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS ,, Page 2 Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-051 & BSA-00-003 (503-30-002) -WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road: Request for Design -Review and Building Site Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 19,210 square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum. height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. (OOSTERHOUS) Acting Chair Kurasch stated that concerns were raised at the Commission's site visit about a lack of story poles to demonstrate impacts to the area from this proposed new residence. Stated that she would propose opening up this item for Public Hearing and asking the applicant if he would be willing to accept a continuance and arrange for the placement of story poles on his property. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Thomas Walker, Applicant and Property Owner, 13800 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Informed the Commission that he was notified just three weeks ago by email regarding the need to install story poles. • Advised that he has had difficulty finding a contractor who is willing to install story poles. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Thomas Walker if he is amenable to a continuance. Mr. Thomas Walker replied yes. Director Sullivan advised that the next scheduled meeting is scheduled for July 10`" and asked Mr. Thomas Walker .if two weeks would give him adequate time to arrange the installation of the story , poles. If not, he suggested the second July meeting. Mr. Thomas Walker replied that he was not certain if he would find someone to install the story poles at all since he has already spoken with five different contractors, none of who were interested in the job of ---installing story poles. They told him that it is expensive and not something they care to do. Director Sullivan offered to find out which contractors installed the more recent story poles for other recent projects in Saratoga. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 3 Commissioner Roupe suggested continuing this item to the July 10`h meeting. If at that time the story poles have not yet been installed, the item could be continued again to another meeting date. Explained to Mr. Thomas Walker that this is a sensitive site because of its location on a Hillside lot and that story poles are helpful to the Commission to see elevations. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission continued consideration of DR-00-051 and BSA-00-003 (13800 Pierce Road) to the next Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 2002, to give the applicant sufficient time to have story poles installed on the property: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Application #02-020 (410-40-018) - HUYNH, 15120 Quito Road: Request for Design Review Approval to demolish an existing 2,214 square foot single-family residence on a 43,342 square foot lot. The floor area of the new residence, including the basement and attached garage, will be 6,937 square feet. The maximum height of the residence will be 25 feet. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented -the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct on atriangular-shaped property. • Explained that the applicant would demolish the existing single-story residence and construct a new two-story residence in an Italian Villa style with an attached three-car garage. • Added that the necessary findings have been made. • Said that the property is a wooded lot with one neighbor to the south. This neighbor is not impacted by this proposed new home. • Stated that the new home would be placed on the same relative footprint and that the natural landscaping would be preserved. Anew driveway will require the removal of five trees. • Said that various elements have been incorporated into the design to minimize the perception of bulk. • Recommended approval with conditions, including a requirement to obtain a permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, meet geotechnical requirements and provide a landscape plan with replacement trees and a buffer with the neighboring property. Commissioner Barry asked how the requirement to remove existing paving by hand would be guaranteed. Planner Ann Welsh replied that this would be verified through a letter from the Arborist. Commissioner Barry asked if there would be a supervising Arborist. Planner Ann Welsh said that the Arborist would simply verify that the condition had been met. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Roupe proposed a requirement for a Project Arborist to ensure that all conditions are met and to guard the safety of the trees on site. Planner Ann Welsh agreed that this requirement could be made a condition of approval. Commissioner Garakani reminded that on occasion a bond is required to guarantee the well being of trees. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the numbers for the total square footage do not add up properly because the penalty for interior heights over 15 feet, which are required to be double counted, are not included. " Planner Arm Welsh assured that this would be corrected. Commissioner Barry asked staff to clarify for those in the audience what the penalty means. Planner Ann Welsh explained that in the Zoning Ordinance it states that internal heights above 15 feet are double counted against the allowable floor area. Thus, 217 square feet in this home that have 18- foot high ceilings will be counted twice. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:26 p.m. Mr. Allan Nikitin, Project Architect: • Told the Commission that the applicants, who had plans for a remodel that they did not. like," hired him in December. Instead, they made the decision to demolish the existing structure and rebuild. • Stated that every home along Quito Road is unique. • Said that the approach from Quito Road requires the placement of the driveway as they are proposing is because it is the safest location from the road for this triangularly shaped lot. " • Said that with the lot shape and creek easement, the building area on this property is limited. There is not a lot of choice for the placement of a house. • Added that some existing paving that will be removed from the site will offset the new driveway. • Pointed out that the one neighbor to the right has asingle-story home. • Added that this new home will have no windows that overlook this neighbor. • Explained that the Arborist recommended removal of some trees near Quito Road and that all will be replaced. Commissioner Barry thanked Mr. Allan Nikitin for the proposed use of pavers with sand for the driveway. - . " Acting Chair Kurasch expressed concern over the length of the driveway. She also asked for the size of the buffer. Mr. Allan Nikitin replied that the buffer is about 25 feet. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Stated that she is concerned about losing a bit of the front buffer and the amount of proposed paving. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 • Added that the proposed pavers are not as pervious a material as she would like to see used. • Suggested a reduction in the driveway. Page 5 Mr. Allan Nikitin reminded that they are taking paving out near the creek and that they are offsetting on-site paving by removing some and by the use of pavers for the driveway and turnabout area. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the minimum width required for the driveway access and questioned if it is 14 feet. Mr. Allan Nikitin replied that it is variable depending upon Fire Department requirements for site access. Commissioner Roupe proposed using a more pervious material for the parking area near the creek. Mr. Allan Nikitin advised that this is a sensitive area near the creek and that it would be more disturbing to remove this existing and established paving than it would be to keep in it place. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Barrie Coates' report recommended moving the placement of the house due to impacts to Tree #19. Asked what would be done with that tree. She added that there are some magnificent Sycamore trees on this site. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Identified Tree #19 as a Coast Live Oak and that this tree is slated to be removed and replaced. • Asked Mr. Allan Nikitin if they would be willing to plant drought tolerant native materials with drip irrigation in the area between the setback from the bank and the house. Mr. Allan Nikitin replied that they would be so willing. Mr. Paul Huynh, Owner and Applicant, 15120 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Stated that he would have a landscape architect include that requirement in his landscape plan. Acting Chair Kurasch added that the Commission would also be seeking a Supervising Arborist. Mr. Richard Anderson, 14971 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Stated that he is the nearest neighbor and that this site is located to the northwest of his property. His home is 1,000 feet back and this home will have no impact on him. • Added that he welcomes any improvement. • Explained that he does have objections over too many two-story homes being constructed. • Said that his neighbors have done an excellent job with their home design and their proposed landscaping is good. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if a survey of one versus two-story homes was conducted in this area. Planner Ann Welsh: • Replied that only one house is visible and that this home is a single-story that is elevated. Another nearby home is two-story. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 6 • Advised that she did not. do an inventory of one versus two-story homes since many homes along Quito Road are not even visible since they are set back quite a distance from the road. Mr. Paul Huynh pointed out that there are indeed several two-story homes in the immediate area. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if the applicant had considered shortening his driveway by moving the house forward to the north. Mr. Allan Nikitin explained that to do so would encroach on a required setback to the creek. Reiterated that the shape of this lot limits the location of a house on this site. Director Tom Sullivan added that moving the house would increase the geotechnical issues. To meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultants, the applicant eliminated a proposed basement and moved away from the creek. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Roupe stated that the design and placement of this house are appropriate and that he would support this project with the conditions that a project Arborist be retained and that indigenous species be used. Otherwise he finds the project acceptable. Commissioner Barry concurred and asked staff to pay attention to the two-story issue with future applications. Asked for clarification about the setback from the creek. Planner Ann Welsh advised that she has s oken with Santa Clara Valle Water District and forwarded p Y plans but has not yet received comments. Commissioner Barry said that it appears issues have been juggled and something reasonable has been reached. Commissioner Hunter asked what would prevent this owner from changing the area along the creek. Director Sullivan replied that one result would be that a final occupancy would not be approved. He added that the Water District looks after creeks and that generally response is to complaints. Commissioner Garakani said that everything looks good and that he has no problem with atwo-story here. Commissioner Hunter agrees that the project looks good. Acting Chair Kurasch concurred and stressed the importance of having the Arborist supervise the site's construction activities. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City's Arborist does a final inspection and suggested that a construction staging area be designated on site away from trees. Acting Chair Kurasch added that it would be wise to install a barrier to keep vehicles and storage away from the creek right-of--way. n Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there will be vehicles in that area during construction. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that this vehicle traffic would be limited to existing paved area that is to remain on site. Planner Ann Welsh added that the Water District would make recommendations for construction processes to prevent erosion. Director Tom Sullivan said that a possible condition of approval might be to require that tree protective fencing enclose the largest area feasible to provide maximum protection possible to all existing vegetation. Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff to make sure and verify that the driveway width is at the minimum width possible. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 15120 Quito Road with the added Conditions: • The applicant shall retain a Project Arborist at his own expense; • A landscape plan should include drought tolerant and indigenous materials, subject to approval by the City Arborist; • A staging area shall be established and construction fencing shall be installed to the maximum extent possible to protect trees along the creek bank; and • Design the driveway and turnaround to minimize the use of impervious surface to meet the minimum standard acceptable to the Fire Department. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period. **~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 Application #02-056 (397-06-080) - CHANDRA, 18595 Woodbank Way: Request for Design Review Approval for an addition to a 4,765 square foot single-family residence on a 44,451 square foot lot. The addition will add approximately 422 square feet to the main floor, 472 to the lower level and 441 square feet to the new garage. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval. • Added that the approval is required because the floor area ratio exceeds 6,000 square feet or more. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 8 • Informed that the proposal would add 894 square feet to the second story and add an attached garage. • Said that the proposal minimizes the perception of bulk due to the isolated lot and low-lying style of the house. The home consists of natural earthtones and follows the contours of the property. There are no visible neighbors and no views are impacted. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Roupe advised that the plans are not clear as to -what supports the terrace feature, whether it would be enclosed space or columns. Planner Ann Welsh said that she spoke with the Architect and they plan to support the terrace with columns but that the actual design and engineering has not been worked out yet. Commissioner Roupe said that he would propose a condition that the area below the terrace not be enclosed. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Ashok Chandra, Owner and Applicant, 18595 Woodbank Way, Saratoga: • Said that they have worked hard to preserve the intent of the building and that the additions are within the decking. • Added that the garage would be placed on an existing pad of concrete and that they would not be disturbing any- trees. • Said that they plan to take out a section of concrete and landscape that area. • Said that they tried to be consistent with the current building and that they have an improved design. • Stated that his architect is available. Commissioner Roupe asked the architect if he supports a condition that states the terrace will be supported by columns and that the space below shall not be enclosed. Mr. James Baldwin, Project Architect, replied yes. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Hunter stated that the project, with its remote location, is very nice. Commissioner Roupe said that he is comfortable with the project and finds the design pleasing and acceptable. Acting Chair Kurasch concurred. Motion: Upon- motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow the addition to an existing home at 18595 Woodbank Way with the added condition that the deck be supported by columns and that the space below that deck not be enclosed. • AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi Fi • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 9 ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 *** Application #02-082 (Citywide) -CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would establish Development Standards for Mixed-Use Developments. These standards address density, unit size, ratio of commercial square footage to residential square foot square footage and compatibility to existing residential and/or commercial development. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the new Housing Element for the General Plan received approval by Council last week. A letter from the State advises that the Housing Element substantially conforms with State law. • Added that the voters previously approved a moratorium (Measure G) to control the conversion of commercially zoned property into residential uses. • Advised that the City is allotted its "Fair Share Housing" from ABAG. The built units that are counted including the Oddfellows Retirement Home, for which Phase I is completed and Phase II is set to begin. • Said that two kinds of second units were considered. One would be an amnesty program to legalize those units constructed without approvals. However, the State denied that proposal and said that such units could not be counted unless it can be proved that these units were never counted in previous Census counts. The second proposal was a streamlined process to construct new secondary living units. • Advised that the City of Saratoga still needs 55 to 60 housing units to meet its Housing Element Plan and one constraint is that Council does not have the ability to increase density in existing residential areas. That leaves Commercial areas for potential new housing locations. • Stated that in May 2001, Council directed staff to look into placing some residential units in every Commercial zone in the City and to draft a Zoning Ordinance for Mixed-Use. There are seven bullets in the Housing Element to be true to. • Said that staff is proposing that the Commission forward a recommendation to Council to end all current Commercial zones and replace them with aMixed-Use zoning designation. • Assured that this change does not mean that every project in the Mixed-Use zone would have to include housing but simply that it could be included. This is a citywide proposal. • Stated that staff could have relied simply on a single ad in the Saratoga News to notify of this evening's hearing but undertook the task to add a 2,000-piece mailing. • Added that staff has fielded lots of phone calls on the matter. • Reminded that the Commission's action is to forward a recommendation to Council. Council will subsequently conduct its own hearing. Commissioner Roupe stated that there is great potential for confusion with the Gateway Design Guidelines. Asked that the Commission keep its focus and keep the two distinct. Director Tom Sullivan: • Stated that the Gateway Design Standards were discussed at the last Commission meeting and that a hearing has been scheduled for the second Planning Commission meeting in September. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 10 Additionally, another Task Force meeting has been set for July 26th and their recommendations will be forwarded to the Commission in August. • Added that anyone that attended one or more of the previous Task Force meetings was notified by mail of this pending Task Force meeting. Commissioner Barry said that she saw on the news that some cities are in trouble with the State for not having an updated Housing Element and thanked Director Sullivan for his leadership and preventing Saratoga from that fate. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:30 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch read a letter to the audience from an owner of the Saratoga Square Office Building in which the writer asks that the City allow repairs to existing buildings and not turn them into a non-conforming use. A second letter from Mr. Thomas B. Sander, President of the Saratoga Oaks Homeowner's Association, also expresses concern about the proposed Mixed-Use designation. Director Tom Sullivan stated out that Mr. Sander's letter shows his confusion between the Mixed-Use Zoning and the Gateway Design Guidelines. Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Stated that he is the President of Saratoga Square. • Expressed his belief that this proposal is the start of a "slippery slope." • Said that if the Gateway becomes Mixed-Use, he could not rebuild what exists on the property. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan if Mr. Keenan would be precluded from rebuilding with the Mixed-Use designation. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this Mixed-Use Ordinance would not do that. This Ordinance adds another allowable use. Mr. Keenan is expressing his concerns about changes in addition to this Ordinance that might occur in the future. Commissioner Roupe stated that the Housing Element requires aMixed-Use designation that allows residential but does not require it. Ms. Zoe Alameda, 12341 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Commended Director Tom Sullivan for the City's Housing Element. • Said that she has concerns over a Citywide overlay. • Read a quote attributed to Director Tom Sullivan in a recent article, "...to create an environment that encourages developers to come to Saratoga." • Asked that the City withdraw the Gateway Area from these standards until the Gateway Design Standards are finalized. Commissioner Roupe explained to Ms. Alameda that the Commission is not in a position to exclude the Gateway Area from this Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Zoe Alameda said that perhaps the two could be combined. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 11 Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City has a policy it its adopted Housing Element and assured that the Council's goal is to protect neighborhoods. He added that the landscaping requirements were the outgrowth of the Task Force meetings and that they are not yet set in stone but rather will continue to be worked on with this Citywide Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Roupe said that Ms. Alameda has a legitimate point. Director Tom Sullivan said that he agrees. Commissioner Barry said that she does not find that specifics are given. Director Tom Sullivan pointed her to the Draft Ordinance. While specifics are not outlined in the staff report they are included in the Draft Ordinance. Ms. Zoe Alameda stated that these requirements are quite restrictive to commercial uses with its limits on walls, fencing, etc. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Tom Sullivan for the purpose in those types of restrictions. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the reason is to keep commercial areas open from the street and to provide shared parking and access. Acting Chair Kurasch said that this is much broader zoning and that there is room for this to fit with the Gateway Design Guidelines. Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Thanked Director Tom Sullivan who clarified some of her questions. • Stated that she is a Planner by profession. • Suggested the restriction on fence height to a certain height rather than to prohibit them outright. • Suggested that the residential units be rental units only. • Asked if there is a State mandated requirement for size of living unit. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the State does allow some latitude in the size of the units. Ms. Antoinette Romeo suggested adding text "or developed" as per the staff report and asked if the 20,000 square foot minimum area includes the residence. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this number represents the land area. Ms. Antoinette Romeo suggested that full CEQA review be required to assess issues such as traffic, soils and seismic. Director Tom Sullivan said that he would have to see whether some instances might be Categorically Exempt. • Mr. Thomas B. Sander, 14652 Placida Court, Saratoga: • Stated that he wrote one of the letters read by the Chair at the beginning of this hearing item. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 12 • Said that while he heard that this Mixed-Use zoning would include all commercial zoning the area around the Argonaut Shopping Center was not included and he wondered why. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the State required the City to identify sites where such development might occur within five years. Council removed the Argonaut Shopping Center because it is not likely for redevelopment within that time frame. Ms. Joyce Hlava, 14662 Springer Road; Saratoga: • Said that she can appreciate what is underway since she is a former Commissioner and Mayor. • Said that she has concerns that Mixed-Uses on sites that border residential properties not include restaurants, bars or liquor stores due to the potential for noise and later hours. • Stated that she has no problem with density but that there is not a lot of high density in Saratoga. • Advised that there are pre-existing noise issues with Dr. Fitzsimmon's property. • Added that sound walls would be a degradation of her area and that there are better ways to mitigate noise without tall sound walls, including landscaping. Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that this Mixed-Use zoning would not preclude a need for Use Permits. Director Tom Sullivan replied that these uses would require Use Permits. Food service businesses require Use Permits. Mr: Bob Estler, 18644 Paseo Lodo, Saratoga: • Said that he would like to see more public noticing including ads within the Saratoga News. • Added that he too is concerned that Argonaut is excluded. • Suggested a minimum in low-income housing unit since he worked hard to achieve a life in Saratoga and does not feel that that privilege should be simply handed to others. • Questioned what additional housing demands would be placed on the City in 2006. • Stated a preference for senior housing since seniors are older, quieter and better neighbors. • Pointed out potential traffic impacts. • Suggested that alcohol sales be prohibited in Mixed-Use developments. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Estler what he felt the impact of Mixed-Use development near his home would be. Mr. Bob Estler replied noise and traffic. He added that there is already a problem with traffic for Gene's Market in his neighborhood. More density would mean more cars, louder cars since low- incomepeople spend a lot on their car stereos. Mr. Paul Roland, 18761 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that he resides adjacent to current commercial property. • Said that he realizes tonight's issue is the Mixed-Use component. • Stated that there are two issues regarding privacy for residences located adjacent to commercial uses. • Said he agrees that eight-foot tall sound walls are disturbing and not particularly effective. He has one between him and the commercial property adjacent .to his. Additionally, there is tremendous Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 13 light incursion by lighting in parking lots. Since he has lost some trees that used to screen this lighting, he now experiences "light trespass" onto his property. • Identified himself as amateur astronomer. Director Tom Sullivan asked Mr. Roland if his sound wall is made of masonry. Mr. Paul Roland replied yes. Commissioner Hunter said that she has heard that sound walls are not working and that redwood trees work better to buffer noise when placed in front of a sound wall. Mr. Paul Roland said that the wall helps deflect low sounds but not high sounds. Mr. Russ Stanley, 12108 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Stated that the noticing for this hearing was inadequate and that he did not receive one although he owns atwo-acre commercial property in Saratoga. • Said that this Mixed-Use Zoning has serious overlap with the Gateway Design Guidelines and that they should be dealt with separately. • Said that he spoke with Director Tom Sullivan today. • Said that this Ordinance goes too far with its restrictions. Director Tom Sullivan stated that Council wanted a certified Housing Element but were not giving up existing or potential commercial land uses. Commissioner Rou e reiterated that this Mixed-Use zonin does not re uir p g q e residential but allows rt. The properties can remain totally commercial but gives some flexibility in the future. Mr. Russ Stanley said that Director Tom Sullivan told him that his property is already considered Mixed-Use when he does not feel it is so. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that Mr. Stanley's property is the commercial portion of a site that was developed with housing and commercial. The two uses were later sold separately. If this Ordinance passes, Mr. Stanley's property has already benefited from the previous Mixed-Use development that occurred and would not be eligible for further Mixed-Use development. Commissioner Barry asked if this property was one parcel with the portion developed as residential. Mr. Russ Stanley replied yes and they were sold separately. He purchased the commercial portion, a commercial property that he purchased without restrictions. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Roupe stated that he has heard enough to suggest a continuance to track this Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance more closely with the Gateway Design Guidelines, perhaps they could proceed at a parallel pace. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Gatewa Desi Guidelines are now schedule f y gn d or Plannm~ Commission hearing at the second meeting in September. The Task Force meetings again on July 26t Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 14 and will provide a report to the Commission in August. Suggested that it might be more appropriate to finish the Gateway Design Guidelines and then adjust the Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance accordingly. Commissioner Roupe asked if the Gateway will be an Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they are Design Guidelines. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that it is easy to change a Design Guideline. Director Tom Sullivan suggested the second meeting in October~(October 23rd) for the Public Hearing on the Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance. Acting Chair Kurasch agreed that this schedule is prudent and agreed that as much noticing as possible is advised. Added that she would like to see materials as early as possible in advance of the Public Hearings. Commissioner Barry proposed a better use of the City's website. Added that she wants as broad a notice as possible and recommended that the public use the website for information. Director Tom Sullivan said that he would place the draft Mixed-Use Ordinance on the website. Added that noticing was provided to 2,000, an ad went into the Saratoga News and this hearing was posted on the website and on the City's posting bulletin board. The State requires 300-foot notices and Saratoga's standard practice is to notice within 500 feet. Acting Chair Kurasch said that 500 feet may not be enough and more noticing maybe necessary. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the law simply requires a 1/4-page ad for a citywide issue. The mailed notices are not required. Commissioner Barry stated that noticing itself is not effective and that word of mouth works better. Director Tom Sullivan stated that since it appears the Commission has reached a consensus, the Chair should reopen the Public Hearing and continue this matter to a date specific. Commissioner Barry suggested that perhaps one Zoning Ordinance might not work for all commercial areas, including the Gateway and Village that have specific issues, and that perhaps more than one Ordinance might be required. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the. Village Design Guidelines are mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance specifically and that adopts those Guidelines. The Residential Design Handbook adopts policies and techniques. ...Commissioner Roupe asked if such specifics are required in the Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan advised that in the Housing Element, zoning is supposed to be specific. Commissioner Barry asked if it is possible that there cannot be just one Ordinance for Mixed-Use zoning. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 15 Director Tom Sullivan said that if the Commission wants different standards for each specific zone, that could be done. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that the City has a Commercial Code that is specific and that the purpose of the Ordinance is to designate kinds of uses. This is an overlay over the guidelines that are already there. Commissioner Hunter said that this is a highly specific Ordinance that includes a requirement for eight- foot tall walls. Asked if these would be required in the Village. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the requirement for eight-foot walls could be changed. Asked staff to prepare more scenarios to help provide an analysis of the impact of this Mixed-Use zoning over the existing Commercial zoning. Commissioner Roupe suggested that grandfathering or exceptions be considered. Director Tom Sullivan said that Zoe Alameda had previously said that she would not mind her property being evaluated in developing these sample scenarios. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are many important elections coming in November. Director Tom Sullivan advised that SB910 is moving forward. Commissioner Hunter said that this process can be slowed down a little bit. Commissioner Roupe said that there is no effect from the upcoming election on these Zoning changes. Commissioner Barry stated that there has to be some starting point to put on the table and focus the discussion upon. Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:53 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish Development Standards for Mixed Use Developments to the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2002. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Roupe asked about noticing for the October hearing. • Director Tom Sullivan said he would look into it and perhaps a press release can be issued. *** 1 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 16 ~; A DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan distributed the League of California Cities' Quarterly News. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Business Development Meeting. Acting Chair Kurasch advised that the Subcommittee on Trees will try to meet before Director Tom Sullivan leaves on vacation on July 12th. Upon consultation with Director Sullivan and Commissioner Garakani, the meeting will occur one day during the week of July 7th (final date to be confirmed), from 11:30 to 1:30 p.m., at City Hall and brown bag lunches will be provided. Director Tom Sullivan advised that appointees from the Commission should be made to the Gateway Task Force. Commissioner Garakani recommended Commissioner Roupe. Commissioner Roupe said he would check his calendar for July 26th Commissioner Hunter said that if Commissioner Roupe could not attend she would. Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff to include maximum allowed and minimum required data in future staff reports as had previously been agreed. Commissioner Barry advised that her Subcommittee is looking at the issue of staff reports. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Kurasch adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, July 10, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk /z ITEM 1 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 503-72-034 02-015 DR, 21775 Congress Hall Lane Fu-Chieh Hsu Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner July lo, 2002 Department Head: 'G ~ ,.~~ FCQ \\ ~~' ' ~i. i ~~ /% r~ ~~y4N! LN • ~ ,; ~ ~•~ ~~ ~~'~ _, ~ < ~y,r _ / , _ -,.\.._ ~, l-cRfSS ~ : ~--~.3PRINGS_ _,.. _ ~.~\ ~ \ N A ~~ ~~~ A \\\ 2c i /N / \\~ \ LN _ ~_ ~~~~_. 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Mile • 21775 CONGRESS HALL LANE 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 1/24/02 Application complete: 5/20/02 Notice published: 6/26/02 Mailing completed: 6/26/02 Posting completed: 6/19/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to build a 1,840 square foot addition to their existing 4,325 square foot Spanish style home the combination of which yields a 6,165 square foot home. The property is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district and contains 2.78 acres with a net site area of 61,650 square feet. Design Review is required for any addition, which yields a structure, which exceeds 6,000 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution for application # 02-015. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution for application # 02-015 3. Arborist Report dated February 2, 2002 4. Saratoga Fire District report dated February 5, 2002 5. City Geotechnical Review dated April 18, 2002 6. Plans, Exhibit 'A' date stamped January 24, 2002 • • • ~O~~~ti Attachment 1 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: HR -Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC -Residential Hillside Conservation MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 121,445 square feetgross/61,650 square feet net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 25 GRADING REQUIRED: The grading plan depicts 15 cubic yards of cut and 113 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of an addition to a single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists an addition to asingle-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior of the addition is to be composed of beige stucco walls and terra cotta concrete roof tiles, which match the existing home. • 000003 PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 21% 25% Building Footprint 6,165 sQ. i-r. Driveway, porches, deck 5,850 sQ. i= r. Total (Impervious Surface) 12,015 SQ. Fr. FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Existing Dwelling 4,363 sQ. i;-r. Addition 1,840 sQ. I~ r. TOTAL 6,165 sQ. Fr. 6,440 sQ. i; r.~ SETBACKS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Front 33 FI'. 30 FI. Rear 82+ Fr. 60 Fr. Side 30+ Fr. 20 ~. Height Residence 18 ~. 26 Fr Addition 18 i= r. 26 Fr. 1 Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section 15-45.030(c)(d)). • 0000®4 PROJECT DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW The applicant proposes to construct a 1,840 square foot addition to their existing 4,325 square foot one story residence for a combined floor area of 6,165 square feet. The proposed addition has a maximum height of 18 feet and is connected to the main house by a hallway. The 2.788 acre (gross) property is located on a flag lot, which takes access from Congress Hall Lane adjacent Pierce Road. The property is irregularly shaped and relatively isolated. The style of home is Spanish with stucco walls and file roof. In addition to the added floor area, the applicant proposes a Mexican file patio and large redwood deck which incorporates an existing 27" Valley Oak tree into the design. The addition complies with all setback, floor area and impervious surface requirements. In terms of impact on adjacent land uses, the orientation of the windows and outdoor living space is towards the vacant wooded portion of the lot, thus respecting the privacy of the neighbors who are located in the vicinity of the property. NECESSARY FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. 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. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure, 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 environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure 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 (iii) unreasonably impair the -.-- light and air of adjacent properties and their ability to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will 0®QD©s conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. ACTUAL FINDINGS DESIGN REVIEW The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivary. The proposed addition minimizes interference with neighboring privacy by its orientation of the windows and outdoor patio and deck toward the wooded open portion of the lot. With this design the privacy of neighbors south and west of the property who do not have significant tree cover to buffer the view, is not impacted negatively by the added sunroom and deck. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. 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. The proposed addition follows the natural contours of the land since the height of the addition is low profile, does not exceed 18 feet and follows the downward slope of the hillside. Also, the addition has little impact on the existing landscape since no tree removal is required and the project involves minimal regrading. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure 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 environment. The design proposes to continue the use of natural materials and colors similar the existing structure. Beige stucco walls and the roof are proposed for the addition. The sunroom is the exception to this, being a glass enclosure for the proposed lap pool. The use of natural colors and materials and the relatively low profile of the structure , minimize the perception of bulk. The design uses a single architectural theme to integrate the addition and the patio into the existing structure. This creates unity of design and minim~es the perception of bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure 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 (iii) OOUO06 unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The house and addition maintain a lower profile that the surrounding homes. The homes abutting this parcel on Congress Hall Lane to the south are two story homes as is also the home which shares the flag access road to the west of the property. Given the lov<~ profile of the home and the distance from adjacent homes on Congress Hall Lane, the scale is compatible with the neighboring homes. In terms of solar access, the home does not impair the light or air of any neighboring home. The sunroom acts as a natural solar collector for the lap pool thus increasing the energy efficiency of the dwelling. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. A grading plan has been submitted which depicts a total of 15 cubic yards of cut and 113 cubic yards of fill for the proposed development. This minimal regrading is consistent with the design policy to minimise the impact of development on natural land forms (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project complies with Residential Design Handbook Policy #1 to minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as maintaining a low profile roofline. The plan conforms to Policy #2; integrate structures with the environment by following the natural slope of the property and minimizing earth and vegetative removal. The proposal complies with Policy #3; avoid interference with privacy by locating the building to minimize the privacy impacts. The outdoor living spaces proposed by the addition are oriented toward the large open wooded area of the property. This results in minimal privacy impacts to neighbors. Policy #4, maximi?e views but avoid conflicts with privacy is addressed by the patio and deck orientation to the wooded private area of the lot which is removed visually from the abutting neighbors. Policy #S, design for energy efficiency is addressed by the use of a sunroof as a passive ' solar collector for the proposed lap pool. Thus the above analysis concludes that all the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. The City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District and City Geotechnical consultant have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. ~0~~~~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Prior to submittal for Builclin Permit g s, 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 revisibns: 1. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 2. 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." 2. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 3. A storm water retention plan shall be provided 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. 4. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimising the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 5. The area of enclosure for fences in hillside districts shall not exceed four thousand square feet (excluding the area of any pool) unless approved by the Planning Commission. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on February S, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. Re roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. ®~~10~g CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property on February 2, 2002 and issued a report addressing tree protection measures on this property and the protection measures identified in the report are to be made a condition of approval. The arborist notes that there are 9 trees exposed to some level of risk by the proposed construction and no trees are to be removed by the proposed construction. The primary risks associated with the development are root severing and or root loss from soil compaction. The following are some of the mitigation measures recommended; all items identified in the arborist report are made conditions of approval. 1. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence 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 protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. Bright colored flagging tape must be attached to the fence tops on 8- foot intervals. For tree #4 and 5, rotective fencin must be installed in two hases. The first base P g P P protects the trees during the construction of the new additions to the house. The majority of the fencing may be removed for construction of the deck. This presumes that construction of the deck would be subsequent to construction of the house. 2. A 4-inch layer of course wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree #4 and 5. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. Chips must remain in place during all construction including construction of -the proposed deck. The depth of the chips must be maintained throughout construction. There must be no grading trenching or surface scraping inside the canopy of the drip lines of retained trees. 3. The deck must not be nailed or in any way attached to Tree #4. The opening in the deck for Tree #4 must allow for trunk expansion. 4. Major roots must not be severed or subjected to root bark injury during the digging to construct the piers for the deck. To achieve this, an air spade or a hydro jet must be used to dig the first 18 inches of the pier holes within the area of 12 feet from the trunks of Tree #4 and S. S. The pad for the pool equipment must be relocated at least 15 feet from the trunk of Tree #9. Any trenching for plumbing or electrical must also meet this minimum requirement. O®0009 6. Drain dissipaters or downspouts must be relocated, if trees are in the path of discharge. The discharge must be directed a minunum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 8. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 9. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 10. A value assessment of $52,879 is placed on -the trees and a bond equal to 25% ($13,220) of the total value of these trees must be retained prior to final zoning clearance. All other items identified in the arborist report dated February 2, 2002 must be addressed during the construction process and are made a condition of approval of this plan. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated Apri118, 2002 are: 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. 2. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 3. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 4. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 5. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. ®®~~~~ 6. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that these plans be approved with the condition that the issues identified above be addressed in the final plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with revisions and subject to conditions by adopting the following resolution. • • d~~00~.1 3 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . ~. • 00002 Attachment RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION NO.02-OIS CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA HSU/21775 CONGRESS HALL LANE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to add 1,840 square feet to an existing 4,325 square foot dwelling for a.__ combined floor area of 6,165 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 project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows ,for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves construction of an addition to a single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The proposed addition minunizes the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as maintaining a low profile roofline. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The design integrates structures into the environment by following the natural slope of the property and minimizing earth and vegetative removal. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy Interference with privacy is avoided by locating the building to minimize the privacy impacts. The outdoor living spaces proposed by the addition are oriented toward the large open wooded area of the property. This results in minimal privacy impacts to neighbors. Policy 4; Preserve views and access to views 0000.3 The site plan maximizes views and avoids conflicts with privacy by orienting the patio S and deck and sunroom toward the wooded private area of the lot, which is removed visually from the abutting neighbors. Policy S, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The design maximizes solar efficiency by the use of a sunroom as a passive solar collector for the proposed lap pool. 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 dravt~ings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by Fu-Chieh Hsu for Design Review is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped April 24, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the 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 and containing the following revisions: 1. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 2. 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." 3. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 4. A storm water retention plan shall be provided 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. 5. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion .control plan which identifies the techniques for minim;7ing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. • ®®OOg4 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Sarato a Fire District reviewed this a lication on Febru 5 2002 and their g PP ~' , comments are as follows: 1. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. Re roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property on February 2, 2002 and issued a report addressing tree protection measures on this property and the protection measures identified in the report are to be made a condition of approval. The arborist notes that there are 9 trees exposed to some level of risk by the proposed construction and no trees are to be removed by the proposed construction. The primary risks associated with the development are root severing and or root loss from soil compaction. The following are some of the mitigation measures recommended; all items identified in the arborist report are made conditions of approval. 1. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence 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 protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. Bright colored flagging tape must be attached to the fence tops on 8- foot intervals. For tree #4 and S, protective fencing must be installed in two phases. The first phase protects the trees during the construction of the new additions to the house. The majority of the fencing maybe removed for construction of the deck. This presumes that construction of the deck would be subsequent to construction of the house. . 2. A 4-inch layer of course wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree t~(~0®~5 #4 and 5. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. Chips must remain in place during all construction including construction of the proposed deck. The depth of the chips must be maintained throughout construction. There must be no grading trenching or surface scraping inside the canopy of the drip lines of retained trees. 3. The deck must not be nailed or in any way attached to Tree #4. The opening in the deck for Tree #4 must allow for trunk expansion. 4. Major roots must not be severed or subjected to root bark injury during the digging to construct the piers for the deck. To achieve this, an air spade or a hydro jet must be used to dig the first 18 inches of the pier holes within the area of 12 feet from the trunks of Tree #4 and 5. S. The pad for the pool equipment must be relocated at least 15 feet from the trunk of Tree #9. Any trenching for plumbing or electrical must also meet this minimum requirement. 6. Drain dissipaters or downspouts must be relocated, if trees are in the path of discharge. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 8. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 9. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 10. A value assessment of $52,879 is placed on the trees and a bond equal to 25% ($13,220) of the total value of these trees must be retained prior to final zoning clearance. All other items identified in the arborist report dated February 2, 2002 must be addressed during the construction process and are made a condition of approval of this plan. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 18, 2002, are: 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. 0000.6 2. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 3. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 4. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 5. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 6. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry 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. 2. 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 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 10`h day of July, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~ao~.s BARRIE D. Cdr. fE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Ga[os, CA 95033 408,353-1052 Attachment 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE HSU PROPERTY 21775 CONGRESS HALL LANE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Community Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist February 2, 2002 Job #01-02-012 ~N~~~~~ FE6 2 5 2002 CITY OAF SARATOGA QOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • D~0®19 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERV. .N RECOMIvIE1dDATIONS AT THE HSU PROPERTY 21775 CONGRESS HALL LANE, SARATOGA Assignment I was asked by the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga to review the construction plan proposed for the Hsu property located at 21775 Congress Hall Lane, Saratoga, in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report provides information about the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by TDH Design, Saratoga, Sheets S and 2-5, dated 7anuary 2, 2002. 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. The locations of trees that have been added to these plans must be considered approximate. Summary This proposal exposes 9 trees to some level of risk by construction. No trees are to be removed, and no trees would be significantly damaged provided recommended mitigation procedures are accomplished. A bond equal to 25% of the value of the 9 trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are 9 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. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. Trees # 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are not included on the map provided and have been added. Their locations on the map are approximate. The 9 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 3 California buckeye (Aesculus californica) Trees # 4, 6, 7, 9 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) Tree # 8 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the data accumulation charts that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and - - structure ratings of the 9 trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: Exce 'oral S imens Fine S cimens 4, 5 1, 2 3, 6 7, 8, 9 PREPARID BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 2, 2002 • • • ooao~o TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA_ .~N RECOIvIIutIIJDATIONS AT THE HSU PROPERTY 2 21775 CONGRESS HALL LANE, SARATOGA Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and 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 root collars of Trees #4 and 9 are covered by fill soil. This condition exposes them to diseases, such at oak root fungus (Armillaria mellea), which can kill infected trees over a period of time. This risk can usually be eliminated for all practical purposes by removing the fill soil, which fosters the conditions that favor the disease. Risks of Damage by Proposed Construction The plans do not indicate removal of any trees. A119 trees are all expected to survive in good condition provided recommended mitigation procedures are carefully followed. The primary risks to the existing trees are root severing and/or root loss from soil compaction. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to prevent significant decline resulting from construction. 1. Construction period fencing' must be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. Bright colored flagging tape must be attached to the fence tops on 8-foot intervals. For Trees #4 and 5, protective fencing must be installed in two phases. The first phase protects the trees during the construction of the new additions to the house. The majority of the fencing may be removed for construction of the deck. This presumes that construction of the deck would be subsequent to the construction of the house. 2. A 4-inch layer of coarse of wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Trees #4 and 5. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand Chips must remain in place during all construction including construction of the proposed deck. The depth of the chips must be maintained throughout construction. 3. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the canopy driplines of retained trees. ~ Construction 'od fencin P~ S PREPARED BY: IvQCHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 2, 2002 ®~U~D21 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERV. IN RECOM1v1ENDATIONS AT THE HSU PROPERTY Z 1775 CONGRESS HALL LANE, SARATOGA may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 14. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike beneath the canopy of oak trees. 15. 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 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 16. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the canopy driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 17. The species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees must be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 18. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 19. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to International Society of Arboriculture standards, Seventh Edition. The combined value of the 9 trees is $52,879. I suggest a bond equal to 25% (=$13,220) of the their total value to be retained to assure their protection. Enclosures: Respectfully subm' , is el L. Bench, iate` Barr , lp~~~ Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 2, 2002 4 • • • TREE SURVEY AND PRESE.°•Vn__JN RECOIvIlv1ENDATIONS AT THE HSU PROPERTY 21775 CONGRESS HALL LANE, SARATOGA 11/B,B/S • • PREPARID BY: IWCHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 2, 2002 ®~QQ23 a~ V Job Title: Hsu Job Address: 21775 Congress Hall Lane Mea sure ments Con dltlon Pr uning/ Cabli ng Ne eds Pest/ Disea se Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D. COATS ~ ~ o "' and ASSOCIATES D rn o ~ o O ~ v a W a 40 , o ~ ~ ~ ~ ( 813531052 S LL 'q F O Z z ~ O ~ tr ~ ~ '? O U ~ O ~ ~- w W 2353SSonnARoad 1O ~ w ~ _ ~ ~- ~ ~ a z O z d w ~ O ~ -. > ~ ~ ~ N J ~ a O Los Galas CA 95030 ~' r~n `~ ~ z a ~ = w a Z w a ~ ~ ~ U g ~ ~ ~ C a , ® ~ ~ ~ v ~ O O U F- D: 0: W N C7 _ cn ~ ~ o O O ~ LL ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ c7 w ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Z U w o z F F an m > K # m ~ m m a w a w ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w a ~ vwi w a ~ 8 8 w w O t) O ey Plant Name o ~ o 0 o x an x an U x U v U U ~ U a ? r o ~ ~ o: z z 1 Celifomia Bucks a 8.0 x 8.0 4\5 12\,5 20 25 1 3 4 Aesculus calii`omica 5 . in 91 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,457 X sp. class 70% _ $1,720 X cond. 75% _ $ 1 290 X loc. 70% _ $ 903 Total Value 2 California Buck 8.0 x 717 6\5 multi 20 30 1 2 3 in 113 X $271sq. in. _ $ 3,051 X sp. class 70% _ $2,136 X cond. 90% _ $ 1.922 X loc. 70% _ $ 1 345 _ _ . _ Total Value 3 California Bucks 7.0 x 4.0 8\5 20 20 1 2 3 . in 45 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,215 X sp. class 70% _ $851 X cond. 90% _ $ 765 X loc. 70% _ $ 536 Total Value 4 Vall Oak 27.0 30 35 45 1 2 3 3 Quercus lobate in 572 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 15,451 X sp. class 100% _ $15.451 X cond. 90% - $ 13,906 X loc. 60% _ $ 11 125 - - Total Value - Vall Oak 36.0 - 39 40 50 1 2 3 - - in 1017 X $271sg. in. _ $ 27,489 X sp. class 100% _ $27,469 X cond. 90% - $ 24.722 X loc. 80% _ $ 19 777 Total Value 6 Vall Oak 15.0 16 35 35 1 2 3 - . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 90% - $ 4,292 X loc. 75% _ $ 3 219 Total Value 7 Vall Oak 18.0 20 30 35 1 2 3 in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. class 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 90°~ - $ 6,180 X loc. 75°~ _ $ 4 635 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5~gal =536 15-gal = 5120 24"box = 0 36"box =51,320 ~ 1 = BEST,~ORST 48"box 52"box = 57,000 a 72"bent = ,000 Page 1 of 2 Job #01-02-012 2.2.02 Job ~: Hsu Job Address: 21~ongress Hall Lane ~,, , Job # - 2-012 2.2.02 ~AA 's~~ ~J Mea surem a~rts Con dition Pr uningl Cablin q Nee ds Pest/Diseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ o ~ ~ Z o ~ _ ~ ~ W ui v w W '~ w a J > _ ~ ~ ~ z p Q ~ _ ' pp (413531052 $ ,~ ~ z ~ U ~ ~ p ,~, 4 ~ o ~ N W ~ T353SfunnRRaad ~ w ~ ~ w o: ~ w z ai ~ d w ~ ~ p a ~ x ~ _ J ~ = gg 8 LaGalae u 95010 ? a z ~ a w z a O Q w g g a ~ a. , ~ > of w ~ ~ ^ x ~ 0 ~ p U F ~ s W ~ C7 -- ~ ~ L~ > O ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ F J ~ ~ W J p Q~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ O W ~ Z ~ W p Z F- F- t ~ O (l ~ ^ H ? Ke # p Ss [u 2 ~ < w ~ a Q w ~ Z pp N QQ Q O ~ O a O o: O a f w a 7 ~ W ~ W Q w ~ 8 v 8 v W w W w y Plant Name ~ p o x U x O x U U U U ~ v a ? ~ p ~ o: Q: z z 8 L 24.0 28 25 35 1 2 3 Duercus rifolia . in 452 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 12,208 X sp. class 100% _ $12,208 X cond. 90% - $ 10,987 X loc. 75% _ $ B 241 Total Value 9 Vall Oak 12.0 x 12.0 22 25 30 1 2 3 3 . in 170 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,590 X sp. class 100% _ $4,590 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,131 X loc. 75% _ $ 3,098 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES S-6al =536 15-6a1= 5120 24"box =5420 36"box a 51,320 48"box = 55.E 52"box' 57,000 72"box = 515,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 2 of 2 I3ARRIE D COATS Tree Preservation . AND ASSOCIATES ;I Protective Fencing 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists Construction period protection for trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed on the property. t ~ i Top of fence hung with fluorescent flapgine tape every 10 feet. 6' chain link or welded wire mesh 8' fence oost of 2" diameter GI pine or T-angle post f ~ Fence-placed at drip line ~~ / ~„/~~_ or 50% greater than the tree ~7~c canooy radius r,!-ere .possible Roadway men construction is to take place beneath a canopy on one side, the fence should be d 2-3 feet b and that construction but weep cons nand the tree trunk. Fend . - - - - - 1 S l t l n <?. t \~~~ ~. If construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing _ should be used to protect trunks from damage. _ __ Three layers of wire and l_a th snow f enc in8\ to 8' ,above ground on ~t i~ trees where construction ~'~ will take place beneath ~ the canopy ~" ,,, it - - ~.~, ., r~ ,~ BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 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 prevern 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-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpeirters 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 painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave S-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 '/Z') 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 may be 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 rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plarns beneath tree canopies. ®~~~~ 31 ~ ~, ~ ~. ~ ; ~2 .~, 3 ~~ ~ ~~ Phase I ~~, .~ ~ \ Q ~„ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~' •~~ ~ ~ ,, ~, Protective Fencing ~ ~ ~~ / ~`~~--------- ~ ` :~~`' ~ \ \\During House Construction ' ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~` 1 3Q~4i ~- j ., _ _ ~ r~ ~ 3 D _~' ~/ ~ J ~y / ~ Y!~ T ~ -_ ` C ~ R O INLET f' j ~ .- , ~ ~ /~ X. VIA ~ ~ . -~~ ..tg2 / ; '~. 1 - -.._' 1 'f ~ _ _ . -)s- _ .i, ' ..:CND i ~ , __7.. / ' v, / ~~ i ~ ~Oa pFF 7~ t: v 'Q, :~ ~ ~' h i ~ l .~ ' ~ r '- ~' ~ Z i. -' QIFi may- •~ ~ ~ •_ S'~' -.:'eQ, % .. ~. \ \ ~,,...1 - \ \ \ ~ ~ r :. \ _ ,~.l,J~ .. \ \ ,;. ~r ~'. ,- .- • ~ ~ ~ .~ /, 7. ~s ' ~ ~ :ra .'ice . D \ _ _ \ ~ X -;, ~ r n - y-, i... ~ ~ ~a '~ s c~~ ~'1--.{ C .. ~~ " ~. ~~ ~ J it ~ / J ~/,~ / -.q ~ ~ U ~ - BARRIE D COATS Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the . and ASSOCIATES woes ss~;osz Hsu Property, 21775 Congress Hal) Lane 23535 Sunad Rwd ~,~ ~,~, ~ y~ ~ Prepared for: City of Saratoga, Planning Department "'RTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: Februa 2, 2002 O CONSULTING ARBORIST ... ___ Job # 01-02-012 O~umbers correspond to evaluation charts. ~ mensions a locations ~~proximate. ~ ~ ~ ~~~-- Relocate ~ ~ •: ~ ~ Pool Equipment _ 4 y~ `~ ~~ n Pad ~S.c : ~ O // ~/' 1 ~• Q~~ ~ ~ ~\ ~ w ~~ - ~Q ~~ ~ \ ~ Phase II ~ \ 2 `-~- 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ Protective Fencing \~ ' ~ `, '~ , ~ :~; ~., ~ - ~ ~ -During Deck Construction Only ~\ ~ f, - ~ ~ , ~ :. !'r ' • 1- ~Y ~' ~ \ \ 1 ' ~ ITr .~: ~Y .~\ \ 7~ /' e t ~ ••~ • \ -~-- ~~p I ~ ~ ~ iii . _ ~ }4 , - D + ~ ~ - 1.~ .. _ .I~, (~~r~ ~ c _. u~ ~ f s fir. : ee.,~ ' ,~,~ 1 i • 8 \. ~ \ r..y... I i" ~' ~ t-..~`~ -~s'~ ' fir: ~ \1 - - ~. 4s. i'-.: ~M1- Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the ~:' ; •",,..-:> -;;~:~ - ~ BARRIE D. COATE - - ~~ = ? ~ ~~ : ~ :Relocate and ASSOCIATES Hsu Property, 21775 Congress Hall Lane ~3. ~. ;.'~ - .' n. I ~~ -~•'• ~+ -'~' (Ol1B1353I052 ~ .=~-=~-_._:_ ; - Pool Equipment z3s3ss~~aw~a aQ ~~c,~os,ca 9sroo Prepared for: ,7-1ON. - -` ~ Pad ~., . ~ :• ;- City of Saratoga, Planning Department ~ .;{~:!. J % "~ r HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: Februa 2, 2002 _ ___ _ ___ ~~ ~=~., ~ \'1 CONSULT[NG ARBORIST Job # 01-02-012 ';~ ^ / `" ~ ' ~ ~ p ., / ~~ Tr(~jrumbers correspond to evaluation charts. - ~ e.r % " " Al~mensions and tree locations - - N" _ ~Y-erg!-=_.. ~ - - ~ - are proximate. ~' 'c 4~.- ~ ~~ -'•~+ ~~' •~' i ~ •~' /1 J / • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . ®0000 BUILDING SITE APPROVAL CHECK LIST Attachment 4 /A means NOT APPI,iCABLE FILE #: OZ-015 DATE: February 5, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE CANT: HSU LOCATION: 21<77S CONGRESS HALL LN l : Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2: Early Warning Fire Alarm System is not required. 3: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. 4: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 5: Roof covering shall be fue retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re~mofing less than XO% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 1.6-20:2 t. 0.) 6: Early Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, Y 7: Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation. and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 8: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed ire newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are riot constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal cei.tiz~g. Th.e designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 1G-15.090 ~I]) ~~ All fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code l 4-30:040 [C]) l 0. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 1.3R sprinkler system is required. Documentation. of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district far. approval The spriunkl.er system must be installed by a .licensed contractor. hsu-02-0! S,wpd 00®031 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-015 N/A 1 l : hire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrant(s) that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. N/A 12: Driveways: All driveways shall. have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required N/A A: Slopes from 0% to 11 % shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. N/A B: Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. N/A C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling NIA D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum. inside radius of 21'. N/A E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 13: Turn-azounds: construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site havi.n.g a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. N/A 14: Parl~ing: Provide a parking area for two emergency, vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 15: Security Crate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medcco lock box purchased fxom the ftre department. Details shall be shown on building plans. i N/A 16: Bridges: A11 bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. ROVED: • nsu•o2-o ~ s.wpa ®®0032 ~.. ,~ • Attachment ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner CC: .Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for Hsu, 21775 Congress Hall Lane DATE: April 18, 2002 Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval, based on the attached review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 17, 2002, are: 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall perform supplemental evaluations and provide modified geotechnical design criteria including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: • The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall resubmit a revised Site Plan (Figure 2) accurately showing the location of the western Benocal fault trace. If the consultant has information indicating the mapped fault trace should be modified, then the supporting data shall be provided. • The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall confirm that pier foundation design recommendations incorporate appropriate lateral resistance, and dead-plus-live plus seismic loading criteria. If necessary, pier design criteria shall be modified to include these loads. • • The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall provide modified design recommendations for retaining walls, specifically incorporating appropriate lateral earth pressures for walls with sloping backfills and restrained retaining walls. Active pressures for restrained walls are typically significantly higher than for walls that are free to rotate. _ -1- ~GQ-03~ l • In our experience, weep holes tend to clog with debris and do not always provide reliable long-term drainage. Consequently, the Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider the longer-term benefits provided by wall backdrains including a perforated pipe to collect and convey subsurface water. • The Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider the use of crushed rock under slab floors due to improved capillary break characteristics. Class II baserock may~not provide a sufficient capillary break and it is not consistent with prevailing standards of practice for local construction. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Design Criteria shall be summarized in an addendum report with appropriate illustrations and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior zone clearance. 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 3. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. -2- - (~®~0~~ d. ~i 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. s • -3- • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • C~ J O®0~3~ rr~'~`~,' .. _~i, L~ )~ • r •, ~ iTY EN(+NEEA .. - ~- _ . ,~ . ,. -_..._ ~ 5, -.- -_ - _- r' I ~ ~GLT_...._. _. I ~~.A SECIGN tiA .. ~ ~ _ _ .__ 760 ' -__ _.__...._~66 ...__ ._. _... _1r,z -~iw __ .. LET ~~ S YOb F.L :~~ GI.YOS ' - +.Dp-fn cUi ZF( ~.,,.e~Ha F~w 4n p~o~~cr vArA A55ESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 5pS•y2-o~4 PROJECT ADDRESS: 21775 CONGRESS HAIL UNE, 5ARATOGA OWNER MR&MRS,FU-CHIEHHSU 21775 CONGRESS HAIL LANE, SARATOGA,CA.95070 E%15TING ZONING: NHF~ E%15TING USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PROPOSED USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TOTAL 517E AREA: 121,445 50. FT. (2.788 AL.) NET 5RE AREA gq,3f~} 50.FT. '¢5/ ne.DUCrm~7 -cjr}450 Sa.pT- AVERAGE SLOPE OF PROPERTY: 25X TAPE AT NEW 5TRUCTURE: OX LEVEL %15TINGFLOORCOVERAGE: 4,325 50.FT. ROP05EDADDITIONFLOORLOVE~G~• 184050.FT18405t~.FT OtAL NEW FLOOR LOYERAGE: 5,165 54.FT. LLOWABLE FLOOR COVERAGE: 6,300 SOFT. UILDING COVERAGE: G,iGS 50.FT. (11X) 4PERYIOUSCOVERAGE:(SEENOTEBELOW) 5,85050.FT. (10X) ANDSCAPE AND NATURAL OPEN 5PACE: 42,635 54FT. (79X) NOTE:IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CON515T5 OF DRIVEWAY, DECK PORCHES, PATIOS AND WALKWAYS. No tlEh/ FIRE; FL-6GE FPP- ODOR ~ ~aJ ~~ ~ ~rr~~~~~~ p~~~ e.wnrAe er N W ~ O f o g a ~~~, 4, Q N ~ ~0 a ~ "~ ~ ~ 3 2 Z 011aWN Ta A{ cN.cw.o Jal~o2 ¢au I' . ad oA ~I•o2 .NUr o. .N.... ~~~.. ~~ \ ~ eb, SARATOGA, CA. 95070 rv \ \ ~ ~ O9'S9„ a \\\\\~ \\\\\` \\ W 9rI OO ~ ~~ A ~ A( .. ~ A _ t ~ 1 \\~ ~ ''-. <\ y ~ \ ~~ ~ ~ r~` \ ~ \ \ /~ ~ I g2G ~ ~ ~ ~A ~ \~'- ~62° 2I6'~ f, ~ 1 \ ~ \ \ ~~ ~~ ,~;,° _.~ A^~ ~ ~ r ~ V~~ - \ \ ~ y \~ ~ ~.~ - \ ~, ~ ~ ~ 2.78 8 _;A~~S •~._ ~ `~ - ~~ - ~, // 7 ~ .,` ~\ (pi, ~ _ ~,n ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ y ~~ / A j~ ~ ~ <' ~ l~ o~ / ~ / / /-- -- o~°tn4 - - -~ - - ~ J it l-1 /~/ ~ ~ i r ,, a ~ , -- ~'~ ~ I/ RJrb~ ]0' wilt FS C ,~ j ~ 1, \ ~r _-t _ _~ .. / ,~ / - - - _ 3+1 _~ ._-.. ~ ~ ~~ ~ w ~ ~ __ NiI')0•E 106.06' 1 ~EATSTNG BWAIE T~ 9E 7,aa1W.f ~ r.P F OUiFEL~~~, /' h \ ~ ( /~ '~ r A / ~rre ~i-Ni, ~ ,` ~ ~~ \\,,~ ' ~ e~T >t~LlBRAL ~ ~o/ \ •tvy~ `7\ ~~ \ e54°y~'~~ \ Oc ~. _-~{~ TOTAL SITE AREA ._._ 2.788 AC I ~4 yA' \ \ I~ 121,445 S, F'. / ` W ~ / ~OA AVEAAG¢ LOT SLOPE .- 257 ^~~i!l ~ 7' pti~P ~~ NET S[TA AA¢A y¢, 850 S.£. 4 :.° p~y~ MARiMUN ACLDAABL¢ ~~ yt 8~ FLOOA AREA _ _ 6,300 S.F, I `~ '0 \~,/ R E%ISTFNO FIAOR AREA ~ ~ ~ / \ LIVING AREA --.. 9,557 S. F. \?/ ! ~ ~ ~' GARAGE ~_. 188 S.F. I ~ Wr r ~~ 1r W ~ ..'`~ ' „~ , 4.325 .9. F. ~~~ CI~W I ~W ~1 1 / j -. ~j) I G I ~f `V ~„ 1W I`\~~TI FF )773: i//// i >~k.3 / 17W I ~ err ~ ~ 0 __ / ~ rr ~ 29c3 _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ F i ~I ^~ -~ AI_ ~ ~~~ ((,~~ ~ r , II ~ l^J '~ ~ I 7~r~ EME QOM O~Y I 1 T ~ R J 1. '~ b/I i° .~ DIP P:iD~.NE 'zn r•~e%~ ~F$I Y'.3~-'„~, ~'' THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED FOR CORRECTNESS OF BUILDING SETB0.CR8. THE ~ M ~ ~ ! ~~ `~ ' ~ 1 I / ~ ~~ ~47bT1'$ '.~ PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE AS SHOWN CAN BE CORABCTI.Y PLACED © p, l~ _TA. 1 •. Y ^'Ri )~ WITHIN THE BUILD171G SETEACKB AS SHOWN ON THIS SITE PLAN.' / ~ 6 1 ~p 4 Ib '' ~ p ~~R2-r ., ... _,. , v f ~b I• t ,I ~T fi f,60n9•A %. / 7~ ~'r-Yry 71G ~ . Haley B icY.a *~~ +S6 iT ABI ~~~. ~~ ~0 /~ 1 ~-`r7 ~' 1 ~ I\ V to L.9. 4 53 J.P ~}a 2 \ y,, 1 1 ~ y ,, .. Exp. 12-31-OS .. r= 1 f - \7 ~~ / ~ ,A+\ ~.~ ~ 1t7W '_~ * Ho. SES3 * ~*,l', t~ r 1 i' B ~, ~i ~ „ui~~Ks°~ °~ }.,q' I ~ .. ~ t .~:~~ ~ j 1 r ,~I\Il°I ! I Yo ssf~~\ Y~~ ..~iis ~ ~~A _+~ w~ ~~` ~ ~f k. SWALI -~y.l--- • ~~ ------F-~ ~_ I 1 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 qq ~ u>~ _-~_.~ _ ~_°.._..__._.`_ .._ ii~,ARTS DIOI4~ ~~_... __. ~4s~# ~ ~~) _ I5-o' i ~I / i X i I W I LL ~C _ ~ - ~~M' o o „ _ ~ B3 i 8' S 4_o(7_i~~ 44 ' 3i2tl u~IL - a f I~ ~ 411a 11.4, _, 3 ~ I .. ~ - n.0. _ ', ^ SvSO s,H. 'r 3ooo S.N. ~ T,, - _ - - I _ p -. ~ ~ I .-MI. rrr X'ri ~ a 'tb46 H'r oa ~0 /® p~, III / ~ d ~d - ~ I i o ~ ~ ;~~ L 6ATFF' ~ ~ ~i n a ~~ OI I -~ TATAM~ S ~ i '~ '~ ~ H,.roweov 5 in : j O u~~. ., T~ ~ _ ~, J f.Al{ ~_ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ i I i ~ I; l ~` ;' III ~ s4, ' _-- - Go4o Ff.1sl i I ^ 1a ~pH. 7o N. .i __ 11 •: ~ I ~~ I tl p. t o I• p 7 ~ 1 1 4 I~ ~, _ _~_ I ~_ :d I- ~ ~ 4•G r4: 4•re '3~ _... -- ~ -~ n --- - u I ..'F- 0 .0 9acci~. 0_ *~~', ce1L. J i 77 ~ -_- _ -___-__. _. ~ o ~ T 17. 1 I '' gi.2il 4,1.61 3f-$~ 9-G Z-G 2~G J-6 _-__ _ 1 ~I b l II I I ~xauar~E r-mrAr.~ e ~-D - - _ -- --_ __ . I~_a__ -- -----~I-~4-- -- EXIgT. bI1RAiNG : 4315 5O FT. 151-~~~--- 821 47---- ---- ----- NeW PDORION I, 194 EO.FT. EKIeTINCr... rJ6wl ~-- - - .._ _ 4ll 4 - ..._.-- ~ ~ NEw.S~NPGO11 G4G ~.FT. ~~OOU ~~IXIUU ._ .... _._. _.. _.__ _._ TOTAL. 6165 Yi.~7. 7 f . AeH~w~ ar W ~ O O v ~P ~_ d w ~o z 4 -~ 3 i on.wr~ :W ~ CM O dnNr~l 02 ~e su i/y° 1i-atl ~a~ no. AI.OR or u ~wun f 1 u {'III _- i5 ~ 'ice ...._ • l .1 .I I ~; ~.;~ Fl00RAREA CALCULA 1. 12.0"% 6'-0' 7200 2. 2'•4" X 10'-0' 23.34 3. 3d-0'%90'0" 900,00 4. 15'- 0" % @'• 0" . 120.00 5. 2'-4"% T-4' • 17.15 6. 9'-6'% 2'-4" . 22.18 7 9'-6' % 2' • 4" - 22.18 @ 2'-4"% T-4' 1715 NEWADDRION 1194r+PI Ff 9. 11'-0"% 2'-4" . 2567 1840,00 TOiAI 1,@40 BO.Ff ~. /;, e,uenNa „`-15 ~ ~_ ~~ ---r'~ I ~~ '~~ 9UC I.pl .. ?G ~ ..~ - t ~ ,~, i._ ~ 1l ~ ~ ri_l,, ~ ~ _..-.... _ J~ [~~~~a~~ ~~~~~o~~ G°300~ ~~~~~~~ p~~~, KEYNOTES L IMNVrc45pywN.edeM.HYywl0de6'eG. [dpeeeNllrO.C. Peld~tzpte 2 2.BDS. eeM.ele'O.C. 3. 2.DDl.nMrelO'DD. {. 2.120J.nRweICO.C. !. 2AIOD,F. Adpebv/ 8. PmWi.8D.1. rNpebmn G'R'OG xrotlN 7. Pnd62e8D.F.ndbeu e. lu.hk3nmewwz. n.pe,.rN, 9. 28 V~Len. Nexy ID. 110'xrre Dn.h~eypk.i os. e W wlue. ! b.e O b' O C. x. wy'p!' mN, {bvehedroclrbrrxl 12 R~136Aw YRJLtbn 13. R~181tt4bdeWn u. R~3obeomemelx U. JI{'1A6pbwrdxMS'ISe pO i.MerµteFt6'OC. 1e, e.eDP.eNe.w/aesDF. poet n. vrby..mb®{nw.b.NNRez le 2sDPUwy~onNma•DC. v. D,h.<r.wiuu. zD.z.¢D.F..e.l.{vby.R els•oc. x z.{D.P. n.ryew~.... zz e.nD.P. b~ z3.P6LN.Rb.em z{.cm~nmbam a SnwnprmPnd.epx. 30.9Hxnbppwl 2l 2.IOD.F. n1 ZD.Swmdew Wk.NeGNemb henlrg L9.[{Ifm4reAry 3D.2XID.P. wYhxud Y{eli DS.Rrhbnm 312e{D.F wl FenN'IM nMr 32hovde20 V~yh.HNbyetroelNwRltomecWne 3 J.I r n 0. F.Iw W et eN daen eN MMw> ~ tYWctl unbse noNAOtMnM 3{.sgRN.wLb~en.Nnu Ic.eo. n{e9m.ppn..d yxIF.W prtmwuMwe epulhetbne 35.LneepwA 38.Lbuefnef 3'J. r,wu. e[tk rxtLRebn pe. u. D.c. 3205 3ezz.3o•atk.ue..aoe. 39.Im.MxDlt {O.PumdeLrcerMt {t, ivMvpWq n.PNMCeMy H.D'Wbup.vN6o.bxme +5.{.1zD.P ne.m B FRAMING TIO 3 Y.AI.H: 1~4A c ~~. pA - __q ... 4 aevreARZVe ev O a =v~ d. o ` ~ ~w~ w ..~ z ~ S 3 z z s 8 •wN Nae ~ C R xeD ,Io.R~?'o2 .~.~. NOTt:p roe luo _Ai.oq ~ ~ r _ -ROOF FRAMING PLAN ~ A FRAMING SECTION 5cu-e , U4p : ~i, OR 3 yly.E: V¢A A ~'. Qtl r~ L • • Ja.Ti ~5 ~. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION SCAI..Q: V4a ° li-OII EA6r _ __ ~_ iI III ' I' I III, ~. lI I !Ill iiil~ I~{y1lillllllll ~l i 1: C I I I~'I~ III I.I ~I.~ L:'vrr: h.rYY~" I ~ ~~ ~- ^~ qqR Qq -r ~la C1Cl Llp - - - - CI [~q 5 T~T~~ ~~ L~J ,,j F~JIpN 0~ 9 OF bUiIDIN( OF ROOF l \EI r BLwrrloM N5 ~- wr~ .,w., 4. isle roaf'12._bargc rahcr(mauhcxisting) S. 5'gwurY2x_hacis kardlmatchtaleclly) ' 6. LowerWgablevem: i ~. 7/B'swcco Fnbh-typkal B. LorcrecepachaMSUps ~ 9. 36'corere6e lanCag 10. PrwNe 26 ga. gaM.fladAnga[rrofwwa7 cannutbns i~ il. 6rm<I Sl4 plyhoc mop6Pac roof 12 Sunroom by'FourSsasons 5ucroom'syrtemS.LIk~18BW 13. B'x8"pacificskylights'doabkacrylic pyramWs, MOds19292CM. LL.B.O.x4UB. t I I I I f C~~~~rr'~o~ C~~~d~~~o~~ RlVIlIpIA 1Y H ~ ~ O 0 •. MP V ~~ O ^Q U °g o W "Q Z ~ N LL I 3 i z 0 __. m Erg c AWN TPI n Cw~Clr oat• J~u. '02 au~ I/ +. ii,~ JOB NO. A~Na~ o. .N.... a • IZ S r/ ~ ~ / ~ ~', ~/ \-- `\~~ `.\ FIU~SH FLw_~ 51111Pg7M.___ ___ I FFT SIDE ELEVATION YI ~ ~ I -- To s e o ' _ _ - I ~ -- _O O _ ~= J i+ _.._ _ -- _..- .__...._ ~ _?'. ___ ~' ~ - flQ15H fsFe~bE -._-_ ~ _ _._____T__ ____ ;EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS f' 3 i 1. 6panlshtlle roof'l30 Pfch.(metcheeisting)typbal 2 StueeO'/F0em [rim no.41 3. 5[xca wap xacd~ [ypkal i 4. The rOOf'!2n_barge rafter (mekhetis[ing) 5. 5"gotta'! 2r _ hxb board (mach eeb[ing ) 6. Louveredgabbven[ 7. 7/8"stucw Rnhhtypkal I 8. Loncxte porohandsteps 9. 36"concrek ~'9 ' 10. Provuk 26ge, gaM~RaNJng atroof[owellcomectbns II. Gravel a/4pyhot mop®F6t roof 12. 5unroo m bi'Pour Seasons 5u vood syskm 8. C ut48BW ~I i3. 8'a8"pacifk s[yllgMS double acrylic pyramids.Mode19292LM. I.L.BA. N 4138. a~wlanee er W ~ O G M P I U ~ym z w g~ ~Q a 3 z a 0 eo ~~,"-: F NeW __ ErcIS71NG_~ • REAR ELEVATION a ~ y~..~e:I/4e.II•of BourH C~~~~~~o~ C~D~d~~~o~~ Ta H cwacK~o on+• Jnu. 104 su ~41_l,pll ~~~ NCI, AI~o2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • ITEM 2 Application No./Location: 02-045 DR, 21888 Villa Oaks Lane Applicant/Owner: Blaettler Construction Inc. Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner Date: July 10, 2002 APN: 503-78-004 Department Head: 21888 VILLA OAKS 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 3/4/02 Application complete: 5/24/02 Notice published: 6/26/02 Mailing completed: 6/26/02 Posting completed: 6/19/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a new 5,825 square foot two story residence with a 1,346 square foot basement and three car attached garage on a vacant lot located at the corner of Villa Oaks Lane and Deer Trail Court. The style of home is Mediterranean with concrete the roof and ledge stone/fieldstone veneer base with stucco walls above a stucco trim band. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution for application # 02-045. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution for application # 02-045 3. Arborist Report dated March 18, 2002 4. Saratoga Fire District report dated March 19, 2002 5. City Geotechnical Review dated May 24, 2002 6. Correspondence dated Apri12, 2002 from neighbor 7. Geotechnical memo on drainage, dated April 15, 2002 8. Plans, Exhibit "A" date stamped January 24, 2002 • 000002 Attachment 1 S STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: HR -Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC -Residential Hillside Conservation MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 44,083 square feetgross/ 37,911 square feet net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 11.6 GRADING REQUIRED: The grading plan depicts 850 cubic yards of cut, which is required for the basement and garage excavation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of building a two story single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists building asingle-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior of h t e house is to be composed of beige stucco walls, with stone base, horizontal stucco trim and terra cotta concrete roof tiles. • 000003 PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 19.9% 25% Building Footprint 5,181 sQ. FT. Terrace, porches 770 SQ. Fr. Driveway 2,790 sQ. FT. TOTAL 8,741 sQ. i~ r. FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Entry Level 4,363 sQ. Fr. Lower Level 584 SQ. Fr. Garage 878 sQ. Fr. (Basement) (1,346 sQ. Fr.) TOTAL 5,825 sQ. i~ r. 5,844 sQ. i~ r.~ SETBACKS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Front 45 Fr. 42 i=T. Rear 59 Fr. 60 i;-r. Exterior Side (west) 23 Ft. 25 ~-. Interior Side (east) 20 Fr. 20 ~. Height Residence 26 FT. 26 Fr. 1 Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section 15-45.030(c)(d)). UO®~04 PROJECT DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW The applicant proposes to construct a new 5,825 square foot two story residence with a 1,346 square foot basement and three car attached garage on a vacant lot located at the southeast corner of Villa Oaks Lane and Deer Trail Court in the Hillside Residential zoning district. The style of home is Mediterranean with a concrete the roof and facade with a horizontal stucco trim band above which are stucco walls and below which is a ledge stone/fieldstone veneer base. The plans depict arched windows on the north and west elevations which face outward toward Villa Oaks Lane and Deer Trail Court and rectangular windows to the east and south. The main entrance is a recessed single story arched porch with a hipped roof and two projecting symmetrical wings on either side of the entry stair. The rear of the house contains a raised terrace with balustrade on the east side of the house and a raised courtyard toward the western portion of the house. The east elevation contains few windows and a side entrance three-car garage, which is framed by a trellis supported by columns. The western elevation of the house contains a light well and a retaining wall, which extends along the Deer Trail Court front yard. The site plan depicts the main structure encroaching upon the exterior side yard and rear yard setbacks. The house should be designed to maintain these setbacks. The Deer Trail Lane setback should be 25 feet while the plan indicates the setback as 23 feet. This setback is being violated by the light well, which encroaches on the side yard in this area. Also, the plans depict a retaining wall within the exterior side yard and front yard. This wall is depicted as approximately 6 feet high. The zoning ordinance permits a maximum wall height of 3 feet within the exterior side yard or front yard. Moreover, the ordinance allows retaining walls in the Hillside district at a maximum height of five feet. The retaining wall is considered a structure within the required setback. Thus, the plans should be revised to eliminate the retaining wall location and height nonconformities as well as the structure setback violation depicted on the plans. The rear yard setback is also encroached upon. The required setback is 60 feet and the plans depict a 59-foot setback. The plans should be revised to depict the correct rear yard setback. The plans depict two wood burning fireplaces one inside the house and one in the outdoor courtyard. The zoning ordinance permits only one wood-burning fireplace per house. The ordinance allows outdoor barbeques or wood burning stoves for cooking purposes. NECESSARY FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (-~4005 (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered v;~ith reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds v<~ill avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. 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 minim~ed and v`~ill be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory- structure, 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 environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure 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 (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties and their ability to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. ACTUAL FINDINGS DESIGN REVIEW The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The site of the proposed home offers no natural screening from the homes that currently exist on three sides of the property since there are no existing trees on the lot. The home, which abuts the Blaettler property to the east, is most impacted by the proposed development. These two homes have garage areas, which face each other. The Blaettler home is designed in such a way that this proximity is softened by the architectural treatment at this elevation. A trellis with supporting- columns tops the three garage doors. This treatment softens the view of this elevation. In order to further reduce the impact of the new home on the privacy of the neighbor, a landscape buffer should be planted along this property line. The nei hbors north of the sub'ect ro er are S g ~ p p ry not signlhcantly Irrlpacted by the 40®446 proposed development since they are separated vertically by Villa Oaks Lane and horizontally by a substantial drop in elevation. The neighbor west of the proposed home is separated by Deer Trail Court and their elevation is much higher than the Blaettler home, which contributes to privacy. The Blaettler home is designed in a ~vay that respects the visual orientation of the neighbor to the west. The western elevation of the Blaettler home is a one-story elevation, which is 16 feet 8 inches above the natural grade and therefore does not protrude into the view shed of the home across Deer Trail Court. The lot to the south of the property is wooded and vacant. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. 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. The proposed home follows the natural contours of the land. Since there is little existing vegetation on the property except ground cover, the development has little impact on native landscape. Soil removal will be required for the basement and garage. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulb and will be integrated into the environment: The two-story home has a number of architectural features,. which minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The varied. roofline with hipped roof at the entry, gabled roof on the west elevation and compass roofs balancing the entry porch add visual interest to the structure and minimize the perception of bulk. The rear elevation with raised balustraded terrace and raised courtyard depicts architectural features, which break up massing. The stone base proposed on the north and east elevation adds texture to the facade and are materials which reduce the perception of bulk. The east elevation with garage framed by a columned trellis and chimney with limestone inset contribute to the identity of the structure and are architectural features which breakup massing. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure 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 (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed design calls for a twenty-six foot high structure, which is compatible in bulk and height to the neighboring homes. The abutting homes are all two-story structures of similar scale and size. The proposed structure will not impair the solar access of abutting properties. In terms of solar access, the home does locate main living areas and the majority of windows on the south elevation. The home also minimizes the number of windows on the east and west elevations. This is consistent with the policy to design for maximum benefit of sun and wind. ®®~~~~ (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the Ciry. A grading plan has been submitted which depicts a total of 850 cubic yards of cut for the proposed development. This is soil which must be removed to excavate for the lower level and garage. In terms of drainage, the applicant's geotechnical engineer, UPP Geotechnology, Inc. has recommended that as much downspout discharge and surface drainage as possible be conveyed to the storm drainage system. This recommendation is made due to soil and foundation engineering considerations and would limit the sites ability to retain runoff on site. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project complies with Residential Design Handbook Policy #1 to minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials &t colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade and architectural features which break up massing. The plan conforms to Policy #2; integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stone and stucco facade and concrete the roof. With attached garage, all structures are integrated into one building. The proposal complies with Policy #3; avoid interference with privacy by locating the building to minimise the privacy impacts. Placing the noise generating garage portion of the house near a similar use area in the abutting house minimizes privacy impacts. Also, limiting the number of windows on the east and west-facing portion of the house enhances privacy between these neighbors. Locating raised terraces and courtyards toward large open yard areas also serves to enhance privacy. The recommendation for a landscape buffer at the eastern boundary will improve privacy at this point. Policy #4, maximize views but avoid conflicts with privacy is addressed by orienting the house to maximize privacy between neighbors. The low profile of the western elevation respects the view shed of the neighbor to the west. Minimal windows along the eastern elevation maintain privacy to the east. Policy #S, design for energy efficiency, is addressed by the southern orientation of the main living areas of the home. Also the east /west window openings are minimized. Thus the above analysis concludes that all the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met if the plans are revised to address setback and retaining wall nonconformities. The City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District and City Geotechnical consultant have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. ~®®~~8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The plans should be re«sed to maintain the correct exterior side (25 feet) and rear (60 feet) yard setbacks. 2. The retaining wall should be either reduced in height to three feet or setback from the exterior and front yard setbacks. The retaining wall cannot exceed a height of five feet if the wall is relocated outside of the required setbacks. 3. Fireplaces: Only one wood- burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling, the applicant should indicate this on the plans. If the outdoor fireplace is a cooking facility this should be noted on the plans. 4. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for m;nim~ing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. S. A conceptual landscape plan shall be provided which depicts additional plantings along the eastern property line to ensure privacy between these two dwellings. 6. A note should be incorporated on the plans indicating the reason why the geotechnical consultant has recommended that all drainage be carried off of the site. COMMUNITY INPUT In terms of input from the adjacent neighbors, staff has received one letter from neighbor to the east. A letter dated April 2, 2002 has been included in the packet. This neighbor states that they have worked with the Blaettler architects and that they have resolved any issues involving siting of the home. They are satisfied with the location of the home and believe that the home will fit suitably into the neighborhood. Fire Protection District The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on March 19, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. Re roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the ro osed P P 000009 installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 7. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 7,141 square foot residential dv~~elling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. 8. Driveways: All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus one-foot shoulders. Secondary access is not required. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O ~ S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed building. Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The Ci Arborist ins ected this ro er on March 1 ry p p p ty 8, 2002 and issued a report addressing tree protection measures on this property and the protection measures identified in the report are to be made a condition of approval. The arborist notes that there are no trees on this site and only two trees on an adjacent property are at some risk to root damage by the proposed construction. These trees are classified as fine specimens. 1. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence 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 protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 2. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 3. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 4. Sprinkler imgation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. U®U~~-.0 5. A value assessment of $7,774 is specimens and a bond equal to 25% retained prior to final zoning clearance GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW placed on the trees, which are designated fine ($1,943) of the total value of these trees must be Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the Ciry Geotechnical Consultant dated May 24, 2002 are as follows. 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should provide appropriate geotechnical design criteria for final design of foundations and site improvements and final geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Specifically, the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall satisfactorily address the following: 2. A final geologic map and cross sections shall be prepared to depict landslide boundaries, the subject lot and building site, existing and proposed grades, proposed foundations and stabilization measures, and other geologic conditions of significance to site development. The cross sections shall extend from the head to the toe of the landslide (ridgeline to creek), and across the building site (at a scale of 1"=40'). 3. Surficial and bedrock materials in Tract 7761 have been identified as highly expansive in numerous consultant investigations. Expansive soils should not be used for structural fill. The geotechnical consultant shall consider recommending a blanket of non-expansive import fill to isolate foundation elements from potentially adverse impacts of expansive soils. It has been our experience that fill slopes constructed from expansive soils in the Mt. Eden Valley area are highly susceptible to creep, sloughing and slope degradation. Recommended fill slope gradients for highly expansive materials are generally on the order of 2.5:1 or less. 4. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall provide geotechnical design criteria for retaining walls and pavement subgrades, as appropriate. 5. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Design Criteria shall be summarized in a written addendum report with appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 6. The Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The plans and plan review letters shall indicate the names of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist. U(~00~1 The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 7. The Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect and log exposures created during grading and cuttings from pier drilling. Data from these mapped exposures shall be used to prepare an updated engineering geologic map and engineering geologic cross sections depicting as- built conditions. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 8. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 9. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that these plans be approved with the condition that the issues identified above be addressed in the final plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with revisions and subject to conditions by adopting the following resolution. • ~~U012 Attachment RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION NO. 02-045 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA BLAE~rrLER/ 21888 VILLA OAxs LANE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a 5,825 square foot two story dwelling with 1,346 square foot basement; 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 project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves construction of a single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The proposed project minimizes the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade with architectural features, which breakup massing. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms with the policy to integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stone and stucco facade and concrete the roof. With attached garage, all structures are integrated into one building. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The proposal complies with the policy to avoid interference with privacy by locating the building to minim~e the privacy impacts. Placing the noise generating garage portion of the house near a similar use area in the abutting house minimises privacy impacts. Also, limiting the number of windows on the east and west-facing portion of the house ©00013 enhances privacy between these neighbors. Locating raised terraces and courtyards toward large open yard areas also serves to enhance privacy. The recommendation fora landscape buffer at the eastern boundary will improve privacy at this point. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The policy to maximize views but avoid conflicts with privacy is addressed by orienting the house to maximize privacy between neighbors. The low .profile of the western elevation respects the view shed of the neighbor to the west. Minimal windows along the eastern elevation maintain privacy to the east. Policy S, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by the southern orientation of the main living areas of the home. Also the east /west window openings are minimized to limit exposure to the elements. 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 by Blaettler Construction for Design Review is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped April 26, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Landscape Plan - A conceptual landscape plan shall be provided to indicate the location of the proposed landscaping and irrigation system. This plan shall depict additional plantings along the eastern property line to ensure privacy between these two dwellings. 3. 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: 1. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 2. 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 provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." O(~U014 4. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit and plans should be revised to limit the number of wood burning fireplaces to this number. ~. A storm water retention plan shall be provided 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. A note should be incorporated on the plans indicating the reason why the geotechnical consultant has recommended that all drainage be carried off of the site. 6. The plans should be revised to maintain the correct exterior side (25 feet) and rear (60 feet) yard setbacks. 7. The retaining wall should be either reduced in height to three feet if within the required setbacks or setback from the exterior side and front yard setbacks. The retaining wall cannot exceed a height of five feet if the wall is relocated outside of the required setbacks. The plans should be revised to reflect these requirements. 8. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minim~ing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 9. The applicant shall submit a fence plan, which depicts the area of proposed enclosure. The area of enclosure for fences in hillside districts shall not exceed four thousand square feet (excluding the area of any pool) unless approved by the Planning Commission. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on March 19, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. Re roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, (~(~0®~5 flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 7. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 7,141 square foot residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. 8. Driveways: All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus one-foot shoulders. Secondary access is not required. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O ~ S or better on a 6" aggregate- base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Slopes from 11% to 1S% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed building. . Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property on March 18, 2002 and issued a report addressing tree protection measures on this property and the protection measures identified in the report are to be made a condition of approval. The arborist notes that there are no trees on this site and only two trees on an adjacent property are at some risk to root damage by the proposed construction. These trees are classified as fine specimens. 1. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of S feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence 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 protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 2. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 3. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 4. Sprinkler imgation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray imgation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 5. A value assessment of $7,774 is placed on the trees, which are designated fine specimens and a bond equal to 25% ($1,943) of the total value of these trees must be retained prior to final zoning clearance. c~~a®~.s GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW <.~ Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project subject to the conditions identified in the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated May 24, 2002. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1: The Project Geotechnical Engineer should provide appropriate geotechnical design criteria for final design of foundations and site improvements and final geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Specifically, the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall satisfactorily address the following: 2. A final geologic map and cross sections shall be prepared to depict landslide boundaries, the subject lot and building site, existing and proposed grades, proposed foundations and stabilization measures, and other geologic conditions of significance to site development. The cross sections shall extend from the head to the toe of the landslide (ridgeline to creek), and across the building site (at a scale of 1"=40'). 3. Surficial and bedrock materials in Tract 7761 have been identified as highly expansive in numerous consultant investigations. Expansive soils should not be used for structural fill. The geotechnical consultant shall consider recommending a blanket of non-expansive import fill to isolate foundation elements from potentially adverse impacts of expansive soils. It has been our experience that fill slopes constructed from expansive soils in the Mt. Eden Valley area are highly susceptible to creep, sloughing and slope degradation. Recommended fill slope gradients for highly expansive materials are generally on the order of 2.5:1 or less. 4. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall provide geotechnical design criteria for retaining walls and pavement subgrades, as appropriate. 5. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Design Criteria shall be summarized in a written addendum report with appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 6. The Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The plans and plan review letters shall indicate the names of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 7. The Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geolo 'st shall ins ect, test ~ P ©~40~'7 (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect and log exposures created during grading and cuttings from pier drilling. Data from these mapped exposures shall be used to prepare an updated engineering geologic map and engineering geologic cross sections depicting as- builtconditions. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 8. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 9. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the Ciry of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 1. 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 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. 2. 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 $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 0®®4~$ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10`h day of July, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent • Date OOU019 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ®0-0020 BARRI E D. COA ~E and ASSOCIATES Horticu[ural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408353-1052 Attachment 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECObIlViENDATIONS AT THE BLAETTLER PROPERTY 21888 VILLA OAKS LANE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 18, 2002 Job # 03-02-040 Plan Received: 3.7.02 Plan Due: 4.9.02 ~ ~~~o~~ ~ APR 1 0 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA apMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (~®O®21 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVE. _ _JN REC02vQvIENDATIONS AT THE BLAETTLER PRC,..:RTY 21888 VILLA OAKS LANE SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Kristin Borel, Planner, Community Development Deparnnent, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to construct a new home on a vacant lot in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plan reviewed for this report is the Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Westfall Engineers, Saratoga, Sheet Cl, dated 2-01-02. Summary Two trees are located on the adjacent property that are at risk of minor to moderate root damage by construction. No trees are planned to be removed by implementation of this design. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the two trees located on the adjacent property. A bond equal to 25% the value of the two trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are no trees on this property. The aerial photo of this property may appear to show trees on this property because there are masses of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis pilularis) near the southwest Conner of Cocciardi Court, a street that currently has no street sign. However, there are two trees on-the adjacent property toward the south that are at risk of root damage by grading. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. I measured the distance from the fire hydrant located on the corner of Villa Oaks Lane and Cocciardi Court to estimate the approximate locations of the two subject trees # 1 and 2. The 2 trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1-California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Tree # 2 -Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for these 2 trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 18, 2002 U(~U~a2 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVr...JN RECOMA~IDATIONS AT THE BLAETTLER PRI...:RTY 7 21888 VILLA OAKS LANE SARATOGA '- Fine Specimens 1, 2 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. Risks of Proposed Construction The Grading and Drainage plan shows that a retaining wall is to be constructed inside the dripline of Tree #1, that grading will be done inside the dripline of Tree #1, and that an energy dissipator will be constructed at the driplines of both Trees # 1 and 2. This would result in minor root loss to both trees, and they should tolerate this construction without significant mitigation. Of course, this conclusion assumes that these two trees are located approximately as I have estimated. Also, it will be essential that no additional root damage or canopy loss occur than I have estimated. Consequently, a construction period protective fence must be installed to assure that the damage is limited to what I have described here. If Tree #1 is actually located on this property (a few feet toward the north) the retaining wall and drainage design would result in much greater root loss than I have estimated and California bay is intolerant of much root damage. In this event, the retaining wall would have to be redesigned further from the trunk of Tree # 1 and the drainage Swale would also have to be redesigned to reduce the loss of surface soil, which contains absorbing roots. Recommendations 1. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minunum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 2. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 3. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 4. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy driplines of oak trees. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. r~ u PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH l8, 2002 ~t~t-~23 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA..JN RECOMIvIENDATIONS AT THE BLAETTLER PROtr.RTY j 21 S88 VILLA OAKS LANE SARATOGA The combined value of the trees is $7,774. I suggest a bond equal to 25% of the total value of these trees to assure their protection. Respectfully subm' Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~ ~.~ 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 C7 • _ PREPARED BY: MlCHAEI. L. BIIVCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 18, 2002 OQO®24 Job T , Blaettler Const. Job Address:2l~Villa Oaks Ln. Job #~2-040 '~ I _ _ ~ ~ 3.18.02 BARRIE D. COATS ~ ~' m s ~ o v in W W J d ~ Z m O Q ~ ~ ~ W ,a,~, ~ ~ ~ ; and ASSOCIATES Z v W 013531052 ~' ~ ~? -= C7 ? ~ a c2 ~ w a o ~' ~ cg o ~-- nl 23535fimniAwd -~~, w ~ uj w a a w Z c~n ~ z w ~ ~ o a ~ ~ w ~ o LaCala,G 95030 fn o: ~ .~ w a w a ~ $ U ggj p~ ~ a Z n. ~ o = o v ~ o: a w Z ~ v ~ 5 W c~ U a W U ~ ~ ~ w -- ~ o Q~ ~ ~ ~ O JW z ~ w O z t- F ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ J 2 2 ~ ~ D: ~ ~ Z N O O ~ O ~ m ~ W W Q ~ Q Q W W # Plant Name o ~ o fan o i ai = ~ VUV QQx U c~i V c~i ~ U a ? ~ o ~ vo_ ov z z o~ 1 California Laufel 14.0 x 13\1 12.0 15 35 50 1 3 4 Umbellularia califomica x3 x5 . in 456 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 12,309 X sp. class 50% _ $6,155 X cond. 75% - $ 4,616 X loc. 70% _ $ 3,231 Total Value 2 Coast LNe Oak 18.0 x 13.0 30 40 1 3 4 in 321 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,654 X sp. class 100% _ $6,654 X cond. 75% - $ 6,490 X loc. 70% _ $ Total ~^^ ~e~' ~r~ r REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5..E ] s 5~ 15-6a1 ! 6120 24"box ~ 5420 3tS"box ~ 51,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box ~ 55,E 52"box s 57,000 72"box ~ 515,000 Page l of l / i C j' i i l4, low ~ . ~ y , `` LG~ \ ~' \ ;~o~,,~ ~ ~I ~ ! ~ t.~+ '' erg \ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ i ^ ~ Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Blaettler Construction Property, 21888 Villa Ln. (4081353•iDS: 23535 Su~mil Rwd Prepared for: la Grim, G 95030 City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: March 18, 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 03-02-040 \ v. ::~/ °/ 1~ / ,. ~\ .0.~ ~. ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ; ~. ~, s~~ Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. GaRA ~° All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. f ~~,D ' G 0 ~, ~ ', ~', 1 ~3~° ` ~ 1 ~ ~\ f f ~ ~FyE \ f~ 5~ i d ~ O ~, ~~~ ~' ~f G~2~0 ~ ~~ ~~ \ ~ `\ \ `1 ~ 1\1 ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ', \ ~~ \ 1 ~ \ f~• 1 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \~~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I \ \ \ ~ (1 r t \ ~ \ ~\~PROTECTIVE FENCING \~ ~ ~ ( b G1 i J ~ , \ . ~ \ ~ 2 80.4 ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ 2~ ~ 1' , 20 Sc4le (~C10(~26 BARRIE D. COf :AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consuttatrts (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GL06SARY Co-domioaet (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (bracehes) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Coltivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurront - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eacurreot - 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. Induded 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 co0ar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "row 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 decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smalls part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branc6let - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. ®OOOti7 BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (~08) 353-1052 Fax (x+08) 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 T'V and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent 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-January. 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, carpenters 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 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 non toxic 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" Qf 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 frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. 040®iis • • 31 li lllll~. 1). < On 11~, • _ ~ 1 ~ ~ .,~ 1_v,~t ;,>>r ANI) AS~O('IA'17~;~ i ~'rotective Fencing --------------- 23535 tiununit Rd -------------- --- ----- - ------ l,os Gatos, (.,a 95(1311 -- --.------ (4(18)353- l (152 - Horticultural Consultants .Consulting Arborists j~~ir ~` `t( ~ '~ `*~~ `,. .~ t`. ~ ~ ____ Top of fence hung with fluorescent f laggine tape I every ]0 feet. I L 6' chain link or welded wire ~- _ mesh t 8' fence Host of 2" diameter • GI pine or T-angle post ~ Fence placed at drip line 1 1 J ,,,/~~_ or SO% greater tan the tree `T~ canopy r2.dius c,•?-ere possible Foadway ~~en construction is to take place beneath a ~' c:anopy on one side, the fence should be sited ,'' -3 leet beyond that construction but between c_onstruCtion and the tree trunk ~~~~ t F. ~ ~~~. ay_ ` ~~ \~\ ~' V i- 1 siting t ~~ ,_. c. ~i f Ccvt;trucaiun period I>rutr~c:lr~~n fur In~r~ ; slu~olci be providrrd beforr~ yradmy or other equipn~rent is allowed on the property. • If construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage Three layers of wire and ]ath snow fencinp\ t o t3' above ];round on y t~ ri trees where construct iron r~ wi) 1 take place hc~nc•a r lr ~ the campy ~~~ ~~•~ 1' 8' • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 000030 • SARATOGA FIRE 408 867 2780 03120/' BUILDING SITE APPROVAL CHECK LIST A means NOT APPLICABLE Attachment 4 #: 02-045 DATE: March 19, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE ,ICANT: BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTION LOCATION: 21888 VILLA OAKS LANE 1.: Water supply and access for fire protection aze acceptable. 2: Early Warning Fire Alarm System is not required. 3: Property is located in a designated hazazdous fire area. 4: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 5: Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) • 6: Early Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Sazatoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16-60-E.) ~~ Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which aze not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Sazatoga Code 16-15.090 [I]) 9 ~ All fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14-30:040 [C]) 10: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 7.141 sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. NOTE: NO FDC REQUIRED blaettier-21888 villa oaks In.wpd 000031 SARATOGA FIRE 408 667 2780 03/20/02 09:44am P. 000 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-045 N/A 11: Fire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrant(s) that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. Y J 12: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required A: Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. __ B: Slopes from 11 % to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. a C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. N/A E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 13: Turn-azounds: construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. N/A 14: p~.kthg: provide a pazking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 15: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on building plans, N/A 16: Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. • blaettler-2[888 villa oaks ln.v~d 0(30032 ~. • 04 Attachment ~ 'o~ ~ ~~~ ~5 DDS ~ ~ ~ ~0~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENtiE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 8G8-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 May 24, 2002 Pete Blaettler Blaettler Construction, Inc. 2490 Club Drive Gilroy, CA 95025 RE: 21888 Villa Oaks Lane Geologic and Geotechnical Clearance Dear Mr. Blaettler, COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehat(ey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsrni[h Geotechnical Clearance with conditions has been granted for this project. Upon satisfactory completion of all items in condition No. 1, we can revise Geotechnical Clearance memorandum and remove condition No. 1. Attached please find following documents: 1. Geologic and Geotechnical Review prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated May 24, 2002. 2. Geotechnical Clearance Memorandum dated May 24, 2002. If you have any questions regarding Geotechnical Clearance process, please do not hesitate to call me. Please keep in your mind that there is more work to be done -site investigation shall be performed and report addendum shall be submitted to the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant for review and approval. Sincerely, l o Iveta Harvancik Associate Engineer (408) 868-1274 Cc: Ann Welsh, Community Development Department, City of Saratoga 000033 /'' MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Department CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Iiarvancik, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for Blaettler Construction, 21888 Villa Oaks Lane DATE: May 24, 2002 Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated May 24, 2002 are: 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should provide appropriate geotechnical design criteria for final design of foundations and site improvements and final geotechnical recommendations for the propo development. Specifically, the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall satisfactorily address the followin . • A final geologic map and cross sections shall be prepared to depict landslide boundaries, the subject lot and building site, existing and proposed grades, proposed foundations and stabilization measures, and other geologic conditions of significance to site development. The cross sections shall extend from the head to the toe of the landslide (ridgeline to creek), and across the building site (at a scale of 1"=40'). • Surficial and bedrock materials in Tract 7761 have been identified as highly expansive in numerous consultant investigations. Expansive soils should not be used for structural fill. The geotechnical consultant shall consider recommending a blanket of non-expansive import fill to isolate foundation elements from potentially adverse impacts of expansive soils. • It has been our experience that fill slopes constructed from expansive soils in the Mt. Eden Valley area are highly susceptible to creep, sloughing and slope degradation. Recommended .slope gradients for highly expansive materials are generally on the order of 2.5:1 or less. -1- 000034 • The Project Geotechnical En 'neer shall rovide eot ~ gl p g echmcal design cntena for retammg walls and pavement subgrades, as appropriate. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Design Criteria shall be summarized in a written addendum report with appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The plans and plan review letters shall indicate the names of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 3. The Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect and log exposures created during grading and cuttings from pier drilling. Data from these mapped exposures shall be used to prepare an updated engineering geologic map and engineering geologic cross sections depicting as-built conditions. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. -2- 000035 4. The owner a licant shall a an outstandin fees associated with the Ci Geotechnical Consultant ( PP ) P Y Y g ty s review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. ~, ~~ • - 3 - ®®®036 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director DATE: May 24, 2002 FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Review (50032A) Blaettler, DR-02-045 21888 Villa Oaks Lane Lot 4, Tract 7761 At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical review of the subject application using: Updated Map and Cross Sections (faxed documents) prepared by Upp Geotechnology, Inc., dated May 6, 2002. In addition, we have discussed site geotechnical constraints and several possible foundation and stabilization measures with the applicant and project consultants (architect, geotechnical engineer and structural engineers) in a meeting on May 21, 2002. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to construct asingle-family residence and driveway on Lot 4 of the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision (Tract 7761). Review of previously submitted plans indicate that the proposed construction will involve 850 cubic yards of export, including an excavation up to approximately 13 feet deep at the upslope end of the new residence. Previous investigations of Lot 4 and the surrounding area reveal that much of the bedrock in Tract 7761 is characterized by thinly bedded, expansive claystone. In addition, Lot 4 and surrounding lots are underlain by a deep-seated landslide (referred to as Landslide H in subdivision-level investigations). Previous subsurface exploration exposed a basal landslide shear in at least one test pit excavated within Lot 4. The proposed development is constrained by potential instability associated with the deep-seated landslide (Landslide H), expansive surficial and bedrock materials, ongoing distress to Villa Oaks Lane, and susceptibility to strong seismic shaking. Proper grading and drainage control on individual lots in the subdivision are an essential aid in reducing the potential for slope instability in Tract 7761. Upp Geotechnology (Upp) previously recommended that the residential structure be supported by a rigid grid foundation, which would be designed to accommodate some landslide movement. In our previous memorandum (dated April 2, 2002), we noted that the new development plan, involving construction of a basement, might not represent an appropriate application for a rigid grid foundation. We recommended that 0~0©3'7 John Cheibone Ma 24, 2002 v Page 2 S0032~ the Project Geotechnical Engineer evaluate the new development plan and site conditions, and provide updated recommendations for the proposed improvements. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION We noted in previous review memorandums that the preferred method of site development, from a geotechnical standpoint, would be to stabilize the ground, either by removing the unstable material or by pinning the landslide mass in place. We realize that rigid structures that aze designed to remain structurally intact have been utilized. Depending on the magnitude and character of ground movement, some distress could occur to such structures and other neazby improvements. In this case, a landslide removal-and- replacement type of stabilization does not appeaz to be feasible due to the physical constraints imposed by surrounding improvements; however, a more limited buttress fill may be appropriate. Other geotechnically viable methods of mitigating the landslide hazazd at this location may include: the use of shear pins to create a stable building pad, deep piers or shear pins to anchor the foundation into intact bedrock, and structural design of an appropriately reinforced mat foundation. It appears that the consultants aze currently evaluating several options to site development, including construction of a buttress or sheaz pin walls, pier foundations and rigid-grid or mat types of foundations. The anticipated magnitude of engineering measures to stabilize the house footprint should be fully developed and provided to the City for review and approval prior to the construction of site improvements. However, the locations of proposed improvements do not appear to be dependent on the type of selected foundation design. Consequently, we recommend that the following tasks be satisfactorily completed as conditions of Geotechnical Clearance: 1. Supplemental Geotechnical Design Criteria -The Project Geotechnical Engineer should provide appropriate geotechnical design criteria for final design of foundations and site improvements and final geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Specifically, the Project Geotechnical Engineer sha~T satisfactorily address the following: • A final geologic map and cross sections shall be prepared to depict landslide boundaries, the subject lot and building site, existing and proposed grades, proposed foundations and stabilization measures, and other geologic conditions of significance to site development. The cross sections shall extend from the head to the toe of the landslide (ridgeline to creek), and across the building site (at a scale of 1"=40'). • Surficial and bedrock materials in Tract 7761 have been identified as highly expansive in _-- numerous consultant investigations. Expansive soils should not be used for structural fill. 000038 John Cherbone May 24, 2002 Page 3 S0032A The geotechnical consultant shall consider recommending a blanket of non-expansive import fill to isolate foundation elements from potentially adverse impacts of expansive soils. • It has been our experience that fill slopes constructed from expansive soils in the Mt. Eden Valley area are highly susceptible to creep, sloughing and slope degradation. Recommended fill slope gradients for highly expansive materials aze generally on the order of 2.5:1 or less. • The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall provide geotechnical design criteria for retaining walls and pavement subgrades, as appropriate. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Design Criteria shall be summarized in a written addendum report with appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of permits. 2. Geologic and Geotechnical Plan Reviews -The Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The plans and plan review letters shall indicate the names of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Geotechnical Clearance. 3. Geologic and Geotechnical Field Inspection -The Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect and log exposures created during grading and cuttings from pier drilling. Data from these mapped exposures shall be used to prepare an updated engineering geologic map and engineering geologic cross sections depicting as-built conditions. 00009 i john Cherbone May 24, 2002 Page 4 S0032A° The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finial project approval. This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions aze made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. • • 0~0~~~ Apr 08 02 09:26a The Riding Group t~ . 14081; Attachment 6 • Apri12, 2002 City of Saratoga Flanning Commission ] 3777 Fnutvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: DR-98-164 (503-78-004) Blaettler Construction, Inc., 21888 Villa Uaks Lane Members of the Planning Commission: I live at 21836 Villa Uaks Lane in Saratoga. That address is at lot 3 of Mt. Eden Estates, immediately east of lot 4, the lot subject to the application for design review. I built my home in 1990-91 and it was one of the first homes to be built in the neighborhood. My lot is "pie shaped" and on a knoll thus requiring cazeful siting of the home. I was required by the City to site the home as close as possible to the west property line - the property line between lot 3 and lot 4. The siting of my home has caused problems for Mr. Blaettler in siting and designing the proposed home for lot 4. • I have worked with Mr_ Alaettler and his architect oa the present application for design review since the application was filed so that we would all be satisfied with the location of the proposed home on the lot and its design. Mr. Bhettler and his architect have been very cooperative and accommodating to me. The propvscd home has been placed toward the western property line of lot 4 and Deer Trail Court resulting in retaining walls. These walls were. designed tp move the proposed home away from my home and were done at my request. Mr. Blaettlex, the planning department and I recognize that the placement of the home and the retaining walls might require slightly more dirt removal than may be normally allowed, however, we all felt that the effort and cost would be beneficial to me and the neighborhood. The garage faces directly at my front door, however, the azchitea designed the proposed home with athree- door garage and a trellis over the doors to soften the visual appearance of the doors. Mx. Blaettlex also accommodated me by lowering the pad and finished garage Hoor elevations so as to lower the overall profile of the garage as viewed from my home. The garage finished floor elevation and garage apron elevation will be at about existing grade. Mr. Blaettler has been very accommodating to me in this process. I have made several requests in siting and designing the proposed home and Mr. Blaettler has agreed to sill of the requests. Our interaction is what the process is all about 1 his interaction between property owners should help the Planning commission greatly because you now know that the neighbors have resolved anp differences between themselves rather than throwing the issues to the Commission to play Soloman. I believe that the proposed home as preseatiy designed and sited will fit into the neighborhood very well and will not interfere with me or ~y home. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve Mr. Blaettler's request for design review. Very respectfully yours, Kenneth L. Riding 21836 Villa Oaks Lane Saratoga, CA (408) 867-5232 • 00041 a THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~OC~~042 Attachment 7 UPP GEOTECI~NOLOGY, ANC. Engineering Geology •Geotechnical Engineering April 15, 2002 Project No. 2476.1 L 1 Serial No. 11089 Mr. Pete Blaettler BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. 2490 Club Drive Gilroy, CA 95020 SUBJECT: PLAN REVIEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 21888 VILLA OAKS LANE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA • Dear Mr. Blaettler: As you requested, we have reviewed the Grading and Drainage plans by Westfall Engineers (Sheet C1, dated February 1, 2002) for 21888 Villa Oaks Lane. Our Addendum Geotechnical Report, dated October 27, 1999 and our Supplemental Geotechnical Review report, dated March 2, 2000, presented our recommendations for the earthwork and foundation design aspects of the project. Our plan review was made from a soil and foundation engineering viewpoint; no review was made of other aspects of the project design, such as project structural engineering. ^ We recommend that as much downspout discharge and surface drainage as possible be conveyed to the street storm drainage system. • With the above notation, I find the plans for the grading and drainage to be in general conformance with the recommendations of our reports, but I make no representation as to the accuracy of dimensions, measurements, calculations or any portion of the design, other than that covered by our recommendations. I appreciate the opportunity to have reviewed these plans. Should you have any questions, please call. Yours very truly, UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, Ir /~ R. Re o pp, Principa Registered Soil Engineer 2046 Certified Engineering Geologist Copies: Addressee (5) Q~~OrESS~p ~~~`~; ~~Y: ~KC ~i1~2 a c lVo.2046 m ~ Exp.6-30-2004 ~ ~ F' Qom' ,~ OT£CHN~C ~~, ~~lF ~~ CraLtiF~~~ RRU:jc NOTE: This document Lt protected under Federal Copyright Laws. Unauthorised rue or copying of this document by anyone other than the client(s) is strietlyprohibited. (Contact UGljor ",lPPLICdTTONT1D USE.") 000043 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • ~ao~~~ r 1. • _ _ _ _ _ I l I II L r - _ J ~1 I' m le•m~xn•4^ 22: O1 n. a -~ P I.~•m'.9~•e^ wean. 91 Ba n. ii ~ i uemn ~ n~-m'Ku~•e' , ) M 0'•®, %B'•m' RI can ' N u'•m'. rr.m° 271 ea n. ~ I o ve ea n. m 7r•m^.2e'•e• 9emea.n. i i ul eQ A. u u'•m^KU~•rr•ty 191 em. n. igp~ 4909 ea n. • J v IP•m'z7'•m' 22 Om. n. ~ ' Y : 2e-7'>r Y-e' aee SAL., s9•rK2e•m' L-mean. I r~ ue2 x,L n. ~ ~ ~ --- ~ ~ 9828 9a n. ~ jJ / ~ ~ \ / L ~' ~ _- ~-J Lower Level I I I ~_ I ~ g Q ABBREVIATIONS VICIlVITY MAP- II "` , M .~ ' oD srm ~I ~ coxn\'eue . i 21eee\vu outs LANe M ~ w. w.,~ ~mo ~~R § i rn ~° ~"'~ S 9 ~~ >s u.wv v,ntonu+uxnm r.~¢W o- atrnx0.um,Or rm,,.~. ~C N pT ~~ GENERAL NOTES DRAWING INDEX ANrDISCAEP,wcvDLSCOVFamoNTP~sePw~ssHnu. Tl TIt1eSh6et I BE EROUGM TOTHE AT'IFN11ON OF DTS DESIGN A55OC4lTFS 1'IeOR TO CObA4]JCE19'M OF TFff WORK N' QL'eEI7ON. ALL WAl1TEN DP,ffY$IONS SNAIJ-TAKE PDF4DENCE G\mx sGAU~D Deffrlswrs. Civil Au.,SDRK,nBEINCGNFORMAVCEwT<RIRP,D.B.c,, tofl Site Grading&DrainagePlan . U.M.C., & U.P.C., ANO 1988 FDRiU`15 OP N.E C, AND ALL ' PERiLVFN'f IDCAL CODPS AND ORDINANCES. CONIRACfOR ASSMBSfw.RPSPONS®ILRY FOR ,~f ArCh(teCturQl Mf"IHOD AND A4WNER OP CIXSTRUCTIONMfD PoR ALL ' ' 1 AI Slte Ptan (Seel Site Grading ~1 Drainage Plan) lOB SIZE SAFE 11 DURWG CONSTAUC11ON. A2 Entry Level Floor Plan YEReY U]CATION OF Uf8DiF5 AND FATSRNG CONDR1ON5 N Pl A L L l Fl AT SITE PRIOR TO CUYSTRVCIION AND RmDPJG. eve an 3 ower oor A4 Exterior Elevafions. SLOPE ALL FIMSH GRADFSAM81. OP 44 PoP S~O"ASVA}, fAOh(STRUCiUPEFOfl FOSRhE DRALNAGE@ AS Exterior Elevaifons IA7D5(APEDAREiS 8 SLOPE GRADE 3%MW. (~ PA\'FD .,RE,u. A6 Cross Sections Tr~euunFnswwPArn~DETruDLmmvcor\^reR, A7 ROOfPIan MANAGER, AND TFIE OWGMAL OCCIIPANIS A LIST OF THE EIVFaGV~snvlNC covsERVnnDN FEAnmES DEVK•ts. - ANTENALS, ANO COA9tlNPM5 R15ENAED W THE BULLpING, .WD ,NSTAL'CTIONR ON NOW TO VSE TF6,M EFPICIEYA.Y. SUCH FEAnAES 4YCLUDE IiEgTUlG, cooLwc. wnTEA ItESn~D.auD ucTrlclG svsTEntc, As wEU. As usLtiATION. w~tnffnslwFPwG wamuw s7woss..+NDT7ffRnuLMASS MATEPLVS, riff eYSTRLCT1ON5 SHALL BE CONSLSTANT WCtH SPECIFlCATIONS SEi PoRTH BY Tiff PN%E(.1lITJf DIRECTOR ALL WORK AFPIIAN(PS MD Pf,jL7PMENf SHALL COMPLY \171H GE C. TOLE 24 RESIOEYIIAL ENFRGYSEANDARDE, SEE StIEET T26 FOR ADDRIONAL Ft•~3tG1' CIXNPi.IANCE NGIER. N71E', PRIORTO POL'NDATNNr NSPECDOY &W THE CITY, THE ACE OA LLS OF RECORD SHALL FMYNDEA WRITTEN ' CPX(NIGATIQV THATALL BNLDQJG SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS. ALL INiFfUOR FEiEPIACFS ARE TO BE GAS APRJANCE(S7 E>;IPAIpi FlRFAACE TO BE {VOOD RUANMG. CONSULTANTS SOILS ENGWEER UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. 1330 S. BASCOM AVE., SUITE B SAN JOSE, CA. 95128 (408) 275-1336 voice, (408) 287.3079 fax REPORT # 2094. I L t DATED: OCT. 27, 1999 CIb7L ENGINEER WESTPALL EIVGaVEERS, WC. 14583 BIG BAS[N WAY SARATOGA, CA. 95070 (408) 867-0244 voice, (408) 887-6281 fax SYMBOLS e SHEARWALL - 1 ~~~ ~ SECTION ° \~:~croNNUmFn ~g~~ ~nlts ~E-- (--~~ ~~+ ti,.IINT ~.. p E-.,APR NOTE; SEE SNEEI' ENI FOR ELECTRICAL SYA18O15 LLST OWNERS DATA Pete Blaettler Blaettler Construction, Inc. 2490 Club Drive Gilroy, Ca. 95020 408.847.2268 voice 40S•847.1157 fax PROJECT DATA LOT DATA_ APN: 503-78-004 ZOMNG: HR HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL LOT: Lot 4 Mt, Eden Estates ~. LOT SIZE: 44,083 sq ft. (l .012 acres) (gross) ~, ,~::~„~.,a 37,911 sq. ft. (net) SLOPE REDUCTION: ~~~~~4'' `~-v"~ ~~.°.w~. ~ AVF.R,SGE SITE SLOPE: I l .6% = 12% ~~`s ~~•~;,~,,..~ ~,,; ~,.>~.i (10% + 4%) = 14% reduction .~ 44,083 Sq. ft. x 14% = 6172 Sq. ft. `~ 44,083 sq. ft. - 6172 sq. ft. `~ = 37,9 t t sq. ft. net site area SLOPE @ BUILDING SITE:Y 11.6% "° '- %`` SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED: 25%, OR I t ,021 Sq. ft. '"'' ~p S[TE COVERAGE PROPOSED: 5181 Sq. ft. house & garage - , ~, ~,, _ 4- 77o sq. ft. terrace & lightwefls, "~,.., porches & walkways ~'""~,_ 2790 sq. ft. driveway, tlunaround y°", ~ 8741 sq. ft. total coverage (19.9%) p ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 4050 sq. ft. + (78x23) 5844 sq. ft. -~`--"ti-~,_„ total floor area allowed HOUSE DATA: 4303 sg. ft. Entry Level - - 584 sq. ft. Lower Level 4887 sq. ft. Tota] Living Area 878 sq. ft. Garage 60 sq. ft. Entry Porch 5825 sq. ft. Total Floor Area 5844 sq. ft. Total Floor Area Allowed 1346 sq. ft. Basement i ~..,~~ ~-I ., ~ -~ ~--, ~~ ~.'. ~ I n a n _,~ >r ~ No.ioamiuvslaN ~ dde-m7 p R.Y91AU fLM'®Jt4 p gb~}Yy ~~ ~ ~~f ~~r~511~~r y9~,R9~~~~~~~~p5~j5j ~ uO U V J ~-~1 0 U w w as Q U W d \ O rCr~^' vJ ~ W W I~--I O ...I .~ 5 N ~='nz` 0 ~.~ ~'. ¢~'~ ~` ~~a C ( r.z ~ ,~ ~~ 2 5~. ~F Q i;!~ ~1-~ APRIL 12Om2 NcMa 11108! Y,1Regl MICHA6LDAVIe - aTw1 BCDTT 1A2U8TA' '~ ae w D7:31m1 ~.. Tl 1 FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM I I • • £3£ 7 i ~.NOTE6: - ~ .. 1. „LOP68 DF 2i OR CRSATER AWAY FROM THE FODNDATINN SHALL EE MAZNPRIN ALONG TN6 ENTIRE PHRIMBTtA FOR A DISTANCE OP 5 AEET MINIMUM. I ~ ' - ~; - ~~ t, ! ' 2. ALL ROOF DPALNS Itl 06 DIECHARGED ONTO AN WIEgUATB 6PLA6N I ~ ' eWC1I6 OR CGNVHYHp INiYI CWSED CONDUIT SY6TEM. 1. FIRAL SURFACE pPAINAGE GPApIENT SHALL 8E PLANNED AND QUILT 90 A9 Tp DIP6CI' ~ I - - - WATER AWAY PROM THE BUILDING6 AND POUNDATEOAS. 4. SLASS CA9T ApiACOM'TD FOUNDATIONS EXALL S1UPE AWAY pRGM THE / '1 FOUNDATIONS. _ STANDARD GRADING PLAN NOTES -- 1. A1. A gra~u5lec~i b nn by the C ty P rttee mpreeenca the shall nP 'fy M C cy of 9 og 14081' 068 1261 at least 9B hours bef T t tt of y~ r d' g ~ r / - / ~,V _ fM~h ~/"``y 1i ~ -. g 2. Approval of thus plan apPl ]y to [h ton ~ ~ , y ~ ~ 'I \ 1 arch C 1 This placement an rnmpactlPn of V II apprpval does !rot confer any rights of entry t Ch public of others Approval of [Afa lan- ro ert or the rrvate ro ert ~ - - j~~ ~ ~ .• p p p y p p y p also dcee no[ constitute approval of any imptovemxnts. Proposed , 'i - ' p n[ are eubtect fo d app oval try the xespp aible' .n ea aaa au ncMr ~' a pa e h u be sac a I ' PT1E ~ i 3 I h 11 1k the reapovs 6 1" y f CM Pe g to d n[ fy locate and protect 11 de 9r d f I'ti ~ ' ~ L ` rm 1~5 M~ ~ / ^~~ , 4. Th pexmLt[ee or agent hall t Ch M t 'd lke ~ - 0 ! F t, 4' ~ V ~ K ~& ~ ntl all other pubiJC right f-way in a cl f nd aaAa11 i 'd b f il k d i ll ill ~nt '~ - v~P ~ o,h i~P I v '~/ ~~I ~ ~ - vt so , roc or con C c con on A ap a o be removed from Cne publicly awet property d g [ ctJOro avd upon compietfon of the p:olect All ad ant property, vl '4(+ ~ ,A n ~ AJy y~~~ ~/;` tl I 1 ~ , ~ 1 . ._ ~ private or publ LC shall be maivEalved ¢n a clean, safe and usaple d't . ~ ~ ~ q';i / 1 ~ ` - . . \`' \ i '-" - -- " 5 Ali g ading shall be performed in such a manner as to comply Sth h standards esteblrshed by Che Air puallcY Maintenance J'.snx ~ Y ~ ~ GIG , ~ " ` - D' C for evrtorve particulates. ~ '~YYr I P ' ~p ~ - ~rq \ 1 I ~ ' 6. A31 known xelllocaetona ov [he Bite have been included and d di t ¢.mera uaN -~ P I i ~ v / ~ ~ /1 accor ng o current h lie shall be naintaroed or abandone lare Valley Water gut ti ns adnvnvetered b the Santa dyv () je t~t I . . ~~ 14N ~ af~ ' V I - ~ \~' / y g US Y [ Ca (4D@1 265 26D0 to arzan a Ear distrlcc observation // ~,, I f/ ~ / ' ~ a "' ~ -',j~ - J ^ '~~ 1 f 11 11 akcedomnena[sv, 9. Th' plan d s n prove the rtmoval of trees. Appmpraate t moval pezmrta and methods of tree p t' h ld b ~ ~/ n I // / I I N '~,?" ~~ ~ ~ - l 1 ~ ~\' 1 ~ '~ ~^ ~ b d f om the City C7tanunity Oevelopn~e t Depa G C. S, Th Clv{i Anglneer Nestfall Enganeere, I ASBI A g B vn W y E toga Ca 95D)C, Nae deafgned CM p j [ [ amply ' I/ ' A X / ~, 4 ,1 \ q~'") ITA t' ) ~ 'i 1 \,_ %` - ` ~ ~' ~ ~- \~~ ., ~ - ` h- , ' I ~ ~ ' h th gradrng recommendations in Che protect ge eolvnle 1 and da[edE regurred prepared by { I! ~c 11 G . ,iw;i ~ ~ I, _ ' j " ` 06~~ ~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~~ \c` a,~ . frJC ER0910N CONTgf0.1 TI£ EAU9ICN f.'pNTPDL MEP9UAE9 6iMLL BE IN EFFECT WAIND T ggINY 9Eg5EN~ UfiDPF.R 13 LO gPPll 15. ' . W1giNU THE ilg1NY SEg9pN THE SITE SNgLL BE Mqi NTq INED SD i0-PPEVEM 9EDIMENT LADEN gLNpFF i0 ENTEP gpJDIN1Np PflUPEATlE6 qNp 9TUPw DggIH BYSTEM. PgOVIpE 91LT FENCE OF t SFEp pn1 nLLCN qLL UlsNRDED BLDPE9 PgIOR TO pCiD@Eq t3. -., ,.,., ,+.. WOOD BTAME I +EOMEM ROLL NIBMEO GRAOF 1• ENtAENCNMENTOETAIL IN FIAT AREA 4 A11 gra ing aM11 conform to approved apecvf vca[rone gz [4,Ia+a~.0~ ~ ~ it .: _ ,7 ~ /(bsl ~ k4 `V hereoa or attached Mreto A11 gradrng vork shall be obeer d d 4 r"'" ~~ //,, ~ - 1 approved by the soli e,pvveee The soul engineer ,,, »' ~F I I /I ~ 1 _ F ~ 1 p ~, , 1 shall be no[tf red at least 48 hours before beginnvg any gxadvng II U ~'hI ~ 111 ~ ~ /. S' \,P~ ~yd~ ,1 at telephone n,mnMr unobserved and unapproved grading I I IZ I~i f~~.4 dU `5• .-lyp~ 1 ddq`6 a ~, uyu I .. work shall be d d replaced under observatron of the I _ ~ Of , 1 Of 5, 1 , ,~ \ y, .n 'pra]ect ao 1 !g' - it 1~' ~ y l ~, ~~ ' ` ` /y$(• 1 ~6• I C ' ID Gradang p 't 'll o[ be rssuad between October 15th and ~ I h~ 11 1 ~ ~1 G`~ ~ AprJl 15th of any yeaz vithou[ approval by the Orrector of Public ~'II ! ~~ ' bV ~ ~ 0 ~ I'~ 1 ` ` ' 1 \ , I r ' WPrks. (.~ Il 1 3 P.0 1 I/J ~~ r 1 ~f. 5[ 1 11 `/ '~ 11 pf~F11 1 66 /6~6~ l ` U \ 1 ~ / ~ I )I I1 II 11 S 1 ~•~ t. 11DW d Q~O 1 1 I f/f {. o~ ~i /J ' / i 11 Q I. v 1Ff~ ~' ' \ 11 \ , 1 ~ 1 `~.~\ t V LV~ ~ A f U- ~ I \ 1 ` 1 111 U 1 11 \ ~ V ` 1 p /1 r ~~ -'~1 'C ~ 1 V j OgvszeucrroN ed>AnNr-,vpn<r rr,,vice ~ ~ ~ 111 ~ ~ / y~o ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ !p~ k4g t TM e t Mll b mai aimed Ina tllti ttat ill 1! \ -~~ --`- -~ '-=! ~' }'' ' ~ ~ . ~ ' ~ Vv p vent k nq ~tloxllg aedlwent-oe p plf lgnt o[- !! 1 A `• \ ` 1 d ' -' Y• }hl Y 9 1 e per odic [oD dr lip ith additfaul 11 `` Nv~ \ v' j tvni-I d ti demand, a!M repair M! lyv ova any !1 m` ' ` ` \ \ 1 ~ _', ~ .~ All's:di Plll d, droppetl, xa¢hed, ka0 neo pabli¢' 1` 11 ` \ ~ ~~'i i r191![s-P} vay ¢nall be temnd lmmedaetely. - YMV vac ¢ary, vheals shall bs cleaned to remv sediwot P[lor to entrance onto public rights-ofway. Tnla sMll W l'~J~, none :c an aro ¢tabllixW vlth etvanad stoM, vnlen deLLna into av approved ¢Mlment trap of sediment G>!n. LEGEND: ' - E%iSTIPG P80}O6ED PROPERTY LINB -'-'- EDGH OF PAVEMBRT PURO k GUITBR __________ STORM DRAIN AND AYa WN --~- SWALB ._-. _.-...-~ EPOT ELeVATION fb' L~'A 2' CDNEUUA REVISION BY DATE OATEi 1 -/ -02 SCALE: NOR. /". yJ' VERi, ' .DESIGNED: NJ _ DRAVN; NB CHECAED: KL' PAOJ.ENCR: NB ci ` ~ ~M1 k ~ \ ,\ th_ ~ , ~ . .~, ~ I, ~ E ~~, ~~ ~ I I ~ I --- - ~_ .~ SUBNI ii EO - Df IL F ~~ boo ~ e.:, sn ~0 0 $° f.h. min.. )0 r-Ir lock pp-Np a :Pea 9.ave/ M ®AA++ q*dL~,~P`~ ,;~ GPADING QUAttfiTlEB L)WER LEVEL ... CUT :.. ')9p C.Y. GARAGE ........ CVf .. 60 C. Y... TOTAi. M ....., .. ... @50 C.Y." TJTAL E%PDRT ....... ... 950 C.Y. A ERA6F SLOPELOT I //.L3%, WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. GRADING ANDDRAINAOEPLAN 21888 VILLA pAKS LANE, SARATOGA BY EAPEL CYMBAL DATE: A. C.E.145]I i/SBJ B1C BASIN VAk. 6ARAt0GA, CA 950]0 1400189]-DE44 ~ ' E%P. JOB NO. 2/ /48 6HEET C1 1 • • • ice.-a. -------- I I I p I ~ I I I ® I I L-~ L _ - . - terrace ff~ i I I I I I I I I 1 ~,I I I ~~ ~ ~. ~i?i~' F ~~s~1 QFIfERti^E I ,~~ ~~~~~ great room i~ i i II , l\ , \ I+A ~ I ~ _ ------- . ~ I/2 h /~ -----, ' - /' ~ \ I ` /' ~ \~ r I `, ~ - ~ ~ ~ I ~. ~\ , ~, ~ master suite ~ ~ I ` I I~ ` II I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , n00k I I O of ~~\ i' _~ ~ter\biath _ _ II -J ®, I i I I ~ % ~ ~ i I r---------------~ ~ i , ~~~ ~- , --- ~ I I I I I I I --' I I I I I / ~, I 1, i I ~ II courtyard I r closet i ~ -~ I livingtoom I ~ ~I~~'pdrrm ~ I Wl APY.ItlCE ~ ~ ~]'Al~b UCVD t ~ /// `\\ -__ If~tiPCE ~ ' ~ ' .• . ... 'JI II D ,J ~ vestibule 'I, ___, ~I I ~ I `f`~...v"' I ~ ~1 r i ------------ L----------------~ I ..~j: I I { I III -------------- I --- ~_ ~- '', -- - -+- - L I-------- ~ - ~~--- - ~--- I i I ~I ` / / i ~ - ~ ~ ~---gl3~P'I~! - ._- IaUtldry I I ~~ fl ' ~ ~. I i ~~'•~;~ I I ~; ------------~. grand) foyer F =- ~~~ ~, I I II ~ -J----------~ ~----- ~, ~ ~ balcony ~ J j _. ----- i .pan ~ ~ `~~~ r ~ - - \ I i kitchen II I ~ r~ I ~~ I TT V v I Lr t bath -- -- -- -- ~ ___~ ~, ~w ~=-- landing I /// -----, I \~ I t-; -, j / ;guest) suite I --- I I 1 I II II I I ~_ ~ I I ~\ J B 46 1'-0" I~'•0' S'~1" n ~ ~ ~ i ' ------- "`emu .xw",`.'•- c ---- L. - 0 ~ i u ~ ~~ I ~ II ~ 1~ I I.VI ~~ 1 I L__ __JL ____J 11- __ _i_____ ~~I I b• ~1 I ~r~, --~~~--_7 I I ~ ~ ~Y~ I I llbtla I I I 1 / '!fir--, ~~ I I - - I i dining room ~ _ ~,. i ii i I I ~~ - .. ,4. I I - L--'-'JL--'--J __ -' --- -- l J ~~ ~-----~~------, , ~~ i i 70'-~' N'•0" Entry Level Floor Plan 4303 sq. fi. Entry Level 584 sq. ft.LOwerLevel ~~~~~~ 4887 sq. ft. Total Living Area s~~°0J ~pCOR 878 sq. ft. Garage 60 sq. ft. Entry Porch 5825 sq. ft, Tota] Floor Area 5844 sq. fi. Total Floor Area Mowed 1346 sq. ft. Easement I /4"= I ~.-m.. N0./ DAtF,/ PEIISION Q 415-07 p NN~Y la181i5 ' ~~~~~~~~ ~~€~~ ~~~~~;~~~~ggs ~yg~yF~~~~~~~Ygg ~ `spa s ~3^£w~~~~~~F ~~~~3~g~~~€~ ~ a~5s~~ ~z~~ A 0 r s. ' ar 3 u ,r~ ~~a ~ ~"~..~ LJ'I'rn an 4PRIL 12007 v<~,_L,o nlcN~ Davia acorr uzuera xe xa DZ3101 em ~A2 • i~ • 1 ~_ _~ ~---- i ---, I ~ i ~--- ---~ ~--_J Lower Level Floor Plan 584 Sq. ff. Lower Level scale: I/4"=1'~0" 1346 sq. ft. Basement 878 sq. ft. Garage ~ a-ss-ai aawrtG w+Ei+rs ~~ ~~~0 ~~~~~~~dR~~ cgggq~y~yk®c~c~3~~~~~ Kyi~S y~~~~R ~~a~~~~~t~~~ ~~r~~~~~~e4 ~`~~a ags~ ~~~~~~~ U h ~.V ~':. C~, N L C y~ ~ ' '~ ~,. F~, ~v=-~ v,~~ ~ ~,~ ~~s~ Dare 4PRIL 13007 acue I/4"el'•0" MIDlCf wlMls~ MICNGBL DAVl6 auxn SCOTT Z4AIETC n xa . DZ3~01 ea* A3 ~ ~ G` - ~ -_ ,1 ~-~~ it F I~~i~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~' j ~~ ~! I • o,~,a5~ ...w~4L. ~ ~- _~ ~- I j ~~ i ~I i ~ ii ii i ~~r . ~~.._.. -~- _._ I ~ ~ - _ , '_ ~.~~~ ~ C~~~v~:.}- i~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ I N0./ DA1F,/ 11EY1510 I I ~~~ (/~~ if c 5'YoSa~,,.; ~~lA CJr i9~2nS ~ gg 2 ~ i7? ' ~- ~ ~n,UC7J~wv' ~ P` ~ ~~~~~~~~a ~ tom- .-_~. a I K,; ~ - ~ ,e g ~~~ ~. ~ apE~~nR~~~ ~ ~-- i; i v ~ ;~ri-'--x--cr ~ ~'N ~!s". C~fs, 5~.-~Co4o p~ 11 s \~r,..~ _,. 7 N mn.2.: ro x•;~ 3'; .~,~~- o '' ~,;~' d ~' ~ ; ., r~ ~_-r~ y ~; s h;~ L ~f~C~ ~,~ r e~ ,~ :D_ ~' ~I v ~<a ~ a, v ~s. Q right side elevation s - __-- JJWW~~ _- -- : -- ~~E, - _--- -- ~METdL 81'FIX 4RREBTOR f dlLi-18 CLRYEY _ f._-- ~ ~~~ ~L~~FMI~ 11'+~ l _... =~"- _ ~~e~t tl~-`~ i' T- ,~. '~_ (.rte, ._-+ OWNET PER VEC ]Db fI (8EE NOTE TEAS WG) A. n ---~, ~~ . - - ._ i 1ry~~ ' E ~ ._ I~ ~ . ~~~ ~ _ __ _ I ~'~,- '~ vest' ule family room ~ nook dining room ~ ii ~~ ~ ~1 ~ q master suite closet 1 it , A _._ .. .__ _.. ..._ g j I ® ~ _ - ~ I 5 TYP - ( C r ~ i 1,, -~ ` - MASTER SUITE FNISH ELOGR ~ . = ENTRY LE1~cL FINISH FLOOR a 6615' _ _ o ~ ~ z GUEST SUITE FINISH FLOOR a 6565' ~ - -- - --- ~ - - ~ ~ - ~ ~' 3 car garage ~ u rum us room ~ P _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ _ - _ - 1 ~ ~ e __ ~ _ _ _ = ~ _ RU~ PIIVISGFLOOR a 6515' '~, __. . -_ _ ~~ GARAGE FINISH $LAB-e-650` - _~ --' j~ ~ ~ •- ~ ;,~ '~ ~ ___ €, i _ ~ ~ ~ t' U 1 Q~9 A Cross Section I i h ii !' l,; i" ~ / /~ _-_ ~ ~ / 1 l ' y I (~ `_ 'I_ .___~L _, I { i ~ I I I ~i ' . - _ _ .. i ~ grand foyer i > ~ r I ~ i 1 1 a I > a ~ family room w r 1 1 I 's i pdr rm ~ ~ r ® ,, ~I i i i i ~: i ~ ~ i I ~ I I - _ - ~- -- I ~ ~ -- - i --- - -- - I ` 1 I 11~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ t I f.~ #~'~z7 T'~ fir"- _ ~, I s ~5 I~ 1~ ~ I ,~,, ~ ENTRY LEVEL PINISN FLOOR s 6IS' guest swte ~ ~ g h LEVEL FINISH FLOOR a 6615' ENTRr ~ t~ " `~ h~n,a ~A^ I I k ~ N F ~ 1 ~ j ~~ ' H'N ' _~ GUEST °JJITE FINISH FLOOR 6565' I ~ garage r. game room ~ li E storage ~ a I~, Cross Section Exb1WG ~E ~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -RR'iP13 RBOM~FN~151FFL60R-m 15` - __ -_--_ .. &$i '~~; ~ Cross Section I ' i II ~ bath 3 ~ „/" chidren's ` sturyy i bedroom 5 ~~ ~ CHILDREN'S DY FMISN FLOOR 652 ..~. No.i ~n'rei R2l'LSIU~ a sy~ ~s~~~~~~hg~h~~ $~~~eg~~~~E~ ~~~5~~~~~~~~ ~~~ s~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ N a, o ~,~' iI G vas , U ~ c %,. Q„ ~ K~ ~ ~~ ~(^t A C U 0 ~ ~w 0 o ~~ ~ °' ' m ~ ~ ~ ro U ~ N 'Jl ~ ~ ~ a $ ~~ SCOTT I42UATA a.»s DZ3101 aEEr A6 D i s g r 8 h ' ~, ,,~{jJ~'~ le' I' a MV. abDlGt oUrtD FF. / ~ -Wl~ ~;;; ;p~~ d ,~ ~, ,, _ ~ ~ , ~ -~ L~ ~bd~ ~ , ~~ ,~' ~ I' e ,~ e 1 1 ~ .1 ~~ ,, " i-_. T ® a ~`J L .`, .. 1 it ` ~ ~ 1 4f} I I r V _ ----~_-_~~-~ ~~ ~~RUner urn Fr. ~ M'" `l ~/ ~~~ ~ ~ yA ~~ 1 't' D'.1•RdDV. ~ t ~V~~ _ ~~ ~ z ~~ •;,, ~~ ~~ 1 ~: _~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ `I r~ ~ d 1; ` ,r __~ ~ ~. ~ '~~- ~ ~ - i~ ,~ ~ . it y' - ~~ ~~.I•R~Y. _ _ i I~' i- 1 ~ _ r ~ a ~ -~ ~' ~/-__~ r ___ GA nmm anc n. t li ~~ Kd ~ I ~ c _: __ }•a•xe~-0• II I:I~ I~ ~^f ~ ~9m . 1 I. Mf. _` ~ A - I. ~oeRt'W II ~ ~ i 1 A6 ,I it y ~ .caaasr II ., ! ~ 0 ~ _ ~ rl ~S ~ < I .__ I InmR I' 1'' ~ -- ~ f-~ yT __^ h l II I dxNV 71 ~L,I ~ >ecee 4 h ' ~I a1. ~' ~ II I•~ '"~ ri_ ~ - • 1L_ ~ worms q 1 `~ ~ ~ ~` ~ A ,a r r t ~` .1 ` •_. .. l i ~ ~ , i .. ., ~ I ~~ J i I I I I -_ ~ R~ a ~ it - _~ ' I 191,; ~~I~ ~ i ~ ~~ eoac • cdRreronw xAS li -~ ® J~ .. . ~ "7 ~ .~ JAL ~) ~~/~~~k,,, ~~ ~ i :I i1-~ t_.. \ 4~ ® ~ ,.6n ~ .. ~ ~ // vdLtEr,~ R",`zr~. - nJ / / ~ ~ ~ , ~ r--- -' -~ t~ P = ~ ~ q D 1I „.,.R~,. a.5-.~. ~~ ~~ ~ ,~ II~~' - ,~ ~ A9rERDURE FP ~-, r .- ', ~ Ywmrt~as ~¢ - eoRrmrtl PF ~`~ ~~ I A ~ ~ vv~1~. U'-I' R 40v, eWli WU[FF, h~i~ \ / }: \ ~ i ,rx ~ 1 Lq,_ ~ G ____ ~ V a ~ u'.I• e m dG Dt/nR LD•.tL FP. D .D •.•e bel. Y~I' a dpy ltORT LlKLFI. OIEDi DurtD P!. III 4 ``. I. Roof Plan m'-r a dDV. riRer eunD GP. ~oF PLAN Nores~ scale; 1 /4"= ]'-0'• e ~. de ROCF ELOPE 19 TO ~ D~tl. . Afda;ND IImICliE DD80}ION OF R~ ELOPE. Rd1E 4¢IiN! 19 tOOE 10'•9" UNO, ovERUaw,e dRE ro eE e• di edvES ~ e• - Ar w+~D tuNa PROVIDE EAYE YcNiD FOR ArrIG 44NfLAiICN I . PER U8G i1PIGAL MDiALL Gl M6IERIAI Raz JdnXB FOR P.VRM"VEIrtD. EiG 44 REfJlIRL. IkSidLL Y, K GdIKE PdY16 d.IRER W OOINDPWtO A9 RF4IRED.PI¢0'/IDE CONCIN!iF DPLdbl9LOW ~ Ai pOWiDPOJi LOGATGNB Pta DRNN40E WIAY Rapt BrR~tIAOE - iYRGAL ~~ NO/ DA'IQ/ pEl'ISION 6 ~K ~ ~~~tg~ ~-~x~~~ F~ ~~~?~'~~~~~9 ~~~;~~~s~n~. ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ w X ~ _ ~ P.I~ ~~ VN ~~i >- v ~ `'~' ~~_~; ~: Q,u~a. Q {,;~ ~ (~-i~ WTfl FEB. 13007 ecue aroacr wweet MIGFI4EL D4v18 aRrx SCOtt 2AZIJETA mxn DZ3101 mer A7 ?r ~~ • ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: BSA-00-003; DR-00-051 / 13800 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: Thomas Walker Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner ~~-' Date: July 10, 2002 APN: 503-30-002 Department Head:, 13800 Pierce Road O©0001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 10/11/00 Geotechnical Clearance Issued: 2/11/02 , , Application complete: 4/12/02 Notice published: 6/12/02 Mailing completed: 6/12/02 Posting completed: 6/07/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests design review and tentative building site approval for construction of a two-story single-family residence to be built on a 19,210 square foot triangular shaped-lot. The lot is currently vacant. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the design review and tentative building site approval applications by adopting the attached Resolution subject to adoption of the proposed basement ordinance amendments by City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution for DR-00-O51/BSA-00-003 3. Arborist Report, dated November 2, 2002 4. Santa Clara County Fire Department Conditions 5. Resolution No. 02-024; Basement Ordinance Amendments 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped and received by the Community Development Department 6/26/02 • • • ~©0®02 ,t File No. DR-00-OSI/~ i-00-003;13800 Pierce Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential (HR) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Conservation: RHC MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 19,210 square feet SLOPE: 20% Average Site Slope GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires grading a total of 560 cubic yards of cut and 272 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction of a new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed materials and colors include a taupe stucco exterior finish, stone veneer, and carriage style garage doors. Roof materials and colors include high definition composition asphalt shingle in a weathered wood color. • ~a0~03 File No. DR-00-OSI/~ . 1-00-003;1800 Pierce Road Proposed Code Requirements Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 23% 25% Building Footprint 2,431 sq. ft. Driveway & Walkways 2,000 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 4,431 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 1,260 sq. ft. Second Floor 1,877 sq. ft. Garage 472 sq. ft. (Basement) (699 sq. ft.) TOTAL 3,609 sq. ft.' 3,880 sq. ft.`' Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 30 ft. 30 ft. Rear Not Applicable Not Applicable3 Exterior side (Southwest) 30 ft. 25 ft. Interior side (Northwest) 20 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. 'Floor area figures reflect the proposed basement ordinance amendments as discussed in the staff report (Resolution 02-024). 2 Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section 15- 45.030(c)(d)). 3 Rear lot line...A lot line bounded by only three lot lines will not have a rear lot line (MCS 15-06.430(b)). r ~~ U • OOC~004 File No. DR-00-OSl/~ i-00-003;13800 Pierce Road PROJECT DISCUSSION Project Description The applicant requests design review and tentative building site approval for construction of a two-story single-family residence to be built on a 19,210 square foot triangular shaped-lot. The lot is currently vacant. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence is 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). Pierce and Pike Roads abut the site. Access to the proposed residence will be provided from Pierce Road. Geotechnical Clearance was issued on February 11, 2002. One 16-inch diameter Coast Live Oak (tree #5) will be removed as a result of the proposed project. Native replacement trees equal to the value of the Coast Live Oak ($2,861), bond monies equal to $11,621, and tree fencing are required pursuant to the Arborist Report dated November 2, 2000. As recommended by the Arborist, the building footprint was relocated (as reflected in Exhibit A) and the grading plan shall be revised in order to preserve tree #4. Previous Permit History Documents on file with the Community Development Department indicate permits to build a residence and for related grading activity were issued in 1970. The subject permits expired before work commenced. The Uniform Building Code in effect at that time required commencement of work within 60 days. A stop work was issued in 1980 subsequent to the expiration of the above-mentioned permits. Application of Proposed,BasementOrdinanceAmendments Due to a 20% slope on the site, portions of the lower level day-light while other portions are subterranean (see sheet A4). On sheet A6, the day-lit areas are labeled garage/living space and the subterranean areas are labeled basement/storage. By way of background, the Planning Commission referred the proposed basement ordinance amendments to City Council for adoption on a unanimous vote at the May 8, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The ordinance is scheduled for a first reading at the June 19, 2002 City Council meeting. The second reading is scheduled for July 17, 2002. It is expected the ordinance will become valid after a 30-day period following the second reading. Under the proposed basement ordinance the subterranean portions of the proposed project maybe excluded from the allowable floor area for the site. Subterranean areas for the subject project account for 699 square feet of floor area. On sheet A6, these areas are labeled basement/storage. Staff recommends the Planning Commission condition approval subject to adoption of the proposed basement ordinance by City Council. r~ ~Q'~~~5 File 1Vo. DR-00-OSI/~ 1-00-003; 13800PlerceRnad Design Review A contemporary-style residence is proposed. Architectural elements include gable roof lines, a large front porch, stepped back second-story, and stone veneer. The proposed materials and colors include a taupe stucco exterior finish, stone veneer, and carriage style garage doors. Roof materials and colors include high definition composition asphalt shingle in a weathered wood color. The surrounding area is characterized by a mixture of one and two-story residences, older and newly constructed homes, and a variety of architectural styles. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed two-story residence utilizes materials and architectural features which reduce bulk and break up massing, including stone veneer, columns, front porch and railing, barn style garage doors, and windows. The second story level is stepped back. Elevations are softened by different materials including stucco and stone. Natural colors and materials are used for the lower level of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: One tree is proposed for removal and replacement trees are required. The proposed stone veneer, earth tone colors, and roof materials blend with the natural environment. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: The site is bounded on two of its three lot lines by roadways, thus greatly reducing interference with the privacy of existing residences. However, an adjacent one-story residence will face unreasonable interference with privacy without incorporating the following recommended conditions of approval: ^ Eliminate the portion of the front porch which wraps around to the northwest elevation. ^ Additional fast-growing landscape screening shall be installed along the entire right side property line to the satisfaction of staff. Landscape screening shall reduce privacy impacts resulting from the proposed window in the dining room. ^ Eliminate proposed French doors in the living room. French doors maybe replaced with 2'x 2' windows at header height. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: While the project site is located in the hillside residential zone district viewsheds are not adversely affected due to the lack of sight lines resulting from the location of the site in a narrow canyon area with dense surrounding mature vegetation. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: ~ . The residence has been designed for energy efficiency. A front porch provides shade for the front rooms during the hottest summer days. Most of the main living areas have windows facing south to maximize use of sunlight. The house will be very well insulated with high efficiency equipment. The house is equipped witr~ double paned windows and patio doors offering the most efficient glazing available. A split zoned furnace system located both in the lower floor and in the attic offers a convenient and efficient way to heat and cool each floor separately. ~~~©~s File No. DR -DO-OSlli i -00-003;13800 Pierce Road Building Site Approval The project requires building site approval to construct on a vacant lot subdivided more than 15 years ago. Building site approval is a two-fold process which requires tentative approval by Planning Commission and final approval by City Council. The proposed project supports the following building site approval findings: (a) The proposed single family dwelling is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. The site is zoned and planned for single-family development. (b) The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed. The proposed project has received Geotechnical Clearance. The conditions of the Geotechnical Clearance ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. (c) The design of the building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no rare, threatened or endangered species on any state or federal list located on this site. (d) The design of the building site or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The City Geologist, Engineer, Arborist, and Fire District have all reviewed the proposed plans. Their comments and conditions are incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. (e) The design of the building site or improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. The site does not have any public easements recorded against it nor does the project interfere with easements in the vicinity of the site. (f) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act') would not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor does it involve the subdivision of property. Therefore, this finding does not apply to the proposed project. (g) The discharge of waste from the proposed building site into an existing comrnunity sewer system would not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. Sanitary sewer is available to the site. The proposed single-family dwelling will not result in overburdening the system capacity. • O~~~o~ File No. DR-DO-OSI/~ 1-00-003;13800 Pierce Road Conclusion The proposed residence conforms to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. As conditioned, the residence does not interfere with viewsheds or privacy, it preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and minimizes the perception of bulk so that is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed project satisfies all of the findings required for design review and building site approval as detailed in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the design review and tentative building site approval applications by adopting the attached Resolution for DR-00- OS 1BSA-00-003 subject to adoption of the proposed basement ordinance amendments by City Council. • • ~~~~~8 Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. XX-XXX CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CONIMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Thomas Walker; 13800 Pierce Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review and building site approval for the construction of a new 3,609 square foot residence on a 19,210 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 project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. 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: Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed two-story residence utilizes materials and architectural features which reduce bulk and break up massing, including stone veneer, columns, front porch and railing, barn style garage doors, and windows. The second story level is stepped back. Elevations are softened by different materials including stucco and stone. Natural colors and materials are used for the lower level of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: One tree is proposed for removal and replacement trees are required. The proposed stone veneer, earth tone colors, and roof materials blend with the natural environment. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: The site is bounded on two of its three lot lines by roadways, thus greatly reducing interference with the privacy of existing residences. However, an adjacent one-story residence will face unreasonable interference with privacy without incorporating the following recommended conditions of approval: ^ Eliminate the portion of the front porch which wraps around to the northwest elevation. ^ Additional fast-growing landscape screening shall be installed along the entire right side property line to the satisfaction of staff. Landscape screening shall reduce privacy impacts resulting from the proposed window in the dining room. ^ Eliminate proposed French doors in the living room. French doors maybe replaced with 2' x 2' windows at header height. • OQC~G09 File No. DR-00-OSI/~ ~-00-003; 13800 Pierce Road Policv #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: While the project site is located in the hillside residential zone district viewsheds are not adversely affected due to the lack of sight lines resulting from the location of the site in a narrow canyon area with dense surrounding mature vegetation. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: The residence has been designed for energy efficiency. A front porch provides shade for the front rooms during the hottest summer days. Most of the main living areas have windows facing south to maximize use of sunlight. The house will be very well insulated with high efficiency equipment. The house is equipped with double paned windows and patio doors offering the most efficient glazing available. A split zoned furnace system located both in the lower floor and in the attic offers a convenient and efficient way to heat and cool each floor separately. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for building site approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) The proposed single family dwelling is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. The site is zoned and planned for single-family development. (b) The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed. The proposed project has received Geotechnical Clearance. The conditions of the Geotechnical Clearance ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. (c) The design of the building site or the proposed improvements are not likel to cause y substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no rare, threatened or endangered species on any state or federal list located on this site. (d) The design of the building site or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The City Geologist, Engineer, Arborist, and Fire District have all reviewed the proposed plans. Their comments and conditions are incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. (e) The design of the building site or improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. The site does not have any public easements recorded against it nor does the project interfere with easements in the vicinity of the site. (~ That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act') would not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor does it involve the subdivision of property. Therefore, this finding does not apply to the proposed project. ~. oQC~oso File No. DR-00-051/~ ~-00-003; 13800 Pierce Road (g) The discharge of waste from the proposed building site into an existing community sewer- system would not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water- quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. Sanitary sewer is available to the site. The proposed single-family dwelling will not result in overburdening the system capacity. 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 Thomas Walker for design review and building site approval 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. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to submittal for building permits. 3. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 4. 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." 5. Submit grading and drainage plans to the public works department for review. 6. Encroachment permit shall be issued by the public works department for the Swale repair and for the installation of new driveway approach. 7. 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. 8. Certificate of compliance or recorded parcel map on file with the Public works department prior to final building site approval from City Council. - - 9. Eliminate the portion of the front porch which wraps around to the northwest elevation. 10. Additional fast-growing landscape screening shall be installed along the entire right side property line to the satisfaction of staff. Landscape screening shall reduce privacy impacts resulting from the proposed window in the dining room. 000~t~11 File No. DR-00-OSI/~ 1-00-003; 13800Plerce Road 11. Eliminate proposed French doors in the living room. French doors maybe replaced with 2'x 2' windows at header height. CITY ARBORIST 12. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report date stamped and received by the Community Development Department on November 2, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans (see attachment 3). 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, security in the amount of $11,621 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14. All development review comments in the Santa Clara County Fire Department plan review number 00-2699 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans (see attachment 4). PUBLIC WORKS 15. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. We recommend that the Project Geotechnical Engineer consider the benefits of extending piers a minimum of 10 feet below the identified basal rupture surface. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall ensure that adequate pier embedment depths are depicted on the final foundation plans. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate the stability of proposed temporary (construction) slopes, and provide recommended measures to maintain or improve temporary slope stability during construction (e.g., slot-cutting, shoring, etc.). The Project Geotechnical Consultant also shall ensure that an appropriate capillary break has been provided for slabs (e.g., including a minimum 4 to 6 inches of crushed rock or drainrock). The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. • r~ • OQ~~a~2 Flle No. DR-00-JSI/L ~-00-003; 13800Plerce Road 16. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for engineered fill, foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall specifically observe and log pier holes, to verify that adequate bedrock embedment depths for piers are achieved prior to placement of steel and concrete. Logs of these borings, as well as modified geologic cross sections shall be prepared as part of the as-built documentation. The results of these inspections, logs of pier excavations, geologic cross sections, and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s), and on appropriate drawings, and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the grading permit. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zone Clearance. 18. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 19. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 20. 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 days from the date of adoption - -- PASSES AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 10th day of July 2002 by the following roll call vote: • OQ~Oa13 File No. DR-00-OSI/1 ~-00-003; 13800 Pierce Road AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date OQC~G14 • ~~~ BARRIE D. C .TE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 `Attachment TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE WALKER PROPERTY 13800 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Department Mark Connolly City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist November 2, 2000 Job # 10-00-265 Plan Received: 10-13-00 Plan Due: 11-13-00 • oa~aass TSLEE SURVEY AND PRESEF 'ION RECOMMENDATTONS AT 7'HE WALKER PROPERT _ , _3800 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to construct a new residence 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 the retained trees can be reduced to prevent decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction aze accurately represented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes sixteen trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree #5 is to be removed by this design. Replacement trees equal to its value aze suggested. Procedures aze suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to retained trees. A combination bond equal to the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are approximately thirty trees (several small specimens are not noted on the maps provided) on this site but only sixteen of these trees meet the size requirement of the city ordinance and are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The seven trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 4-7, 9, l 1, 12, l4 Tree #2 Trees #3, l6 Trees #8, 10 Tree # 13 Tree # 15 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) California black walnut (Juglans hindsii) English walnut (Juglans regia) Hybrid oak (Quercus species) California black oak (Ouercus keJ/oggii) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on data sheets that follow this text. This information is converted to a single descriptive rating indicating overall condition. This is intended to aid with planning. Exceptional Fine Specimens Fair Specimens Marginal Poor Specimens S ecimens S imens 4, 11 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 2, 15 14 16 10 12, 13 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and 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 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 20110 • • ~QL"~~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESER iON RECOMMENDATIONS ~ AT THE WALKER PROPERT. .,800 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens aze typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees #9, 11, and 12 have their root collars covered by soil. This exposes these trees to root collar diseases that have the potential to kill them. The soil within about 18-24 inches of the root collars must be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots, but this must be done without injuring the bazk on the trunk or the roots. Impact of Construction Trees #3, 4 and 5 are in conflict with the proposed residence. Tree #4 a 20-inch diameter coast live oak, is in Exceptional condition. Tree #3 is a fine 23-inch California black walnut, English walnut combination in fine condition. Tree #5 is a 15-inch diameter coast live oak in fine condition. In order for tree #4 to survive, this tree must have a minimum clearance of 15 feet from the trunk in which the soil must be retained in it present condition and completely undisturbed. Trees # l and 16 are located in an accessible area adjacent to Pierce Road. These trees are at risk of root damage by trenching, or by soil compaction. Tree # 16 is in poor condition and is not worth retaining, but tree # 1 is well worth preserving. If underground utilities to this residence will be required, the locations of the trenches must not be left up to contractors or to the service providers but must be planned prior to construction. No underground utilities are noted on the maps provided. A significant amount of soil is to be excavated to construct a basement and a garage. The soil from the excavation must not be spread under the canopies of the existing trees because of unavoidable root losses, should this occur. 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 pazking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies under the canopies. 4. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. S. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 00001'7 TREE SURVEY AND ^RESE TION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE WALKER PROPER't . ,13800 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA 6. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 7. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 8. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. if the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following. mitigation suggestions aze 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. I suggest that the footprint of the proposed residence be relocated so that a minimum clearance of 15 feet from the trunk of tree #4 will be left completely undisturbed. This implies that the structure must be relocated a distance from the proposed footprint in order to allow for grading, for trenching, for drainage if required, or for any other feature. It appears that this can be done while maintaining the setback parameters. In this event tree #8, an English walnut, would be sacrificed to achieve this objective. This loss is preferable, because this species (Jugla»s regia) does not typically perform well in developed landscapes. 2. I suggest that the grading plan be revised to conform with Recommendation # 1. 3. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 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 protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the dripline of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed) unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city azborist must be consulted. 5. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, telephone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the dripline 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. 6. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even.temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of 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. 7. Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fencing as noted on the • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 O~`~Q'' S TREE SURVEY AND PRESE PION RECOMMEP'DATIONS 4 AT THE WALKER PROPERT z .13800 PIERCE ROAD. SARATOGA attached map. For any tree where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted. 8. Any pruning must be.done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 9. Landscape pathways and other amenities that aze constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 10. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk 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 at the perimeter of the canopy. 11. 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. l 2. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 13. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 14. If the root zone of an oak tree is to be planted, it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundatioq 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 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. l 6. Drain dissipators or downspouts must be relocated, if trees are in the path of dischazge. The discharge must be directed a minimum of I S feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. l 7. I suggest that the root collazs of trees #9, 11 and l 2 be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the root bark. This must be done by an ISA certified azborist or by a landscape contractor experienced with the procedure. 18. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, 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 according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition. ~ 2~(~ I (S ~~e. c hc;i t~ __ _ Tree #S has a value of $~Yl, which is equivalent to two 24-inch boxed specimens. 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 evidence of purchase of replacement trees be PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORISf NOVEMBER 2, 2000 OQC~C~,9 TREE SURVEY AND PRESE rION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE WALI~R PROPERT, ,13800 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Acceptable native tree replacements aze: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple -Ater macrophyllum California buckeye -Aesculus californica Coast Redwood - Sequoia sempervirens The combined value of all the trees is $61,706. I suggest a bond equal to 50% ($3,391) of the total value of tree #4 and a bond equal to 15% ($8,230) of the value of all of the other trees that will be retained to assure protection. R~ tt ~A~ Michael L. Bench, Associate B oa e, opal MLB/sl Enclosures: Tree Data Accumulation Charts Map Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 ®QG©20 Job ~ Walker Job Address: 1~0 Pierce Road .., Job # 10- U-265 ~ -f '- n n 11-L'V V Measurements Condition PruninglCablinq Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES W N Z ~ ~ w W w a (40813531052 `~' w z `=' i O ¢ ~ _ w '~ ~ ~ v o ~ ~ ~ .n ~ O o: ; o v, ? ~_ w ~ 23535SumniRaad ~ w N =- ~ ? z z ~ ? ~ o O Z ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _O Las Cabs, U 95Q30 ~ ~ of ~ "' ~ ~ Q ~ _ w ~ ¢ z w nom. v ~ ; p c¢.s g g ~ ¢ ~ ~ 2 ~ a F} ~ w { o ~ ~ H ~ O ~ U ~~ o: t o' w z ~ ~ 1 0O ~ ~ p p w w ' J 1 i W x t W J t~ i O ~ ~ ~ ~ t 1 > ' O I j t Z ' U t U , ~> Y ~ U t U N (n ;~ P ~~ t m i lD ~ W t~ a ~ i lt: Z ~ O ~ O ~ 0 0 t 0 ~' m t ~ ~ w ~ W ~¢ ~ O H O W W I U ~ lant Name Key # o ~ o o o x ; vs x ~ ; in ; v x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t w ¢ ~ ~ ~ LLl ~ O ~ O w w w w v v v U ~; U ~ a ? F- o -- o: ;~ z z~ K 7 oast Live Oak 12.0 ; I 14 30 20 1 ~ 2 3 ' , , ' ; 1 ' , 1 ' ; , , in 113 X $271sq. in. _ $ 3 052 X sp . Gass 100% _ $3 052 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,747 X loc. 75% _ $ 2,060 Total Value 8 En lish Walnut 11.0 ~ x 8.0 ; 7.0 ~ 18 25 .45 1 2 3 ~ I ~ ~ ; ; I ~ ~ ~ ; ; f ' ~ ~ ~ ; ; I ; ; .in 139 X$27/sq.in.= $ 3753 Xsp .Gass 30% _ $1,126 Xcond. 90% _ $ 1,013 X loc. ° 80% _ $ 811 Total Value 9 Coast Live Oak 11.0 ; x 3.0 ; ~ 1244 ; 40 20 1 3 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ t t I 1 ' ~ ; ; I ~ ; ~ = I ~ t ' , 2 ; I . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2 565 X sp . class 100°'0 = $2,565 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,923 X loc. 70°k = $ 1,346 Total Value 10 En lish Walnut 10.0 ; x ~ B,0 ; 6.0 I 18 30 ~ 40 1 ; 2 ; 3 I I t ; , ; ; ; ; , ' ; ; t t ~ ~ , ' ; i I ~ ~ ; , ~ ~ t ~ , t ; I in 11 B X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3 186 X sp . Gass 30% _ $956 X cond. 90% _ $ 860 X loc., 70% _ $ ' 602 Totaf Value 11 Coast Live Oak 19.0 ; 22 55 ~ 40 1 1 2 ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' , t ' ' 1 in 283 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7 651 X sp . class 100% _ $7,651 X cond. 100% _ $ 7,651 X loc. 75% = $ 5,739 Total Value 12 Coast Live Oak 11.0 ; 13 2 5 2 0 2 1 3 ~ ; 1 1 , , ' ' ' 4 , ' in 95 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 2 565 X sp. class 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,308 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,385 Tnfal VaLm 0 in REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box = $5.000 52"box = $7,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST' 72"box = $15,000 f'as>.~~ 7. of T Job Title: Walker Job Address: 13800 Pierce Road Job # 10-00-265 Measure t 11-1-UU men s Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES W ~ Z `" w w W a M (408) 3531052 `r w ~ ? ~ i ~ ~ w ' 'h ~ ~ o ~ "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~, ~ v, ~ 13535 Sumni Road ~ w ~ ~ W ; ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ o ° 0 z ~ > ~ ~ o: ~ ~ ~ O . los Cabs, CA 95030 ~ ~ } ; ~ ,~; ~ j z ~ J ~ _ ~ w Q w ~ w a ,~; 3 p cai g g ~ ~ i a ~ I N i 1 I W ~ ~ ~ p v x ~~ 1 0 t 1 p U Z ; F ~ i Z D: Z ; 0: i Z 1 1 Z I 1 W N i C7 = cn 0 i 0: l O i W p J O J U 3 1 LL 1~ w ' I I W x ~ Q W J I p i ' p i i ~ ~ ~ '~' > ~ ' O' ' U '~ i Y i U i U to l N i~ ' ~ J ~ i ~S5 i ' V, ~ i ~ ~ i ~ t Z ' ~ O ' O ' > U i ' U J i Z ; ~ i ~ U W i W w ' p I i Z ' H O ' F- ~ O O Ke # Plant Name Y p l ~ rD Q] g ~ ~ p~ p l p w x o. l N x ~ ~ rn ~ I v x ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ I w I Q ~ = y ~ F ~ ~ i p . w , w' U ~ U U v v ~~ I U a ? l p ~ ~ ~~ ~~ z ~ z~~ ~ 1 Coast Live Oak 12.0 ~ ~ ~ 13 ~ 25 ~ 25 2 ~ 1 3 ~ ~ ' 1 ; ' l ~ l I I 1 I ~ I ~ I I ~ I I I Quercus a rifolia 1 I ; ~ ~ I 1 , ' in 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3 052 X sp . Gass 100% _ $3,052 X cond. 90°~ = $ 2,747 X loc. 80% _ $ 2,197 Total Value 2 Valle Oak 9.0 ; x 8.0 ; 5.0 ; 12\6 ; 40 ? 30 1 4 5 j ~ ~ t ~ ; I ~ I I Quereus lobate ~ ~ ; ~ , , 1 . in 99 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,673 X sp . Gass 100% _ $2,673 X cond. 75% _ $ 2,005 X loc. 70% = $ 1,403 Total Value 3 California BIaGc Walnut 23.0 ; ~ ~ 24 ~ 50 ~ 50 1 1 3 4 I 1 ; ~ ~ ; Ju lens hindsii ; ~ i ~ ; ~ ' ~ ~ 1 t ' , . in 415 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 11,212 X sp . class 10% _ $1,121 X cond. 75% _ $ 841 X loc. 80% _ $ , 673 Total Value 4 Coast Live Oak 20.0 ~ ~ ~ 21 35 45 1 1 ~ 2 ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ; ; I 1 ~ 1 ; I I t ~ 1 I I ; ~ I ; I t , I , . in 314 X $271sq. in. _ $ 8,478 X sp . Gass 100°% _ $8,478 X cond. 100% _ $ 8,478 X loc. 80°'0 = $ 6,782 Total Value 5 Coast Live Oak 15.0 ; 16 30 25 1 ~ 3 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; I 1 I ~ I ~ ~ ' 3 1 1 , ' . in . 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 3,577 X loc. 80% _ $ 2,861 Total Value 6 Coast Live Oak 9.0 ; x 8.0 ; ; 1019 25 25 1 I 2 3 ~ I ' sq. in 89 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,403 X sp. class 100% _ $2,403 X cond. 90~° _ $ 2,163 X loc. ° 75 /° $ 1,622 _ Tnfal V~L,o O ~^ P!\ N REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = 0 36"box = $1,320 ~ 7 = BES"T, 5 = S"I' 48"box 52"box = $7,000 ~~ 72°box ,000 r,~P t ~>f ~ Job '~; Walker Job Address:13a00 Pierce Road ~.~, Job # 1 - 0-265 11-2-00 Measurements Condition PruninplCablinss Needs PesU Disease Problems Recommend . ARRIE D. COATS , 1 ! I I 1 , , ! ! 1 1 , ! 1 1 , ! I 1 1 1 , , ! ! 1 I , ! ! 1 1 , ! ! I I 1 , , ! 1 1 i , ~ I , ' I , I i ~ I ,.- 1 ui 1 ~ ' 1 nd ASSOCIATES -- , ' W , LL ; , ! ! , '; I ! ! , , ! , °; ! , : " ; ~ , , , Z ! ! ~ , , ! , , F- , ; _ ~ , ;~ , ; `~ Iw , ! ~ I , ; ! , , °W , 1 ! ~ 'W fn ~ ! i J ! , ~ ! (406) 3531052 N i ~ 1 ~ ! i i W I I w i I i 1~ , i V' i I? ~ C7 z ' ~~ 1 0 ~ i i~ !# w i ~ 1 v s !! ~ v i u) i o ; ' (n 'n .- o I~ i~ i w~ _ ~ 23535SnmsoiRoad 'a' !~ w ~ 1 1- i i i N ; 1 Q~ i ! i~ ,n ~ W i~ 1 ~! Z ~ Z ug z! I Z , O ~ 1 f- ? 1 m , Z m ~ f o ;~ I w 1 o I °z ! w l 0: g ! o: ' _ ; O z ! ~ 1 , .- ° ~ i } ! V I U gy ! g 1~ m ! ~ ~. ~ H y 1 W i J , tr I o ~ ~ I z ~ Los Gabe, fA 95030 m l m ,~ I ~ I _ I m .- ~-~ z lo ~ ~ ~ x w 1 ~ o: ~ w w ,z a i , O l O o l w l ~ l -~ a l x l w W, d ~,s ! i ~ ! w = ~ o ~ ~ v ~ o ! m° ~ _ ~ ~ ~ i 3 ! ~ ! m ~ ? ~ 1 c~.~ I 3 ! o v Y~ ~ ~ 3 m M h I f LL , > ' ~ ~ 3 x j=! O ! W J~ lY z l ~ O ~ O I O '~ O '~ m II ~ ! W w ~ ~~ O ~ j 0 w ~ w l V ~ Key # Plant Name ~ ~ o ! o ! ~ _ ~ ~ ~ O v I ~ ~ ~ v I ~ ~ a ? ~ ~ ! x O I O w 1 w w w c j x c i c i o ~ m ~ z z oC ~ 13 H brid Oak 43.0 ! x ' 26.0 = 57 ! 80 ! 85 1 ! 3 4 ~ ! ! I ! ~ ! ! Quercus s ecies i ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I i l ! i i i ~ ~ } ! , i f . in 1717 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 46,359 X sp. class 100% _ $48,359 X cond. 75°k = $ 34,769 X loc. 80% _ $ 27,815 Total Value 14 Coast Live Oak , 21.0 ! _ ~ ~ 22 ~ 50 ~ 35 3 ~ 2 ` 5 ~ ; I ~ ~ I = I = I , i ! ! _ ! ~ ~ , i , . in 346 X $271sq. in. _ $ 9,347 X sp . Gass 100% _ $9,347 X cond. 60% _ $ 5,808 X loc. 60% _ $ 3,365 Total Value 15 Califomia Black Oak 18.0 ~ ~ ~ 21 ! 50 40 1 ! 4 ~ 5 I ! ~ I 1 ! ~ Quercus kel/o if ! ! 1 ! 1 I i i I I ! ' ' . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 8,667 X sp. class 100% _ $8,867 X cond. 80% _ $ 4,120 X loc. 70% _ $ 2,884 Total Value 18 Califomia Black Walnut 19.0 ~ ! ~ ~ 20 ! 20 ~ 15 2 1 5 i 7 ~ 1 I ! ` ! I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I ! ! 1 , , . in 283 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,651 X sp. class 10% _ $765 X cond. 30% _ $ 230 X lac. 70% _ $ 181 Total Value n N W REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 ` 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Pape 3 of 3 et , a 1 13 -__ 12 ~~ Ia PIERCE ROAD ~ r _ _ _ ~~ l 14 . / `1 1 ~\ \ ~ i / "" `" j~ inl LlrrereY rlin bnr up r0a[e ~! --_ _~ _ ~ .~ x sr N nx' fA W' E ~ " " " ' s ,P ~ ~ / . d ~/ saw t ~ ~ Spp - , 04 _ -- PkO I EC I IVE fENCINGJ / / e~ p , ~ _ \ _ ~ ~; . 516 , i ~ ~ _ \~'- \ _ lnY Of CnYd erelape enRtl py / _ / / 16 UnNVMed' y~ '~ A ' I Vppnid Mnctve ows tyyYy b - / \ ~ ~~ ~n,a.n.4,.;d - -- 10 _ __ _ 1 __ `~ k\U"fEC"fIVG PEiNCING ~~! .... , " ~" - .. ., -----" E__..._~ a eYbuiamo • . _.,~._.~_._ _ _ ~p ~ ~ ~t~oCOtt. / - -- ~. _ ~ - C_ 7 .. / 4~~ ~ T ~Foot~ri~t _" ~ - ~ ~ / ~ i / ~ ' h erns 0 \_2 4,aY 4 bsociahe twp)ts9~los x rts $urvry sOd q~ssyvatim Ra~dnmm6lisns _----- -- __ _- As Iee Wapa R wa+r. i~eao riQa Rud -- } _ \ .~ ' ~ '' ~ ~~ ' 5 _ ~ ~~/// ~~~ ~ ed'l~ .~ ~ ~ _ losrGatos, [A 595033 ~ _. _.------ --- _.__ -- ----------NEd:----------- ['ny orsmss~ 9s Yfs -- ~ - i ~ x0'-V imaa 1, , - I "... + fI .---- - 0:__!i ~~ ., \ ntipncuCiuRFi coiuu - - CONSUETING ARB0RI]7 NT mn~ lbs. - --- - - .GATE: lbss --- --_ _____- mbar 3 xooti 5[AtE: mama red~useA 3 ' ~ - - - I o4 ' ~ ~ ~" b/•IO0p.E65 All dissscn~uls prre>ruN to erAlunliun chats. nd Irce 4scnlwsns t 1 -t .. ~ I _ ~' ~ ~~ ~/ / i ~_..__EdwdWSVq WN carp V Pae Rdtl are nppnsximale. --- • ,eP. PROTEC"fIVE FENCING / N'19 .y -; - -; -\~~ 4.~ E/ / ,! oP \Ya P SITE PLAN AY aorewpw w.o merAerpe Yno .romev.e mswup. er+.n s• aw ' sn9lmsMrq meWpe U ~t ~~. aE ~~ 3 r.l~-.° ~ II ~ X ~,~P ptiARA coG ~~ ~ FIRE '~ COIIRTESV 6 SERVICE F1._>G DEPAKTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd.. Los Gatos. CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • 1408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org Attachment 3 CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMtr NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER oo- 2699 FILE NUMBER CODE/SEC. SHEET UFc ~pendix A UFC 903.2 UFC 903.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS NO. REQUIREMENT Review of a proposed new 4,307 square foot single family residence. This project is located within the hazardous fire area. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,750 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is not available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. ~xequired t•;<re 1r1ow Uption (Single Fam ly Dwellings)• Provide the required fire 'flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500 feet OR, provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail & Specifications W-1/SP-4. 4 Required Access to Water Supply (H~drants)• Portions of the structure(s) are greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR, provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. Clty PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantNama DATE PAGE STG- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ BRITT ROWE 10/26/2000 1 2 of SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION gy - fwuc nc oon .cnr Residential Development _ _ _ Hokanson, Wayne _ C~ SFR-WALKER LOCATION 13800 Pierce Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino. Los Altos. ~~~~25 Los Altos Hills. Los Gatos, Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill. and Saratoga .. ~~PpLA~9 CoG ~~ ~ FIRE '` COURTESY 8 SERVICE FI._L DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd.. Los Gatos. CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMR NUMBER nC PLAN REVIEW NUMBER oo- 2699 FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO. REQUIREMENT 9020 2 5 Fire Apparatus (En~ine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall j i conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. 90 2.2.4 ~ 6 Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn-around Required• Provide an ~ approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. i 01.4.4 ' ~ Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the str t d f i h ee or roa ront ng t e property. Numbers shall contrast with their ~ background. ib ls.llo s Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler i operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. 14 25.110 ~ 9 Early Warning Fire Alarm System Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppllcantNam• DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ BRITT ROWE 10/26/2000 2 2 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION of BY NAME OF PROJECT Residential Development __ _ __ Hokanson, Wayne _.. SFR-WALKER 13800 Pierce Rd r L Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District -- Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell. Cupertino, Los Altos. f'~+ ~+ Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ~l.l~4.1~~~V 2 • _ ~~"~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 93dr"JO • `Q~~ij i'?00 ' ^.. ~~ B S: .. Incorporated October 22, 1956 ~~ = . Baker ~ ~''~ ~ Stan Bogosian. ~~~~:: _ John Mehaf/ay , TRANSMITTAL -CITY OF SARATOGA ~~ -, N~Ck Stieir" ~.: ::: ; ~~~1~ WallatSmith TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY GEOLOGIST CITY ARBORIST S.C. VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT / S.C. COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SAN JOSE WATER CO. OTHER FROM: Community Development Department, Planning Division DATE: October 13, 2000 • APPLICATION #: DR-00-051 and BSA-00-003 (Mark Connolly) LOCATION: 13800 Pierce Road OWNER'S NAME: Walker Your agency has been requested/invited to review and comment on this proposal. Please submit your comments by October 27, 2000 to the Community Development Department. This will ensure that we can incorporate your concerns into the review process. Thank you. REPLY: ~,~, ,,..P~.~~ O~C~~27' Printed on recycled paper. i STANDARD DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT: Specifications for Fire Sprinkler Systems in single family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet SCOPE Spec No Rev. Date Eff. Date ~P=4 Approved By ,~_ Page 1 of _~ This standard applies to single family dwellings, as classified by the Building Code, in excess of 3,600 square feet where fire sprinkler systems are installed as an approved Alternate Method of Compliance to the provisions of the Fire Code, or when such systems are required under a specific local ordinance. DEFINITIONS Alternate Method of Compliance: An approved method of compliance that, in the opinion of the Fire Department, meets the intent of the provisions outlined in the Fire Code. NFPA 13D: National Fire Protection Association Standard 13D, Fire Sprinkler Systems in Onc-and Two Family Dwellings and Mobile Homes. - REQUIREMENTS The sprinkler system installation .shall comply with provisions of the most recent edition of NFPA Standard 13D with the following exceptions: System Desicn • The number of design sprinklers shall include all sprinklers in the most remote room or area up to a maximum of four (4) sprinklers. If the most remote room _or area contains less than four (4) sprinklers, hydraulic calculations shall be provided in accordance with NFPA Standard 13D (2 head calculation). Additionally, calculations shall be provided for the largest room that is the most remotely located from the supply riser to verify operation for all fire sprinklers within that space up to a maximum of four (4) fire sprinklers. Location of Sprinklers The exceptions listed for the locations of sprinklers as per NFPA Standard 13D shall be applicable except as follows: Fire sprinklers shall be provided in any attached garage, carport, basement or foyer(s). cu-x.+ c ~'~ °°y~ FIRE DEPARTMENT • SANTA CLARA COUNTY m FIRE '` 14700 Winchester Blvd • Los Gatos • CA 95030-1818 • (408) 378-4010 . _ O~~~tiB --. SD & S SP-4 Page 2 of 3 Attics, crawl spaces, or concealed spaces, with a greater than 22 inch by 30 inch standard utility access opening and/or, if provided with access stairs and/or, if intended to be used for living or storage purposes, shall be provided with fire sprinkler protection. • Attic spaces that contain mechanical equipment such as furnaces and water heaters shall be provided with sprinklers limited to the protection of the equipment itself. • Small closet spaces that contain furnaces, water heaters or other mechanical equipment shall be provided with sprinkler protection regardless of the size of the space. Alarms Exterior audible water flow alarms shall be provided. Additionally, water flow shall activate either a separate interior audible device that can be heard in all sleeping areas or, through interconnection with the smoke detectors, which will sound an alarm in the sleeping areas. Control Valves Section 3-1.1 of NFPA Standard 13D requires, "each system to have a single control valve .arranged to shut off both the domestic and sprinkler systems, and a separate shut off valve for the domestic system only." To provide visual depiction of the valve arrangement, Appendix Section A-2-2, and Figures A-2-2(a) through (c) reflect possible arrangements for the underground supply piping and valve(s). What has not been shown on these figures is the location of the valve with respect to the structure. To establish consistency and meet operational needs of responding emergency equipment, the following specification shall be incorporated into the design and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems and associated underground supply piping. Valves controlling the water supply to residential fire sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard #13D shall be distinguishable, accessible, and located adjacent to the structure, proximal to the domestic shut off valve. The main system control valve shall be distinguishable from the domestic valve by means of a permanently attached tag and be of contrasting color (i.e.: red handle for main system, versus black handle for the domestic supply). 0®0029 SD & S SP - 4 Page 3 0~ 3 Residential Fire Sprinkler System Control Valve Diagram Street • • OOU(~•~O Attacrment ~ RESOLUTION N0.02-024 Application #02-058 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REGARDING BASEMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council of the City of Saratoga with respect to the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to requirements for proposed basements; WHEREAS, this matter was considered at a duly noticed public hearing on May 8, 200, at which time all members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Saratoga be amended to read: • 15-06.090 Basement. uQ yam t" iraa~xr.c tl,nr nnrrinn ref ~ ,-,., •-• 1 r a 1 i.. 1 a c t r =~ Y~o .r,-.,~~ r.. rl..~ '..~i ~;r.t ~~ tl.~ l.n ~~w,.,.,r u n b . Basement means a space in a structure that is partly or wholly below grade and where the vertical distance from grade to a finished floor directly above such space is less than or equal to 42 inches. If the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter, such space shall be considered a story, and the entire space shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area. (See Figure 1 below.) This requirement applies to all lots, with the exception of hillside lots. • floor of the level above basement to adjacent grade. finished floor 42" ~~ ~ basement i i ~ Building Figure 1: Maximum vertical height from finished -. On hillside lots, as defined in Section 15-06.420(e), only the portion of space where the®®~®31. finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter shall be counted as floor area and considered a story. The number of stories measured vertically at any given point shall not exceed the maximum number of stories allowed in each zoning district. (See Figure 2 belo~~.) - 2 stories 2 stories ~ Floor easement Area Area (not a story) Portion where Building Section vertical height from floor above to grade exceeds 42" Basement Floor Area (no floor azea) Floor Plan of Basement rigure c: Leienminmg rtoor azea ror basements on hillside lots. As used herein, the term "grade" shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the structure, whichever is lower. The Community Development Director shall make the determination for sites where it is unclear as to which is the natural and which is the finished grade. All basements are subject to the requirements of Section IS-80.xxx 15.06.xxx Lightwell. "Lightwell" means an excavated area adjacent to a building that extends no more than four feet (4') measured horizontally from the building perimeter to the interior wall of the lightwell, that is enclosed on four sides, that is open at the top, and allows light into a below grade level of a building. Lightwells shall have guardrails and gates in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 15-45.065 Administrative design review. (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of asingle-family structure or structure in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district until such structure has received administrative design review approval by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Article: (1) New single-story residences; (2) Major additions in size, defined as either the addition of fifty percent or more of existing main or accessory structure or as a one hundred square feet or greater addition to the second story of a main or accessory structure. ®®~®32 i (3) Addition of a basement to an existing structure and enlazgement of existing basements. 15-80.xxx Requirements for Basements and Lightwells. (a) A basement shall be located entirely beneath the building footprint of the main structure, including attached garage, and may not be located within any required setbacks. This shall be deemed the allowable area of the basement. In no case shall a basement be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (b) L.ightwells may not be located within any required setbacks, and in no case shall lightwells be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (c) A basement shall be a one level structure; multi-level basements are prohibited. (d) A basement shall not be located beneath any accessory structure. (e) The allowable azea for a basement shall be reduced by S% for each foot >n excess of a floor to ceiling height of 9 feet. Floor, in this case, means finished floor, and ceiling means the bottom level of the ceiling framing members. The maximum floor to ceiling height of a basement shall be 12 feet. (f) All proposed basements and additions to basements shall obtain geotechnical clearance. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Geologic and Geotechnical Report prepared by a certified engineering geologist and registered geotechnical engineer. The Geologic Report shall include an analysis of ground~~ater conditions prepared by a certified hydrogeologist. (g) Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Grading and Drainage Plan stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Water collected from a basement shall either be transported to a neazby City storm drain inlet or to another drainage facility. The method of drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the Public Works Department. The size of a proposed basement may be limited based on drainage issues or issues raised in the geologic and geotechnical reports. • O®U~33 1- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga, State of California, this sth aay of Mat' 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: ABSENT: Chair Barry ABSTAIN: a> Chair, P ~ g Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • 0®®®34 o~~ a~~ ,~ 2s~ ITEM 4 CAB 7~~ OO S~ ~~'~~~'~OO C~i~ 1371 7 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 9070 • (-I051 S(iS-1?II~~ C'OL'A CIL A~1E91BERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 cyan 5a.;e~ Sta^ _° oosrar Jo~~ ;l4enahev TO: Planning Commission ~ n-;~.K sr-e;: FROM: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner l~ A~~ :varro~srnrrr DATE: July 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Application #02-035 (APN 503-72-014) - LUI, 14805 Masson Court Introduction: The applicant requests a 12-month extension to previously approved plans to construct a 6,500 square foot two-story modern residence on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 87,712 square feet and is located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.090 design review approvals expire 24 months from the date on which the approval became effective. Design review approvals maybe extended for a period or periods of time not exceeding 12 months. The original design review application (DR-97-061) was approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 1999. The approval was appealed to the City Council by neighboring property owners. The City Council denied the appeal on May 17, 2000. Background: Due to the unique and contemporary nature of the design staff presented the application to Planning Commission for preliminary review on October 13, 1999. The Planning Commission tentatively approved the design. On December 8, 1999 Design Review Application No. DR-97-061 was approved by the Planning Commission on a 4-3 vote. The approval was appealed to City Council by neighboring property owners. The appeal was heard before the City Council on the following dates: January 19, 2000, February 2, 2000, March 15, Apri119, 2000, and May 17, 2000. On May 17, 2000 the City Council denied the appeal on a 4-1 vote. All available meeting minutes are attached for your information. ~JOC~a01. 5 Design Review: The design of the proposed residence is very modern with sloping angular rooflines, tall sheaths of glass and other unique features. Materials and colors include stained wood exterior with limestone and metal details, and an asphalt shingle roof. Natural earth tone colors are proposed. Massive two-story residences surround the subject site. No specific pattern or distinctive architectural style is present in the project vicinity. The majority of homes were constructed approximately within the last 15 years. Materials utilized on homes in the azea include stucco, brick, horizontal siding, and stone. Roofing materials in the project also vary. The original design review application included cooper roofmg. Resolution No. DR-97- 061, Item No. 2d indicates the Planning Commission, during its hearing in 1999 required that the roof material shall be asphalt shingle. This condition of approval was not included in Resolution No. 00-029 adopted by the City Council. Staff recommends due to slight environmental effects resulting from copper roof runoff that the asphalt shingle roofing material be included as a condition of approval. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1 Minimize the Perception of Bulk The second floor of the proposed residence is setback from the building line of the first floor. The downwazd sloping angular rooflines reduce mass. Rooflines aze varied through ~~ changes in height and form. Architectural features and modulated building lines break up massing. Policy #2 Integrate Structures with Environment The angulaz rooflines mimic hillside contours integrating the proposed structure with the environment. The proposed earth tone colors further integrate the residence with the natural environment. Policy #3 Avoid Interference with Privacy Windows have been eliminated on portions of the WestlRight elevation to alleviate privacy concerns raised by neighboring property owners. . Policy #4 Preserve Views and Access to Views Existing two-story residences subject to viewshed interference aze not affected by the proposed residence because they aze located on higher terrain than the proposed building pad and finished floor of the proposed residence. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency The roof overhangs were designed to eliminate direct sunlight to achieve energy conservation. • OOC~©02 The project architect has prepared supporting materials which illustrate the proposed project embodies several of the techniques discussed in the City of Saratoga Residential Design Handbook. License Land Surveyor: The property lines have been delineated by a licensed land surveyor. Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the conditionally approved plans. Landslide Mitigation: The proposed development is constrained by landslides on and adjacent to the property. Landslide repair requires encroachment onto a neighboring property by approximately 20 feet. Permission to access the adjacent site is not welcome by the neighboring property owner. As a result, a retaining wall in excess of 5 feet may be necessary in order to accomplish the necessary landslide mitigation. Any retaining wall in excess of five feet shall require Planning Commission approval. Geotechnical Clearance: The subject property received geotechnical clearance from the City of Saratoga on September 3, 1999. The conditions of geotechnical clearance are detailed in the attached draft Resolution. Neighbor Concerns: The original appellants of DR-97-061 have prepared correspondence for your review. Their letter dated June 30, 2002 is attached for your information. The letter which was filed with their appeal is also attached for your information. Staff met with the three appellants (Kwong, Sze, and Park). These individuals expressed great relief at the prospect of re-locating the building footprint 30 feet toward the north. Staff has considered the request and finds a distance of 18 feet to be a reasonable compromise between both the applicant and appellant. Conclusion: The proposed project has endured many public hearings (7) and much scrutiny from staff, neighbors, Planning Commissioners, and Council members. The Planning Commission voted to approve the design both preliminarily and finally. Likewise, Council supported the application. Staff finds it would be arbitrary and capricious to deny the applicant an extension at this time. The design policies and implementation techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook are not meant to discourage unique and inventive design solutions. The objective criteria detailed in the Design Handbook attempts to curb decisions based on personal taste. • OOC~©03 Recommendation: As indicated above, the project does exemplify the types of techniques and concepts encouraged in the Residential Design Handbook. Based on that, staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the requested extension by adopting the attached resolution. To alleviate concerns expressed by the neighbors staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following condition of approval: ^ In reference to Exhibit A, sheet A-1, the entire building footprint shall be re-located 18 feet laterally toward the northern direction. The building footprint shall not to be altered with respect to side yard setback distances. Driveway access shall be revised accordingly and approved by staff. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Supporting documents submitted by the project architect. 3. Letter of concern from neighboring property owners dated June 30, 2002. 4. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated October 13, .1999. 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 13, 1999. 6. Memo to Planning Commission dated December 8, 1999. 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 8, 1999. 8. Resolution No. DR-97-061 Granting Design Review Approval 9. City Council Minutes from the January 19, 2000, February 2, 2000, March 15, 2000 and May 17, 2000 meetings (Note: Minutes from the April 19, 2000 City Council meeting are not available). 10. Resolution No. 00-029 Denying an Appeal from the Decision of the Planning Commission 11. Letter of Appeal dated December 15, 1999. 12. Exhibit "A", dated October 31, 2000. • ~®~9~~~ Attachment 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Liu: 14805 Masson Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a 12-month extension to an approved Design Review application to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot; 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, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1 Minimize the Perception of Bulk The second floor of the proposed residence is setback from the building line of the first floor. The downward sloping angular rooflines reduce mass. Rooflines are varied through changes in height and form. Architectural features and modulated building lines break up massing. Policy #2 Integrate Structures with Environment The angular rooflines mimic hillside contours integrating the proposed structure with the environment. The proposed earth tone colors further integrate the residence with the natural environment. Policy #3 Avoid Interference with Privacy Windows have been eliminated on portions of the West/Right elevation to alleviate privacy concerns raised by neighboring property owners. Policy #4 Preserve Views and Access to Views Existing two-story residences subject to viewshed interference are not affected by the proposed residence because they are located on higher terrain than the proposed building pad and finished floor of the proposed residence. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency The roof overhangs were designed to eliminate direct sunlight to achieve energy conservation. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • ~~~©ds • Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Liu fora 12-month extension to an approved Design Review application and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. In reference to Exhibit A, sheet A-1, the entire building footprint shall be re-located 18 feet laterally toward the northern direction. The building footprint shall not to be altered with respect to side yard setback distances. Driveway access shall be revised accordingly and approved by staff. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to 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 reflecting the City Arborist's recommendations, 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. d. The roof material shall be asphalt shingle 3. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds five feet. In addition, 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. Hillside restrictions for fencing apply. 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 6. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated December 17, 1997 shall be met. This , includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: • The Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. U®0006 • • Five (5) $. chain link tree protective fencing shown at as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." • 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. • All fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade by hand in any area within 15 feet of the trunk. • No trenches or excavations even for utilities (gas, cable, phone, etc.) shall be installed within 25 feet of the trunk of the tree. • The drainage system for the house shall be directed a minimum of 40 feet from the other trees on this site. • Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $4,943 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: • Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. • The City Arborist shall schedule unannounced visits to the property to verify that all tree mitigation measures are being complied with. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: • All recommended tree cabling and endweight removal shall be completed by an ISA certified arborist. • The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. 7. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the "Planting Under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. ~~~~~~ __ • 8. The Project Geotechnical Engineer, with input from the Project Engineering Geologist, shall prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections (1"= 20') to depict the extent of proposed grading, landslide to be removed, subdrains, property lines and proposed improvements. The plan should include repair specifications, notes and details pertaining to earthwork, drainage and geogrid placement. The cross section should depict existing and proposed surface topography and excavation depths. One section should extend from the building pad downslope along the axis of the active landslide, including and showing the lower landslide repair area (per Terratech drawings). A second section should be oriented roughly east-west across the landslide and portray Masson Court, proposed driveway, active landslide to be removed, and landslide on the adjacent property to the east. The mitigation plan should specify the appropriate geogrid slope gradient. Typically, geogrid should be designed to stand at its angle of installation (i.e., 1.5:1 V), if not wrapped. The landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections shall be submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit. 9. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., landslide mitigation, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultants' recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider recommending crushed rock, which has more void space than Class 2 aggregate base, for the capillary break material. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geologic and geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspection should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations (including pier holes for structures and shear pin wall) and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare a geologic map of the landslide excavation and ,' confirm that landslide material has been removed. Information from the excavation and pier holes shall be used to revise and update the engineering geologic map and cross sections. An engineering geologic map and cross sections of final, as-built conditions shall be prepared to depict the depth and extent of grading activities, and geologic conditions (including removed landslide mass). The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters, and as-built geologic map and cross sections, and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to finalization of the grading permit. ~®~®~$ s • 11. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 12. The owner (applicant shall enter into an agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless form any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil of slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 15. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the residence and garage. 16. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. 17. 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. 18. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City 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. 19. 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 $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 20. Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the conditionally approved plans. Section 2. A building permit shall be issued within 12 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. 000009 PASSED AND AD®PTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10th day of July 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~®~~~.0 . ~ T~""~~ #~ ~ ~~ ~~ Attachment .7 ~~s • Falbw l~r~tbur5 toif~n horizox~il c1al+cK#s. • Tumac~ bwildiru~ -f-1~- laas. • follow r~v,ra~ 9ra Wi4{n Yon ~lo~,s. norms • Aycid douxl$u6l card lwtvs.- • Avid l.a.~ e, ~in~I,t,- wt So~-fiow,. ~~. South sun light \\~ YES _ i nro /~ .. ~-: NATURAL CRADC ' _ ' loeo ¢oe IC6: 10.: Ic7;-~~ IC2^ Policy 1, Technique #2 is mainly concerned with buildings insensitive to hillside contours and the resulting tall support for overhang. The Proposed building is siting on a flat plateau with downhill slope on both sides. The pyramid-shaped roofs of the Proposed building are following the downhill slopes as required. The call supports we Have are for roof overhang on the south side of the building. The roof overhang facing south is generally a very effective way to cut down direct sunlight, . therefore, an efficient means to achieve energy conservation. This is one way to create an environmentally fi-iendly building. The project building has greatly broken down building masses; there is no single dominating mass. It is far from being a "single form solution." Please see floor plans, elevations, and photo collages. We will demonstrate our point with a physical model, which is most telling about the building mass, in the Council meeting. UOC~011 ~' TECI'INIQUE #4: Minimize building height no's • HlKlwlltG aYCaFi • u~ ~U6--' _D e~C~YIl~M~'5. • SGf' ~'-1Al,~ pol~,o~ ~ SEruc noMrs • Avoid l arc a,~i~ ~ilau/~ • aro-id ~ w~du-- ~toor arca~s aid e~posR~ fvu~ndatias YES No ~ ~ HIGHEST POINT [i ROOF RIDGE E26' .~i I $Ingl!-Story Hlgh HGSSIng~ 2094 $F. fOOSprlnt Wren, 4B% of totnt footprlnt Wren. ~~ Tro-story Nigh Hnssing~ 2297 SF. footprlnt ~~ Wren, 52'/. of totnt footprlnt Wren, Tne Totol footprlnt Of Proposed ProJlCt IS 4391 SF. • We have used two strategies to minimize areas of maximum height a. second story setback: there are extensive single-story building masses along the west, north and east sides; 48% of building footprint area (2094 sf out of 4391 sfj is single-story, b. pyramid-shape roof: we use pyramid-shape roof because it has basically only one high point, has no continuous ridge to create view blockage. The diagrams above indicate that our building's narrow area of maximum height is in total agreement with the 'Technique #4's diagram. - U00©12 5 • PoYCy 1 TECHI~tlQUE #5: Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood. DO'S • ~ cnw~a~ible. uti yy-I' ..,.~'~t~ ~ ~cl~uttt~hcx~,( t~ rat' ruliric~ ~o ~e~~a ' ~~~. I DON"1-s o Amid ova~u>~c(vhi~q 0,cisti residw,ws'. • ~o vim' '}o ctk4s-~ov!' tutisv- or stand ate- YES .. _ - ~ ~ .~ n-o O ~ ^O The following table contains floor area and lot size statistics of the Proposed building and neighboring properties. It clearly indicates that the Project Building has the lowest floor area/lot size ratio among all five buildings. The Proposed building is about the same size as Kowng Residence of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, and close to other buildings.(see attached City's record sheets) The Proposed building, in terms of proportion, size, mass and height, is compatible with existing neighborhood and will not overwhelm the existing residences. PROPERTY, OWNER FLOOR AREA(SF.) LOT SIZE (ACRE ~ FLF~ AREA ) I SLOT 14760 siZ~ MASSON CT, LIU RESIDENCE 5709 1.290 10.16% 14780 MASSON CT, SZE RESIDENCE 5236 1 100 . 10.93% ~ 14800 MASSON CT, PARK RESIDENCE 4504 1.240 8.34% 14805 MASSON CT, LIU RESIDENCE 6500 2.750 5.43% 14581 SARATOGA HEIGHTS, KwONG RESIDENCE 6396 1 780 Fioo~ or . 8.25% eo includes living oreo and garoge. - ---~ • UOC~~13 Policy 1 TECHNIQUE #6: Use architectural features to break up massing no•s h ,~ levy ~rJln ~I" ' "' . • pu~u+ct~ l bwaa~U tai' , cl~ai,~na{5 adti DI{ncr t~. • Usc a con~bivtru(ion ~~ va~f~ita2 a~td hori- ~nlC ar#iucG~iivrv~. nav~rs • Avid vu-4~iut1 ~Ca#w,c5 ~IGw,t add ~b ~ pcrccpt,°v' o~'~u~: • Arvid lvru~, yinv~c~k- rid + ~i-~.tX . • ~ w~, - j~J~{~7~~ ~~~ w `~~. YES nio _ m : o-: m . -*~.. ~ __ ~; .: ~ m I„ • The two-story high windows of the Project Building mainly face internal courtyard and south side, which are not or hardly visible from neighbor's properties. The high poles that support overhangs are slender in proportion and do not have enough mass to create imposing height perception. These poles are also counter balanced by horizontal elements, such as balcony and decks on the second floor, as recommended in Policy 1 Technique #6 "use a combination of vertical and horizontal articulations." The diagram provided above indicates our effort to follow closely the Design Policy, such as, in this case, "Vary rooflines through changes in height and form." • U®U©14 4 • Porcy 2 T6CHMIQUE #2: Integrate with environmental texture and foams DO'S • ~ . uric -~,F,,~--a.c. ,. • ht -~ tuit{n Itiillx~ ~v~?~~ ~ ~ J ~Qitc~ """~'-tom. DONTS .1, ~ ~1Yd1d (4tTClt~{YLLttI. Wt ~'~i1 1'~G12 ~.t. Nl/S . ~ ~ d ~G ~mG~'fY t~u~~ ~~O YES ~,'",.~, __ . ,.~rL NO _~ . ,~ ~~ p GttC ~ - ~ ~~ `~ The photo collages provided above illustrate how the roof forms and their cascading placement work with the hillside topography, and how the building mass being broken down to avoid lar e e shapes. g g ~~®15 The Chairwoman Bernald of Planning Commission has pointed out in her concluding comment in the Planning Review that, after completion, the Project Building, among all buildings in the area, might be the one most conformed and complimenting to the natural setting because of its use of curved roofs. It is exactly our intent of using curved roof form to imitate the natural landform and to fit with hillside topography and background. Policy 3 TECHNIQL~ #t Control view to adjacent properties DO'S • KIK-w~iu ~ce~-sb~ uriNdourS {~ri-ut ~(osc, • b~Jecvw+rt~k tav~c, ~ axra~. • U,Sc Silrut~tuka,~ ~ tc ~i-xit rai~cra+~~Fnotit' distwv~cr. vituJ. navT~s • P~+d uru~dcw aNd bat lvzakicurs ~af"~ct~~Y. • pcw-id r~durtr~q rec~ui-zd se~E~ck distzwtc,P.~-. YES • This technique is concerned with privacy intrusion from building of higher elevation to building of lower elevation. The second floor west-oriented deck of the Proposed building, a result of second- floor setback, is only about 2 ft (more or less) above the gruund level of ~ 4780 Masson Ct., and is at about the same.level of, or lower than, the ground floor of 14800 Masson Ct.. The Proposed building is on average one story lower than its immediate Masson Court neighbors. This reversed height relationship, opposite to what is shown in the Policy 3 Technique # 1 diagram, has preserved the privacy for our neighbors. The deck is also set back 31 ft from the property line, 11 ft more than required, to further reduce its privacy impact. I478D NASS~N -------------LL1US7-__ _________---------- NIGhiER GROUND LEVEL 14800 MASSON COURT PROPOSED PR~JE~T ~~ ~ Strppt ~Sptback, nOr'p then 'Qntl ~IOOr~ 20' rpquirpnpnt Setback •~ ............ ~~ ~ ~~ m• ~ ~r ~. Strppt SptbaCk, nOrp than 2nR tl flobrr 20' rpquirpnpnt Sp tbaCk U(~U©16 • The south-oriented balcony on the eastside of the Proposed building is visually separated from the neighbor by trees planted along the fence between two properties, as recommended by this technique. • • U0C!©17 PRDPOSED PROJECT Po~lcy 3 TECHNIQUE #x Locate btdldings to minimize privacy im act P DO'S ~ !.o(s~tc, situ t.Ftu~e ~o jw~rus~ vifu~ diytw-ce. b~twttr~ a~~d~. ~"' pr;vnaf. p~ ~~ ~ ~~ s ~~ ~~~~ DON'T'S ~ >dtV61C~ 'h~1 5'~t'uG}~5 w, d~rwt- (~ . ~.. ~; ~ ,~-,~c,~,Kg ~~~~~. • • The Policy 3 Technique #2 favors and encourages staggered building layout in the neighborhood to increase visual distance and reduce privacy impact. The neighborhood building layout displayed here, which is accurately drawn based on the City's record, clearly indicates our full compliance with this technique. There is no direct line of sight to neighboring residences. ~.~ w..a„ ca.s w,~, ~.. ~~- ~''~ :, ,~ 'iii; ,Y• 1: Ci%,/,"ti r L_ ~-~(~©18 Policy 4 T6CHw~1tJE #3: L,oc~te structure to reduce height impact • • no's • Rcduct `~icio~ i~ nti-tii vwiu. ' GuT • ~atexc~~'.~' Sfinu~Ti~rG s Aara~id Vtcwi~k,~a-w-c~. • Louttc strur~u~-vim on bwu- po~ho~ a~ ~illsridc Lois. DONTS • 120 -~yfi ~~ ViGw (~ Lund b~uidk~~s~w~l . . ~ ~oF ~ vide. kn~ 'f'6t,q~- Iw~pa,ct ~ic~il. -- YES __ _-_`-~ NO _~ _~ -------~ The Proposed building uses broken down building masses and cascading roof placement to minimize view blockage. We have also taken advantage of pyramid-shape roof for its minimized blockage. The overall building profile is in agreement with the "DO's" diagram above. .----------, l I I I , i I I I I I i , I I T° I Ta. I _.... I ..... ...... ...... I -~_ ~ I I scat-- aoa vrcv uax~ I :tat- I I ,_~ fem. :~``_ I ~ . __ _ ' rwwT-- aea vrcv atacs.rt ~ rmn- rcea vrcv aooa¢ ~ ~ ----------- 000019 ~r ° T6Cli1~QUE #3: Locate structure to reduce height impac! • • • no's • 4Zcdc~u, '~ti '~' . rwiwi w~iu. GuT • ~~a' sfi~u~Tu~nG ~f~ , ~s O~uraid Vitu) -i~~r~a-ace.. • I.~ua~,c sitiuc~urv~ on bNU- aws f-,illsidc Lois. noN•rs • lac r-~t btotk viewG-by ~u~lk~~5i~rw vide k--,,o~,- ~i~.at- iw~pact vigil. YES ~- ._1 _~- -~ .....--, nio ,--- -~ _ = _ -__ _ - _ _ `~. __~ _ The Proposed building uses broken down building masses and cascading roof placement to minimize view blockage. We have also taken advantage of pyramid-shape roof for its minimized blockage. The overall building profile is in agreement with the "DO's" diagram above. i i i i i ~ i i i ~ i i i i i i i _ i ~ i .~ ._.__.. :mc-- SOX vqv aorua ~ ttoc- xz w[v ~„Q ~ i _ 1 ~l ~~ ~ f11WT-- !OX VI[V ROOafi f~p1i-- ` 100X VICV ~ ~~~~~~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • UOU1022 Attachment 3 TO: Planning Commission 6-30-02 City of Saratoga cc: Christy Oosterhous FROM:Jon Rwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court Joe Park, 14800 Masson Court 11 Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court U Subject: Design Review Approval 97-061 Extension J U L p 3 2002 14805 Masson Court CITY OF SARA'i'OGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We would like to urge the City to deny extension to Design Review Approval 97-061. We also request the City to place a condition on 14805 Masson that the entire foot print be moved 18 feet towards Pierce Road, and that no part of the structure or construction will intrude upon the properties on 14581 Saratoga Heights and 14800 Masson. Essentially we have the same concerns we had the last time we talked to the City at the Council Meeting regarding Application 97-061. Apparently now the applicant is actively searching for a buyer. In light of that we feel that a new design that is more compatible and harmonious with the neighborhood, will greatly benefit the Applicant as well as the neighborhood. Suimnary of Neighbors' Objections Raised at the Second Appeal Meeting: 1) There is no accurate drawings and site markers to locate the the structure. The Applicant admitted to major mistakes in the poles and stakes locations, after the plans were approved by Planning. At the Appeal Meeting, the Mayor specifically asked if there were any constraints preventing the foot print of the structure from re-locating towards Pierce Road. And the Applicant/Architect replied that there were none. At a site meeting among the City, Applicant and neighbors, a suggestion from the neighbors was requested: move the entire foot print of the structure 30 feet towards Pierce Road. The Applicant and Architect agreed to moving the entire foot print 18 feet towards Pierce Road. Subsequently, the plans were modified to EXTEND towards Pierce Road, without moving the rest of the structure. The Mayoz himself at the Appeal Meeting said that it was unfortunate that through trickery the neighbors were fooled into a compromise. The neighbors were not fooled. They were lied to. In a meeting in the presence of City Staff. UOU~23 We request the City hold the Applicant to his words and place a condition that the entire foot print of the structure be moved 18 feet towards Pierce Road. 2) The Applicant's proposed structure was clearly determined by the City to be infringing upon 14581 Saratoga Heights and 14780 Masson. The Applicant's plans were later modified to purpportedly remedy some of these infringements. However, due to the inadequacy of the drawings and site markers, and the lack of drawings since the Appeal, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain what has been modified, what was approved, and whether the infringements are still present. We request that the City place a condition that on the building plans, no part of the structure or construction of 14805 Masson will intrude upon the properties of 14581 Saratoga Heights and 14800 Masson. Summary of Neighbors' Objections Raised at the First Appeal Meeting: 1) Neighborhood Compatibility. The adjacent neighborhood feels that the approved structure is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of its architecture, site setback, and its bulkiness, and its departure from the policies given in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. Each one of these incompatibility and departure will be detailed in the following. The Applicant is actively searching for a buyer. we feel that a new design that is compatible with the neighborhood, complies with policies in the Residential Design Handbook, will benefit the Applicant, the future buyer, as well as the neighborhood. 2) Failure to Comply with Required Site Set Back. In the City's Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements, for the HR zone, front set back is specified to be 30 ft. minimum, and rear set back is specified to be 60 ft. minimum (for a two storey). The front yard is defined to be that closest to the curb. The rear yard is that opposite the front yard. The front and rear yards are not defined by the orientation of the house. In fact, the orientation of the house is not defined or mentioned in the Setback Requirements. A builder cannot circumvent the Setback Requirements by simply calling the front yard its side yard; or by calling the rear yard its side yard. The proposed structure fails to comply with the required set back. • U0~~24 3) Failure to contain structure within its legal lot. The proposed structure extends into property line of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, without the permission of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, the undated, unsigned blue prints which detail this violation were introduced for the first time in the Planning Meeting where design review approval was granted. The Chairperson of that Meeting denied Mr. Rwong of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court the opportunity to examine .the newly introduced blue prints, and to voice his objections. Recent discings by 14805 Masson have intruded beyond property lines into 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, causing damage to the drain pipe cleanouts in Saratoga Heights Court. The latest discing by Applicant in 2002 again intruded into Saratoga Heights Court, in the same areas. In the Appeal during the City Council Meeting in Feb. 2000, the City has requested the Applicant to stake out the property lice adjacent to Saratoga Heights Court so that the Applicant can recognize the property line, to prevent future intrusion. The Applicant has yet to comply. 4) Failure to Adequately Address Landslide Issues. A number of major landslides exist on the site .of the proposed structure. In a letter dated Sept. 2, 1999, from the City geologist to the City, it was stated "second landslide (on 14805 Masson Court) extends offsite to the east, where it has impacted the residential development at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court." it was also stated "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant porton of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." The property owener of Saratoga Heights Court was never notified of this concern. Mr. Rwong of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court raised his concerns regarding the landslide problem and the lack of resolution both in a letter and also at the December 8 public hearing. On the day of the December 8 hearing where the Planning Commission approval was given, no document in the City file on DR-97-061 addresses the resolution of the landslide problem. During the December 8 hearing, a geological drawing was handed out to the Commissioners, which purportedly addresses the resolution to the landslide problem. The Commissioners did not have a chance to study the drawing. The City Geologist who was not present obviously did not have the opportunity to examine, approve/disapprove this drawing, which was un-signed, and un-dated. Mr. Rwong was given a copy of the drawing and told to review it before returning to the podium. This un-signed, un-dated drawing was ambiguous as to the extent of the repair (e.g. how much cut and fill ), and it shows structures that extends from the applicant's property 14805 Masson Court into Mr. Rwong's property 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. The drawing was not mentioned in the City Geologist's report and has not been approved by the City Geologist. A few minutes later, Mr. Rwong was called back to the podium. When Mr. Rwong raised the questions regarding this drawing he was told that was not the place to ask questions regarding the drawing. 'U©~~ti5 How can the City approve the plans for an applicant's structure that extends into neighboring property without the neighbor's approval ? And how can an unsigned, undated drawing that details soil repair, which has not been examined, let alone approved by the City Geologist, be approved by the City ? 5) The proposed structure does not follow Residential Design Handbook policies, including Policy 1, Technique #4:Minimize building height; to minimize areas of maximum height, vary height of roof ,elements, and to set back higher portions of structure. Policy 1, Technique #S:Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood; to be compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and height, to have architectural style that is compatible, and to avoid overwhelming existing residences. Policy 1, Technique #6:IIse architectural features to break up massing; to avoid features that add_to.the perception of height. Policy 2, Technique #2:Integrate with environmental texture and forms; to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting. Policy 3, Technique #l:Coatrol view to adjacent properties. to avoid window and balcony locations that impact privacy, to avoid reducing required setback distances. Policy 3, Technique #2:Locate buildings to minimize privacy impact; to avoid siting structures in direct line-of-sight to neighboring residences. Policy 4, Technique #1:Locate structure to minimize view blockage; to not block view with structures, and to avoid using site plans that will create view problems. Policy 4, Technique #3:Locate structure to reduce height impact; to not block view by excessively high and bulky structures, and to avoid roof forms and ridge lines that impact view. In conclusion, .in the design review approval, the City has departed significantly from its procedures, stated policies, and past practices. In many instances, careful consideration and due process were not given. A new design that is compatible with the neighborhood, in compliant with City policies, properly reviewed, will ultimately benefit the neighborhood, the future buyer, and the Applicant as well. Thank you for your considerations in this matter. _~ i• i~ _ Attachment ' REPOR j 10 THE PLANNING C ~ 1VIMISSION Applicant No./Location: ApplicantlOwner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court LIU - Heather Bradley, Associate Planner ' October 13, 1999 503-72-014 Department Head: /L ~- ~ MOUNTAW WINERY North 14805 Masson Court - ®00027 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court Application filed: 11/13/97 Application complete: 09/03/99 Notice published: 09/29/99 Mailing completed: 09/30/99 Posting completed: 09/23/99 Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The site is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. • Open the public hearing to discuss item DR-97-061 then continue the public hearing indefinitely with the direction that the applicant revise the site plan to eliminate the secondary driveway, perform condition 8 of the Draft Resolution requiring the Project Geotechnical Engineer to prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and have this plan reviewed by the City Arborist who shall provide comments relating to tree preservation. 1 3, 4. 5. 6. Staff Analysis Draft Resolution DR-97-061 Arborist report dated December 17, 1997 Site Geologic Map (Plate 4 prepared by Frank Lee and Associates) Conceptual Slope Mitigation (Figure C1 prepared by Milstone Geotechnical) Plans, Exhibit "A" 0 • ~~~0~8 • i• File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court ZONING: HR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Residential MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 2.75 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 19% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 6% GRADING REQUIRED: Landslide Repair Cut: 300 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: 25 Ft. Fill: 470 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: 30 Ft. House construction Cut: 130 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: 1 Ft. Fill: 55 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: 5 Ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stained wood exterior with limestone and metal details. A copper roof is also proposed, but an asphalt shingle has been submitted as an alternative if the Commission feels it is more appropriate. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ LOT COVERAGE: 12.5% (14,914 sq. ft.) HEIGHT: 26 R. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First floor: 3,741 sq. ft. Garage: 651 sq. ft. Second Floor: 2,108 sq. ft. TOTAL: 6,500 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 320 ft. Rear: 345 ft. Right Side: 30 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. ALLOWANCE 25% (or 15,000 sq. ft.) 26 ft. Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: 6,620 sq. ft. 30 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Q~00029 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court PROJECT DISCUSSION Request far Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The site is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Background This application has been under review by the Planning Division for quite some time. The primary reason for the delay is that the project was slow in getting a geologic clearance due to the large landslide on the property and the amount of time it took the applicant to prepare the appropriate reports. DESIGN REVIEW The residence is designed in a unique contemporary architectural style with wood, stone and metal details. Although it is quite different than homes in this area, it is compazable in terms of size and mass. The use of natural materials such as wood siding with a dark stain rather than paint, limestone and metal details, does also help the structure to blend with the natural setting. • The applicant is proposing a copper roof which they feel is integral to the design, however they have proposed an asphalt shingle alternative. While the Planning Commission has been concerned with the mineral runoff from the use of copper gutters, roofing, et cetera, it is accepted knowledge that if the roofs and gutters are drained properly into landscaped azeas the minerals aze quickly absorbed into the soil and do end up in the storm water runoff. Both alternatives aze shown on the colors and materials boazd. Grading The majority of required grading on site is to repair an existing landslide. This will reportedly require 300 cubic yards of cut, 470 cubic yards of fill, with maximum cut depths of 25 feet and fill depths of 30 feet. The pad for the residence involves 130 cubic yards of cut and 55 cubic yards of fill, with maximum cut depths of 1 foot and fill depths of 5 feet. This total amount of 985 cubic yards is under the 1,000 cubic yards guideline recommended for properties in the hillsides. Trees/ Landscaping There are twelve gees on the subject property, but only one which is near construction. This is a Coast Live Oak in excellent condition and will be maintained. The applicant has modified a proposed driveway around the tree per the Arborist's original recommendation, however staff is concerned about the impacts to this tree given the nature of landslide repair which the City Arborist has not had the opportunity to review. Staff is further recommending the removal of this secondary driveway and parking area for aesthetic reasons so the impact to this tree should be further minimi~pd, $~ l~ recommended continuing this application to give the City Arborist the 00030 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court opportunity to review the proposal in light of the required landslide repair. Geotechnical Review This site straddles aneast-west trending ridgeline with steep north facing slopes and gentle south facing slopes. The ridge top at the center of the property has been modified ip the past (most Iikely during subdivision improvement construction) to create a level building pad. Sometime prior to 1997 the upper portion of the northern slope failed and resulted in the landslide visible belov~• the building pad. Because the grading plan does not comprehensively reflect the nature of the landslide, staff has included two exhibits from the geologic and geotechnical investigations for further reference on the landslide. Based on the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project and geologic and geotechnical reports, the Public Works Director has granted the proposal a Geologic and Geotechnical Clearance. The City Consultant's recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of approval within the attached Draft Resolution. Conclusion The proposed residence is a very unique design, but staff has concluded that it does to conform to each of the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and does satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The project meets all zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. With a change to the site plan eliminating the secondary driveway staff would be in support of approving the plan. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing to discuss item DR-97-061 then continue the public hearing indefinitely with the direction that the applicant revise the site plan to eliminate the secondary driveway, perform condition 8 of the Draft Resolution requiring the Project Geotechnical Engineer to prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and have this plan reviewed by the City Arborist who shall provide comments relating to tree preservation. UOQ1031 BARRIE D, t ~_ ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 Fax 408-354-3767 ' 2.3535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA _ _ Prepared at the Request of: Carol Deming City of Saratoga _ 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070; Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench December 17, 1997 Job#11-97-377 DEC 3 ~ 1997 Pl-t-ivivitvu UL~ • • ~-O~®32 •- i~ BARRIE D. ~ SATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 Fax 408-354-3767 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Carol Deming, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to build a new residence on a vacant lot in the context of potential damage to adjacent tees.-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 minimized. The plan reviewed for this report is the Site Plan prepared by Amphibian ARC Design Studio, Los Angeles, sheets AI-A7, dated November 13, 1997. Summary Of the twelve trees on site, only one would be affected by construction. Mitigation is suggested for its preservation. This tree's value is $9,885. A 50°/o bond of $4,943 is suggested for protection. This tree should be preserved at all costs. Observations There are twelve trees on this site, but it appears that only one tree would be affected by construction. The attached map shows the tree's location and its canopy dimensions. The data sheets following this text provides a health and swcture rating. The subject tree is a 24-inch diameter coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). This species is native to this area. The height is about 30 feet and the spread is approximately 45 feet. The health is excellent and the structure is very good but could be improved by pruning. The l4-inch diameter branch facing the south is horizontally inclined and is at least moderately prone to breakage as it matures. However, this risk can be virtually eliminated by proper pruning for eridweight removal. Not all arborists understand this Repaied by: Michael L Bench. Arbotist 000U33 Dexember 17, 1997 AN EVALUATION OF TREE AT THE LIU PROPERTY' '' - 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA procedure. If pruning is desired, I suggest that the work be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture). However, this suggestion has nothing to do with proposed construction and should not be a requirement. There is a section of fill soil approximately 24 inches in depth on the east side and 10 feet from of the trunk at the edge of the canopy. It will be essential to remove this fill soil without allowing the soil to slip down the slope to cover the root collar. If this were to occur, the tree would then become highly susceptible to a fungus infection, which in time could kill it. This coast liv~oak tree would suffer severe root damage by grading and construction of the proposed 18' wide driveway. The proposal indicates a l- to 2-foot clearance between the edge of the driveway and the tree's trunk. If the tree is to survive, that driveway location must be changed. Recommendations If the subject tree is to survive driveway construction it will be essential to move the driveway and to mitigate remaining damage by the following actions: 1. I suggest the driveway be relocated to the east so as to provide for a minimum clearance of 151inear feet between the edge of the driveway and the east of the tree's trunk. 7'o achieve even this the east side of the canopy must be pruned, and in any case no more than one-third of the entire canopy must be removed in a single growing season. The pruning of the south-facing horizontally inclined branch must be included in this pruning. It does not appear that the driveway could be located closer due to this pruning limitation. 2. The fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade by hand in any area within 1 S feet of the trunk. 3. A temporary protective chainlink fence must be installed. The fence must be a minimum height of 5 fcet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be located a minimum of 1 foot outside the edge of the canopy on the north and south sides, at the curb of Masson Court on the west side, and 2 feet from the new driveway. The fence must be in place prior • • • OOQ-03¢ Pieparcd by: Mid~sel L Bencb, Arboeiat December 17. 1997 • AN EVALUATION as TRF - AT Tim LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA to the arrival of materials ore ui ment d must q p an remain In place until the completion of construction. 4. There must not be any other trenches or excavations even for utilities (gas. cable, phone, etc.) within 25 feet of the trunk of this tree. 5. I suggest the discharge for the drainage system for the house be directed a minimum of 40 feet from the other trees (] 0 of which are coat live oak 1 on site. - 6. I recommcnd a site inspection by our office after the fence has been installed but before any equipment arrives on site. 7. I recommend an additional inspection during conswction to assure compliance with the preservation procedures. • Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Associate ~J~ c~"~S Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB id Enclosures: Charts Maps • 000035 Prepared by: Miduel L Beach, Arborist _ December 17.1997 DARRIC U. COATC cat ASSUCIA"I'CS ~' j Horticultural Consultants (408)353-1052 Key #~ Plant Name W a~i W ~ a~ ~ ~ ~'¢ ¢ C7 s C r- ~ s C t t w ~}Q = m ~ m m a ~ ¢ D ~ p O Q pN = V) _ -- -. oast _ Iva Oak _ _ -__ 24 26 30 45 1 2 J 1 Quencus agrilolla_ -. - .. -- -- --- - - --- -- - --- - - ------ -...._.._-- ---- - --- -. -L----~- sq. in._ 452 _____ ___X $27/sq. in - $12,204. X sp. class (100°j = $12,204. X cond. (90°'°) = 10,984. 5-gal . $36.00 15-gal = $120 24"box . $420 36"box = 1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 COMMENTS ~---- -- - X loc. (90%) _ $9,885. . - -. - -- - ... - -- - .. _.... _. - - -- - - - - - . Flnel Value - -- I -----•----•---------------------- - --I - -- ----- -------•- ------ - ----.......---._... _.. __. ._-._.----------- - -- -----. ..... sq .In - --....._ .._..- .... _. _. _ X $27/sq. in = $ X sp. class (%) _ $ X cond. (9'°) _ $ --- _ ---- - X loc. (~°) _ $ _. - -- -- - -- --- -- --- -- - -- ---- --- - -- - -- - ._ FM~eI value _ 4 X$27/s .ln=$ ° -_ _ . _. _. . - ~----- ---- ----- --.. _.. _.-..._ 4 X sp. class (/°1= $ X cond. (%) _ $ - -- X loc. (%) _ $ - - -- -- - - -- - - - -- . -- _-_ -- .- t=lnel Value 4 - - -----•• -- ------ -- - - - -- - - --- --- - -- --- -- -- --- -- - .-- -- --- .._ _ - _ .. - --- -- - - ... . __ ... - s9_ In - ---._- -- ---- -- X $27/sq. in = $ X s .class % - $ -- -- - P ( ) - X cond. (~°) _ $ X loc. (%1= $ ;~ ----- -- --- -- Fkiel Value _- _ 5 -- ------: _.. --------- - -- - - ---- -- --- -- . -- - - -. I sq. in _. - ----- X $27/sq. in = $ X s class % _ - - - - e .. _... - C -- _ ...~..oy 0 -._ -- ~ tTIE:Liu P /14605 Masson Court 0 11/97/371 ~ 12.1'7.97 - - _ - -. _ __-- _ - - Fh~al Value In = $ X sp. class (~°1= $ - -- -- _ _ . X cond. (%) = S X loc. (%) = a - - •--- - ---- - - - ---- - - - - - - - - -- - ~ - - net Value Page i of 1 ~ , ~, 1~ - hnnl S _ ...n.~n1 '^ ~ Z ~ w ~ ~ # p ¢ ~ ~- ~- ~ I' w Z Z ui ~~ ¢ J I~ Q j' ~ ~~ ~ p ~ W W N j w p ¢ Q O -- w B ~ O w O ~ f- w O ~-- 4 O ~ V w w~ 4 > w m v7 w rn ~ ~ OO O Z j _ ~ Z ¢ O ¢V ~ ¢p ¢ v i ? ¢~ O ~a V Z ~ ~ ¢ Z ¢¢ a • • • A M w w A A• w fin.. `~- ~": dame wrleioe wvtbrr.ne be.uone a.,~lor.tory Eonnols. detsrmrrse C ~ tw...errq•e...ne n.ne level t.n,rro~...na w.o~,.~. «+r b e» ,I~~y~ MILS~~~IVE mnebuNbn~ ~~~.11i1 flD~ IlM p~r9d b deDMa millpellon [!, ~~ ~n•~r~+c noon Ana w na Yrl«reea b b. road GEOTECHI ~~~ ~~ a~ BeCkIM w 'repe.eA p.>~.1 Bhee Pln Wsll ---- "' w w (q.. wr rr Qr.. r« CONCEPTUAL SLOPE MITIGATION PROPOSED LIU gESIDENCE 14905 Masson Court Sentopa, C~Iiloml~ DNe: Scab: Erghnrer June 1999 1 Inca a 40 Isel 8SM FIpUgE C1 rinlq(,y rmn. a rea OMOw gal °"o"~e0 8ubdnln err.. F/ IMvkdl - . -- - - - ~~ _ ~~ ; ~~ •3 W f ( ~ . // _ ~ ~~ `- ,u. girt=l~~ . • -` zi•-o•• J ., _ -~ ~ _ .. ;--; 1 \ ` -'~ ~b I o ~ ~ , o L N C PE ~ o i 0 r., ,. ,_ o - ~. <~ ----------} ~-~-i-T-~-~,-~ ~ ---~--- -r - 91'- . cern.pa~A to erelnat doa elnrte. lanr Md trw loealau •n roaWt•. ^^ ~aRR1Ep 1;0ATE ~^ n•Iv.tton of • ttw, , ~DASSOCIATES 1~los canon Ilvmw q q >4 cal haprtr. atar•toa.~ . wwN ~.•/ ~•~ rNp l'A N~ M heprrrd lera , , Wt ...~ ,s,,l„s cltl o! s.roeey. ~~yf~dian 11-!1.111 ^""""+•UAo~w •:17-11.7 69'- -(E)',24" f1AK IQ,~FMAIN ----I~ItI'~u~111 n, _ ~ 1' ;• ` _`~L~_N i;'17'13° '!. •t~l'?I r ~ ~ • ~` ~~ ~// /~/ (CO ~,= ~, I I ~ I ~ ) ~ \~ \~ \\ ~ ~ ~ / o ~ •, I~~I ~ ~,~ ,~ . l , , ., , i 2 PARTIAL SITE PLAN A - ~ SCALE: i" = 20' ~~ ~ ~ • ,,, ., iii, 211 ~ ~ ~7 Ex. retaining wall ~ ` / ~ ~ - Approximate Ilmila ol'Dls' shown on ~ i^ /William Cation and Associates (1980) -y/ ~~ io ` Fib slope, thickness ~ unknown ~ ~ O ~ \ / ~ Existkrp Bulbess '~ 7 Ponded drainage ~ \7 ~, 1050 / r ~ `j Olsc ' ~ Area of eignflk:anl B-1 f~, soh creep ~' 1CS0 ~ `.~ x070 ~,-_ B-2 e ~ -,~-. Bulldlnp Ernrelope _~;~ d~ tg' ~ ~ _ ~S ~~ ' . _ '~~ ~t~L-~ y ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;;; -s Msasort court ~" -~~ >r A Telephone Box Telephrone Box - Existing SDMH ~ Existing Translonner Extspnp Ek>iclrk~l Box Cable TV Bggo??x L 1000 1020 1030 A' .~j ,'J ~?~ ~` ; Tp '~ - Tesl Pils 1-7 l~ ~ -Landslide mass; boundary Interpreted where queslbn marks ere present; arrow '~-~-~ Scale: 1' - 60' __ d __._~_ .. M represents irection of SITE GEOLOGIC M/1 P - Cracks M soil movement. A.P.N. 503-72-010 Masson Cnurf 4 ' ~ 8Z ~ ik -Main scarp of Landslie A Saratoga, Santa Cla-o Cmmfy, r, i -Area str e and dip of bedding - CaliJnrnia ~ Wiorwt. W.. Ae rNed upon (or eorglnKtlon~es. -------- -- (ONDASSOCI _ -- - ----------- - -- -- ----------- - 1 rr rt II I I t'{ t't''~• t EXPLANATION Olsc - Oualemary Santa Ctare e0 -Borings 1-4 Fonnatlon ~ -Possible Spring - Property line ~* -Strike and dip of shear plane. ~r 1 BARRIE D. COAT~`~ AND ASSOCIATES ' Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road los Gatos, CA 95033 ~~~.. TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MAS5ON COURT SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Christina Ratcliffe City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate November 8; 1999 Job #11-97-377-99 RECEIVED NOV 171999 • • • PLANNING DEPT. 000040 Tree Preservation Recommends . ; At The Liu Property, 14805 Masson Court, ,toga Assignment I was asked by Christina Ratcliffe, Planner, at the City of Saratoga to inspect the Liu property slide restoration plans, to identify any conflict between that activity and health of trees on site. Summary Only one tree would be affected by the proposed landslip repair, and if protective fences aze installed and maintained precisely as shown on the enclosed site plan by Milstone Geotechnical Co., this affect should be minor. ' Discussion The tree is a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) of 22-inch diameter, 20-foot height, and 35 foot spread. Its health is excellent and with a good structure. Its value is $6,104. I suggest a bond of 20% ($1,221) to assure installation and consistent maintenance of the fence no closer than 16 feet from the tree trunk on the east side and 10 feet beyond the canopy on other sides. Resp 11 su)~mitt~i, C,. ,~ Barre D. Coate ,~/, ,~,~`~ BDC/sl Enclosures: Tree Data Chart Map • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate November 8, 1999 00®041 Job Title: Liu Property Job Address: 14805 Masson Court Job #11-97-377-99 _T ~ ~ November 8, 1999 ` ` ! ! ' 1 ! " ' BARRIE D, COATS ! ! ' and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ I=, Nj ` o;' ~~ ~' ~ Ni ~ ~ Q ~ (908) 3531052 ! ~ w ~ ~ ! ! w 1 1 ~ u. : ~ ! ~ c7 i ~ ! ,~, ! z { ~ ~ ~ z_ ~ ~ c7 ! z ~- ~ a ! ~ { O ~ ~ ! w ~ t o ~ ! ! 'g I + ~ ~ ! ui ~ I w ~ ~ p ! i ~ ~ w : "' ! ~ w ~ 235355uma~ilAoad = w! ~ ! n ! ~ 1 ~! ~! z i ~-- ~ ~ z! ~ z ~ O t F- ~ z ~: w I 11 O ~ O I o n `~ ~~ c~ ! 1 ~ ~ o `- ! '~ 0: ~ w ~ La Cala, G 95030 p,p~~ F. ! ~ : \J : N ' W ~ F- ~ ~ ! Z ~ N ~ i V7 { ~ C.] , ~ w ,~ ~ Z t i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ey ~ Plant Name _ } ! ( ~~~uu 1 ~ Gi I x~ J !! = m O m m ~ o I~ o o p ~ z ` ~ 1 ~ C1 ~ W i a x m v ~ j O ~ ~ ~ ! U ~= 1 ~ , ~ ~ ~ Z : QN ~ I~ I O Z Q x w v x U ~ z ~ ~ : ~ ~ v F ~ z 1 3 ~ ~ I v ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~_ v~ ~ z i ~ ~ ~ ~! v! ~ z ! ~ = v~ i O w ~, J W;~~ ~ U a i j ~' a ~ i O 1 ~ ! U U: w N= a ?! ~- ~ ~ ~ ! ~ 1 ~~ o w ( g ~ ~ ~ Y ~ Z+ ~ i ~ O~ -- ~~ g ~ f' O o: Q w ! ~ } u- ~ to ~ m ~ O 1 0 l W I W E z I z! W ~ ~ 0 W o: a > O W o: 1 Coast Live Oak 20.0 ! 1 22 j 20 F 35 1 ! 2 3 ! :. l i ~ , ! ~ X 327/sg. in. _ $ 8.478 X sp. lass 100% _ $8,478 X cond. 90% _ $ 7.830 X loc. 8046 = $ 6,104 \l `` Total Value f ~ f I ~ 3 1 tt I I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I X $27/sq. in. _ $ X sp. class = SO X cond. _ $ - X loc. - $ Total Value ® REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES . ~ 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 ® 24"box = 0 36"box = $1,320 f~ 48"box 0 52"box = $7,000 N 72"box = ,000 1 =BEST, WORST age 1 of "1 ~~ u • • 1 yl r .~ i0 a a BARRIE D COATE Liu Residence . and ASSOCIATES 14805 Masson Court 110113531052 22s3s 51~^s a>,e $ar~og8 , laGriat,G 9Sa~D Job # 11-97-377-99' HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT DATE: November 8 1999 CONSULTING ARBORIST ~ ~~~~ f /. ~.; • . - ' Dk . ' e. , Z,Y > ,'~~- r. ,, ~. ;' r - /r .' y Y Eocalo ~~{ 0.En....,,., U 81 . r• : ~ ~e 1 ,,., ,R~: - '' ,. EINFORCED !--1' t ~ \ ~ T4 "I. ~1 ` ~. ~ .~•'r~~ y~ _ :lTTAESS \JJ 1\ ~1 ~. ``,,/ I ~ +, 1 ~ C ~> ~ ._- `~ .~,', ~ .~ U ' ~' / _ -•i ~ ', ~ - - „.,. ~ ~ - a 'Construction Period Fence ~ ~- '- , ,.>^, y.a `~ ~.•~ ~~ ' 71 Nom(. •~' 1 15-•1/ v v ~-. _ 50 % PROGRESS PRINT - ~ ~ ~ 50% REDUCTION r :~ ~ PuN MIl3TONE ~-~1~D1E woYuoe rrln~now GEOTECMNICAL ~y06 ~ y,~ ~ / 1 0 ~ 0 Y~Ny Lw~ ~u MM.. G, ~w>ta "" °" o••r•• w ~0~•iq•~q~ ~NIONI.MwNM.a~~ ~~ h' OW: ~ v~~443 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • UC~C~044 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 2 of 18 Report of Posting Agenda Attachment ~ Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced two technical corrections to the packet as follows: Item #2, page 4, paragraph S, line 4, amended to read: "This total amount of 995 cubic yards is under the....." 2. Item #4, page 3, last line amended to read, "The landscaping will consist of native California flannel bush to entirely surround the enclosure The plants will be irrigated for approximately one year or until established " CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-98-009 & DR-98-070 (397-27-031) - NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Request for Tentative Map and Design Review approval for the subdivision of a 24,391 square foot parcel into six parcels ranging in size from 2,300 to 3,370 square feet. The remaining 7,451 square feet will•be common area. Six townhomes ranging in size from approximately 2,700 to 2,900 square feet will be constructed on the new lots. The site is located within an R-M-3,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. A NEW HEARING DATE WII.L BE ADVERTISED). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-97-061 (503-72-014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for design consideration to a 6,500 ~ ,: ' square foot contemporary design home within the Saratoga Heights subdivision. The parcel is 2.75 acres ' and is constrained on the downslope and base of the property by several landslides. He said the application had been submitted sometime ago but has been delayed because of the length of time it took to get geological cleazance on the property. He said the City geologist has granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance, noting that the landslides have been generally identified, and they will need to be repaired before a house can be built on the property. He conveyed that the application is sufficient to present to the Planning Commission for approval; however, because there are still details on the landslides to be identifed, including the relationship to adjacent properties and the large oak tree on the property, staff is not prepazed to recommend approval at this time. _ ~©~D~Jr Planning Commission Minutes _ October 13, 1999 Page 3 of 18 Director Walgren stated that this is one of the last homes in the development, noting that the other homes have been designed in more traditional or rural or English tudor styles. He said this home is a very contemporary and modern design. He expressed that the application is before the Commission tonight for an early read for the applicant's benefit before they continue through the, geological investigation process. He said the findings are that the home is consistent and compatible in design, height, size, massing and materials with the natural environment. He noted that although the wood; limestone, and copper roofing should blend in very well with the hillside areas, it is difficult to say that it is compatible with the existing homes in the area. He added that the proposal meets all minimum zoning standards regarding allowable building area, lot coverage, setbacks, and height, and conforms with the original subdivision tentative map, site development and conditions of approval. _._. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Walgren for a briefing on the issue regarding the secondary driveway and parking area. Director Walgren responded that issues raised in the staff report included the roofing material. He said the applicants are proposing a copper roofing and that concerns have been raised in the past about mineral leaching of copper materials. He said that issue could be mitigated through proper roof drains in the landscape areas where it can be absorbed into the soil very quickly. He stated that the applicants are willing to consider a composition roof if the copper roof is not acceptable to the Commission. He conveyed that the original design is a very large, expansive front guest parking area which almost matches the footprint of the home in addition to the two driveways -one accessing the area; the other accessing the garage to the building. He said that the applicants were aware that the City could not support the expansive hard surface on the property, and the plans presented before the Commission tonight show it in a reduced configuration. He said it is a significant improvement over the original proposal. Commissioner Patrick noted a typographical error in the design review portion of the report and confirmed that the term "and do end up in storm water runoff' ishould say, "and do not end up in storm water runoff..." Commissioner Page referred to the fact that it had been almost two years since the arborist had reviewed the project,. and asked whether, depending on what happens with the second driveway, it would be appropriate to have an analysis of thc tree below the tree that would be impacted. Director Walgren responded in the affirmative, noting that one of the recommendations to define this landslide would also give the arborist a second chance for a fmal look. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Non Cho Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, CA, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owrier. Using a model of the project as a visual aid„ he described the project. He said much attention had been given to the design guidelines of the Planning Department. He said the intent is to build a building compatible with the surroundings, neighbors, and work with the landscape. He said that to comply with staffs concern about having too much paved driveway, the driveway was reduced and is now under the maximum allowable 15 percent of the lot size. He said his client had certain ideas about how to use the lot which is a very long shape, and that it has close to 900 feet from one point to the other, and the other direction is very short. He said given the shape, two driveways seemed to make more sense because the overall lot can be utilized more efficiently. However, 000046 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 4 of 18 • he said he understood the intention of minimizing the driveway because of the water runoff, and that he is contemplating using a material that is semi-permeable to reduce the water runoff during the rain. Mr. Wang referred to the environmental concern associated with the. copper roof, and quoted from research done by the International Copper Institute on the environmental impact of copper on the ground soil and groundwater, which, in his opinion, was positive. He opined that the way to use copper as a roof material is to treat it with proper drainage so when it drains to the soil it will not have high concentration and become toxic. Commissioner Patrick stated she did riot see a drainage plan to show that water is not running off the roof into pipes and down into drains somewhere, and asked where the water from the roof was going. Mr. Wang responded that he would have to study the issue further to understand what is the proper way to drain, and explained that according to the report he quoted from earlier, 95 percent of the copper being washed off the roof is not biodegradable and the other 5 percent is diluted when it gets to the ground. He said by the time the 5 percent gets to the ground it has already reacted to organic material in the environment and is not toxic anymore. Commissioner Patrick noted she had information to the contrary. She said the only way to prevent damage to the environment is by putting it in the ground and not in the water runoff which can end up in the Bay. Commissioner Patrick referred to the driveway and asked whether it would be aesthetically possible to combine the two driveways such for a turnaround off of the driveway that comes in to the garage, which would serve the purpose of having parking for visitors and eliminating the pavement area. Mr. Wang replied that he would be willing to consider the suggestion. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that it appeared that the flat or semi-flat area is virtually covered and the rest of the sloping area is uncovered. Commissioner Page noticed that much of the structure has a significant amount of metallic element and asked whether the side with aluminum or metal poles were just design elements, for looks, or for support. Mr. Wang responded that the poles act as design elements as well as structural elements. He said the roof overhang provides much energy conservation which needs more structure to support it. He stated that the south side which Commissioner Page was refemng to is the back yard which will used for parties and children's play. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page, Mr. Wang confirmed that the south side is the side seen from the valley on the other hills. Commissioner Page asked whether the applicant had any objection to making the poles wood as most of the house is wood. Mr. Wang said he considered using different material; however, the material would be painted so that it would not look like metallic, and when it is painted, one would not be able to tell whether it was wood or metal underneath. 00004'7 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 5 of 18 In response to questions from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Wang reviewed the materials, describing the detailed materials he plans to use. Commissioner Roupe commended the applicants for a creative and interesting design. He said he did not see a compelling reason that the design had to be compatible with the more contemporary houses, noting that some of then were not so contemporary. He urged the applicants to take seriously the matter regarding the copper roof, and indicated that the Copper Institute report could be biased. He conveyed that with some issues being addressed, he could support the project. Referring to the amount of hard pavement, Mr. Wang indicated he would be willing to work out a solution good for the environment and to the City's satisfaction. Commissioner Roupe urged Mr. Wang to work closely with staff. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, a resident of Quito Road, Saratoga, expressed that this was an unattractive building and did not belong on the hillside. Mr. Wang responded that architecture is an expression of the owner's interest and personality. He said the issues raised by the Commission were of great importance and he would do his best to address them. He indicated he would continue to work with staff. Chairwoman Bernald indicated she did not agree with Ms. Jensen. She said there was an eclectic mix in the hillside, and this project would be an appropriate building. She expressed concerns with the privacy on the east side, and suggested the applicant work with the neighbors, and work with staff to cut back the driveway. She commented she would like to see more research on the copper issue. Mr. Wang responded to Commissioner Kurasch's questions regarding the driveways and the materials proposed for the project. Commissioner Page, responding to Chairwoman Bemald, stated he could support the project with the proposed modifications. Commissioner Patrick indicated she wanted to support the project. She said if she could see evidence that the copper would be no problem, she would have no concerns. She conveyed that two driveways is one too many, and that the drainage is a problem because of the copper roof.. She commented that it was a fabulous design. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the design, specifically the poles having different angles and with too many blank walls. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A LATER DATE. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Upon comments from Director Walgren regarding tonight's discussion, a new motion was made. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO TENTATIVELY APPROVE THE DESIGN AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THE COPPER ROOF, FENCING, DRIVEWAY, AND GEOTECHNICAL MATTERS. 000048 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 6 of 18 • Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Director Walgren clarified that the Commission was not bound by any decision until it makes a final decision. He said staff would continue to work with the applicant to address any of the east elevation concerns raised. City Attorney Wittwer opined that a subsequent hearing would not be limited only to the issues raised tonight. FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, THE MOTION PASSED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). 3. UP-99-014 (397-10-009) -CELLULAR ONE, Utility pole in the State-owned right-of--way at the northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9; Request for Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at a height of 30 feet. An associated equipment cabinet located at the base of the pole is part of the proposal. The right-of--way is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for two panel antennas to be located on aless-than-50 feet high PG&E utility pole at approximately 26 feet in height. He reported that the City uses a very comprehensive approach to reviewing antenna applications, noting that antenna proposals can be made throughout the city and that, in the past, the City had ordinances which restricted • antennas to particular zoning districts. He reported the City adopted the current ordinance with the provision that all antennas require a conditional use permit. He conveyed that any antenna proposal regardless of its location has to be presented to the Planning Commission for review based on the applicable findings. He said that in many jurisdictions if an antenna is being put on an existing utility pole, they are considered utilities and neighbors are not notified and hearings are not held. He said the City requires conditional use permits; applications are advertised in local newspapers; and mailing notices are sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility. He conveyed that Congress adopted the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) in 1996 which established federal parameters for emissions that were determined to be not dangerous for humans. The FTA further ruled that if the radio frequency -emissions were within the parameters of the standards established by Congress, local jurisdictions were not to deny them strictly on the basis of perceived health effects. Thus, he went on to say, the City is restricted in what can be taken into consideration. He noted, however, that the City requires radio engineers to prepare technical reports to evaluate the radio frequency emissions, both at the worst case scenario (base of the instrument and where a pedestrian may come in contact with the antenna) and broader case scenario (what the area radio frequency emissions may be.) He said the report prepared for this proposal shows that this facility is well under the federal guidelines for impacts to human health, resulting in a negative environmental impact in the initial studies. He said another issue associated with this proposal is aesthetics, noting that the pole is within the public right-of--way, in the center of several mature native trees, and the antenna would be located in the middle of the pole, intended to match the pole. He said that staff found it to be an aesthetically appropriate location for a transmission and primarily on the basis of those findings, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren how the General Plan impact on property values would relate to the application. Director Walgren responded that the purpose of the land use element in the General Plan, the circulation, conservation, and open space elements is bastcally to preserve and protect Saratoga's uniqueness, 000049 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 00®050 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (SOS) 868-1'?0~~ Attachment 6 C~B~'4 off ~/u~1^ BOO C~~ Incorporated October 22,1956 MEMORANDUM • • TO: Planning Co ion FROM: James Wal onununiry Development Director DATE: December 8,1999 SUBJECT: DR-97-061; Liu, 14805 Masson Court DESCRIPTION COUNCIL MEMBERS Evan Bake.• Sran Bogosran John MBAalfev Nick Srrer, Ann Waltonsmrtn Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 squaze foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. BACKGROUND This application was originally scheduled and heard at the October 13, meeting. The application was not yet complete at that time and still require ~fugrther detailed geologic investigations. However, given the unique nature of the architecture developed for this project, staff did want to present the plans to the Planning Commission earlier in the process than normal to save the applicants time and expense if the plans were deemed too "contemporary^, and therefore incompatible, with the surrounding natural and built environment. The proposed residence incorporates wood, stone and metal details. Although its architectural style is quite different than the existing, more traditional, homes in this area, it is comparable in tenors of size and mass. The use of natural materials such as ~,~,~ siding ~~ a dark stain rather than paint, limestone and metal details, does also help the structure to blend with the natural setting. At the October 13 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal, took public testimony and then moved 4-1 (Kurasch opposed, Jackman absent to su changes to the plans as outlined ~ the staff ~ Peon the application, but with staff report and meeting minutes are attached for reference, sin ~~ theseoreco a °ngulal changes, the applicant has made the modifications outlined on the following page. mmended 000051 pnnteo on recvcletl oaeer r Liu,14805Masson Court Page Two ' Reducing the total lot coverage area from 14,914 sq. ft. to 13,805 sq. ft. ' ,Reconfiguring and reducing the entrance driveway azea. ' Re«sing the grading plan to indicate the area of landslide repair. ' Completing the landscape plan. ' Including fencing azound the proposed pool ' Researching the effect of copper roof materials on the environment. RECOMMENDATION • Though the proposed architecture is truly unique, staff has concluded that it does conform to each of the policies set forth in the ~;iry's Residential Design Handbook and does satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the Ciry Code. The project further meets all zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor azea, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. With the changes to the site plan reducing the amount of driveway surface, staff supports the proposal and recommends approving the Desigr. Review application by adopting Resolution DR-97-061. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-97-061 2. Excerpted Planning Commission minutes from October 13,1999 3. Staff Report dated October 13,1999 (without attachments) 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" ~. Revised Site and Grading Plans, Exhibit "B" 6. Supplemental copper material information • U®~-®52 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 2 • Attachment attend to present their plan modifications. Commissioner Patrick noted that the applicants were in the audience and perhaps the item could be heard as scheduled in the agenda. Additionally, Director Walgren distributed an exhibit of the landslide repair detail on Item #2 v~~hich did not go out with the agenda packet. The exhibit was designated Exhibit C of the file record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. AZO-99-001 (Citywide) -CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 1f12,/2000). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-97-061 (503-72-014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 1110/1999). Director Walgren reported that this is a continued hearing from the October 13, 1999 Commission meeting, noting the proposal is fora contemporary, new, two-story family home at 6500 square feet on a 2.75 acre parcel located within the Saratoga Heights subdivision and within a hillside residential zoning district. He said this is the last lot of the approximately 60-lot subdivision that was approved in the early 1980's. He described the property as being at the end of Masson Court, a private cul-de-sac minimum access . road which is developed with two or three relatively new single-family homes. He said the architectural style in the area is an eclectic mix of newer French chateau, Mediterranean villas style, and traditional wood-sided gable roof buildings. UOC~®53 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 3 -• Director Walgren added that the Liu application is unique in its design which he described as a very organic, free-flowing, modern building. The building uses natural materials such as stone and wood. He said the plan proposes a copper roof which was a topic of the October 13 Commission discussion. He said the materials should integrate the building well into the hillside terrain; however, he opined that the issue of integrating and compatibility with the existing single-family homes is a difficult decision to make. He stated that a significant landslide exists on the property; that the project had been under geological review for sometime to pinpoint the landslide and to determine what needed to be done to correct it. He said th.e landslide repair to stabilize the site does not require any significant native vegetation removal. However, he noted concern had been expressed that a particular Coast Live Oak tree be retained, and upon further geotechnical investigation, it was confirmed that the tree would be retained. Director Walgren reported that staff had previously told the applicant that staff would take the design review application to the Commission for a preliminary consensus regarding Commission support before the applicant continued to spend time and money in obtaining the necessary geological clearance. The item was heard at the October 13 meeting, and concerns were raised regarding the amount of impervious surface proposed. He said at that time, discussion focused on architecture, landslide repair, and copper roofing and the environmental effect of copper draining into the soil and potentially the storm drain system. Commissioner Barry had not been appointed Commissioner at that time, and the 4- 1 vote of the six-member Commission (Commissioner Jackman was absent) resulted in a consensus that the architecture could be supported. The applicant then proceeded to finish the plans. The plan was revised to slightly reduce the lot coverage by eliminating the driveway which previously extended parallel to Masson Court and modifying it to a direct connection perpendicular to the cul-de-sac. He said the pool has been reconfigured to reduce its paved area; the grading plan has been revised to outline the landslide; the landscape plan has been completed as requested; and the area of fencing is under the 4,000 square feet permitted in the hillside districts. Director Walgren reported that the applicant has provided the research materials on copper roofing, noting that the report concluded that copper components that get into the, public storm water system become bioavailable and diluted. (For an explanation, he referred to the report on file). He ~ said that the report stated that for this type of application, it is found that there is no environmental concern with the proposed material. He said this finding is consistent with the findings presented to the Planning Commission several years ago by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board. He said that the applicant has noted that should copper roofing material be unacceptable to the Commission, an alternative asphalt shingle roofing could be used. • U®®®S4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 4 Director Walgren read into the record three letters received from the public regarding the project since distribution of the agenda packet. A letter from Robert and Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, noted concerns about the location of the building and its proximity to their home. Correspondence#rom Joseph C. H. Park, 14800 Masson Court, expressed concern with the siting of the home, its height, and the copper roofing. Jon and Kathy Kwong,14581 Saratoga Heights Court, expressed concerns with soils support and compatibility. Director Walgren responded to.Chautivoman Bernald's questions regarding the project meeting the required setbacks and consistent standards for all homes in the area. Commissioner Barry noted that the letter from the neighbors at 14805 Masson Court states that all existing homes on Masson Court are one-story or were required by the Commission to make the front part of the house one-story to minimize massiveness and that all houses have setback of 30-45 feet. Director Walgren stated that not all homes are one-story; that they are all two-story buildings. He said 30 feet is the minimum front yard setback requirement. Commissioner Barry asked whether staff had done any checking beyond the industry- funded copper runoff study that was presented to the Commission. Director Walgren responded that this was done on the applicant's initiative, and staff had not done any additional research. Commissioner Barry commented that she had more current information on this subject Commissioner Barry expressed concern that Commissioners did not have a chance to review the grading specification. Director Walgren said that the City Geologist made it clear that it would be necessary to make this a stable building site. rie said the only concern was the exact location of the landslide. Staff felt that the landslide was large enough, and close enough to a native tree, that it requested a more accurate definition before the project went through the design: review process. He noted that the City Geologist reviews the document and it was provided as a very clear graphic depiction of where the landslide is exactly located. The location was on the original Exhibit A, and it has now been more clearly defined. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the information presented tonight was substantially different than what the Commission was led to believe in earlier submittals. Director Walgren responded that it was not expected to be different, and the concern was that it is a significantly large area of repair. He said from a construction standpoint, it 00055 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page ~ would not be unusual for it to grow 10-20 feet in orie direction or another. Considering there was a significant tree in the area, it was necessary to have a clear depiction. He further noted that the landslide encroaches onto. the Kwong property, and if the landslide is to be repaired, it would require the Kwongs' cooperation and consent. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether Commissioners had been previously made aware of anv reference to actual size, and Director Walgren responded that the landslide was plotted on the original plans and the exhibit presented tonight is very similar to the original plan. Additionally, supplemental geologic information was submitted with the original report. Commissioner Jackman stated she felt at a disadvantage being handed Exhibit C tonight. She said she was absent at the October 13 meeting; has read and reviewed the October 13 minutes; and made recent site visits, individually and as a group. She expressed concern with the landslide and noticed an area in back of the Kwong property that has also slid. She said she does not feel comfortable making a decision on this tonight and she would want to go back and look at the area. Director Walgren reiterated that the geologic review process on the project did not occur recently. He said the application was submitted in November 1997, and has been in geologic review since. The landslide information was defined earlier and acknowledged. However, the process is that once the area is defined as a landslide needing repair, the exact location of the landslide is deferred until the applicant applies for the building permits. He noted Exhibit C is only a graphic depiction, and that the information has. already been presented to the Commission. Commissioner Page said this is not something the Commissioners would normally see because it is part of the process conducted by staff before the building permits are issued. Director Waigren said that when landslide repair is involved, the applicant is required to submit a preliminary identification of the area to determine how many trees would be removed or whether the building can be shifted to another location that does not require landslide repair. He reiterated that the landslide was depicted on the plans reviewed at the October 13 meeting, and staff asked the applicant to go back and verify the extent of the landslide, which is what was presented tonight. Chairwoman Bernald noted that of four new Commissioners, three have expressed concern with addressing the issue at hand. She asked since the Commissioners are new whether additional time is needed for their consideration. Commissioner Jackman said she did not want to delay the hearing again and asked if this is what the Planning Department routinely does in the geological preparation. U~0~~6 PLANNING COMMISSION M[NUTES December 8,1999 Page 6 • Director Walgren responded that the information submitted at the October 13 meeting is standard process. He said the Geologist had granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance at that stage based on the several extensive studies that had been done; however, staff felt that the applicant needed to go to the next stage, particularly because of the large oak tree, for a clear understanding that the landslide could be repaired without impacting the tree. Commissioner Barry stated she was prepared to go forward in discussing the project. However, she noted for the record that there is an issue to contend with regarding late- arrivinginformation which cannot be made part of her deliberation if she has not had time to review it. She said her issue is not because she is new but an issue of the timing of the information. Commissioner Jackman stated she was ready to go ahead with discussion. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was mainly concerned with the size of the repair area and how it would impact the neighbor. Chairwoman Bernald shared her earlier experience as a Commissioner and said that when reviewing her agenda packet it is a tight timeframe in which to digest all the information, but Commissioners with questions do have three days to contact staff for answers. She would like to reiterate that when Commissioners have questions on issues as complicated as this, it would be most helpful if Commissioners contacted staff and had their questions answered. She said staff does a tremendous job in presenting information to the Commissioners in a timely manner, and that they have certain things which are out of their control and certain things that they present to the Commissioners just for their further edification and not necessarily for their means in making a decision. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Non Chi Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, California, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicants. He described the revisions made to the plan based on comments made at the October 13 Commission meeting. They include: reducing the lot coverage from 14,914 square feet to 13,805 square feet by changing the driveway configuration to m;nim;~e the hard pavement area. He said the grading plan was revised to clearly indicate the area of landslide and completed the landscape drawing to indicate the vegetation to provide privacy for the neighbors. He stated that the plan now includes a fence around the pool as required by code. Describing his efforts in researching the copper roof issue, he explained that he spoke to a geotechnical engineer to understand the possibility of installing a drainage system on the property, and in the engineer's opinion, that solution would not be good for the property because of the landslide problem. He said putting more water into the soil would create a greater burden as runoff from the copper roof would be led through the hard pavement into the storm drain and lead to the bay. He ~DOO©S7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 7 noted that was the only method to address the issue; and now has to rely on the research he did to provide a solution. He asked if that would be acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Wang said that after the October 13 Commission meeting, he met with the neighbors. He said concerns expressed in the Park letter were raised since he met with Mr. Park, and that the issue would be discussed with him later on. He said'he spoke to,Mr. Kwong about privacy issues. He said because of the long and narrow size of the lot, it is necessary to push the limit of the setback. He tried to mitigate the problem by architectural means to address the privacy issue. He addressed Mr. Kwong's other concern regarding the soils on the Kwong property, explaining how the soil would be protected. Commissioner Barry noted that although she was not a member of the Commission at the October 13 meeting, she was in the audience, heard the presentation, and took notes. Chairwoman Bernald referred to the privacy issue and asked Mr. Wang to describe and explain the project on the model which was passed to Commissioners for their review. Commissioner Page asked whether raising the soil level would be part of the landslide repair and whether additional fill would be required. Mr. Wang responded that fixing the slide takes quite a bit of excavation. The grade cannot be altered and would have to match the Kwong property grade. Mr. Wang responded to questions from Commissioner Kurasch regarding using semi- permeable material to reduce water runoff. Commissioner Jackman inquired about the- percentage of permeable coverage, and Mr. Wang said that it could probably go up to 30 percent but it would depend on the type of material used. Commissioner Roupe asked whether plans were to use iron pipe for the drainage from the copper roof. Mr. Wang said he read the report and understood iron piping is significant material to absorb copper ions; therefore, he would use cast iron as a drainage pipe to absorb copper. Mr. Wang confirmed Commissioner Roupe's comment that instead of draining the roof to the concrete surface, the applicant would be willing to use an iron pipe going to the storm sewer system. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren recalled that previous discussion required the roof drains go into pervious landscape areas and not • • C7 X00®58 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 8 __ directly into the storm drain system. Commissioner Roupe understood from the Geologist report that the drainage should not go into the soils, but should drain across the concrete into the storm sewer system directly. He reiterated that he was still concerned with the report from the Copper Institute regarding this issue, and he would suggest that perhaps more study could be made on this point. He said he was hesitant to render a decision regarding this issue until he could see additional data or see how the applicant proposes to address the issue to conform the site to the report. Commissioner Barry cited the following from a flyer published by the Regional Quality Control Plant operated by the City of Palo Alto: "Copper in our roofs is copper in our bay and that's a problem for mussels and other organisms, and the recommendation is to builders and architects to use alternatives to copper roofing and gutters and to advise your clients of the adverse effects of copper and copper products." She said that with respect to a further study, her information from a local water district contradicts the Copper Institute report. Director Walgren said that a condition could be imposed which would defer to the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board on the topic, and materials could be forwarded to them for evaluation and determine whether they would recommend that local jurisdictions not permit copper roof and rain gutter materials. Commissioner Patrick asked what difference it would make in the plans if copper roof were used or not used. Mr. Wang responded that the only difference would be that he would not have to do the iron drainage system. He said asphalt would be the alternative because it is like a metal roof and flexible. Mr. Wang asked if another type of metal material would be acceptable other than copper. He said other metal roof materials are available which do not create the pollution concern and do not have metallic sheen if it is treated. Chairwoman Bernald responded that they would be acceptable as long as the material meets fire ordinance standards and color requirements. Mr. Wang described the alternate materials as zinc-plated metal, noting that asphalt shingle is not the best option. If another type of material were acceptable, he would submit a material sample for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Wang thanked the Commission for challenging the information he previously submitted which encouraged him to do more research and learn more about copper. Mr. Joseph C. Park, 14800 Masson Court, presented three concerns which he discovered this morning. He said the location of the house is such that the entry cuts right across a part of his property which extends beyond the cul-de-sac. Another issue he raised is the height. He said he was led to believe that the location was different than the mock-up shows. He said the copper roof was of concern to him because of the unique characteristics of the area. Using. the property drawing tacked on the wall, Mr. Park described and demonstrated his concern regarding the building location. Jon Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, addressed the Commission regarding the landslide area in back of his house. He said his concern was the soil moving downhill and once it goes downhill, it can no longer support the adjacent soils. He noted that in 1995, the soil slid downhill. and went down 10 feet overnight. He said the proposed repair does not address his concern. He said he is a registered engineer and soil compaction is not the issue. He said the soil adjacent to his property is natural and is better than 98 percent compacted. He said if is still eroding because there is no support on one side of it. He said , that without support, no amount of compaction is going to do any good. He said the applicant is doing the proper thing where the pool is, but it does not guarantee that his part of the lot will not continue to erode. He said this is not being addressed, and Mr. Wang has told him it will be addressed later. He is concerned that the erosion will continue onto his property. He cited a letter from the City Geologist dated September 2,1999, stating that, "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant portion of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." (Later in the meeting, Director Walgren addressed this letter.) Commissioner Roupe noting that once the repair has been made, asked Mr. Kwong whether he would be in a better position regarding his property, and Mr. Kwong responded that the issue had not been addressed. Commissioner Jackman referred to Mr. Kwong's statement regarding the 19951and drop, and asked when the landslide is rebuilt and regraded whether the new property would bring the property back to the 10 feet it lost. Mr. Kwong responded that the subject had not been addressed. Director Walgren noted that the landslide repair is not only for the ool area, but for the P substantial portion of the property which goes into Mr. Kwong's property and it raises the ~~~060 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 10 • property approximately 10 feet back up to its condition before the landslide. He said he noted earlier in his comments that this would have to be coordinated with Mr. Kwong to do the improvements. He said this is shown on page 3 of Exhibit C. -- , , Chairwoman Bernald asked Director Walgren to provide Mr. Kwong with a copy of Exhibit C. Mr. Kwong addressed the privacy issue and said that the vertical structure of the building is not compatible with the surrounding homes. Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Barry regarding the Geologist report dated September 2, 1999. Director Walgren explained that when an application for the hillsides comes in, staff uses acity-wide base map developed by the City's consulting firm of geologists to determine whether the area is subject to unstable soil. Staff refers the plans to the consulting firm who reviews the proposal based on their database of information, and submit a response memo indicating that the property has been cleared or further investigations are necessary. He said that in this case further investigations were necessary and have been ongoing for the past two years, an unusually long period. He noted that every time a geotechnical or geological report is prepared, it is resubmitted to the City Geologist for review and response to the City. Mr. Kwong was probably referring to the latest response memo which was available prior to the October 13 public hearing. At that time the geologist had granted the project a preliminary geotechnical clearance. He reiterated that the project was delayed to have further investigations done, specifically because of the landslide. If it had not been for the landslide on the property, the October 13 meeting would have been the point where the geologic work for this process would have concluded. Commissioner Barry asked whether the Geologist had considered and addressed that if the repair work was done, there could be natural forces moving the ground. Director Walgren replied in the affirmative, noting that the process was designed to uncover such issues and that the City Geologist and consulting firm was like a checks and balance system. Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, stated that she did not realize how tall and close to the street the house will be, and it does not blend in with the neighborhood. She said that her view is almost completely obstructed and asked that something be done so that it is not such an imposing structure. Commissioner Page asked Ms. Sze if her view which would be impacted was from the second story, and she replied that she could not see from the second story. 000061 ~ - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 11 In response to Commissioner Roupe's inquiry, Director Walgren referred to the staff report of October 13, and noted that the site map indicated a larger subdivision that was approved as a single subdivision comprised of cul-de-sacs that access off Pierce Road or Saratoga Heights Road, and almost all of them are five, six, or eight clusters of development within themselves. He said this particular cul-de-sac is the only private cul-de-sac which accesses four lots -three on the west side which have been developed, and this project would be the fourth. He said the large pazcel which runs down the center is the dedicated open space. He said as is required on all hillside subdivisions, a site development plan is required at the Tentative Subdivision Map stage which indicates where the homes are going to be placed for the purposes of evaluating grading, tree removal, geology, etc. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Sze if she reviewed. the plans before purchasing her home. Ms. Sze responded that a different owner existed at the time she purchased her home; that the land had a different house proposal; and because the building pad was larger, it was her understanding that the house would be more spread out: Ms. Sze responded to questions from Commissioners regarding the year she purchased her home and the square footage of the house. Mr. Wan indicated he had a len th di g g y scussion with Mr Kwong a few weeks ago and a communication impasse exists in that Mr. Kwong maintains that the issue will be addressed later. He said the landslide issue is the foundation of the project and if the issue cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner, the applicant will not put the house at risk on the lot. Mr. Wang said that Mr. Liu purchased the lot three years ago and the landslide happened five years ago. The longer the property sits there the more damage it will sustain to the neighbors. He said once the landslide is repaired, Mr. Kwong's property will benefit from the repair, and that is how the applicant intends to work with the neighbors. Mr. Wang said the intent is to excavate 30-40 feet down in the landslide area to remove the dirt and put in appropriate materials to stabilize the soil. He said the concern is if the landslide goes beyond the Liu property, what would be the Commission's position in asking the neighbors to work with the applicant in sharing the costs for the repair. Director Walgren responded that this would not be a question for the Commission and would be an issue between the two property owners. Mr. Wang indicated he would work with Mr. Kwong as the issue will not go away and needs to be addressed. Mr. Wang responded to the issue of the design proximity to the nei hbors, noon this is a very narrow lot and every effort has been made to be friendly to the surrounding buildings 000062 ~ _ .. PLANNING COMMISSION b~1II~TUTES December 8,1999 Page 12 and not intimidating to the neighbors. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether Mr. Wang's geological engineer had suggested putting in piers or steel supports either in the house or to backup the swimming pool or under the driveway. Mr. Wang responded that two-methods to repair the landslide were considered -one is not to excavate all the way to 40 feet, and install piers to stabilize the soil, and ignore slide planes. He said he chose to excavate the entire slide to give better stability rather than just installing something to hold it. Chairwoman Bernald asked what kind of support would go in the back wall of the swimming pool. Mr. Wang responded that the area had not been designed yet; however, he said once the soil is compacted and has been certified, it should support any kind of structure put on it. However, if necessary, materials would be installed to support the swimming pool. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:14 P.M.). PASSED 7-0. Chairwoman Bernald asked Commissioner Barry if she would like to read into the record the report regarding copper roofing. Commissioner Barry responded that if the Commission as a whole agrees that they will not accept a copper roof tonight, she would be pleased to make the report available to Director Walgren for further study. Commissioner Bernald stated that as long as the Commission is not voting for a copper roof tonight, she would prefer that the information be provided to Director Walgren. Commissioner Roupe commented that the Commission has visited the site twice, and while he finds that the house is contemporary and unique in its design, he also sees the neighborhood does not have a prevailing style. He said the design is acceptable and as a condition of his support, he would want the copper roof issue be held in abeyance until further information is available, with the option of other materials being considered. Commissioner Kurasch commented on the architectural style and the compatibility due to the materials and style of the house. She said she agreed with the neighbors that the house is quite imposing. Her main objections are aesthetic. She stated that asphalt may be a more acceptable option for the roof instead of copper or an aluminum look. 000063 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 13 i Commissioner Page stated this is a lovely design with a contemporary look. He said he revisited the site today and saw an area filled with unique styles, noting that a lot of stone and wood is used. He noted that aside from its unique style, the design uses primarily dark ,wood and would keep it in the blending of the area. He expressed concern with the metal sculpture piece in the front which does not help to blend in. He would prefer to see an asphalt roof and do away with the copper roof altogether. He would support the project without a copper roof, not for what it would do to the soil and environment, but what it would do to the view. Commissioner Jackman noted this was a very well designed house; however, her concern is the neighborhood compatibility. She said it is such a different house and the site is on a knoll. She said she could not support the project because of the appearance of bulk. She would be interested in seeing the-same style ofhouse in aone-story design that goes down along Masson Court. She said that the project violates many of the recommendations of the Hillside Residential Design Handbook of having projects blend into the community such as the views. She said because of its prominence on this location, she cannot support the project. Commissioner Patrick stated she will support the project. She remarked that it is a wonderful design and cannot say she would want it to be compatible with what the neighbors say they want. Her view of the neighborhood is that they are homes which reflect the light, very visible homes that do not fit into the hillside, and do not fit into the environment. However, she feels this house does fit in. She would prefer the copper roof, but cannot support it because it is not environmentally safe. She commented on the landslide area and landslides that slide into the neighbors' homes. She said the only way to stop the slide is to build on the property and work with the geotechnical firm to get the necessary support to the hillside. She said that because of the site size, she did not see any other place on the property where anything else could be built as suggested by others. She said she would prefer to have another type of roofing, other than asphalt, submitted for review. She reiterated she would support the project without copper roofing. Commissioner Barry expressed concern with design handbook issues. She said the Commission has on every other occasion that she has been present, whether as a Commissioner or in the audience, taken to heart concerns of the neighbors, and the neighborhood appears to be unhappy with this design. She cited from the design handbook, policy 1, technique #5, the difference between relatively similar homes and one that is significantly different. She said this home is significantly different and stated this is a violation of the design handbook. She also cited from policy 2, technique #2, which specifically says to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting, and said that the design is a foreign object in this setting. Additionally, she referred to the hillside plan book, she said she could not support the project as it is now. 000064 r • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 14 Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Jackman regarding parts of the house stepping down into the hillside. Chairwoman Bernald noted that when she first saw the plans for the house, she visited the hillside and realized that this was an eclectic neighborhood. She noted that the house is significantly different from the other homes; however, the design mimics the beautiful hillsides in which it would be placed. She stated that she repeatedly got an impression of the gently rolling hillsides that surround the home; strongly feels that the house fits into the setting; and is probably better designed to fit its location than any of the surrounding homes. By placing the home as a two-story structure, it provides more open space to the surrounding area. She said she understood the neighbors' concerns regarding their vieti~; however, the homes were purchased with the idea that cluster homes would be built. The fact that the property has a landslide is of no fault to the owner and what the owner is proposing to repair would also benefit his neighbors. She said this is an exciting design well-situated in its location. She expressed concerns with the copper roof and leaching. She would like to have more information and alternate materials, other than asphalt, considered. COMMISSIONER ROUPE/PATP~ICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR-97-061 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COPPER ROOF ISSUE BE DEFERRED TO FURTHER STUDY, BROUGHT BACK FOR STAFF REVIEW AND BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. PASSED 4-3 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, JACKMAN, AND KURASCH OPPOSED). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess at 9:40 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:50 p.m., the same Commissioners and staff were present. 3. DR-99-049 (397-28-047, Lot #5) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14088 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,067 square foot two- story residence with a 792 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 15,200 square foot (net) vacant parcel in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. Director Walgren reported that this is lot #5 of a five-lot subdivision approved last year. He said the design is very compatible with the other homes in the subdivision. He said staff recommends approval with conditions outlined in the resolution. At the request of Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren explained there had been an issue which arose upon review of lots #1 and #2 regarding which zoning ordinances apply to the development of those lots. He said that a vesting tentative map is specifically designed to allow a builder to use the ordinances in effect when the map was approved if they provide certain details to the City. The details can be as minimal as a building ~©~~ss • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • U®066 Attachment ~ RESOLUTION NO. DR-97-061 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Liu: 14805 Masson Court WHEREAS, the CitS~ of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 squaze foot two-story residence on a vacant ~.7~ acre lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full oppommity to be heard and to present e~~idence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, 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 neighborhoods; and (ii) commurity view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with «ews and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements and is located along a similaz topographic line or lower than other residences in the neighborhood. . -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follo~~~ the natural contours of the site and minim;~~g tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimi=ed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped azeas, in that no ordinance protected trees will be removed, the site is virtually void of natural landscape and the amount of grading is limited to the amount necessary to accommodate the structure and landslide repair. -The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, «•ill minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements that m;n;m;7e the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the natural environment. -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 coning 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 solaz energy, in that the height, mass and bulk of the residence is comparable to surrounding residences in the neighborhood -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. ~~~OS`7 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court -The ro osed residence will conform to each of the a li P P pp cable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-4~.05~. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereb~• 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 Liu for Design Re~~iew approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit ' A", incorporated by reference. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to 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 reflecting the Cit}1 Arborist's recommendations, 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. d. The roof material shall be asphalt shingle, shown as an alternative to the copper roof on the color and material board. The applicant may choose another roof material if approved by the Planning Commission. Any alternative material must not cause run-off of minerals, metals or other harmful substances into the storm water, or pose any threat to water quality. 3. No retaining wall shall-have an exposed height that exceeds five feet. In addition, 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. ~. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 6. All requirements of the Ciry Arborist's Report dated December 17,1997, shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to ' issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to ~®~~s8 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court indicate the follov~~in g i. The Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan pave. to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. ii. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shown at as recommended b~• the Arborist with a note 'to remain in place throughout construcaon. iii A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored v~~ithin the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. iv All fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade b}~ hand in any azea within IS feet of the trunk. v. No trenches or excavations even for utilities (gas, cable, phone, etc.) shall be installed within 25 feet of the trunk of the tree. vi. The drainage system for the house shall be directed a minimum of 40 feet from the other trees on this site. vii. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $4,943 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the Ciry Arborist to guazantee the maintenance and presen~ation of trees on the subj ect site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: i. .Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. ii. The Ciry Arborist shall schedule unannounced visits to the property to verify that all }zee mitigation measures are being complied with. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: i. All recommended tree cabling and endweight removal shall be completed by an ISA certified azborist. ii. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released 000069 File IVo. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court ~ Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the 'Planting Under Old Oaks' guidelines prepared b}• the Cit<~ Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching. shall encroach into the driplines of anv existing oak trees unless approved by the Ciry Arborist. " The Project Geotechnical Engineer, with input from the Project Engineering Geologist, shall prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections (1"= 20') to depict the extent of proposed grading, landslide to be removed, subdrains, property lines and proposed improvements. The plan should include repair specifications, notes and details pertaining to earthwork, drainage and geogrid placement. The cross section should depict evstina and proposed surface topography and excavation;depths. One section should extend from the building pad downslope along the axis of the active landslide, including and shoving the lower landslide repair area (per Terratech drawings). A second section should be oriented roughly east-west across the landslide and pomay Masson Court, proposed driveway, active landslide to be removed, and landslide on the adjacent propern• to the east. The mitigation plan should specify the appropriate geogrid slope gradient. T}'picall}•, geogrid should be designed to stand at its angle of installation (i.e.,1.~:1~~), if not ~~'rapped. The landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections shall be submitted to the City to be re~Ze~~ed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit. 9. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall re~~iew and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., landslide mitigation, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultants' recommendations have been properl}' incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider recommending crushed rock, which has more void space than Class. 2 aggregate base, for the capillary break material. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geologic and geotechnical consultants and submitted to the Ciry for review and approval by the Ciry Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspection should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations (including pier holes for structures and sheaz pin wall) and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepaze a geologic map of the landslide excavation and confirm that landslide material has been removed. Information from the excavation and pier holes shall be used to revise and update the engineering geologic map and cross sections. An engineering geologic map and cross sections of final, as-built conditions shall be prepared to depict the depth and extent of grading activities, and ~~~~~0 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court eolo 'c conditions includin removed lan ' g ~ ( g dshde mass). The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters, and as-built geologic map and cross sections, and submitted to the Cin• Engineer for review prior to finalization of the grading permit. . 11. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the Citt• Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 1?. The owner (applicant shall enter into an agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless form any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil of slope instabilin•, slides, slope failure or other soilrelatedand/or erosion related conditions. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance «~ith the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 14. Eazly Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 1~. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the residence and garage. 16. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. 17. 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. 18. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal court, challenging the Cirj~'s action with respect to the applicant's project. 19. 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, 1~quidated 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. ~~®~'7~ File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court ' PASSID -AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of .California, this 8`~ day of December 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Bernald NOES: Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~.~ Chair, P]~nin Commission ATTEST: V v-~.~ ecr tary, P g Commission C U Attachment 9 City Council Minutes January 19, 2000 agreement before the budget amendment is brought back to the Cotmc~l. ~_ STRETTNVALTONSMTTH MOVED TO APPROVE A S150,000 CONTRIBUTION, TO BE APPROPRIATID FROM THE GENERAL FUND, TO SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AQUATIC CENTER AT SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL PENDING DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL. MOTION PASSID 4-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 p.m A. Reconsideration of City Council's dtcision to overturn the Planning Commission approval of applications SD 99-005, UP 99-013, DR 99-037 (12312 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Applicant: Azule Crossing, Inc., considered by City Council on December 15,1999. Reconsideration granted on January 5, 2000. Rernmmrnrintinn• Continue the hearing t0 February 2, 2000 as requested by the applicant. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report. Mayor Bogosian opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Tack Mallnrv 12258 ICirkdale Drive, expressed his concern abort excess housing and two-story setback away from the road, which is uncharacteristic of the City, and expressed support for more space. Walker, 2(1dST SEn,~ ,u wad reiterated that he would Idce to sae the process of having neighborhood involvement in any redesigq consideration of second story, redistn'bution of the retaiUcommercial versus residential for this project continue, and requested the Counal consider returning it back to the Plazuiing Commission for additional study and neighborhood partiapation. Tnan., ('~„~~~ on the tradeoffs of keeping the property wnmurcially zoned and dealing with the inaeaced tratFc that comes with enhanced comrr-erLial dishicts, or allowing higher density or lower cost housing. She ocpressed concern that the Council denied the project without an ahernative proposal that would meet the needs of the entire community. MEHAFFEYNVALTONSMTTH MOVID TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY Z, 2000, AS REQUESTID BY THE APPLICANTS. MOTION PASSED 4-0. B. ppeal of Planning Commission approval of DR 9?-061, a design review to nstruM a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75-acre lot. The property is located within a hillside residential caning district at 14805 Masson Court (Appellant: Kwong, Park and Sze; Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Liu, APN 503-77x014). Rnrnmmenri9tinn• Continue the public hearing to February 2, 2000, 8S requested by the appellants. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report. CoTmalrrternber Streit requested staff to stake out road, lot and set poles in correct locations before the Counal's site visit. Director Walgrea conaured. Mayor Bogosian opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. There were no public testimonies at this time. STRETf/WALTONSMTTH MOVID TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 2, 2000, AS REQUESTID BY THE APPELLANTS. MOTION PASSID 4-0. C. Use of Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS) funding in fiscal year 99-00. Rnrnmmenriafinn• AppfOVe ~ recommended allocation offundS. City Manager Perlin prese~ed the staff report. Pale 3 eta U4C~4'73 City Council Minutes February 2, 2000 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT FINAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW IS LEFT TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF INCLUDING THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF IN$T~LING AN ELEVATOR IN THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING. MOTION PASSED s-o. G B. peal of Planning Commission approval of application DR 97-061 (14085 asson Court, APN 503-72-014, Appellant: Kwong, Park & Sze; Applicant: Liu). Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75-acre lot Approved by Planning Commission on December 8, 1999. (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 19, 2000) Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval ofthe application. Director Walgren presented the staff report and annotmced that Commissioner Page is present this evening for any_questions ofthe Council. In response to Council, Commissioner Page provided background ofthe review ofthe project and some of its key issues including the looping driveway, copper roof, design, privacy and grading specifications. Discussion ensued. Mayor Bogosian announced he visited the site and spoke to the appellants in person and by telephone on this matter. He opened the public hearing at 9:33 p.m. Nonchi Wang, Architect representing the applicant, provided background and illustration ofthe project with architectural renderings and models. Highlights of his presentation included: • Architectural compatibility ' • Complied with the City's Design Guidelines. • Front and side yard definition has been addressed • High quality view ofthe surroundings In response to Mayor Bogosian, Mr. Wang replied that shifting the structure down the hill toward the valley would require cutting the slope drastically; and added that the landslide will be repaired to the fullest extent. Mayor Bogosian invited the appellants to speak. Joseph Pazk, 14800 Masson Court, appellant, commented that the concerns by the appellants included neighborhood compatibility, setback and height standazds, and a gross violation of one's own property rights, pointing out that the latter issue involves his property only. The design as illustrated in the staff report includes a second driveway, which extends 18' beyond their easement into my property. This was verified by the property map dated January 25 obtained through the Planning office. This violation was overlooked in the design review process. Subsequently, it was recognized by the applicants and their architect, who responded that they would make revisions. However, to this date, he has not seen the revisions. Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, appellant, reiterated their concerns about the front and rear setback violations, architectural compatibility and noise, which has aggravated all ofthe other issues. The location of the proposed structure, as illustrated in the photos she submitted, will encroach on the neighbor's property, obstruct their view and invade their privacy. She also commented that consideration should be made to use the landslide area, after it has been repaired, as part of the building pad as it was originally intended. She expressed the desire to work these issues out with the applicant and his architect. John Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, commented regarding the inaccurate information received about the survey mazkers on the property. He reiterated concerns of architectural compatibility, property line encroachment, setbacks and the landslide. There is insufficient, fli i i con ct ng nformation in the files on the setbacks and location ofthe proposed house. There has been no dialogue between the applicants and the neighbors and no attempt to resolve any of the concerns addressed liy the neighbors. He reiterated he does not wish for the applicant's landslide repair to encroach into his property and said that this project does not comply with City code. Prge 7 of 10 ~~~~®~~ Cirv Council Minutes February 2, 2000 He further. demonstratedcome of.his issues~using•the architectural~modbl and maps. Questions and responses were exchanged between the Council and the appellants regazding setbacks and the landslide. Director Walgren referredaoahe geologyntap:attached•in the•packetd'or the several slumps and landslides occurring.to the.nortfiof-this•.property. He eonfirmed•that 2tte landslide repair would cross a small degree onto.Mr: Kwong's.property; however,+suaff'has assured Mr. Kwong that the conditions of the approval.will _state that the applicants cannot repair the landslide beyond their own property without the consent of Mr. Kwong: • Furthetrrtore, he clarified the discrepancies and inaccuracies alluded to by Mr. Kwong about the City files was due to the many revisions made throughout the process.. Architect Wang clarified the discrepancies of.the survey pole and driveway location. ..•~ - , Discussion continued. ~• " In response to Councilmember~ Waltonsmith,'Director• Wa7gren replied that the.landslide can•be repaired without encroaching on.another person's property and can be built to support a house pad. There being no more discussion, Mayor•Bogosian asked the applicant and the appellants for their closing comments. Architect Wang commented that the negative feedback from the neighbors was based on their understanding of how the setbacks were determined. Director Walgren has explained how they were determined when the subdivision was. approved and that's what the applicants work with. He reiterated that the.projeet complies with the Zoning codes. Although he respects the opinions and concems of the neighbors, he feels that a lot of effort was put into the proposed design to address the privacy tissues:. He'also explained the need for the' frost driveway. He expressed • their desire to work•.with the neighbors to resolve their issues. Mr. Kwong commented~he~would:like to•see+a.survey marker placed on the property line to eliminate any confusion when :the landslide is repaired. To summarize, he reiterated the conflicting and ambiguous information available to the neighbors, which has resulted to this hearing. He added•that theiarchitect has been.unwilling to work with the neighbors and asked the ,_, Council~to overturn the Planning Comarission decision to approve this•project. Mayor Bogosian closed the public hearing at 1'0:21 p.m. and asked the pleasure of the Council Councihnember Bakereapressed i:oncern about the•eccurate:location.ofthe proposed house, he supports its design, and recommended continuing the public hearing until its exact location is clear. He also expressed cancem.about building a pool or parking pad in the severely eroded area and felt this should be a concern of both the applicant and the adjacent property owner to find it in their best interest,to .work together to repair.this erosion: Councilmember Streit concurred with Councilmember Baker regarding staking.its exact location and has no problem with the setbacks or the design. He would not support moving the house down in the valley. Councilmember Waltonstnith commented the modem design is good but felt the proposed home could be redesigned to make it more rectangular and could be moved azound to go down into the repaired slide area. She commented about good neighbor practices and the importance of working with neighbors' concerns. She expressed concern about the ambiguity of the location of the poles and is not prepared to accept it as it is cuaently proposed. She recommended the neighbors and applicant work together to resolve the design shape issues, the position on the issues, and the landslide repair issues. Vice Mayor Mehaffey concurred with his colleagues and is disturbed that the poles have not been fixed and should be a cause for continuance or denial. He has no problems with the architecture; the biggest problem is that if the house should face as proposed, consideration should be made to meet the setbacks. He concun ed with Councilmember Waltonstnith to elongate it to bring it Page 8 of 10 V OOO~s Cin- Council Minutes February 2, 2000 further from Mr. Kwong's property. He would like to see some concessions made to the issue that it is fronting on Masson Cotta and backing towazds Mr. Kwong's property. Mayor Bogosian recognized the issues of architecture and style and privacy and views. Contrary to the Planning Commission's concept of what constitutes this neighborhood, he feels that the neighborhood consists of the homes clustered up in that area from the Saratoga Heights Court over to Masson Court. These lots were plotted to preserve an open space easement and a free flow of the hillsides. He concurs with Councilmember Waltonsmith and Vice Mayor Mehaffey to see a redesign of the proposed house to address the setback, encroachment and height issues. He would like to see the neighbors work together to resolve the matter and recommended moving the proposed house to the pool area. He cannot support the project as presented. In response to Mayor Bogosian, Director Walgren replied that the Council could continue the public hearing to allow time for the neighbors to work out their concerns, or act on this application and give the applicants direction as articulated this evening to submit a new application before the Planning Commission. The process would be expedited; it would not have to redo all the investigations. However it may take a few months before the revised plans are submitted. With Council permission, Bill Liu, property owner and applicant, expressed desire to work with the neighbors to resolve the matter. When he talked to Mr. Kwong about repairing the landslide, even beyond his property line, Mr. Kwong refused. He does not understand why and is concerned about the further erosion of the landslide. He also demonstrated the .topographical issues of moving the proposed house as expressed earlier and possibly violating the City's Design Guidelines. He expressed he is willing to change the design and reiterated his desire to repair the landslide before it gets worse. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 15, 2000 TO ALLOW ALL PARTIES CONCERNED TO WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED TONIGHT AND SUBMIT REVISED PLANS AND CORRECT POLES FOR THE NEW DESIGN. MOTION PASSED 5-0. At this time, Mayor Bogosian moved back to item 6A, which was deferred earlier. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Amendment to Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Humane Society to extend Animal Control and Sheltering Services from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment to the Animal Services Agreement between the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley and the Cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, Campbell, Monte Sereno and the Town of Los Gatos. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented the staff report. Discussion ensued. In response to Vice Mayor Mehaffey, City Attorney Taylor replied he will review the plan regarding insurance provisions and report back to him. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY'S HUMANE SOCIETY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. At this time, Mayor Bogosian recognized a request to speak which he received on an item not on the agenda. Chris Hawks, 20390 Bluer Drive, commented regarding continuing concets about the Argonaut Shopping Center including noise (from pressure washer on sidewalks and congregation of young people around the coffee shop), bright lights, regulaz skateboazding on the premises, the landscape hedge and the map illustrating the stores coming into the center and urged Council's assistance in resolving these issues. Page 9 of 10 • • • <Y®UO~v Cin• Council vlinutes '~4arch l~. ?000 Vice Mayor Mehaffey indicated he would like to revisit with in 45 days. 3. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF LIU (APPLICANT) KWONG ~' (APPELLANT) APPEAL HEARING. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council grant continuance to Council Meeting of April 19, 2000, per Council adopted continuation policy. James Walgren, Director of Community Development, presented staff report. The public hearing was declared opened and closed at 8:50 p.m. STREIT moved continuance be granted to the Council meeting of Aril 19, 2000,seconded by BAKER and carried unanimously. Mayor Bogosian declared n 10-minute recess at 8:40 .m. reconvenin at 8:50 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. 4. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR (TFCA) PROGAM MANAGER FUNDS (40%). STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the resolution. Chris Korn, Administrative Analyst, presented the staff report. Appearances: Steve Blaylock, representing ALTRANS, was available for Council questions. Councilmember Wnltonsmith inquired about monies for covered bus stops. Mr. Blaylock indicated it was not currently in the budget, but he could recommend this to the advisory committee. 8 ®0®4'77 City Council Minutes May l7, 2000 3C. CALIFORNIA WINE TRANSPORT, CLAIMANT, CLAIM No. 99-003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council reject claim. STREIT moved reject Claim No. 99-003, seconded by BAKER and carried with BOGOSIAN and WALTONSMITH absent. RESOLUTION TO UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A 2-STORY, 6500 Sq. Ft. RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 14805 MASSON COURT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION 00-029: RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; APPLICANT-LIU/APPELLANTS-KWONG, PARK, SZE; 14605 MASSON COURT; DR-8-061 STREIT moved adoption of Resolution 00-029, seconded by BAKER and carried with BOGOSIAN and WALTONSMITH absent. 3E. RESOLVIOTN TO UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO. APPROVE A 2- STORY, 4258 Sq. Ft. RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 20550 LOMITA AVENUE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution: TITLE OF RESOLUTION 00-030: .RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: APPLICANT-SAVNDERS/APPELLANT- PURVIS; 20550 LOMITA AVENUE; DR-00-064 • 3 ®~~~~~ Attachment 10 • RESOLUTION NO. 00-029 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; APPLICANT-LIU/APPELLANTS-KWONG, PARK, SZE; 14805 MASSON COURT; DR-97-061 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 6,500 square foot, two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1999 and December 8, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga held duly noticed public hearings on said application at which all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission voted to grant Design Review approval subject to various conditions; and WHEREAS, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council of the City of Saratoga by Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Park, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Sze, and Mr. & Mrs. Jon Kwong; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2000 the City Council conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing on the appeal (which hearing was continued to April 19, 2000) at which time any person interested in the matter was given the full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to the application, and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, as follows: A. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the appeal from the Planning Commission is denied and the action of the Planning Commission is affirmed as set forth below, based on the following findings: 1. 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 Resolution 00-029 • Page 1 of 7 adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the proposed residence meets minimum setback requirements and is located along a similar topographic line or lower than other residences in the neighborhood. 2. 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, in that no ordinance protected trees will be removed and grading will be limited to the amount necessary to accommodate the structure and landslide repair. 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 incorporate elements which articulate the elevations to minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. 4. The proposed residence will be compatible in teens 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 solaz energy, in that the height, mass, and bulk of the residence are comparable to surrounding residences in the neighborhood. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates cun:ent grading and erosion control standards used 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. B. The Decision of the Planning Commission is modified and Design Review approval is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: - a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution Page 2 of 7 Resolution 00- n~g r~ • • ®®~®g~ • as a sepazate plan page. b. Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans reflecting the City Arborist's recommendations, 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. 3. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds five feet. >n addition, 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. 5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 6. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated December 17, 1997 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: • a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $4,943 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. In addition, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: The Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shown at as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." 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. Resolution 00-fig Page 3 of 7 ®~~~8~ All fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade by hand in any area within 15 feet of the trunk. No trenches or excavations even for utilities (gas, cable, phone, etc.) shall be installed within 25 feet of the trunk of the tree. The drainage system for the house shall be directed a minimum of 40 feet from the other trees on this site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. The City Arborist shall schedule unannounced visits to the property to verify that all tree mitigation measures are being complied with. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: All recommended tree cabling and endweight removal shall be completed by an ISA certified arborist. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. 7. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the "Planting Under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. 8. The. Proj ect Geotechnical Engineer, with input from the Project Engineering Geologist, shall prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections (1 "= 20') to depict the extent of proposed grading, landslide to be removed, subdrains, property lines and proposed improvements. a: The plan should include repair specifications, notes and details pertaining to earthwork, drainage and geogrid placement. The cross section should depict existing and proposed surface topography and excavation depths. One section should extend from the building pad downslope along the axis of the active landslide, including and showing Resolution 00- 029 Page 4 of 7 nm,n~nR~, the lower landslide repair area (per Terratech drawings). A second section should be oriented roughly east-west across the landslide and portray Masson Court, proposed driveway, active landslide to be removed, and landslide on the adjacent property to the east. b. The mitigation plan should specify the appropriate geogrid slope gradient. Typically, geogrid should be designed to stand at its angle of installation (i.e., 1.5:1V), if not wrapped. The landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections shall be submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit. 9. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., landslide mitigation, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultants' recommendations have been properly incorporated. a. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider recommending crushed rock, which has more void space than Class 2 aggregate base, for the capillary break material. b. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geologic and geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. a. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations (including pier holes for structures and shear pin wall) and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare a geologic map of the landslide excavation and confine that landslide material has been removed. Information from the excavation and pier holes shall be used to revise and update the engineering geologic map and cross sections. An engineering geologic map and cross sections of final, as- built conditions shall be prepared to depict the depth and extent of grading activities, and geologic conditions (including removed landslide mass). Resolution OO~g_ Page 5 of 7 ~,~~~~~ b. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters, and as-built geologic map and cross sections, and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to finalization of the grading permit. 11. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 12. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless form any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil of slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 15. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the residence and garage. 16. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. 17. 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. 18. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City 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. 19. 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 $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 20. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire: 21. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Resolution 00-029 Page 6 of 7 000084 • *** • The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of May, 2000. AYES: Evan Baker, Nick Streit, John ~~lehhafey NOES: done ABSENT: Ann Wal tonsmi th , Stan Bogos i an ABSTAII~T: (lone TTEST: i Clerk MaY Prv Tew~ Page 7 of 7 Resolution 00- 029 ~~0~$S • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000086 Attachment 11 • T0: City Council City of Saratoga December 15, 1999 FROM: Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Park 14800 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Robert Sze 14780 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Jon Kwong 14581 Saratoga Heights Court We are appealing the Planning Commission's decision on December 8, 1999, Re. item 2, DR-97-061 (503-72-014) 14805 Masson Court, on the following ground. • 1) The first issue is one of neighborhood compatibility. Not just one neighbor, but the entire adjacent neighborhood finds that the proposed structure on 14805 Masson Court (referred to as proposed structure in the following) is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of its architecture, site setback, its bulkiness, and its departure from the policies given in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. Each one of these incompatibility and departure will be detailed in the following. These issues were raised both in letters delivered to City's office prior to the hearing, and raised during the hearing. Departures from the policies in the Residential Design Handbook were cited during the hearing. There are also issues regarding landslide problems and property boundary lines which must be satisfactorily addressed before design approval can be granted. In past practice, the Planning Commission has paid attention to the inputs of the neighbors and adhered to the policies and techniques detailed in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. The December 8th Planning decision represents a significant departure from this past practice. 2) Site Set Back. In the City's Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements, for the HR zone, front set back is specified to be 30 ft. minimum, and rear set back is specified to be 60 ft. minimum (for a two story). The front yard is defined to be that closest to the curb on a public/private right of way. The rear yard is that opposite to the front yard. The front and rear yards are not defined by the orientation of the house. In fact, the orientation of the house is not defined or mentioned in the Setback Requirements. A builder cannot circumvent the Setback Requirements by simply calling the front yard its side yard; or. by calling the rear yard its side yard. The proposed structure has a 20 ft. front setback and a 20 ft. rear setback, which do not meet the 30 ft./60 ft. requirements. 000087 This violation of the setback requirements aggravates the other issues of incompatible architecture, bulkiness, and intrusion on privacy. All the houses in the neighborhood other than the proposed structure diligently complies with the City's setback requirements. We the neighbors do not want a violation to ruin the neighborhood we have worked so hard to preserve. 3) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #2:Follow hillside contours; to avoid large, single form solutions, and to avoid tall support poles for overhanging areas. Proposed structure is mostly a large, single form solution, with tall crooked support poles for overhangs. 4) The proposed structure does not follow Residential Design Handbook -- Policy 1, Technique #4:Minimize building height; to minimize areas of maximum height. vary height of roof elements and to set back higher portions of structure. Masson Court is a narrow private road. All existing houses on Masson Court are either single story or two story with the second story setback, some at the request of the Planning Commission. Proposed structure's lack of second story setback, lack of minimizing areas of maximum height, lack of varying height of roof elements, all at reduced setback less than required, aggravates its problem of bulkiness. 5) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #S:Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood; to be compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and height, to have architectural style that is compatible, and to avoid overwhelming existing residences. The neighboring houses to the proposed structure are similar in terms of proportion, size, mass and height. They are either single story or two story with second story setback, 30 to 45 ft. setback from the curb to the house, and -100 ft. setback from the curb to the garage. Both 14800 and 14780 Masson Court are smaller in size than the proposed structure. The square footage of 14800 is approximately 50% of that of the proposed structure. Proposed structure with its reduced setback of 20 ft. (front and back) which is less than the required 30/60 ft., is larger than 14800 and 14780 Masson in size and proportion. Proposed structure is incompatible with 14800 and 14780 in terms of proportion, size, mass, and height, and at close proximity resulted from its reduced setback, it overwhelms existing residences on 14800 and 14780 Masson Court. 6) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #6:Use architectural features to break up massing to avoid vertical features that add to the perception of height. The proposed structure's excessive use of two-story high windows and tall, crooked poles drastically increase the perception of height to an already tall and massive structure. ~~~~~8 7) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 2, Technique #2:Integrate with environmental texture and forms; to avoid ]arse geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting. The clustering of hillside houses as mandated by the HR zoning heightens the importance of each new structure to blend in with existing structures and not to be out of place. Proposed structure with its abruptly cutoff roof and flare out overhangs appears as a foreign object from outer space. 8) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 3, Technique #1:Control view to adjacent properties. to avoid window and balcony locations that impact privacy, to avoid reducing required setback distances. Proposed structure has a long balcony facing 14780 and 14800 Masson Court. At a reduced setback distances less than required, this balcony poses a major impact on the privacy of both ] 4780 and l 4800 Masson Court. A small balcony on the opposite side also at reduced setback less than required poses a similar impact on the privacy of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. 9) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 3, Technique #2:Locate buildings to minimize privacy impact; to avoid siting structures in direct line-of--sight to neighboring residences. Proposed structure has a long balcony in direct line-of--sight to 14780 Masson Court. At reduced front setback less than the minimum required, proposed structure maximizes privacy impact on 14780. A small balcony on the opposite side at reduced setback of 20 ft., less than the minimum required of 60 ft., poses similar privacy impact on 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. l0) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 4, Technique #1:Locate structure to minimize view blockage; to not block view with structures, and to avoid using site plans that will create view problems. Proposed structure with its height and bulk at reduced setback less than required maximizes view blockage for 14800 and 14780 Masson Court, and creates major view problems for both 14800 and 14780 and 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. Proposed structure is located on a parcel of 2.75 acres. Yet the design calls for essentially vertical construction on a small foot print located directly in the line-of--sight of 14800 and 14780. At a reduced setback of 20/20 ft. instead of the minimum required of 30/60 ft., the proposed structure maximizes view blockage and creates view problems for all its adjacent neighbors. 1 I) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 4, Technique #3:Locate structure to reduce height impact; to not block view by excessively high and bulky strictures, and to avoid roof forms and ridge lines that impact view. Proposed structure is designed to maximize square footage on a small foot print. To achieve this design goal, setback requirements are violated, and the proposed structure is located and vertically constructed to maximize height impact, and block view by excessively high and bulky structures. 000089 12) A number of major landslides exist on the site of the proposed structure. In a letter dated Sept. 2, 1999, from the City geologist to the City, it was stated "second landslide (on 14805 Masson Court) extends ofI'site to the east, where it has impacted the residential development at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court." it was also stated "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant portion of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." The property owner of Saratoga Heights Court was never notified of this concern. Mr. Kwong of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court raised his concerns regarding the landslide problem and the lack of resolution, both in a letter and also at the December 8 public hearing. On the day of the December 8 hearing where the Planning Commission approval was given, no document in the City file on DR-97-061 adequately addresses the resolution of the landslide problem. During the December 8 hearing, a geological drawing was distributed to the Commissioners which purportedly addresses the resolution to the landslide problem. The Commissioners did not have a chance to study the drawing. Mr. Kwong was given a copy of the drawing and told to review it before returning to the lectern. This drawing was un-signed, un-dated, ambiguous as to the extent of the repair (e.g. how much cut and fill ), and it shows structures (buttress) that extends from the applicant's property 14805 Masson Court into Mr. Kwong's property 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. Down slope landslide was not addressed in this drawing. As noted in the City's geologist's letter, "owner (applicant) should be aware that there is a potential for further landsliding downslope from the proposed repair area", and "future landslide may require ... supplemental mitigation measures by the property owner." A few minutes later, Mr. Kwong was called back to the lectern. When Mr. Kwong raised the questions regarding this drawing he was told that was not the place to ask questions regarding the drawing. How can the City Planning Commission approve the plans for an applicant's structure that extends into neighboring property without the neighbor's approval ? 13) On December 7, the day before the approval Planning hearing, height poles were put up on applicant 14805 Masson Court. Unsured of where the property line lies, the height pole workers repeatedly placed stakes inside Mr. Park's 14800 Masson Court property, contrary to the markers placed by surveyor previously hired by Mr. Park. The same workers also placed stakes inside Mr. Kwong's 14581 Saratoga Heights Court property. Due to the property line marker (between 14800 Masson and 14805 applicant) being at the center of the applicant's proposed driveway, the applicant's driveway would have to partially pave over property, however small it is, of Mr. Park's 14800 Masson Court. The approval for the applicant to do so must come from Mr. Park and no one else. The drawings available in the applicant's file show conflicting locations. One drawing shows swimming pool located at rear boundary with no setback. Another drawing shows house located at rear boundary with no setback. The inconsistency among the drawings and height poles creates a confusion as to what is the site location and setback that is being considered for design approval. 000090 14) The following are points of fact. Some neighbors did not receive notices to the initial public hearing. The proposed structure's site plan drawings on file at the City office were either out of date or contain conflicting information regarding structure location and setbacks, obscuring exactly what is being considered for approval. New drawings were distributed durine the approval hearing, allowing no time for review. Height poles were put up in the late afternoon after the Commissioners' scheduled- site tour, and on the day before the approval public hearing. Some Commissioners, in fact, may not have seen the height'poles. The sum total impact of the above is critical facts and information were not made available for consideration prior to the hearing. Timely and accurate facts and information to the Commission and the public are necessary for a fair and impartial public hearing. 15) The applicant proposed to cover the structure with a copper roof. The neighbors and several Commissioners have voiced their concerns regarding the copper runoff into the ground and into the bay. In the December 8 hearing, a report from the copper institute supplied b_y the applicant was presented, which maintains that copper runoff is not harmful to the environment. An opposing view may be found in a San Jose Mercury News article, dated December 10, 1999, where the environmental group San Francisco Baykeeper maintains that copper runoff is harmful to fish, plants, and other animals (copy attached). For protection of the neighbors, the environment, and the public at large, we, the neighbors and the public at large rely on the Planning Commission to make decisions based on findings and a body of unbiased facts. To this end, we are appealing to the City Council, seeking the same protection for the neighborhood, the environment, and ultimately the public at large. We would like to work with the applicant, including study sessions, to resolve all issues to our mutual benefit. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 000091 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • (~®092 iloai {l l1'-)1 fl~~j'J Iii G LIU RESIDENCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 503-72-014 ADDRESS OF PROJECT: 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA, CA OWNER'S NAME: BILL UU EXISTING USE: VACANT LOT ZONE DISTRICT: HR CROSS AREA OF LOT SEE AND PSE PRIVATE ROAD, PSE AND SSE NET AREA: ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: SIZE OF STRUCNRE: 119,744 SQUARE FEET (2.75 ACRES) 10,37) SQUARE FEET (0.24 ACRE) 21,659 SQUARE FEET (0.50 ACRE) 67,712 SQUARE FEET (2.25 ACRES) 6620 SOFT. 6616.93 SO.FT.< 6620 SOFT. O.K. FIRST FLOOR: 4480.82 SOFT. SECOND FLOOR: 2138.11 SOFT. TOTAL AREA: 6618.93 SQ.FT. ALLOWABLE SITE COVERAGE: 15,000 SOFT. PROPOSED HOUSE 4,805.24 SQ.FT, SITE COVERAGE: DRIVEWAY 5,455.67 SOFT. POOL 1,040.17 SOFT. PATIO 2255.93 SOFT. TOTAL AREA: iN SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: D.DD22s (q (L) _ 19 z B = A WHERE: I = 2 FT. A = 2.75 ACRES 13,5570.01 SOFT < 15,000 SOFT. O.N. OR 19 X L = 11430 FT. 14805 MASSON COURT, SARATOGA, CA 1 VICINITY MAP ear re sr~ce ~ r.Fti~pni iniFnpMn-rinni D OWNERl APPLICANT SI AOH PROIECFADDRE33: 2173 STRATFOM CO2CL8, Bd Art LBGALD8SCR8'iTON: LOT9 BLOCK NIA TRACI43918 ARCHITECT. Nm~i Wmx PHONE: 323f )2213857 CODE: 1997 UBC & LABC 1999 OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3 / U1 I CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-N W/ AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM THROUGHOUT SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR: ~_ 1, AUTOMATIC FlRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM 2. CURB BREAKS AND/ OR ANY 3. PROJECTIONS OVER PUBUC PROPERTY (ENCROACHMENT PERMITS) i 4. GRADING 5. RETAINING WALLS 6. OUIDOOR SNIMMIMG POOL CONSULTANTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS MICHAEL NI & ASSOCIATES, INC 1111 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 202 MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 (323) 266-0809 FA%: (323) 266-8911 MECHANICAL ANO ELECTRICAL HYC CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. HANK Y. CHANC, P.E. 8450 GARVEY AYE., SUITE 230 ROSEMEAO, CA 91770 TEL: (626) 571-6577 FA%: (626) 571-6591 CIVIL ENGINEER BERRY MILSTONE, ENGINEERING , 650 EAST BONITA AVENUE N0.1505 SAN OIMAS, CA 91773 TEL; (909) 599-3253 FA%; (909) 599-2572 SOIL ENGINEER TIN ENGINEERING COMPANY 17834 BAILEY DANE TORRANCE, CA 90504 TEL: (310) 371-7045 FAX: (J10) 371-5856 SHEET INDEX -1 PROECT nTH INfgdAnq! I 1 GRApNC PUN .a S 1 tli,1gNC PLAN 0 3 CgADINC PUN i zh PLAN 2 MST BOOR PLAN -3 GNO iLOIXi PUN -A Roa vuN -s RERECho cOUNC W E1EiRICAL Puxs -6 NCRIN k SWnI EIEVAMINS -1 EAST h NEST ELEVAnONS A-8 A-A, B-E, C-C SECnONS A-9 D-D, E-E, E-P secnoxs A-10 C-G, H-H SECnONS A-il DCORS, xNDOws nxlsH scHEDULE A-1G sELn011 OETNL -w secnax oEwL _iN vux DETAL _IS IN1FRIg2 ELEVAnON _18 INRRIGR EIEVAnoN `IT INTERIOR DETAIL k-119 INTERIOR DETAR A'~9 NRNINRE DETAIL A liD A-11 A-1Z A-23 A-Z4 A 25 A-L6 A-]] a-ie A-29 A-70 A-31 -I GENERAL NOh _z TmICAL DETAa Pux PuN _s PuN -6 PUN rwmu oETUL -e Tmlcu DETAIL - rnlcu oEUIL ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 D7 N ~ N N I ~~ N ~ ~ x) Y '~ 0 V N~~ L Or Q ~°im Q~ c~'~I v=-N o"yN d ~ v l rn~ aZQ 1 N " 0 mJF ON I~ N ~ r (0 IF NQ O Z .~ Z~ QO W U~ Z ~ ~J.~ p Q U z II)oU W~< ~~O N H. ~~K J " v~1 0 LL Z U W BeEe 1o-JI-m tatle AS NDTFD JI-I • u OJ R°~°I~° i PR ECT DESCRIPTION I 1 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 503-72-014 A ~ ADDRESS OF PROJECT: 146D5 MASSON COURT PROPERTY LINE 0"' ~ SARATOGA CA SE7 qCK , {. ti i 81LL UU ' _ - ~ OWNER S NAME: - ~4 9 EXISTING USE: 4 VAGANT LDT E98'-N• SEt 9ACI( 25% Of" 833'- D' -- ~ •6 ~SfyY. J ZONE DISTRICT: 1, HR _ _ ~ Nr , t ~ ~ CROSS AREA OF LOT 119,744 SDUARE FEET (2.75 ACRES) ' ~~"sEiBAIX SEE AND PSE I 10,373 SQUARE FEET (0.24 ACRE) PRIVATE ROAD, PSE AND SSE: 21,659 SQUARE FEET (0.50 ACRE) PRDPERTV uNe NET AREA: 87,712 SQUARE FEET (2.25 ACRES) 0 ,~ 1 SETBACK DIAGRAM I ALLOwneLE FLaDR; AREA: ss2a sa,FT. ~ ~ - 1 SCALE: 1"=40'-D" PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: 6618.93 SO.FT.< 6620 SOFT. O.K. ~ ~ +' ~ ~ N N SIZE OF STRUCTURE: ~ 1 ~ ~ N mxc rwa z. cur FIRST FLOOR: ~ 4460.82 SOFT. _ U) ~ ~ ° nA,z 31 °Yf • °w«s °. s rASC°ws u roof . ~ , SECOND FLOOR: 2138 .11 SOFT. N m -O ~ o x Is cur r+x:.:,:., ....' , . , 4,:: zusnxc mux, ~ " nr tL N M s• m¢ A w° 4. I[rmx[x[ a ~ zm~ow mAxvow° wu [u ~ m v . ia°.a rrxwe mr TOTAL AREA: fi618 .93 SOFT. U ~ ~ p ~ m N ' , I N ~Q~ 08 17'I' 7 fi. a W'' ~ ALLOWABLE SITE C1~VERAGE: 15,000 SOFT. C NUM r0j0 ..,` ~ P PROPOSED HOUSE SITE COVERAGE 4,805.24 SOFT. - 0 vN 4 ~ - rnM '°'o r0j0 f'% ~ I, . ~ V ~ ~ ~ 5 ]an'v' E ~ ~- sz2D' IDr2 PO n : DRIVEWAY POOL i PATIO 5,455.67 SOFT. 1,040.17 SOFT. 2255.93 SOFT. S Q ~ Q ~ ~ m m .. ' \ ~° ' v8 $ , ~ ~ . ; IDrD TOTAL AREA: 13,5570.01 SOFT. < 15,000 SOFT. O.K. ~ ~ k ~ ° f r . \ s ~ ~ \ ~Q n SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 0 9. r ~ 1 ~~ 'a ~ ~ e 7o'J6'oJ' rv R - 6579' AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 19 3 q° ~~ r°>Q t = 81.07' N I]'39~72' W 790.fi1' $ - DDD229 (I) (L) = 19 R vxowm 9Jlnlxc Iouna 7zp.,~ , ADD A ,. ~ msnxc of WIiERE: p N p SITE PLAN I I = 2 Fi. AI= 2.75 ACRES L = 11430 FT. N ~ n~ - ( SCALE: 1"=40'-0" ~°° ~ L~ 1 o ~ ~Q ' O~ VICINITY MAP NDT To SALE z~ I a o s~ I Q PREVIOUSLY PROPOS ED DRIVEWAY INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT LLJ 22' WIDE 25' WIDE U 1' ~ Z~ NEW DRIVEWAY W o n+o Iz' OAKS 22' WIDE ~ 0 v Pllp:,¢ ,a~t4.E m;D -.--~ " ~' " RELOCATE PHONE UTILITY (n O o ^-,~a„„, i CA.tii:.eR" f. r;.l; Z4' OAK ^j; +.I°:: ~ ; H i N ~ •, : " . ,:..:7:: EOU9,R4 '"~^. 6T :, ~ ~ PSOJECT LOCATION ~ Q ; ; , ,u6]s1 "~ ~ 1 w ~ ~ Q , ~ 7 ~ ~ ' ~ S ~ ~-~7 J N , ~ ; toe i ~ ,c % - i -~ 16)41 P T1 le~ ~- -l;, F " - : -~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ,- " ; ~ '~ 1 uoueT mex RD 0 U "t0]8 ~ ~ ~,r ~ ~ ~~~ ~ I ~ oo,P ~ " E-' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' I ' ~ ~ i - ~ NDe R a~ , ~ ~ek. ~ -9\ I i ' ° °.'s' ~ E IF Fpppp~n~'uu+N PI ° ~ 1 \ I }} ~ t ~ \ 2 z \ oi m I ~ ~ I 9 Q \ QI z~ on. l 7S °''-.~ ... ~ ~!, rv \' ~ a VINTAGE LN r~ 0~]F RO ~ J \ c ' ~_ , ~ 9 - p "~~ e y Jf 11 ( ~ CONGRESS NALL CT , P~, I I ~ ~ . tU`1.a' ~ .~ ~ ~ m ~ j (f) 74 f ~ L NGRE69 9 ~ <~ ~ 1 ~o~" v p JJ ~ 1 j ~ sPRixcs s r~ RD 9l 9 Dsq 0 ~ tot ~ 1 {J ~ Date: 10-31-00 I r 1976 ' T ~ - - ..-^- ~ Scalc AS NOlEO TOP OF RETAINING, ELEVAiION 10]65 WALL FENCE ENCLOSING 2 i0P OF FENCE EL. 60e SF 1092' Drom. Job: 3 SITE PLAN 9h°el - ~ SCALE: 1"=20'-0" A-1 °6 ~°°I, • • • I I rA rB 0 ~ rC u'-~ I I m'-r I I I 'i I I I I ~._}. x,_10. g•_6. i. 6 -14 I'-d~' i'- ' I'-2}' e'-s' 1e'-e}' --- - - ~ - ~ ~ ~--- ~ ~ ~~ _, p 110 110 N. ~. 112 a I, ~, ~ 5 4 1. i o o 51 ~ ~ ~ ~ -14 -14 14 ~ ~ % ' ~ 1 -la ~ 122 ~ ~ ~ ~~; ~ '~, ( D 109 B I 9' Ceilin§ HT. ~ i .~ .............. p .......... .. p _ .. _m___ m.. ~.F. 1077. ~. ~ 9' Ceiling H m 1 11 109 19' c ...... , „_.,. 110 I rv L` _ ~ _. _ ~ r ~F~F. 1 s.ao ~~ ..._. _..... '. I ~, I ~FFy 1076616. ~ ~ f 115 ~ I ------- 0 ~f~F. ID)].W ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ m I ~ 11 110 ° 0 1 0 r i~ _ _~ _ _ _ __ ___' ... _ i'' ____ ____~_ _ .................. - A ~ A 115 108 ~ B' ~B 108 p~g u' ' N '~ 0 0 O 0 0 O ~ ~ ~ 7 '~F.P. 1074.66 ~ ~ 9~ Ceilin HT. ~ Q 14 m ~ 9 F.F. 1075.00 ~'' n p m ` I I° I ~ I I 1 F S 101 ~ F ~ A „ ~ n D B ~ ~ ~- a 20 Cdlmg. HT. (BOOR AREA COUNTED TWCFa- o - 15 CeillOg HT. _.... 121 ~ F.F. 107E 0° i~\ D Pi ~ ~ I ~ ~ -... "- y _ FF 1075.00 - II _. ___ '4' POOL 1 0 3~ , ~ ~... a C - _.. _ - J „_u 4 ~ n-ia ' A 1A Y E 9 STAIR ~FF. 1077.00 I6 I 14 E _ 116 W-161, I B 0 I D 12 B ---- II i ice' ~ i - ~ ~~ - IA - 4 .F. 1875.80 i _,4 ~ ® ° ' - -14 20 0 B -14 11 -I lzo I r 0 118 ^ 1 ' "-,. " D A A D o 1 ~ 107 o O6 ~'F.F. 1075 0 ~ _ _ _ I7 B IB ~ I ~ -I D~B ~ -I 104 _ ~ 0 C ~ ~ A _ ~F,F, 1077.00 '~F~F. 107700 I04 Q D~B 104 10 ~~ _.. _........... _.. C i i 5 0 I I ROOM NUMBER ANO NAME zo' 1s' xr-io' e'-li• 1e'-x' RM 101 -FOYER RM 111 -LAUNDRY RM 102 -LMNG ROOM RM 112 -UTILItt RM 103 -BATHROOM RM 113 -WOK KITCHEN I }~ I ~ RM 104 -BEDROOM RM 114 -WALK-IN CLOSET RM 105 -BATHROOM RM 115 -KITCHEN RM 106 -WALK-IN CLOSET RM 117 -FAMILY ROOM p RM 107 -WALK-IN CLOSET RM 118 -BEDROOM H G F E D B A RM 108 -DINING ROOM RM 119 -WALK-IN CLOSET RM 109 -MEDIA ROOM RM 120 -BATHROOM RM 710 -GARAGE 1ST FLR PLAN A-2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" • 1a'-„' VI F L---1 E --- ---~ A 14 ~ , ~ J 206 m ROOM NUMBER AND NAME RM 201 -BEDROOM RM 202 -BATHROOM RM 203 -WALK-IN CLOSET RM 204 -BATHROOM RM 2D5 -WALH-IN CLOSET RM 206 -BEDROOM RM 207 -FOYER RM 208 -SNOY ROOM RM 209 -MASTER BEDROOM RM 210 -MASTER BATHROOM RM 211 -WALK-IN CLOSET RM 212 -WALK-IN CLOSET Q i -ia 1. Jll J ~po C 209 I rA I 40'-6'• ~ rB G~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I f 204 , O 205 ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ 1 I ~ i ~ ~ I 201 ~ ~ i p A __. 0 121 207 _ __ - I i i i 9' CEILING HT. ~ ~~l g G ~ 208 _ - -14 t o - 211 210 O II 211 A 0 210 9 I O ~ 21 21 a I 00 ~'i :; ,', I - - ~ - - - - - i 27•_6• 5'-2" 6'-2" ~ A F E D r~ 1 2ND FLOOR PLAN A-3 SCALE: i/4" = 1'-0" NMekna oM ~~ ~~ ++ I N N N C ~ I ~p M N 'N a n U1 v "0 ~ o U NMt` L ~Or Q Lmw [ NU~ ~ -N 0~N E y I rnM aza`n N " Q ~JF a o ,~ I~ N fp n~ IF OU ~a o~ z~ zF a a° W Z~ Wp Q U Z (n o v WNd ~~o N~ ~D' J ~ v¢i Z Q J W 0 Q J W D Z N D~ ~-,~~ Salt K NOIEp Gram: Job: 9~M A-3 aJ ~~ ~i • • ~ ROOF PLAN A-q SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" i 1~ , \~ NORTH ELEVATION ~ NORTH ELEVATION ' A-6 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SOUTH ELEVATION A-6 SCALE: 1/4" _ ~'-0" t RMebm oM ~~ ~~ ~~ N N N C ~ ~ ~p M - N N ~N ~ M '] 0 V MME ~O Q NOpiW W ~ ~ C~O~ O ~ -N o~N ~~-y ~M Q ZQM m N " rnJH Y O I~ N r~ ~~ 00 NQ K O~ Z _• ZF a Qo W U Z~ Wo Q U II) O v WuQ ~~O N~ _~~~ J~~ Z O Q w J W oatx io-3i-oo xa~ u xoim ~: m. ~~ A-6 a~ ~~ r,; r~ RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 2 WEST ELEVATION A-~ SCALE: 1 /4" = 1'-0" ~~ ~~ GENERAL NOTES: • 1. BrItlR9oweis not responsible Idr the design, ooordinetbn, ar implementatbn at any work pertormed by consultams, indudirg but not limited to, stmdwal engineedng, soli engineering, civil engineering, landscape archnectura andlor Title 24 energy compliance. 2. All work done pursuant to these drawings and specifaatlons shall comply wiM all ordinances and regulations which apply b the work end shop In any case conform ro the Latest edition o1 the'Unilorm Building Cotle' IU BC) currently emorced end all current city, county, and slate codes as applicable. 3. Wyom for new work Is largely Dosed upon rwatbnshlps to exlminp conditions. Any questions regarding the intent related to the layout of the new work shell be brought to the attention of BdtUROwe prior to the wmmencement al any work. The conlraMOr shall immediately rrottty BrinlROwe o1 all discrepancies prior tc the commencement of any work. 4. The contractor andlor subcontractors are to verity ALL existin cenditions - g belore commexing with work in order to ensure conformance with the construction documents All requests for change ohers shall be submitted in writirrg to BritURowe for approval. - 5. Preference shall be given to liguredlwritten dimensions on the drawings over scaled measurements. The "PIanS','General Notes .and "Specificenons" are intended to agree and supplement one another Anything indicated Inlon one and not in the others, shall be executed as if in all. Incases of direct conllicl the moss rebtddlve Shell govern. ' 6. Regardless of dimensions shown, ell new work shall align exactly with existing work with respect to Iloor elevations, column centerlines, well laces, etc.. (UNO) 7. The inlentot the"Constructbn Documents"is to indude all labor, materials, equipment, and Iranspodalion necessary for the complete and proper executbn ( 01 The work. 8. All work shall be plumb, square, and true and shall be of good workman-like quality as acceptable to the appropriate trade's standaro practices and (hose of the trade's council's andPor organizations 9. Any work andlor item not specifically celled for in the drawirgs, but required for a complete and fully functioning installation censistem with the intent of the "Construction Documents shall be supplied by the contractor andfor sub confradors as required. 10. BrittrROwe is not responsible for the erection, fabrication, antlbr relative ~oV solely The conhador shall comply with ell required selety orders per CAL-C6HA requirements and regulelions. • 11. The projed'Speciflcetion Book' shall lake precedence over noted 5pecilications when applicable. 12. BrinlRawe is not responsible for the desgn, coordination, m impementatlon of ' any and ell dedgn-build work ixluding, but rat limited to, the following (UNO): ' a) EleclricaC per NEC. INetional Eleddc Code).. current edition. ~' b) Mechanical: per UMC. (Unilorm Mechanical Code)..,currem edition. c) Plumbing: par UPC. (Unilorm Plumbing Code)..,current editbn. , d) Fire Spdnklers: per UFO (Unilorm Fire Cotle).,. 8 NFPA slandaMs. Verily end address addnionei local ordinances and codes which may apply to Iha specific design-build application as required. 13. For specnic, detailed canslrudlon procedures, requirements and materials, see , shcets SP•18 SP•2 (Specilicalions). 14. Civil, Soil, and Structural Engineer's specifications shall take precedence i over the following architectural specifications. 15. BrIttR9owe retains all rights and ownersMp of the "Constructbn Documents' and'Specilications". These documents may not be used in whole or in pad on any other project without expressed written cenbenl from BritVROwe. 18. Governing Code (s)'. All work shall conform to the 1994 Unilorm Building Code (UBC), 1994 Unilorm Mechanical Code (UMCI. 1994 Unnorm Plumbing Cade (UPC), editions as applicable The National Electric Code (NEC) 1993 edition 8 ail local ordinanceslcodes asapplicable- 17. In addition to inspections as required by UBC Section 1 O8, Iha owner, contractor andlor structural engineer of record, acing as the owner s agent, shall empty one or more spedal inspectors who shell provide inspections during construd'an on the following types of work par UBC section 17D1.5 including, ' but not limned to: , e) Concrete: Where the structural design exceeds a (F'c) 012500 PSI. b) All on site structural welding, including welding o1 reinforcing steel. c) Grilled piers, caissons and structural masonry. , 18. The ownerldeveloperPolient reserves the rght to make eherations to the design(s) dudng the course of construction as applicebe. All changes shall be approved by the local building oltidal as applicable. In any case, all changes shall conform to the UBC. UPC, UMC. NEC 8 UFC es required. All changes shall be documented by a wrilten'Change Order and shall be approved by the I ownerldevebperldient 8 contractor(s). i 13 800 PIERCE RO~uD SARATOGA, CA 95()70 III li G ~I I 1 SHEET INDEX: GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION: _ AF.CHITECTURAL DRAWING SYMBOLS: PROJECT CONi ULTANTS: SHEE T INDEX: AO TITLE SHEET-GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Al SITE PLAN A2 GARAGE LEVELFLOOA PLAN A3 MAIN LEVEL FLOOA PLAN ` ' A9 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONISECTION Afi ~ FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS WE1, GRADINGSORAINAGE PLAN Lt CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN OWNER PROJECT SRE APN TRACT 20NING lANO USE LorslzE LOT SLOPE CONSTRUCTION TYPE UBC OCCUPANCY GROUP SETBACKS Front Rear Right Side Len side BUILDING SF BUILDING HEIGHT SCOPE OF WORK • FaR cALCs Mr. Tern Walker 1134 Linleoak Cimle San Jose, CA 95129 406.996.8966 13800 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 50330-002 HR (Hillside Residential) Single Family Residential 19209.96 SF (,441 acres) (.594 acres grass) 20%(AVerege) Type V-N R3 Provided Required (n) 20' 0" 20' 0' (n) NIA N1A (nJ Living ®15t 12fi0 23 SF (n) Uving ~ 2nd 1877.07 SF (n) Garage 471.71 SF (n) Basement 699.33 SF Total Uving Space 3137.3 SF Total Garage Space 471.71 SF Building ®Ground 2431.27 (12%) Impervious Covarage: 4431 SF (23%) (n) 2fi'~0' To Hlghesl RMge New two sbry, single family residence on a slODbg bt. House is set into hillside witA basement area @ rear of structure. Net Sne area =.441 = 19209.96 SF 19209.96 x 30X = (5762 98 SF reduction) 19209.96.57fi2 98 =13446.98 SF 320D SF ~ (4)170 SF = 9868 SF allowable. -~ pEVIS10N5 Bt' ATCH/LEVEL LINE O INDOWlDOOR SYMBOL L r BUILDING DESIGNER BRffT • ROWS I David Brin I i BUILDING SECTION ~ WALLSECTIONIELEVATION 106 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 DRAWING.REFERENCE DRAWING REFERENCE 408.354.6224 'i 1 ' _ COLUMN REFERENCE -~ GRID INDICATOR e DETAIL REFERENCE DRAWING REFERENCE T24 ENERGY CONSULTANT FRANK IANNUCCI B~~ASSOCIATES - i Mr. Frank lennuai - tr. Jim Sigler 21 Harrison Avenue DIRECTIONAL NORTH ARROW(APPRX.) ~ REVISION SYMSOL Campbell, CA 950o8b 408.866.1620 I 7 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT See additional le ends located on the s Ific drawin s g ~ g ~~ WILLIAM DUNE LANDSCAPE ARCH. Mc William Duke ,i for erchllectural symbols and represemalions (typ.) 1040 Arlington Lane I San Jose, CA 951291 i dp8.252.8495 t i VICINITY MAP: LOCATION MAP: I I ~' r r.~9^.i!F, ~ ~ 1I91101 ~ L n.V--~~ guy _ (~j rT ,~ d Yy `~5~,1 ~ I 1 ~_~ \ ~. ---~= D ~~~~~C~ 'JUN 2 6 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ L~bC n ~c~_E 2. mj9y-3: .3d` - :. ~ e E W ~~~ci as~<~d ~p_aon «~ F°`i.Lk at4tl ^°, :ci` 0 z a a ~i ~- ;,, .. z x ~ aC n ~ c a AO • i REVISIONS BY I l9. sr Hybde oak - ~ ~ 15.2 "CA Black 0ek 12.19"Coral Uve Oak ( , 14.22' Coast Uve ~` I ' ~~ IERCERO~ - Soak ~ p I S I ---.._ 1. 13' Coeet Live Oak ----- spmDx ID~ik~glM back up >?I!.d H 42° Os' 00• E 245.17' ~ I i~ g't~ _ 1QOr'~ g~~ I 1 . ~ i ~-" i ,~ s -~ / •" ~°~~~~ E ~gp•~' 'i -___--_ Line d city d Saratoga setback ~ '' requiremenW. \ ' yI ', / ! ` \ I y "Uncovered' open arbor design (~ honl of 3~ i ~ I 1I ~ ~ • < - ~; T ~-18.20' &ack Welnul ehudure over t s1 kvd plan: See soa qrl ~ ! t 1.2 Coast Uve Oak f lan 3 eztedor elevetlone / ~ . ~ __ 1 p i %~ / Id. te' E lisp Welnul ~ ~, I ^ c ~ 1, 12' Cowl ve Oa I ~ ~ [< a : m "'~ b3 a ~ ~ ~ Ir S. t B' Englleh Walnut , II ~~~~~~ ~ ~i~~ • ~ ~ ~ I ~~I a , , ~ + y ` ~ y Fz. ~:Fim~f- as m , ~Il I~ ~~~ :i ~ . o `a y / ~ , ~I 204'Inierbr SSB ~ ~ ~_~-' Y / ` ~~1~ ~' -` _I • , 'i II t! ~ \6 I Oak 5 18'C U ~ ~~ ~ • I . Oest ve Oak ---. _ _ ___` ~-. ~ / , J -''i ~,J ~ a~°'1 ' ~ X1 F-i t[,, rTl -.~~ ~. ` I _-^ ~ 7. id CO: Uve Oak ` ;1 I 1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" Tree rotecdon lendr (Chem Link) S ` ~ F+i On A Q O ' ~ I `„ / / - - -----_------- --- p g, ee ~„ 1 ~ i ~~ Arhoriat'e report. ~ ~ ~ , ~ H O ~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ I ~ , ~-- g Oak • d, ~ ~ ~ U U 1''I ~ g0ek 'Y ~ I ` ' ~ WQ (07 a ! ~ ~ ~ 9.2A ~ walnut . _~---~~ • / ~ 17 Coast Uve 0 ~ /, 8 1 ~~ ~. W A ,) M .. . 4.21' Coact Oak ; \ _/ N . h~i N Q~~~ ~~~ 5'Oek ,~ 4~ 8' Oak is I ~ . I I a ~ .. .. ~ SITE PLAN ~ ,".,7-0' ~ ~ ~ Q r ~ ~ ~ 1 h h l B t S Chril E i ' 'D di & D fo Pl " . y s own on y. ase opograp ee rg neer re rg s re ege an ror more acarate, spedtic topography. 2. All dowr~wula shall discharge Into engineered drainage systems (typ.) 3. Slope es llnish grades away Irom structure 2~ Mn. @ foundekon blase. 4. Fdlow ell Arbodsl's see prateceon measures as applicable:lree sizes shown are measures 24" above grade: See Arborisl's report. 5. Tree 15 shell be removed. Tres to Is duty to be removed, Mwever, inventions ere to try and save it based on hose bcatbn. House shell be located outside MB drip sne a1 trees l3 614. See Arbodst's report. 1 ' __.__ _._ . . __. _.r $AJAMAR Michael A Rowe 10100 Englewood Ave. Loa Gems, CA 95032 408.358.98201oNice) 108.350.8701 Ilex) BalemadeB®eol.com ~~°.e ~ g~ ~ ~ 6~~~~s m m~ ~~~ e ~aao<~se I ,~ f ~ro~ O N yy ~ (p FM ~U~ m ~ e~ 'a ~m o~ ~g~g ~ro ~N f 1 U ~i i 1 GARAGE LI:VEIJ LOWER FLOOR PLAN ,ae,~~• ~~:_~~~° ~q SPece:1280.23 Sf FInLsMd Floor: 580.5' Oerege:471.17 SF ~ eesememrsloreg.:689.3s SF Z ~~ ~Q o}..~ LL ~ r ~ Z m Z 3 iu ~ ~ O y ^ ~~ _ 11~d' i I i - - I ~ ~ ~ -_ L ~ I Pi I - - 2 - B•FAST --- '..`~ o ro. ® io C -- - - -- ------------ ---- - - ~.\ ~ I I l t ~~ J ------- -- ~ FANftYROOM r -~ I~ I I . - ------, ' r .-___~ I _____-____ ) ~.1/ _ _' ~ '.. n I I O I I OININO I fA BATH ~ I m I I , I ,.,_ I ~ ® I L-- I; . -------J - ~ I n _ -- l I fl L,~ I ~ y ~ e. eeoROON i i l l I I _ ENTRY P- I I I; I LMNQ ROOK _._ -_ ___-_ 1 .., Q PWDfI. ~ I I I .. _..... .. ... __--____.. __... __.. . ~w I I i -_- I I I I I I I I I~-Y I 13'd' S'-10' I I _ j I ~ PORCN I I I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I _-___.._ _~ -._ _ ____-_ I l 11 _______ 10'd' ____ ___ ~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~ ~ 10'd' y I 19'-1' _ _ -._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.T_. _- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I __ 64_ _ _ _ _ _ _ } -____._a_-__- N - Z F All fireWaces shall he gea bumlllg unNa INP1 $A~MA~ Michael A. Rowe 1&00 Enplewo0d Ave. Los Gatos, CA 85032 ao5.35e.3ezo (oXin) a0B,355,8701 (fall aelemera5®ed.cOm ~~~~~$ 5 Sea ~5~~ al~~ ~ ~E~~ ~o~~a ~ ~ae~58d~P W W ~ 90 W ~"'~ Uam mUfp W Wgoro 111 ~ N g 3 2 g a IT 0 ~ ~ m R Z Q :~ Q N ~ ~ ~ !. MAIN LEVEL/ UPPER TLUUR PLAN LlvYfg sPea:len.a7 sF b , 3 a e 1b va'~r-0' u FMshed Floor:571.5' ~ -_ i I Z m 2 Q ~ Q a I] O N O L~t~ Decorative columns emry porch. - .. -_-~--- Provide a34 water table ' drip screed Abase of -----~ structure ItvP~) \ Grade Beyond L~~ i ~~ C ~ ~ _i_ ~~ ------ - _ _ ~ ~, _-- _ _.. _ - --j ~ - -_ - - _ / ~ ~ ...._ i 1 ~ ..... - i - -- ~ r .I ~ ~~-- _ __ ~~ -~, ~ ]~` ~ ail II ' ~~~ ~ >- ~I ~I~-1~ L 1~ I Ir - I~. I I I r'_; ,~ Imo' ~ I r'1 r~~~ «~ ;~~~ ~~; ~ ~, ;.~ ~,~.~- ~ ~~'~``~ I-{~ L-- ~~~ ~~ _~ ,, ~L J; ~ 'tea; I I III I i i ' ~ j I~ ~~ ~~ ~ I I ) I --1- ~ ~ j I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ I I -, ..-. ~ ~ i I I I I ~I I i _ I ; I I 1 I I Cut atone (Stucco Slone) `___ Wrought iron entry stair ®rrontwallsollatlevel6 -~- I I raiNng. landscape entry stair. Roll•up doore to almulate I bam style doors ®Garege NIIR'1'IIF.A.ST ELEVA'1'IUN (FRONT) ~ I i I Rool Pltc~ 7:12 (ryp.l I Roof over Living beyond is ~ below maa ddpe height on j i' other side of structure. i /' Decoratiwe trellis ®Ironl _ . _~ ~ I porch. Sea elevatlona. / ~ . `~ _ is ~~- / I - i ~ -- '--- -- I ~ --- ~ ` __ _ 1 - -- -- ,._ _ __ - - ---, ~ _- _ . /// ~ `~ j ~ ___ - - -- _ - ~~r ~~ L- FF ®2ndlMeln Level I C Provide deck w lending to - new propos d gretle. -- - I~ ~ - ,~ -- L... ~. -- -- --_ SU[1TIIEAST EL~YATIUN ~LEI.1' SIDI~) u _- - - - ------ -I- I ~ _ ~ ~- I I k~ ~~I ~ ~ ~,I~n~ ~ ~I ~ I ,I ~I I ~~I ~, i I~. ~ ~:~ L_~ ~~ II ~ I ~ I IH't' ~~ I li ~ el Greda - - FF ®2ndrMain Level ~ 0 - - ~_- ~ ~ (n) Grade I~ ~ landcape relalninp well ~~ I I ~ to provide rear yard apace. _ LJ j 5'-0'mex. helphl, J I I \ I,grohheclurelstuwofoam band detafi ®Iloor Ilne. ~ _ ~ FF ®tat Level Slab _ ~ _ _ _~ I t atone (S.'uxo stone) ... adewa1"'°~~4°'ro°'~ NURTIIWES'P ELEVA7'IUN (NIGHT SI11E)~ _ IJne o11s1 level walb -~ below grade (ryp.) REti'lSIONS BY I ~ s. c.E ~' s3 9 ' T a' `~ ~_;-_'.. _ _~b z~_ F;~`y~~~ z ~: ~---: ~ 7- 5 1 . o0 Qo ¢W ~U m a~ ~~ z a n w ~ ~~.... w z ~ ~ F f `f. ~ 0 1~~~ ~~ j I l 36°hlph min. guardrail - fron!porch See eiecationa. -~ ~ ~ - ~- --- ~ l IJ ~m Ig : I { I ___-`---- -- r, I -t - ~- Ir I! Io j I ~_~ pI',~~ ~.~ _ L e Nt. %~ / 2B ~ Max, Pidg ~ - '' _____ I REVtS[ONS BY . ~ ~ ICBO eppioved spark ~ " -- aRe010r®Chbnney terminelbna (ryp.) Clew A, concrete roofing • - CN atone (Bloat Stone) tlles (typ.) Cobr selected Gable end yenta to provide ®all fireplace chases y owner. 6hade d enb verailatbn per UBC.' (yp.) I Neulrel prey. 28'•D' Mex. Ridge Ht. II _.... -`l-- _---__ .. _..----- ---- ---_--- ------ ---r-' '----.. i 2x palmed leacla wkh 1x4 G.I. palreed goners eM ~~I t-- trim. downspouts (typ J -- _ 718" sand finfah stucco ' -~ ~- sidkg 81 all weka (ryp J I ~I -- __ __ - -_-- -- ~ - - - - i - CRool Pgch \ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - ---_ - - - ------- - II ~ _- /, \\ \ _ ~ - _ ~1- t, - --. _ _._-- i _ _ _- _r-_ ~ _ _ ~- - ~ _-- -~ i ~_ ~ -- ~ I i r ~-' ;. ~ ,l ~i I I i Iii ~ j ~ r (r; i i -- j ~ ~ ~ r -1' --n. i I~ ~11) ~ I ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~i r' I '~ i~ ' ~~ ~~ ail, ~ ,_ ~ . _ - ~ ~ i~ r ~~ .,- -_ l §' t I ~i i I~~' ~! li-:. III J LL.. ..J ~ ~~I~ .. _, ~ - Ill. J~~'I~ i,l, ~ ~<~~~ I ~ II 4 _ ~~ FF ~ 2nd8Aaln level floor - I L_ _....._.___;' l e ° z' W _"p J ~ _ ._.. ~j .. _._ _-. _. _ - -- >. I e~ _ --. :~ N ~ '~y~ FJ~=.~'[ F_ i_`p • Provide min 36"D min. AmhBadural stucco foam I = ' = ~ ° ' e ---- landings ®all exterior 1 I molding ®window sills ------- ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ s dotre (ryp1 _ (NP.) '~ . SIIU'CNWEST 1sLEVt~'I'ION (RI?Alt) l~ / ~l~ atae~'". ~i 26'0 I ~~ a ~ I Veulled telling ®Living / / / - A v °n Room. See Dlan. --~---^, box ' fray cefiing 4D ~ Q m 1 Dinlgg room. See plan. ~ ~ Q ~dm _. ~~ ~ a a - -- ROOFING: / .~ _-------_~i_------- --~_ ~ ~ / ~~. \ - V ~ ~N Class A, concrete roofing riles over 1x PTDF tuning 6anens, over (1) layer of 30M ~-~~y ~ ~ ATTIC ` a build'mg paper, over 1!2" CDX plywood cool sheathing. Nail w110d ®6"OC edges & ~ ~ ~~ ~ I _ - Q f2"OC field (UNO), over framing. See freming plane. Verity nailing with UBC table '` 23-bO & strudurat engineer's minimum nailing requiremems. Cobr: Charooal or I -------- - -~------ •`~~,, 3 neutral gray. Color selected end approved by owner prior to Installation. i l _..___--_ .--_-- SIDING: __.__--_:-._.__ -.--L~~__ -__ 'i - Stucco: (3) coat, 7l8"min thickness, send finish slate siding over self tuning G.I, (17 GA)1412' mash sluctowire or 6.1: expanded metal lath, over (2) layers of grade ~ ~ '~ "D' building paper, over 212' CDX plywood well sheathing. Nail w!t Od ~ 6'OC fD Decoretive Irellfia Q front _ _ _ _i _ I - __-~ ii'~ ~,, ~ edges & tYOC ®fbld min. (UNOJ, overframing. Verily nailing with UBC table 23-bO porch. Bee elevations. i ~ & slnxdural engineers minimum nailing requirements. (Shear Schedule). Color c i!~,. LIVING ROOM OININO ROOM ; "~ NRCHEN coated stucco upon request of owner Use elastomerb primer prior to painting es a ~ '. applicable. - ~ 38" high min. guardrail ® ~ ~~ TRIM: ~ front porch. Sae - ---~~~~---- , I '~, ~. _ __ elevatons. ~ _ ________ ____ ~~'~i~~' I Windows: Stucco mold end sills as integral pans of window - ----- ~- conslmctbn. Pretest concrete or ArohAecturel stucco mob sills. ~ t Wells: Front: (Stucco Stone) Cul stone, rendom pettem ®Iront lower Concrete slab 0 ist ravel i~' level walb 8 fireplace chesea (typ J Iloor (typ.) --~-------._1\ ~ i ~~ i aFF qi ~ ~ GARAGE ~a~Gr~~ BA8EMtiNT Retaining well®reer of 1 ~ ~ almdure, whbh U set Into m 2 I~ ` the hillalde. See plan.. •• tI _____ _ ~ ~ fZf,`l.+ p p 7 - ~ 8eaemenl arse la J.-~ I nubtertenean aM is not ~ oourded towable albweble ,~ ~ ~ ~ Boor area retlo. ~ ~ See Greding 8 Drainage _ 1 I ' plan fw new tepogmyhy 8 ` 1~ ~~ twaMltabe. ~%' BUILDING SECTION #1 I I ~ ~ ,, • IvIAIN LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS: Note: Drawing scale has been reduced to 3116" = I'-0" to fit on this sheet. i i I i uwaeva~ ta90;d SF' GARAGE LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS: I ,; ~- ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ °~~ x,: ~. '"~, n s3~r z~s ~ s~ ~~ ,~ ~, { o~Mtn ` ~ ' ~~ o ~~~ ~~( >, fi ~~v six, ~a~~ ~' _~; WCNWMAaa ' {11.11.SF f' ' ,. I iu+ra i i ____ REVISIONS: i BR David M. Bdlt Tony Rowe 1a8 N. Sande Cnn Ave. Ins Gams, CA 85030 409.954.8224 (d8ce) 408.351.8511 har) ~g ~ $ ¢p°iP ~~.~~K ~s~~~~~~ ~& ~~ ~~~ ~tl.~~Wm ~ m~aasa~P LTa z o ,°. o° [~j~f] W U h+l W ~ ~I a 0 [T] °o iw,~ Co ~ N z o N U cii A ~a°z~ v m Z Z W Q 0 ~ Q A6 ~{i`. _ I i _.,~ - iy/ , ro o /f C / r3.°~ /0 i ~~ ~ ;~, / I ~ I tS S~ 1 il0 I 1 YJ d! ~~~~_~~~ ~... \~, _ \ -.51b-~~ -__-..~ .'~.-~ ZQ _- ~Ce ~5 ~ 16.90 f ~ 0 ~~ °{n z o§+e.75 'sl~~A' - - x"42°09 00 E o~ ,,, \ / i ' G ~r ~\ E 5069' ~ °6~ t~~ ~ ~ ` aB II c ~+ .t 5t1.9a I - ~' 1 __ -'" / ""T~" ~ .-~ ' I j _..._~ 1 /~ I .51317 1 1 _~'~~ __ -'~-.__--'--___.___._ ~___ 1 ~ I ~ / 610 T- P i t ~ r ~°, ---- ~ ,1e rod7u/n ___~___-,---- ~ __, -- f -.- \.'_ 17.62 \\ _-i__ytr .e3 ~ 12~... / ~ D,o _- 1_97- ._______-5L7,.04 ____- ,512.82 _~ Og4519.1/ h ~+ ..!675._' _ ~r0 __~ / X520.81 I~, ~ .A i C 7 5~._--'._~•~,. ., ~- .512.57 ~,~", t2 17 0~p5,es r 505.93 06 y- >°, , ~` ~4 ~I 1 ~ , ~ ~. S/6 ,515. ~~ _ _- ~ j t 1 % ~ ` \ ______________ .9 J~ ~ 511 _______-~ .511.91 ~'' 9 I ~I / 11}~ 1 ~ 515. I5 ~ 2,~,• J ~IM1 ____ __ _____ _ ~ 0~~5 / // ~~ `, .617,10 ~ -_ 510 'O 516'515.71 ___ O16"UA/NVT I?' ~2B ~`Yll ~ II ~ 519.10 7\ .51 ___. ,,-' , i 1 ' 1 ~/ ~~~ sz7 9S `~ ,v 1 ~' ~ /,~ t ~,/ ,516.61 51 d o B..OA~i E7 fig I jj/Y~ i ~: p ~ ~ _ S~ ~ ~ 519.61 'f?O \ _ ; .. 6 "-- __ -__ ___-__' . _ / ' I I ` I - _______"'-'~'S .11 _____ ~BLry~ ~~ 1 /1,' ,~j0J71 P~ ____________r ~ J ` '.. ~ !_ ~. .4 ~ f ', ~, ` _- 51 .1 \ / : ~ ~~ ,519.98 - __~_~_____ ___~ ---'i 620 __ ~ o ~r+/ ~ - ~ O .~ ~ ~~~ ~ - q1.9 __ --- .52°. 3 . ~ f~: i ~J L.l l1 ~'~ .520.01 ________~ 5 ~~-- / t 1 ~// t - ;~ Q `, /1 '/~' VICINITY MAP .' + 1522.78 _~"`-~_____ _____"- ___________._.I- ' ~ _ 522 -" ____. ._______ ~ ~ j` ~ u .________ _____ .___ _ _- ~' m ' ' // O o r ter: ,522.59 "_,' _-__~/ ~ (~ / ~or~ ~ / / ~~.~ 521.0 1 3Z2~ 1 --" '~ / `~~` m 1.5.___-___ ._____ n r ,' ' , sad ~~ I°RT' ---------- ~ I .-I .~1 8 -1-- ____ __~~f~'- ~.Q .523.61 "__-'' ~,- ~~ s dp m®u ~:Q ' ~~ RS7/aal53 --- _ - 1__ 1 ----- "~ ~ "- - /~ 29.93 ~F, i~~t;~ ~~~ ~ ~ '~° ~ ` ` ~"'~- -__ Z ~ ______~ 52 - ' ___~ - ' ~ -"~__"_ ~' ,~,- _- 07a _ ______._529 /____________ e1~// ,`T r2o i b,' If ~ __~__ - -' ~ ] __ --L--'--'052995___ 2/ / ~_ \V, ; /~;,., i '~ ~i0 r ~ ~ sr 1 I ..~' _ -- -- _ hip ------ ~ '! `` ~ / .536`Ir% -~,,:_ 7e r .. jj~~.,,,~ , , , ; 630. - _- -. ----5~- - ~'M'~ p531.62 ~ ~ /3 ~, , ~ j. 41 ,530.62 ~ -_ - k'IQ ~'~~ _ _______ _ ___1~ I -75 1 ~(\ '~ ... ~ ~ Imo. 1° f y~l ~ 01 ~ 1 1 /' ~ A J "~11 IT~.rs2.o . a r . "~~7 -~ ',~~~' -_' _~------- ------ ---- --~~ i 981 ~ `/ ~, ~ ~ ~J §73p Qle -- -_ ~ yJ"~ ~ ~ ~~ •~ c ti .~.5 I. ~ i .m 5 ~' ~r s6b~- ------- I I^ '~ ~ I i e xa a I'- -c~o~r '/~k 1 4 b~~ 6-- ----'- -ov~ioor - -~ Il\\ 1 E~ z5 1 ~~ , ~7/, ~r / ~ / ~ a'," ~ 1 t -_1 -V ~ _ ~__ _ - _- 9 ~ _ 1 '.' ~ ~. .' i ~ ew ~ ,,c~ _ _ A\ / .~ ~ 4 / EXlSr1NC RRDPDSE0 '~. ~ ~ ~~\ ~ ~ , 537 BOUNDARY N I I ~~' ""- -•--- I , . I I,'' ~~~ 1.,16 I ~Q //~ CURB AND CUTTER ________ _~_ Z 540.'- - / \ ~ ____ ' ~ .. ~ DI ,\ % ,'~ ~ ~ j ~ CURB _____~_ ~---~_. ,~,- r ^'l,'// FDCE OE PAVERENT 1 .-. t ~ B.~1 / \~ ~~ RETAINING VALL `~ I '~ tI ~ h ~t,' / SrORfI DRAfN fNLET _--_ p___ ~ / ` / 570RB DRAIN __ ~. ~ ` ~ ~~ , /0R . ~'~ EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ~ raP of cuae ELEVarlaN Ex. r, c. 7. c. . "//61/.96 9.75 ` IDP OF PAVENfN7 _ y VOLUME OP CUT 56oC.Y. Ex. r. P, T. P, _ ~ / ~ / VOLUME OF FILL 272 C.Y. ToP of RErA1NlNC ueLt Ex. T. u, r. u. / AA '~~ ~\ // ~ GADI/NO fL EVArifJN _--"' - C, _ - ~~ ~~(~ EXCESS MATERIAL 209• C.Y. - ~~ ~~\\ ~`\g / / ND. 8Y DA1E R ON ~, BY DA E DATE:. BFI 2GCU GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 9909"° _ SALE: "DR. '"''° `~ WESTFA'LL ENGINEERS , I NC . - -- VERT. '~! J WALKER RESIDENCE ~EET __ 1 ~ DESIGNED: JC BTIKAREL CYBBAL~ RCE 3453 14503 BIG Br5IN VAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070 (4°8)867-0244 1 DRAIN: DATE: pp !i • NOTES -- RESIDENCE -- ----_ F.f ,EL.Sp2.0 _____ __ F.F E1..52t. - ______ _ _ _____ __ _ - - i I -'- _ RESIDEN ~--~~ ~_ - --~ --- _I ~._. ._ __.__ .-__ .-- '! FC2.0 ~ r, S~S /C~~ __ _ _ -_-_ __. __- _..-_..1_...____J 1. SLOPES OP 1% OR GREATER AWAY FROM THE POIJNDATION SHALL BE MAINTAIN ALONG THE ENTIRE PERIMETFJ.i FOR A DLSTANCE OF 5 FEED MINIMUM. 1, ALL ROOF DRAfNS TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO ADEQUTE SPLASH BLOCRS OA CONVEYED TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 7. INSTALL SU&DRA]N AROUND THE PERIMITI'ER FOUNDATION AND REfA1NING WALL IN ACCORDANCE WTIN SOILS ENORJEER'S RECOMMENDATION AND UNDER HIS DIRECTION. 1. F]NAL SURFACE DRAINAGE GRADIENT SNALL BE PLANNED AIID BUILT SO AS TO DIRECT WATER AWAY FROM THE BUILDINOS'AND FOUNDATIONS. S. SLABS CAST ADJACENT TO FOUNDATIONS SHALL SLOPE AWAY PROM THE FOUNDATIONS. 6. SURFACE DRAINAGE FROM THE AREAS OI1TS]DE OF BUBDINO OR PROFTT PORTION OF THE LOT SNALL CONTINUE TO DRAIN IN NORTHEASTERLY D1REC710N ALONG THE NATURAL SLOPE. Job Nome: GRADING SECTIONS VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 10 feet I HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inoh = 10 feet Dashed Line Natural Cround Solid Line Proposed Ground i STANDARD GAADWG PLAN NOTES NOTE: TIDS DRAWING IS APPROVED SUBIECf TO 1. All grading is aubJat a a6servation by the City. Permitter a tepsexnbfivc shall ', naify Me (Yty of Santoy at (10 81 8 6 8-14 61 al ledp o8 ban before pan of any {nd'mg. Z. Approval of Nia plan app8a only ro the eean6a, plecaanl, m compacda of romsil rnM mataiila. This approvil don nol canter any ri{hb of rntry to tither public propmy a Ne private properly of olpaa. Approval of 0is plan alao doe not ansdtule a~ra`il of any improvemrnb. Proposed improvemrnum suhjal to miew and epprovil by lk rdpondDle autlrotilia end all other «quited permib dteR be obtained. ' ), It shall be Ne responsibility of the Permitter a agent m identify, bate end I praed ill underground feciGda. 1. The permitter a agem shill mainuin the atraU, sidewalks and ill other puNie dghuo4way in a clean, aah end usable condiUa. AB ald8a of soil, rock a canWmtion I de6ria shalt be mmoved from the publicry owns psapary dosing areWedon end upon mmpletbn of the projaL All adjacent property, private or public shall be milnnined b a clean, seh end usable oondidon. 5. All grading dull be perfamed b such a manna as to comply witA pre sundards esmblished by dm Av Quality Melmrnana Dispkl fa ilrbora panicutaas. 6. All known well locations on the site have hen included and such wells shall he mainbined a abptdooed seeding b ctmratt seguladona admiaiaared by tits Srnb Clam I Valley Weer Dipsict. q.. (d08) 263-1600 a arrange fa dislrid obaervedon of all well I fiandonmrnu, 7. This pW deer not approve the avaval of oar. Approydam tree remwil pemdU and metlsodsof tra pmavvadan should be obtilaed from the City Community Devektpment Depatnxstt. I 8. 17m Civil Engineer, Wepfill Enginem, Inc., 1138) Big Badn Wry, Sanbga, ' Ca. 93070. Hn desl{ned this pml~ a ~nPIY with the {riding rerommenduions In Um project geateehnirnl mpon, if requind, prepamd by , and dated 9. AU grading sluli conform to approved apedfuuuiana psesrnad lurca a ettachN hesdo. All grading wale shill be abseaved and approved by Iles foB en{isma. tlm soil rngiaer _, shag 6e ratified et Inst /8 boom before beginein{ any grading at telephone number I _. UnobsavM end unapproved grading oak aha0 be removed end «placed undo I s>baavatlw of Bteprojed adl rngittar. I 10. Oiedng pemdb will sal be issued 6etweea Oclobv ISth oaf April I3N of my I yea witlaut approvil by the Ducar of Public Works. N0. BY DATE REVISION DY DATE DATE: OC+. 2000 SDALE: "DR.."•t°' WESTFALL_ ENGINEERS, INC. GRADING AND '~DRA I NAGE PLAN 99091 - VERi. I'•1D' SHEET DESIGNEDi JC BYINAflEL CYMBAL. RCE 31534 14583 BIG BASIN 4AY. BAflATOGA~ CA 95070 (4007 857-0241 W A L K E R i R E S I D E N C E ( OF Z --' - DRAIN: CAD DATE: 2 ' S~ 1' e Street Trees -~f5 gal. 'Transition to natural - t gal ! rjtfE SYM~~ -Chinese Plstache (Plstacla) - -California sage (Artemesia), Carmel creeper , ((eanothus), California poppy (Exhscholzla), g' Heteromeles, (ioyon) Q ~~~, ~jC j - ver reen Trees - 24" box ~ al LJ -Oaks9Quercus), Eucalyptus, Magn~lla g ~ .lp c (}ill,j(Y ~'OI,F~i + hrubs-5gal/f gal -Pittosporum, Lantana, starjasmine (~~ W~~ Ai~~, (Trachelospermum), Naphlolepis, Confers - 24"box / 15 gal Llly-of-the-nile (Agapanthus), Dlumbago, Pride of Redwoods (Sequoia) c Madeira (Echlum), Hydrangea .Groundcover/Vines - ,gal /flats Deciduous A«ent Trees - i - 6ouganvillea, Honeysuckle (Lonicera), e 24"box / 159a1 ~ ~ Periwinkle (vinca) , - Sllk trees (Albizla), Flowering Plums (Prunus) i I .~ a, _ l Nom. Aug ~><,~~ -ro r~~u ~~~, ~ ~ !~ ~~r~ i rar,yfi~ ~~~-~ ~L~~ rtov~~U.l-~at~jt~~lr w~ ~ / n U `- oY'oPr ~tI ~ ,yJl~s ~A Plant Materials Guide ~; ~/ (. ~~C7'+ i~ <` ,~ -~- ,,;,,,,, I~ ''_'r- blbAk ~----~ ° r ! t ~^ ~- .,~~ 5/C + i~ i , i • ~W ,~l ~' ° / _ r;l. r " I Y ~~ O ,j~~;t,- ~tl , ~ o ~ ~~ I '~~ ~ ~,. r,_., :. u, ~~, -.r. _.. -,~,.. t ~""'~` , I 1 ! I i ~ I ~~ I ~~~ rY'_ i ' J~ i '\ - _ / r: 1. I I .1 l ~- ----. - e ~< I tj I ~-- -_~ - ~~ . ~ -- o~4~k / C~~NCEPTUAL LAND BEYIBION9 BY Z Z ~ z ~ W w o ~ ~ H ~ w a ~ r_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~` ~ w& .9 ~) 5 ~3 j ~ m ^! ~ _ o cgs ~ c ~o a 3a ~~ a~ v ~, V~ C C 0 rp UJ v V C v v v L~9E '0 0 L r ~` v ~~ `v_ a~ OA ao A ~~ Dele au.. ~ Lid-all o,r.e~J,jt~lll~ bb ~ky~ Sneel ~~ Di SNeie 4 j 1 1 i SCAPE PLAN v '~`,J c~~ a~ "~ ITEM 4 C~B~~ O~ ~ 'v° COO C~L~ 13i r FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA q:~0i0 • (-I051 8(i8-I°I)u COt.'NCIL nIED1BERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Ivan 5ake~ Sa^ c~oos~ar- Jor^ :Vena~;e~- TO: Planning Commission ~ n~;~.Y srreC FROM: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planned Ann tvaaonsmr.^ DATE: July 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Application #02-035 (APN 503-72-014) - LUI, 14805 Masson Court Introduction: The applicant requests a 12-month extension to previously approved plans to construct a 6,500 square foot two-story modern residence on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 87,712 square feet and is located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.090 design review approvals expire 24 months from the date on which the approval became effective. Design review approvals maybe extended for a period or periods of time not exceeding 12 months. The original design review application (DR-97-061) was approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 1999. The approval was appealed to the City Council by neighboring property owners. The City Council denied the appeal on May 17, 2000. • Background: Due to the unique and contemporary nature of the design staff presented the application to Planning Commission for preliminary review on October 13, 1999. The Planning Commission tentatively approved the design. On December 8, 1999 Design Review Application No. DR-97-061 was approved by the Planning Commission on a 4-3 vote. The approval was appealed to City Council by neighboring property owners. The appeal was heard before the City Council on the following dates: January 19, 2000, February 2, 2000, March 15, April 19, 2000, and May 17, 2000.On May 17, 2000 the City Council denied the appeal on a 4-1 vote. All available meeting minutes are attached for your information. 000001 b; T- Design Review: The design of the proposed residence is very modern with sloping angular rooflines, tall sheaths of glass and other unique features. Materials and colors include stained wood exterior with limestone and metal details, and an asphalt shingle roof. Natural earth tone colors are proposed. Massive two-story residences surround the subject site. No specific pattern or distinctive architectural style is present in the project vicinity. The majority of homes were constructed approximately within the last 15 years. Materials utilized on homes in the area include stucco, brick, horizontal siding, and stone. Roofing materials in the project also vary. The original design review application included cooper roofing. Resolution No. DR-97- 061, Item No. 2d indicates the Planning Commission, during its hearing in 1999 required that the roof material shall be asphalt shingle. This condition of approval was not included in Resolution No. 00-029 adopted by the City Council. Staff recommends due to slight environmental effects resulting from copper roof runoff that the asphalt shingle roofing material be included as a condition of approval. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1 Minimize the Perception of Bulk The second floor of the proposed residence is setback from the building line of the first floor. The downward sloping angular rooflines reduce mass. Rooflines are varied through changes in height and form. Architectural features and modulated building lines break up massing. Policy #2 Integrate Structures with Environment The angular rooflines mimic hillside contours integrating the proposed structure with the environment. The proposed earth tone colors further integrate the residence with the natural environment. Policy #3 Avoid Interference with Privacy Windows have been eliminated on portions of the West/Right elevation to alleviate privacy concerns raised by neighboring property owners. Policy #4 Preserve Views and Access to Views Existing two-story residences subject to viewshed interference are not affected by the proposed residence because they are located on higher terrain than the proposed building pad and finished floor of the proposed residence. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency The roof overhangs were designed to eliminate direct sunlight to achieve energy conservation. ooc~ooz - The project architect has prepared supporting materials which illustrate the proposed project . embodies several of the techniques discussed in the City of Saratoga Residential Design Handbook. License Land Surveyor: The property lines have been delineated by a licensed land surveyor. Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the conditionally approved plans. Landslide Mitigation: The proposed development is constrained by landslides on and adjacent to the property. Landslide repair requires encroachment onto a neighboring property by approximately 20 feet. Permission to access the adjacent site is not welcome by the neighboring property owner. As a result, a retaining wall in excess of 5 feet may be necessary in order to accomplish the necessary landslide mitigation. Any retaining wall in excess of five feet shall require Planning Commission approval. Geotechnical Clearance: The subject property received geotechnical clearance from the City of Saratoga on September 3, 1999. The conditions of geotechnical clearance are detailed in the attached draft Resolution. Neighbor Concerns: The original appellants of DR-97-061 have prepared correspondence for your review. Their letter dated June 30, 2002 is attached for your mformation. The letter which was filed with their appeal is also attached for your informatiori. Staff met with the three appellants (Kwong, Sze, and Park). These individuals expressed great relief at the prospect of re-locating the building footprint 30 feet toward the north. Staff has considered the request and finds a distance of 18 feet to be a reasonable compromise between both the applicant and appellant. Conclusion: The proposed project has endured many public hearings (7) and much scrutiny from staff, neighbors, Planning Commissioners; and Council members. The Planning Commission voted to approve the design both preliminarily and finally. Likewise, Council supported the application. Staff finds it would be arbitrary and capricious to deny the applicant an extension at this time. The design policies and implementation techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook are not meant to discourage unique and inventive design solutions. The objective criteria detailed in the Design Handbook attempts to curb decisions based on personal taste. • OOG©03 Recommendation: As indicated above, the project does exemplify the types of techniques and concepts encouraged in the Residential Design Handbook. Based on that, staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the requested extension by adopting the attached resolution. To alleviate concerns expressed by the neighbors staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following condition of approval: ^ In reference to Exhibit A, sheet A-1, the entire building footprint shall be re-located 18 feet laterally toward the northern direction. The building footprint shall not to be altered with respect to side yard setback distances. Driveway access shall be revised accordingly and approved by staff. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Supporting documents submitted by the project architect. 3. Letter of concern from neighboring property owners dated June 30, 2002. 4. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated October 13, 1999. 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 13, 1999. 6. Memo to Planning Commission dated December 8, 1999. 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 8, 1999. 8. Resolution No. DR-97-061 Granting Design Review Approval 9. City Council Minutes from the January 19, 2000, February 2, 2000, March 15, 2000 and May 17, 2000 meetings (Note: Minutes from the April 19, 2000 City Council meeting are not available). 10. Resolution No. 00-029 Denying an Appeal from the Decision of the Planning Commission 11. Letter of Appeal dated December 15, 1999. 12. Exhibit "A", dated October 31, 2000. • ~®~~~~ Attachment 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Liu: 14805 Masson Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a 12-month extension to an approved Design Review application to construct a new 6,00 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot; 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, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1 Minimize the Perception of Bulk The second floor of the proposed residence is setback from the building line of the first floor. The downward sloping angular rooflines reduce mass. Rooflines are varied through changes in height and form. Architectural features and modulated building lines break up massing. Policy #2 Integrate Structures with Environment The angular rooflines mimic hillside contours integrating the proposed structure with the environment. The proposed earth tone colors further integrate the residence with the natural environment. Policy #3 Avoid Interference with Privacy Windows have been eliminated on portions of the West/Right elevation to alleviate privacy concerns raised by neighboring property owners. Policy #4 Preserve Views and Access to Views Existing two-story residences subject to viewshed interference are not affected by the proposed residence because they are located on higher terrain than the proposed building pad and finished floor of the proposed residence. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency The roof overhangs were designed to eliminate direct sunlight to achieve energy conservation. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • ~~~~OS • Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Liu fora 12-month extension to an approved Design Review application and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: In reference to Exhibit A, sheet A-1, the entire building footprint shall be re-located 18 feet laterally toward the northern direction. The building. footprint shall not to be altered with respect to side yard setback distances. Driveway access shall be revised accordingly and approved by staff. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to 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 reflecting the City Arborist's recommendations, 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. d. The roof material shall be asphalt shingle. 3. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds five feet. In addition, 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. Hillside restrictions for fencing apply. 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 6. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated December 17, 1997 shall be met. This , includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: • The Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. UOC~©06 r~ L • Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shown at as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." • 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. • All fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade by hand in any area within 15 feet of the trunk. • No trenches or excavations even for utilities (gas, cable, phone, etc.) shall be installed within 25 feet of the trunk of the tree. • The drainage system for the house shall be directed a minimum of 40 feet from the other trees on this site. • Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $4,943 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: • Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. • The City Arborist shall schedule unannounced visits to the property to verify that all tree mitigation measures are being complied with. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: • All recommended tree cabling and endweight removal shall be completed by an ISA certified arborist. • The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. 7. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the "Planting Under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. UOC~04'7 • 8. The Project Geotechnical Engineer, with input from the Project Engineering Geologist, shall prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections (1"= 20') to depict the extent of proposed grading, landslide to be removed, subdrains, property lines and proposed improvements. The plan should include repair specifications, notes and details pertaining to earthwork, drainage and geogrid placement. The cross section should depict existing and proposed surface topography and excavation depths. One section should extend from the building pad downslope along the axis of the active landslide, including and showing the lower landslide repair area (per Terratech drawings). A second section should be oriented roughly east-west across the landslide and portray Masson Court, proposed driveway, active landslide to be removed, and landslide on the adjacent property to the east. The mitigation plan should specify the appropriate geogrid slope gradient. Typically, geogrid should be designed to stand at its angle of installation (i.e., 1.5:1 V), if not wrapped. The landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections shall be submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit. 9. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., landslide mitigation, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultants' recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider recommending crushed rock, which has more void space than Class 2 aggregate base, for the capillary break material. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geologic and geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspection should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations (including pier holes for structures and shear pin wall) and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare a geologic map of the landslide excavation and confirm that landslide material has been removed. Information from the excavation and pier holes shall be used to revise and update the engineering geologic map and cross sections. An engineering geologic map and cross sections of final, as-built conditions shall be prepared to depict the depth and extent of grading activities, and geologic conditions (including removed landslide mass). The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters, and as-built geologic map and cross sections, and submitted to the City Engineer for review pnor to finalization of the grading permit. ~~~®08 s • 11. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 12. The owner (applicant shall enter into an agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless form any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil of slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 15. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the residence and garage. 16. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. 17. 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. 18. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 conditionally approved plans: Section 2. A building permit shall be issued within 12 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. UOU~09 • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10th day of July 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the, Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~Q~®lt.~ • T~t'"~~ #~ ~ ~~ ~~ Attachment ~ no's • Falbw ~or~'bur5 wi}{n hcrizox~l cla+~+c~#S. • Tu-rn-c~ bu~ildi~ floor iwas. - • ~ollow Ma~l~tral ctra Wtl{n YOip~ s1°P~. DONT'S • A+roid dowrt~u:6l ca,rvf-i lwcvs.- • mid lam e, 5;-~1R,- .~v-tin 5o~-4iow~. plus ~- evcrPna.+~i arca~. South sun light \\ YES No ~/ ~: NAIURA~ GRAD( - ' ' ICBC IC6: IC.: ICJ: J Policy 1, Technique #2 is mainly concerned with buildings insensitive to hillside contours and the resulting tall support for overhang. The Proposed building is siting on a flat plateau with downhill slope on both sides. The pyramid-shaped roofs of the Proposed building are following the downhill slopes as required. The tall supports we have are for roof overhang on the south side of the building. The roof overhang facing south is generally a very effective way to cut down direct sunlight, therefore, an efficient means to achieve energy conservation. This is one way to create an environmentally friendly building. The project building has greatly broken down building masses; there is no single dominating mass. It is far from being a "single form solution." Please see floor plans, elevations, and photo collages. We will demonstrate our point with a physical model, which is most telling about the building mass, in the Council meeting. UOC~011 ~ TECHNIQUE #4: Minimize building height no's • HIKln~lu arca5 i'VlauciM~u.M '~1ti~'. • U~ ~Gi~ f~GWlGll~b. • ~ bellr{~. ~~Gr' P°rti°~ °~ strut norv-rs • avoid la,~a a~bfic h~act/, • a~;d ~ -~a~-- ~Ioor arcaS ate! ~~ ~~~ YES No ~ ~ HIGHEST POINT [~ ROOF RtOGE E26' ~,~ Single-story Mlgh Mnssing~ 2094 SF, footprint Wren, 48% of total Footprint Wren. ~1 Tro-story High Nnssing~ 2297 SF, footprint ~~ Wren, 52/. of total footprint Wren. The Totol Footprint of Proposed Pro,Ject Is 4391 SF. • We have used two strategies to minimize areas of maximum height a. second story setback: there aze extensive single-story building masses along the west, north and east sides; 48% of building footprint area (2094 sf out of 4391 sf) is single-story. b. pyramid-shape roof: we use pyramid-shape roof because it has basically only one high point, has no continuous ridge to create view blockage. The diagrams above indicate that our building's narrow area of maximum height is in total agreement with the Technique #4's diagram. (DO®©12 • I POYCy 1 lI TECHI~lIpUE #5: Design sEruc«~s+e to fit with existing neighborhood DO'S • ~ cnr~a~l-ibte. u~ ""~ a¢, ~ro~o~~o~~ • ~ttct~ but s~t~iad b~ caw~a~-ib{c.. I Dav"rs o Arvid ovtrru~dvhir~ 0fi.5ti rt5idltncus'. ~o n~' ~b ~d ~~' awfi YES _ _ ~ . :n .rte a 1® : ~C~. .D L7 • t_7C] :~. n nio -~ - o n nn The following table contains floor area and lot size statistics of the Proposed building and neighboring properties. It clearly indicates that the Project Building has the lowest floor area/lot size ratio among all five buildings. The Proposed building is about the same size as Kowng Residence of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, and close to other buildings.(see attached City's record sheets) The Proposed building, in terms of proportion, size, mass and height, is compatible with existing neighborhood and will not overwhelm the existing residences. ~ PROPERTY, OWNER FLOOR AREA(SF.) LOT SIZE(ACRE) I FLF~ ,aREA~ LOT SIZ= 14760 MASSON CT, LIU RESIDENCE 5709 1.290 10.16% 1x780 MASSON CT, SZE RESIDENCE 5236 1.t00 1G.93~ ~ 1480C MASSON CT, PARK RESIDENCE 4504 1.240 8.349; 14805 MASSON CT, UU RESIDENCE 6500 2.750 I 5.43% 114581 SARATOGA HEIGHTS, KWONG RESIDENCEI 6396 t 780 I 8.25 Fioo~ areo includes Irving oreo and goroge. - - • Q-OC~~13 POu`Y ~ TECHNIQUE #6: Use architectural features to break up massing uo•s ti r„ • ~wv-ctwuk ! bw~a,U ~cJ~Mnu~a~s air olfntr v,. • ~ a co~nbivta~iort va4i~aQ aNd f~ori- ~ a'#~iucGt~iorus. nonrrs • Avid vu,4~ical.~ca~w,c, ~+c~,t add ~ ~ ~^ ~~~ • Amid lax, s{no~t~,- ridgy - ~i • Avid - ~ w''~p_t,t, - ~~~~pU l~l'V~~ ~t~. YES nio m. o~ Q] .®~~~ ~ ~ -p m.® . D _ _~ tom; D m • The two-story high windows of the Project Building mainly face internal courtyard and south side, which are not or hardly visible from neighbor's properties. The high poles that support overhangs are slender in proportion and do not have enough mass to create imposing height perception. These poles are also counter balanced by horizontal elements, such as balcony and decks on the second floor, as recommended in Policy 1 Technique #6 "use a combination of vertical and horizontal articulations." The diagram provided above indicates our effort to follow closely the Design Policy, such as, in this case, "Vary rooflines through changes in height and form." • UOU©1~ a u Porcy 2 TECHNIQUE #2: Integrate with environmental texture and forms DO'S • USG ~'"'O +~tA~ . ~~ ItA7flu'A.~. ~iZtCl~t/~. • fit ia+ ~Hn (tiill~;d~ ~~ ~~ DON'TS • ~Y~ 11~t~(!t fCY~LttL Wt~i1 F'~G12~.tNl/S. • AYZ:tCI ~G O~Or1~Cl'nc 5~ GMs '~~IIA~uo~Ga~.1~ °~' ~arzt ~4n o~.tc{s ~ ~~~. The photo collages provided above illustrate how the roof forms and their cascading placement work with the hillside topography, and how the building mass being broken down to avoid lar e e shapes. g g ~(~®1,5 YES M ~~~~ ~_~ ._ _ ~r•~= .., f:~ ~" ` o . e .. NO ---~ " The Chairwoman Bernald of Planning Commission has pointed out in her concluding comment in the Planning Review that, after completion, the Project Building, among all buildings in the area, might be the one most conformed and complimenting to the natural setting because of its use of curved roofs. It is exactly our intent of using curved roof foam to imitate the natural landform and to fit with hillside topography and background. Policy 3 TECNNIQlS~ #t Control view to adjacent properties BO'S • NiKiwviu stce~-sb~ wrir+dours.{~ccKq ctese. • ba~.covi{ varrds Lou~c, ~ araa~ . • USc Sfin~tr~t'uka.~ ~c~uxr~ ~ ~ir~t ra~u-a+~fnot~-' dis~untiu, hug. nonrr~s • AYVid tuir~dow aMd ba~I. lou~'ivu~ ~~ [~rirACY. • pcra-id rcduci re~~ dcstwvtc,p.~.. YES • This technique is concerned with privacy intrusion from building of higher elevation to building of lower elevation. The second floor west-oriented deck of the Proposed building, a result of second- floor setback, is only about 2 ft (more or less) above the ground level of ~ 4780 Masson Ct., and is at about the same.level of, or lower than, the ground floor of 14800 Masson Ct.. The Proposed building is on average one story lower than its immediate Masson Court neighbors. This reversed height relationship, opposite to what is shown in the Policy 3 Technique #1 diagram, has preserved the privacy for our neighbors. The deck is also set back 31 ft from the property line, 11 ft more than required, to further reduce its privacy impact. PROPOSED PROJECT 14780 NASSON -------------L!]uB7-__ _____-_____________-- HIGHER GROUND LEVEL Street ~SetbnCk, Wore than 2nd door ' 20' requirement setbnck 14800 NASS(]N COURT ------------HIGHER GRDUND L~VE•a -- ----------------------`----- street ------------------ ~~ ,. setback, Wore than end floor 20~ requirement Setback • U~C~~16 • The south-oriented balcony on the eastside of the Proposed building ,is visually separated from the neighbor by trees planted along the fence between two properties, as recommended by this technique. • U®C~®17 PROPOSED PROJECT ~_ r__ .--~~ Pouoy 3 TECHNIQUE #~ Locate btriidings to minimize privacy impact DO'S • l.oCa~ sttu r.4w~ ~o ~ru~ vi~ge dis+t~v-cc. 'b~twce.r~ b~,uldi~s. • Sw.rcateu ~backE. {or ~ivtiitiq arca~ {fns' rc~wr~ ~~~, ~~ ~~ ~ ~~' i • DON'T'S ~ • ~~+ du'ak l,~um ~~~ ~ti~~ i {,~~~wJ YES ~-=. ~; ' . . ~ ,- ~ ~ ~ ~. ~= : ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' NO ,~ ~1~ i' .~ ~, The Policy 3 Technique #2 favors and encourages staggered building layout in the neighborhood to increase visual distance and reduce privacy impact. The neighborhood building layout displayed here, which is accurately drawn based on the City's record, clearly indicates our full compliance with this technique. There is no direct line of sight to neighboring residences. ~.~ ~~ w~ ~: ~ ~ ,.~~ wiwn Cart ~,~ ,,; .;~'• %1 1' ,F~,' „/!mss ;ter,, ~~ ~' ,.Ilsf iwtpa ~•~~:. r% 1: 4^ • U~C~©18 I PO``~ ° r6CHwQUE #3: Locate structts+e to reduce height ;mpact • • • ~.S __ • Rcduce. `~itcio~- ~ . 1'-uwi -wiu Gut' . bfvtka,e~.a' l~ta~Cs~r~iu~ ~~or-s ~ ~ afraid l~tcu> w~~a-cKce,.. • Lorcitc s~ru~urv~ ovi bwu- aws ~,,il lsilafs. notv-r's z • 1ao -,et b{a~ vices t~ ~,.tk~~sww~~ Kd.$e u-w,- ~at- iw~pact vigil. YES -~ -_`-~ ,~ rvo ----~-~ ~=-° ~= The Proposed building uses broken down building masses and cascading roof placement to minimize view blockage. We have also taken advantage of pyramid-shape roof for its minimized blockage. The overall building profile is in agreement with the "DO's" diagram above. I .----------~, i i i ~ i I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ 1 ~ I ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ w ~ r~ ~- ~ ~ fIOE-- 70x VtEV tILOI;[dfi f SlfE- .___~~.:.~~``_... I _-_ 1 ,~.__ afx ~a~ . ~ r - ` ftlpll-_ Irex vtEV LLRY~fL ~D0C~019 ~ 4 7'BCt/i/QlJE #t Locate lure to rni~iniae view blockage Do•s • R~dccf ikc vices !; rom ~~ ~ • }{~ ~~_ ~ ~ DON'T'S ~ DD Ni~ hlo~tk Y1GrJ uri{~t s-frtwturv~ or +a,~t t,av~ds,ca.p~v~. • braid u.x-~ si+c uric, ~~ ~~ . ~ i. %~m • / / / "~~. ~~~'~:~ QuQi~.~. ~View`~~~'-•~--. ~, ~~~;~: .` ::,~". :;; :,f~it~ h i ;:~-uality / `:f V;i e w ~ i- i i i i The technique of this Policy is meant for preserving "high quality view" for "major living area." The "high quality views," in this neighborhood, are oriented toward the north and the south. 14800 Masson Ct. and 14780 Masson are about one story higher than the Proposed building. Standing at the ground level of these two neighbors' houses, there is practically no view blockage at all. The Proposed building is not in the line of sight of any neighboring buildings toward their high quality views. The Proposed building has far exceeded the regturement of this technique. (Photos of panorama views from actual sites will be presented in the meeting.) 000020 I POD ° TscrFwollE #3: Locate structure to reduce height impact • • • no's twiwi w~iu Gar • be~ck~t.e~. I,atasfi~nuXw~ ~~ows ~ ~ • t.a~ca~c strur~urv, o~ bwcr p norv'rs • Ac r,~ b{.o~ vita, ~sWw~~ • Avmd nroF fa---K~, a,,,, ~~att ~ YES ~ -~ ~- -~ no ~- ~-- -~ ~~ C The Proposed building uses broken down building masses and cascading roof placement to minimize view blockage. We have also taken advantage of pyramid-shape roof for its minimized blockage. The overall building profile is in agreement with the "DO's" diagram above. i i i i i i i ~ i i i i i i i i ~ ~ i - ~ i ~ i ~ i m i - ---.__. i i rewr-. aex vrcv a.aY~cc rpn-- ~rox v¢v r ~r...r UOC~021 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000022 Attachment 3 T0: Planning Commission 6-30-02 City of Saratoga cc: Christy Oosterhous FROM:Jon Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court Joe Park, 14800 Masson Court Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court Subject: Design Review Approval 97-061 Extension 14805 Masson Court ~ ~~~o~~ ~ JUL 0 3 2002 CITY OF 5ARA'iOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We would like to urge the City to deny extension to Design Review Approval 97-061. We also request the City to place a condition on 14805 Masson that the entire foot print be moved 18 feet towards Pierce Road, and that no part of the structure or construction will intrude upon the properties on 14581 Saratoga Heights and 14800 Masson. Essentially we have the same concerns we had the last time we talked to the City at the Council Meeting regarding Application 97-061. Apparently now the applicant is actively searching for a buyer. In light of that we feel that a new design that is more compatible and harmonious with the neighborhood, will greatly benefit the Applicant as well as the neighborhood. Summary of Neighbors' Objections Raised at the Second Appeal Meeting: 1) There is no accurate drawings and site markers to locate the the structure. The Applicant admitted to major mistakes in the poles and stakes locations, after the plans were approved by Planning. At the Appeal Meeting, the Mayor specifically asked if there were any constraints preventing the foot print of the structure from re-locating towards Pierce Road. And the Applicant/Architect replied that there were none. At a site meeting among the City, Applicant and neighbors, a suggestion from the neighbors was requested: move the entire foot print of the structure 30 feet towards Pierce Road. The Applicant and Architect agreed to moving the entire foot print 18 feet towards Pierce Road. Subsequently, the plans were modified to EXTEND towards Pierce Road, without moving the rest of the structure. The Mayor himself at the Appeal Meeting said that it was unfortunate that through trickery the neighbors were fooled into a compromise. The neighbors were not fooled. They were lied to. In a meeting in the presence of City Staff. U0C~023 We request the City hold the Applicant to his words and place a condition that the entire foot print of the structure be moved 18 feet towards Pierce Road. 2) The Applicant's proposed structure was clearly determined by the City to be infringing upon 14581 Saratoga Heights and!14780 Masson. The Applicant's plans were later modified to purpportedly remedy some of these infringements. However, due to the inadequacy of the drawings and site markers, and the lack of drawings since the Appeal, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain what has been modified, what was approved, and whether the infringements are still present. We request that the City place a condition that on the building plans, no part of the structure or construction of 14805 Masson will intrude upon the properties of 14581 Saratoga Heights and 14800 Masson. Summary of Neighbors' Objections Raised at the First Appeal Meeting: 1) Neighborhood Compatibility. The adjacent neighborhood feels that the approved structure is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of its architecture, site setback, and its bulkiness, and its departure from the policies given in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. Each one of these incompatibility and departure will be detailed in the following. The Applicant is actively searching for a buyer. We feel that a new design that is compatible with the neighborhood, complies with policies in the Residential Design Handbook, will benefit the Applicant, the future buyer, as well as the neighborhood. 2) Failure to Comply with Required Site Set Back. In the City's Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements, for the HR zone, front set back is specified to be 30 ft. minimum, and rear set back is specified to be 60 ft. minimum (for a two storey). The front yard is defined to be that closest to the curb. The rear yard is that opposite the front yard. The front and rear yards are not defined by the orientation of the house. In fact, the orientation of the house is not defined or mentioned in the Setback Requirements. A builder cannot circumvent the Setback Requirements by simply calling the front yard its side yard; or by calling the rear yard its side yard. The proposed structure fails to comply with the required aet back. • ~l~~~ti~ 3) Failure to contain structure within its legal lot. The proposed structure extends into property line of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, without the permission of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court; the undated, unsigned blue prints which detail this violation were introduced for the first time in the Planning Meeting where design review approval was granted. The Chairperson of that Meeting denied Mr. Rwong of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court the opportunity to examine the newly introduced blue prints, and to voice his objections. Recent discings by 14805 Masson have intruded beyond property lines into 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, causing damage to the drain pipe cleanouts in Saratoga Heights Court. The latest dieting by Applicant in 2002 again intruded into Saratoga Heights Court, in the same areas. In the Appeal during the City Council Meeting in Feb. 2000, the City has requested the Applicant to stake out the property lice adjacent to Saratoga Heights Court so that the Applicant can recognize the property line, to prevent future intrusion. The Applicant has yet to comply. 4) Failure to Adequately Address Landslide Issues. A number of major landslides exist on the site..of the proposed structure. In a letter dated Sept. 2, 1999, from the City geologist to the City, it was stated "second landslide (on 14805 Masson Court) extends offsite to the east, where it has impacted the residential development at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court." it was also stated "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant porton of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." The property owener of Saratoga Heights Court was never notified of this concern. Mr. Rwong of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court raised his concerns regarding the landslide problem and the lack of resolution both in a letter and also at the December 8 public hearing. On the day of the December 8 hearing where the Planning Commission approval was given, no document in the City file on DR-97-061 addresses the resolution of the landslide problem. During the December 8 hearing, a geological drawing was handed out to the Commissioners, which purportedly addresses the resolution to the landslide problem. The Commissioners did not have a chance to study the drawing. The City Geologist who was not present obviously did not have the opportunity to examine, approve/disapprove this drawing, which was un-signed, and un-dated. Mr. Rwong was given a copy of the drawing and told to review it before returning to the podium. This un-signed, un-dated drawing was ambiguous as to the extent of the repair (e.g. how much cut and fill ), and it shows structures that extends from the applicant's property 14805 Masson-Court into Mr. Rwong's property 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. The drawing was not mentioned in the City Geologist's report and has not been approved by the City Geologist. A few minutes later, Mr. Rwong was called back to the podium. When Mr. Rwong raised the questions regarding this drawing he was told that was not the place to ask questions regarding the drawing. ~J©~®tis How can the City approve the plans for an applicant's structure that extends into neighboring property without the neighbor's approval ? And how can an unsigned, undated drawing that details soil repair, which has not been examined, let alone approved by the City Geologist, be approved by the City ? . 5) The proposed structure does not follow Residential Design Handbook policies, including Policy 1, Technique #4:Minimize building height; to minimize areas of maximum height, vary height of roof elements, and to set back higher portions of structure. Policy 1, Technique #S:Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood; to be compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and height, to have architectural style that is compatible, and to avoid overwhelming existing residences. Policy 1, Technique #6:IIse architectural features to break up massing; to avoid features that add to the perception of height. Policy 2, Technique #2:Integrate with environmental texture and forms; to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting. Policy 3, Technique #l:Control view to adjacent properties. to avoid window and balcony locations that impact privacy, to avoid reducing required setback distances. Policy 3, Technique #2:Locate buildings to minimize privacy impact; to avoid siting structures in direct line-of-sight to neighboring residences. Policy 4, Technique #1:Locate structure to minimize view blockage; to not block view with structures, and to avoid using site plans that will create view problems. Policy 4, Technique #3:Locate structure to reduce height impact; to not block view by excessively high and bulky structures, and to avoid roof forms and ridge lines that impact view. In conclusion, in the design review approval, the City has departed significantly from its procedures, stated policies, and past practices. In many instances, careful consideration and due process ware not given. A new design that is compatible with the neighborhood, in compliant with City policies, properly reviewed, will ultimately benefit the neighborhood, the future buyer, and the Applicant as well. Thank you for your considerations in this matter. ®~~ti6 _ Attachment REPOR~~ 1 O THE PLANNING C ~1VIMISSION Applicant No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court LIU Heather Bradley, Associate Planner October 13, 1999 503-72-014 Department Head: ~ /~ '- l MOUNTAM WINERY i ~ o~,.,~ .~ North 14805 Masson Court ®004;;'7 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court Application filed: 11/13/97 Application complete: 09/03/99 Notice published: 09/29/99 Mailing completed: 09/30/99 Posting completed: 09/23/99 Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The site is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. • Open the public hearing to discuss item DR-97-061 then continue the public hearing indefinitely with the direction that the applicant revise the site plan to eliminate the secondary driveway, perform condition 8 of the Draft Resolution requiring the Project Geotechnical Engineer to prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and have this plan reviewed by the City Arborist who shall provide comments relating to tree preservation. 1. 3. 5. 6. Staff Analysis Draft Resolution DR-97-061 Arborist report dated December 17, 1997 Site Geologic Map (Plate 4 prepared by Frank Lee and Associates) Conceptual Slope Mitigation (Figure C1 prepared by Milstone Geotechnical) Plans, Exhibit "A" C7 ~~~~~8 • • File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court ZONING: HR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Residential MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 2.75 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 19% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 6% GRADING REQUIRED: Landslide Repair Cut: 300 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: 25 Ft. Fill: 470 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: 30 Ft. House construction Cut: 130 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: 1 Ft. . Fill: 55 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: S Ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stained wood exterior with limestone and metal details. A copper roof is also proposed, but an asphalt shingle has been submitted as an alternative if the Commission feels it is more appropriate. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ LOT COVERAGE: 12.5% (14,914 sq. ft.) HEIGHT: 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First floor: 3,741 sq. ft. Garage: Second Flo TOTAL: SETBACKS: Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: 651 sq. ft. or: 2,108 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 320 ft. 345 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. ALLOWANCE 25% (or 15,000 sq. ft.) 26 ft. Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: 6,620 sq. ft. 30 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. OOU029 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court PROJECT DISCUSSION Request far Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square, foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The site is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Background This application has been under review by the Planning Division for quite some time. The primary reason for the delay is that the project was slow in getting a geologic clearance due to the large landslide on the property and the amount of time it took the applicant to prepare the appropriate reports. DESIGN REVIEW The residence is designed in a unique contemporary architectural style with wood, stone and metal details. Although it is quite different than homes in this area, it is comparable in tenors of size and mass. The use of natural materials such as wood siding with a dark stain rather than paint, limestone and metal details, does also help the structure to blend with the natural setting. • The applicant is proposing a copper roof which they feel is integral to the design, however they have proposed an asphalt shingle alternative. While the Planning Commission has been concerned with the mineral runoff from the use of copper gutters, roofing, et cetera, it is accepted knowledge that if the roofs and gutters are drained properly into landscaped areas the minerals aze quickly absorbed into the soil and do end up in the storm water runoff. Both alternatives aze shown on the colors and materials boazd. Grading The majority of required grading on site is to repair an existing landslide. This will reportedly require 300 cubic yards of cut, 470 cubic yards of fill, with maximum cut depths of 25 feet and fill depths of 30 feet. The pad for the residence involves 130 cubic yards of cut and 55 cubic yards of fill, with maximum cut depths of 1 foot and fill depths of 5 feet. This total amount of 985 cubic yards is under the 1,000 cubic yards guideline recommended for properties in the hillsides. Trees/ Landscaping There are twelve fees on the subject property, but only one which is near construction. This is a Coast Live Oak in excellent condition and will be maintained. The applicant has modified a proposed driveway around the tree per the Arborist's original recommendation, however staff is concerned about the impacts to this tree given the nature of landslide repair which the City Arborist has not had the opportunity to review. Staff is fiirther recommending the removal of this secondary driveway and parking area for aesthetic reasons so the impact to this tree should be further minimi~~d, Staff has recommended continuing this application to give the City Arborist the 000030 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court ~' opportunity to review the proposal in light of the required landslide repair. Geotechnical Review This site straddles an east-west trending ridgeline with steep north facing slopes and gentle south facing slopes. The ridge top at the center of the property has been modified i~ the past (most likely during subdivision improvement construction) to create a level building pad. Sometime prior to 1997 the upper portion of the northern slope failed and resulted in the landslide visible below the building pad. Because the grading plan does not comprehensively reflect the nature of the landslide, staff has included two exhibits from the geologic and geotechnical investigations for further reference on the landslide. Based on the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project and geologic and geotechnical reports, the Public Works Director has granted the proposal a Geologic and Geotechnical Clearance. The City Consultant's recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of approval within the attached Draft Resolution. Conclusion The proposed residence is a very unique design, but staff has concluded that it does to conform to each of the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and does satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The project meets all zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. With a change to the site plan eliminating the secondary driveway staff would be in support of approving the plan. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing to discuss item DR-97-061 then continue the public hearing indefinitely with the direction that the applicant revise the site plan to eliminate the secondary driveway, perform condition 8 of the Draft Resolution requiring the Project Geotechnical Engineer to prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and have this plan reviewed by the City Arborist who shall provide comments relating to tree preservation. 0 UO~©31 BARRIE D. (~- ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 Fax 408-354-3767 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA Prepared az the Request of: Carol Deming City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 DEC 3 0 1997 PLAivrvuw Lt~ site visit by: Michael L. Bench December 17, 1997 Job#11-97-377 • ~~i~ BARRIE D. ~ SATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 40B-353-1052 Fax 408-354-3767 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 45030 AN EVALUATION OF TREES AT TSE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA • Assignment At the request of Carol Deming, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to build a new residence on a vacant lot in the context of potential damage to adjacent tees. 'his report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be minimized. - The plan reviewed for this report is the Site Plan prepared by Amphibian ARC Design Studio, Los Angeles, sheets Al-A7, dated November 13, 1997. Summary Of the twelve trees on site, only one would be affected by construction. Mitigation is suggested for its preservation $4,943 is suggested for protection. This tree should be preserved at all costs. Observations This tree's value is $9,885. A 50°Io bond of There are twelve trees on this site, but it appears that only one tree would be affected by construction. The attached map shows the tree's location and its canopy dimensions. The data sheets following this text provides a health and swcture rating. The subject tree is a 24-inch diameter coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). This species is native to this area. The height is about 30 feet and the spread is approximately 45 feet. The health is excellent and the structure is very good but could be improved by pruning. The 14-inch diameter branch facing the south is horizontally inclined and is at least moderately prone to breakage as it matures. However, this risk can be virtually eliminated by proper pruning for eridweight removal. Not all arborists understand this Repared by: Michael L Bench, Aibotist 000033 December 17, 1997 AN EVALUATION OF TREE AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA procedure. If pruning is desired, I suggest that the work be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture). However, this suggestion has nothing to do with proposed constnlction and should not be a requirement. There is a section of fill soil approximately 24 inches in depth on the east side and ] 0 feet from of the trunk at the edge of the canopy. It will be essential to remove this fill soil without allowing the soi] to slip down the slope to cover the root collar. If this were to occur, the tree would then become highly susceptible to a fungus infection, which in time could kill it. This coast live oak tree would suffer severe root damage by grading and construction of the proposed 18' wide driveway. The proposal indicates a 1- to 2-foot clearance between the edge of the driveway and the tree's trunk. If the tree is to survive, that driveway location must be changed. Recommendations If the subject tree is to survive driveway construction it will be essential to move the driveway and to mitigate remaining damage by the following actions: 1. I suggest the driveway be relocated to the east so as to provide for a minimum clearance of IS linear feet between the edge of the driveway and the east of the tree's trunk. To achieve even this the east side of the canopy must be pruned, and in any case no more than one-third of the entire canopy must be removed in a single growing season. The pruning of the south-facing horizontally inclined branch must be included in this pruning. It does not appear that the driveway could be located closer due to this pruning limitation. 2. The fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade by hand in any area within 15 feet of the trunk. 3. A temporary protective chainlink fence must be installed. The fence must be a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be located a minimum of 1 foot outside the edge of the canopy on the north and south sides, at the curb of Masson Court on the west side, and 2 feet from the new driveway. The fence must be in place prior • • • OOQ-034 Prepared by: Mid~ael L Beach, Arbaist December 17. 1997 • AN EVALUATION OF TRF AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA to the arrival of materials or equipment and must remain in place until the completion of construction. 4. There must not be any other trenches or excavations .even for utilities gas. cable, phone, etc.) within 25 feet of the trunk of this tree. 5. I suggest the discharge for the drainage system for the house be directed a minimum of 40 feet from the other trees (l0 of which are coast live oak) on site. 6. I recommend a site inspection by our office after the fence has been installed but before any equipment arrives on site. 7. I recommend an additional inspection during construction to assure compliance with the preservation procedures. • Respectfully submitted, _~~ Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~" ~"tS Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB:2d Enclosures: Charts Maps • ~®®035 Prepared by: Midrael L Beach, Arborist December 17.1997 aAaRtr u. con~~r_ ~ nssocln~res Horlicullural Consullanls z 5-gal = $36.00 ~ L7 W i» 1C'J •-• # tI ~ } 15-gal = $120 ! ~ Q ~ 24"box = $420 (408) 353-1052 ~ ~ ! w Iul h ~ a h (~, ¢ n w Z p~~ ~~ Q in I D =~ Q Q Q 36"box = 1,320 a~ W y ~ L7 1 Z Z ~ '" ~ 1 1 p in w F- W p ¢ O r ¢ ¢ w -~ `~ ~ '- V O W F- Z cL Q 48"box = $5,000 = N u u W y =~ 1=- w O W O w p~¢ w ~~~ Z w a W -~ -~ a 52"box = $7,000 c c ~ H ~ > u V ~ uu '"' u~ ~-- ~ ~ Q Q c7 72"box ~'- J ~. ~. ~O = w ~ j ~ O 1- ~ F- Q Y V V u' t~ C7 W to to ~ >' > Z - $15,000 Key# Plant Name o ~ o o ~N w a w~w~o°'o°o~¢~QvWiWa~ ow°w°uO~~ ~ _ ~ =~Z¢¢V¢pl-Z~-po~a V ZZ¢~¢a COMMENTS -- - oasl Live Oak _ - 26 30 45 1 2 d - ~ - - - - 1 Ouen:us agrifolia-- - ---- ---- - ---- --- -- - - - ---- -- - _.._ - ---- - --- - _ ~----- - _..--- .. -I .. sq. in_ 452 _____ _-____X $27/sq. in = $12,204. X sp, class (1009'°) _ $12,204. X cond. (90% - 10,984. ~ -- -- - - '' ) - X loc. (909'°) _ $9.895. - - -- - - ---- -- - ---. - _ . _._ _. _ nel Value - -- --•-------•----------------------- - --I - ~ -~- --•- -_ _ -- ~-- -----~ - ----.....-.---._... -...._. -_-- ---------- .. -- ~---. .... --- _._q - X sp. class (%) _ $ X cond. (9~°) _ $ X loc. (%) _ ~ - --- - - - -- --- -- -- -- - -~ _ Final Value 3 -_--- - _ - --- --- - - '- ~- --- ---- -~ -- -- - - -- X 27/sq. to = $ X sp. class (%1= $ X cond. % - ° - - ~- - - - -- -~ -- - - verve 4 -- ------~--~------ - - - - -- -- - --- --- _.. __ . ---- ----- --- --__._ __ ___..._ _ _ _ . ----- --- - ..-- . __ .. . . S9. in - ---~-- -- ~--- -- X S27/sq. in = $ X sp. class (%) _ $ X cond. (9'°) _ $ ° ~-- -- X loc. (/°) = s -- --- -- - _ ---- - - - - - - -- - -- Final Value 5 -- ------ -- --------- - -- - -- ---- -- --- -- . -- - - -- I - _ sq. in _ - - - - X $27/sq. in = $ X sp. class (%) _ $ X cond. (°/a) _ $ _ _... ° - - X loc. (/°) _ $ s --------- - s~L 1n _ X s27/sq. in = s X sp. class (%) _ $ Q 0--- --- - . __ _ ~ iTIE:Liu P /14905 Masson Court ~ 11/97/377 ~ 12.17.97 X cond. (%) _ ~ Page t of 1 - - - Fh~al Value X loc. (9'°) _ $ ~nel Value • • • A w w ~ ~ w A A p~~. ~BelUeac a' tt.anel "° *avo..a A..a.nc. ~ . Ghee Pln WNI __~_._.__ y~ ~ w pi.. ~- n~ ' rr fin.. ru I ~~_ ~~ °~e.N+.o..~.non.«ww~.uon.we,~a-.to~ye~„e,,,-e,e.,.,,,,l,,,e CONCEPTUAL SLOPE MITIGATION ~ FlousaE ~ CAI twe. ~•. end hens level NCwMquq end w eoarNe Dory b IM ,~~~~ MI LS.rQIV E ~ ~meUloO~_ illb flOvn ItM OnOered b depld IMlipellen I, PROPOSED LIU gESIDENCE ~ l„r eareveno~ ~~ e~e~o oval end le nol tnl«wd a t» used GEOIECHNI 1.1805 M.s.on Court C 1 SaraloSe, C~lllornl~ D.ls: 9t~k: Engineer p„~~y June 1999 t Ineh. e0leet BSM IS70 tmn.6lNlpebllllAU) engn~aereo 8ubdreln tq.. FM (~YPkd) • ~~ , ~-~ ., ~ -~ ~ o /\` i" 1` ,_ ~., __ .- ~ ~- obi ~. \ \• , \ 1 Iml 1, r+ ,_ Y -. • ~ ~ 1 1 I '~~ .•~ ~~ ~~ 1 I 1 1 1 1 `~ ~~ I I I 1 1 1 ! ~. 1 1 1' t i l l -b i 1 ~ ~i J _ _ ~ LL ~ 1.1._1. ! _I" -~- _ ~~ I • . 1• ~,• ,•, . 1, t.l' ~.,tRIt1E 0. COATE ~n AASOCIATES tlp !I•wwN tt•d ~f r~l•;t~~~ ~'yl't+ndan t^M •MAn,.n -~~-- IfIFf•lu~rtl ~,..• ` - ..~aLL_N 1;'17'13' '~__ "~~I U~- .~, \` r"1 ~ ~ A>- 1 ~ ~ ~iT -- - , ~ r.~ ~~, ~ - ~ l ~- ~ ~1~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `/ I , 1 f I U / O ` \ \ ~. I~~i ~ ,~ I - ~ ~ ~ I( ` i I ,. eA•rt•. \~ sr_~ Z PARTIAL SITE PLAN M tvt••tlon of • frp, u~o~ w.•e• •.•nw A - ~ SCALE: 1" = 20' ~ ~ WI haprer. f•r•toy -r•pr•d tor, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ tlt~~el S•r•to0• ~r•)71 1/ ~/ u (E) '14" f1AK Ip,~GFMAR! • • • ,~ -~- R ~ in/ ~~ Exlsthp Buttress ~n~ r m 9 tg' -1.-ice -~ t _ 1Nsseon Court A Exisgrtp Eleclrkx+l Box Caws TV Box 1020 1030 1040 A' 1050 iCS0 ~,..,i - ..,•~ ..~ ',"~i ..1.! . .~ ~ '7dC) V ~ , EXPLANATION Otsc - Ouatemary Banta Clare &e4 -Borings t-4 Formation ~ -Possible Spring - Property line ~~ -Strike and dip of shear plane. ~?1 ` '~ -P - Tesl PHs 1-7 - Landslkle mass; boundary Interpreted where question ' ..,s.s s Scale: 1' - 60' 4 T l~ ~ marks are present; arrow represents direction o1 _.___.__ .. N` - Cracks M soil movement. S/7E GEOLOGIC MAP BZ ~ -Main scarp of Landsiie A A.P.N. 503-72-014 Masson Cou-I Sarofoga, Santa Cara Counf y, 0 i -Area strike and dip of bedding -- California h~"'k10'"t• W' ~ e. rN.d upon 1at47on oorWnretlon~es. --~-- ~,dvn ~ssocr. _ - ---------- -- ----------- - ~nrtltllN rt"'r' t Ex. retaining wall / Approximate limits of 'Dis' shown on William Calton and Associates (1990( FNI slope, Ihk:kness unknown ~ e-4 ? Ponded drainage ~ ~ `- 7 Area of slgnNk:enl Otsc 8-1 ~ soU creep .d, \.o f07p ' BulkNng Ernelope ''~ ~ ' ~4 .v' Telephone Box/ /Telephone Box Existing SDMH ~ Exhting Translormer ;~ BARRIE D. COAT~`~ ~`~~: AND ASSOCIATES ' Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 9503.3 r TREE PRESERVATION RECOIVA~NDATIONS AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Christina Ratcliffe City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate November 8, 1999 Job #11-97-377-99 RECEIVED N~V 1 ? ]999 PLANNING DEPT. • • • 000040 Tree Preservation Recommend ~ ; At The Liu Property, 14805 Masson Court, ,toga Assignment I was asked by Christina Ratcliffe, Planner, at the City of Saratoga to inspect the Liu property slide restoration plans, to identify any conflict between that activity and health of trees on site. Summary Only one tree would be affected by the proposed landslip repair, and if protective fences are installed and maintained precisely as shown on the enclosed site plan by Milstone Geotechnical Co., this affect should be minor. ' Discussion The tree is a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) of 22-inch diameter, 20-foot height, and 35 foot spread. Its health is excellent and with a good structure. Its value is $6,104. I suggest a bond of 20% ($1,221) to assure installation and consistent maintenance of the fence no closer than 16 feet from the tree trunk on the east side and 10 feet beyond the canopy on other sides. Resp 11 sul2mitt~, C,._ Barrie D. Coate r ~'~~- BDC/sl Encloswes: Tree Data Chart Map • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate November 8, 1999 UO®041 Job Title: Liu Property Job Address: 1480.5 Masson Court Job #11-97-377-99 November 8, 1999 t ; t t i ! E i BARRIE D. COATS j ~ j t ; ; ; ; ~, ; ` ~ ; ^ j I t t t ' ~ ~~ t t j i t t t t ~ t t i O i `-' i i an ASSOCIATES ; ~ _, _ , ~ ' ~ t t r ; ~ I t j ' I rn t I O t t=, ~ ~ ~ t t I j j I.W j Ic~t a, ~j lal I`-'I~ ~ ti3i j>j ~!~o 1909) 3531052 ; t t I LL I I' ~' ~ s C7 z t z~~ j z I 3 i w' ~ ~ o I w' I ~ I ~ t o t rw.i i W 2393fSUm~nd~Oad ~ t t t N t i~ t~ Z t Z i O~ ; O= ~ E 1 t D: t J~ Q F- I t I~ t N~ w j ~ ~"' ~; Z; M; (A ' 0 t w' d' . ~ t Z E O I Q t ~ t ~ W j (- t 0 a LaCala,G 95030 0 }} I j i o ~ I ? ; O i ~ v ~ -z- I o: t w ~ w ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ O ~ c~ ~ g ~ g ~ w ' ~ -f t~ i t~ f- = I ' t R' t W I z t ~ C1 t~ ~ W i J t J Q~~~ Z a ~~ o z~z ztzt u,~ ~~t ;o~o0 31u_i~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ , f U ~ ~ Y U U ~ ~ _~~ ~j~ ~j~~oi 3~3=3i~loj~ z UtW sz ~!~ olol0 0 m l~ m l m j~ w a Z' O' O O t O'~, O w t w ~ O O H O w o w v ~ ;e # Plant Name j ~ ~ t ~ 1 0 l~ o: t cr o: t~ I W l~ i ~ Z l a ~ o: o i o w t w l w w y o t~ o n o o = uJ x t N v s v t v v v o: v o. i-. p ~- o: t~ z t z 1 oC o: 1 Coast Live Oak 20.0 j I ~ 22 j 20 ~ 35 1 ff 2 3 I t j I t j t t t i t]uercus a rifo9a I I I I ; i = i i j ! j { I ~ i j I j sa_ in ate X S27/sq. in. _ $ 8,478 X sp. class 100% = 58,478 X cond. 90% - 5 7,630 in 0 X $27/sq. in. = 5 X sp. lass = 50 X cond. - $ ® REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES . ~ 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 ~ 24"box = 0 36"box = $1, 320 F~ 48"box 0 52"box = $7,000 N 72"box = ,ooo X loc. 80% = 5 6,104 ~ -~ Total Value 1 - S Total Value 1 =BEST WORST age 1 of ~1 • 1 .. L r .~ i~ { a BARRIE D COATE Liu Residence . and ASSOCIATES 14805 I-4asson Court I/Og5531052 DS35 f~n~~ tad $2r8tOQ8 ~ laG)IetiG 95010 Job # I I-97-377-99' HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT DATE: November 8 1999 CONSULTING ARBORIST EOGRiD ~~~~,{{ CLEA•.,,.,• ~ ~ ~ B~ EiNFORCED t"-1' / \J :lTTAESS ~JJ ~. ,_• n • ..r: i ~ -W ~'~T~~~~~ ~1}~ ~:... " ~' . , ---- ~. - ~. ~. ^, ;. 1 •--.- ~ ,/ f ~~~~ F f ~.;. ='- ~ Dts . ~ ; Zy > >.y yi`,. ,y 'r ~r ,~r ~ . r .:a)t~ rl, r,,••4 ,~ .. .N~. ..n' ,'•' ~ V V~ 50 % PROGRESS PRINT 50% REDUCTION MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL 1 7 0 ] 0 Y.NO) L.m -.. O.N., CA OOOii ~~ 100•iN•Otl0 b.fe.O.NMON.M. or: S~ 3x~'t~;v''S ~R Vf ~pM 1~ SPUN ~oa>~orE w+oYuoe wrw~noM rnorwEC w nFS~ocncc tY0611roan Corti W~bYR ColrwN~ h~ UOO043 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C~ • UOC~044 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 2 of 18 Attachment ~ Report of Posting Agenda - - Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced two technical corrections to the packet as follows: Item #2, page 4, paragraph S, line 4, amended to read: "This total amount of 995 cubic yards is under the....." Item #4, page 3, last line amended to read, "The landscaping will consist of native California flannel bush to entirely surround the enclosure The plants will be irrigated for approximately one year or until established." CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-98-009 & DR-98-070 (397-27-031) - NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Request for Tentative Map and Design Review approval for the subdivision of a 24,391 square foot parcel into six parcels ranging in size from 2,300 to 3,370 square feet. The remaining 7,451 square feet will•be common area. Six townhomes ranging in size from approximately 2,700 to 2,900 square feet will be constructed on the new lots. The site is located within an R-M-3,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. A NEW HEARING DATE WILL BE ADVERTISED). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-97-061 (503-72-014) - LIiJ, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for design consideration to a 6,500 ~ :. square foot contemporary design home within the Saratoga Heights subdivision. The parcel is 2.75 acres and is constrained on the downslope and base of the property by several landslides. He said the application had been submitted sometime ago but has been delayed because of the length of time it took to get geological clearance on the property. He said the City geologist has granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance, noting that the landslides have been generally identified, and they will need to be repaired before a house can be built on the property. Hz conveyed that the application is sufficient to present to the Planning Commission for approval; however, because there are still details on the landslides to be identifed, including the relationship to adjacent properties and the large Oak tree On the property, staff is not prepared to recommend approval at this time. --~ V L.~ V Q~a~ Planning Commission Minutes _ October 13, 1999 Page 3 of 18 Director Walgren stated that this is one of the last homes in the development, noting that the other homes have been designed in more traditional or rural or English tudor styles. He said this home is a very contemporary and modern design. He expressed that the application is before the Commission tonight for an early read for the applicant's benefit before they continue through the geological investigation process. He said the findings are that the home is consistent and compatible in design, height, size, massing and materials with the natural environment. He noted that although the wood, limestone, and copper roofing should blend in very well with the hillside areas, it is difficult to say that it is compatible with the existing homes in the area. He added that the proposal meets all minimum zoning standards regarding allowable building area, lot coverage, setbacks, and height, and conforms with the original subdivision tentative map, site development and conditions of approval. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Walgren for a briefing on the issue regarding the secondary driveway and parking area. - Director Walgren responded that issues raised in the staff report included the roofing material. He said the applicants are proposing a copper roofing and that concerns have been raised in the past about mineral leaching of copper materials. He said that issue could be mitigated through proper roof drains in the landscape areas where it can be absorbed into the soil very quickly. He stated that the applicants are willing to consider a composition roof if the copper roof is not acceptable to the Commission. He conveyed that the original design is a very large, expansive front guest parking area which almost matches the footprint of the home in addition to the two driveways -one accessing the area; the other accessing the garage to the building. He said that the applicants were aware that the City could not support the expansive hard surface on the property, and the plans presented before the Commission tonight show it in a reduced configuration. He said it is a significant improvement over the original proposal. Commissioner Patrick noted a typographical error in the design review portion of the report and confirmed that the term "and do end up in stone water runoff' should say, "and do not end up in storm water runoff..." Commissioner Page referred to the fact that it had been almost two years since the arborist had reviewed the project, and asked whether, depending on what happens with the second driveway, it would be appropriate to have an analysis of the tree below the tree that would be impacted. Director Walgren responded in the affirmative, noting that one of the recommendations to define this landslide would also give the arborist a second chance for a final look. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Non Cho Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, CA, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owner. Using a model of the project as a visual aid„ he described the project. He said much attention had been given to the design guidelines of the Planning Department. He said the intent is to build a building compatible with the surroundings, neighbors, and work with the -- landscape. He said that to comply with staffs concern about having too much paved driveway, the driveway was reduced and is now under the maximum allowable 15 percent of the lot size. He said his client had certain ideas about how to use the lot which is a very long shape, and that it has close to 900 feet from one point to the other, and the other direction is very short. He said given the shape, two driveways seemed to make more sense because the overall lot can be utilized more efficiently. However, 000046 /" Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 4 of 18 • he said he understood the intention of minimizing the driveway because of the water runoff, and that he is contemplating using a material that is semi-permeable to reduce the water runoff during the rain. Mr. Wang referred to the environmental concern associated with the copper roof, and quoted from research done by the International Copper Institute on the environmental impact of copper on the ground soil and groundwater, which, in his opinion, was positive. He opined that the way to use copper as a roof material is to treat it with proper drainage so when it drains to the soil it will not have high concentration and become toxic. Commissioner Patrick stated she did riot see a drainage plan to show that water is not running off the roof into pipes and down into drains somewhere, and asked where the water from the roof was going. Mr. Wang responded that he would have to study the issue further to understand what is the proper way to drain, and explained that according to the report he quoted from earlier, 95 percent of the copper being washed off the roof is not biodegradable and the other 5 percent is diluted when it gets to the ground. He said by the time the 5 percent gets to the ground it has already reacted to organic material in the environment and is not toxic anymore. Commissioner Patrick noted she had information to the contrary. She said the only way to prevent damage to the environment is by putting it in the ground and not in the water runoff which can end up in the Bay. Commissioner Patrick referred to the driveway and asked whether it would be aesthetically possible to combine the two driveways such for a turnaround off of the driveway that comes in to the garage, which would serve the purpose of having parking for visitors and eliminating the pavenent area. Mr. Wang replied that he would be willing to consider the suggestion. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that it appeared that the flat or semi-flat area is virtually covered and the rest of the sloping area is uncovered. Commissioner Page noticed that much of the structure has a significant amount of metallic element and asked whether the side with aluminum or metal poles were just design elements, for looks, or for support. Mr. Wang responded that the poles act as design elements as well as structural elements. He said the roof overhang provides much energy conservation which needs more structure to support it. He stated that the south side which Commissioner Page was referring to is the back yard which will used for parties and children's play. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page, Mr. Wang confirmed that the south side is the side seen from the valley on the other hills. Commissioner Page asked whether the applicant had any objection to making the poles wood as most of the house is wood. Mr. Wang said he considered using different material; however, the material would be painted so that it would not look like metallic, and when it is painted, one would not be able to tell whether it was wood or metal underneath. 000047 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 5 of 18 In response to questions from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Wang reviewed the materials, describing the detailed materials he plans to use. Commissioner Roupe commended the applicants for a creative and interesting design. He said he did not see a compelling reason that the design had to be compatible with the more contemporary houses, noting that some of then were not so contemporary. He urged the applicants to take seriously the matter regarding the copper roof, and indicated that the Copper Institute report could be biased. He conveyed that with some issues being addressed, he could support the project. Referring to the amount of hard pavement, Mr. Wang indicated he would be willing to work -out a solution good for the environment and to the City's satisfaction. Commissioner Roupe urged Mr. Wang to work closely with staff. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, a resident of Quito Road, Saratoga, expressed that this was an unattractive building and did not belong on the hillside. Mr. Wang responded that architecture is an expression of the owner's interest and personality. He said the issues raised by the Commission were of great importance and he would do his best to address them. He indicated he would continue to work with staff. • Chairwoman Bernald indicated she did not agree with Ms. Jensen. She said there was an eclectic mix in the hillside, and this project would be an appropriate building. She expressed concerns with the privacy on the east side, and suggested the applicant work with the neighbors, and work with staff to cut back the driveway. She commented she would like to see more research on the copper issue. Mr. Wang responded to Commissioner Kurasch's questions regarding the driveways and the materials proposed for the project. Commissioner Page, responding to Chairwoman Bernald, stated he could support the project with the proposed modifications. Commissioner Patrick indicated she wanted to support the project: She said if she could see evidence that the copper would be no problem, she would have no concerns. She conveyed that two driveways is one too many, and that the drainage is a problem because of the copper roof.. She commented that it was a fabulous design. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the design, specifically the poles having different angles and with too many blank walls. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A LATER DATE. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT).. Upon comments from Director Walgren regarding tonight's discussion, a new motion was made. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO TENTATIVELY APPROVE THE DESIGN AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THE COPPER ROOF, FENCING, DRIVEWAY, AND GEOTECHNICAL MATTERS. 00448 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 6 of 18 Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Director Walgren clarified that the Commission was not bound by any decision until it makes a final decision. He said staff would continue to work with the applicant to address any of the east elevation concerns raised. City Attorney Wittwer opined that a subsequent hearing would not be limited only to the issues raised tonight. FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, THE MOTION PASSED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER KITRASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). 3. UP-99-014 (397-10-009) -CELLULAR ONE, Utility pole in the State-owned right-of--way at the northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9; Request for Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at a height of 30 feet. An associated equipment cabinet located at the base of the pole is part of the proposal. The right-of--way is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for two panel antennas to be located on ales-than-50 feet high PG&E utility pole at approximately 26 feet in height. He reported that the City uses a very comprehensive approach to reviewing antenna applications, noting that antenna proposals can be made throughout the city and that, in the past, the City had ordinances which restricted antennas to particular zoning districts. He reported the City adopted the current ordinance with the provision that all antennas require a conditional use permit. He conveyed that any antenna proposal regardless of its location has to be presented to the Planning Commission for review based on the applicable findings. He said that in many jurisdictions if an antenna is being put on an existing utility pole, they are considered utilities and neighbors are not notified and hearings are not held. He said the City requires conditional use permits; applications are advertised in local newspapers; and mailing notices are sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility. He conveyed that Congress adopted the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) in 1996 which established federal parameters for emissions that were determined to be not dangerous for humans. The FTA further ruled that if the radio frequency -emissions were within the parameters of the standards established by Congress, local jurisdictions were not to deny them strictly on the basis of perceived health effects. Thus, he went on to say, the City is restricted in what can be taken into consideration. He noted, however, that the City requires radio engineers to prepare technical reports to evaluate the radio frequency emissions, both at the worst case scenario (base of the instrument and where a pedestrian may come in contact with the antenna) and broader case scenario (what the area radio frequency emissions may be.) He said the report prepared for this proposal shows that this facility is well under the federal guidelines for impacts to human health, resulting in a negative environmental impact in the initial studies. He said another issue associated with this proposal is aesthetics, noting that the pole is within the public right-of--way, in the center of several mature native trees, and the antenna would be located in the middle of the pole, intended to match the pole. He said that staff found it to be an aesthetically appropriate location for a transmission and primarily on the basis of those findings, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren how the General Plan impact on property values would relate to the application. Director Walgren responded that the purpose of the land use element in the General Plan, the circulation conservation, and open space elements is basically to preserve and protect Saratoga's uniqueness, 000049 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • C~ 000050 C7 r Attachment 6 ~~ ~O~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1?On Incorporated October 22, 2956 MEMORANDUM • • TO: Planning Co ion FROM: James WaI ommunity Development Director DATE: December 8,1999 SUBJECT: DR-97-061; Liu, 14805 Masson Court DESCRIPTION COUNCIL MEMBERS Evan Bake. Stan Bogos,an Jonn Menatiev Nrck Stre,; Ann Waltonsmrtn Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 squaze foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The properly is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. BACKGROUND This application was originally scheduled and heard at the October 13, meeting. The application was not yet complete at that time and still requireazd further detailed geologic investigations. However, given the unique nature of the azchitecture developed for this project, staff did want to present the plans to the Planning Commission eazlier in the process than normal to save the applicallts time and expense if the plans were deemed too "contemporary", and therefore incompatible, with the surrounding natural and built environment. The proposed residence incorporates wood, stone and metal details. Although its architectural style is quite different than the existing, more traditional, homes in this comparable in terms of size and mass. The use of natural materials such as ~,~,~ siding vvi~ a dark stain rather than paint, limestone and metal details, does also help the structure to blend with the natural setting. At the October 13 meeting, the planning Commission reviewed the proposal, took public testimony and then moved 4-1 (Kurasch opposed, Jackman absent to su changes to the plans as outlined in the staff report and discussed at~the meetinPhBo~ttoi~thb of • with staff report and meeting minutes are attached for reference. In response to these recommended changes, the applicant has made the mo3ifications outlined on the following page. panted on recycled pacer ~ ~®~~~~ r Liu,14805Masson Coup Page Two Reducing the total lot coverage area from 14,914 sq. ft. to 13,805 sq. ft. • .Reconfiguring and reducing the entrance driveway azea. Re~~ising the grading plan to indicate the area of landslide repair. .Completing the landscape plan. Including fencing azound the proposed pool. Reseazching the effect of copper roof materials on the environment. RECOMMENDATION • Though the proposed azchitecture is truly unique, staff has concluded that it does conform to each of the policies set forth in the Ciry's Residential Design Handbook and does satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the Ciry Code. The project further meets all zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. With the changes to the site plan reducing the amount of driveway surface, staff supports the proposal and recommends approving the Desigr. Review application by adopting Resolution DR-97-061. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-97-061 2. Excerpted Planning Commission minutes from October 13,1999 3. Staff Report dated October 13,1999 (without attachments) 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" ~. Revised Site and Grading Plans, Exhibit "B" 6. Supplemental copper material information • U®0-®52 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 2 Attachment --- attend to present their plan modifications. Commissioner Patrick noted that the applicants were in the audience and perhaps the item could be heard as scheduled in the agenda. Additionally, Director Walgren distributed an exhibit of the landslide repair detail on Item #2 which did not go out with the agenda packet. The exhibit was designated Exhibit C of the file record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. AZO-99-001 (Citywide) -CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the Citv of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 1/12,/2000). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-97-061 (503-72-014) - LIU,14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 11/10/1999). r~ Director Walgren reported that this is a continued hearing from the October 13, 1999 Commission meeting, noting the proposal is fora contemporary, new, two-story family home at 6500 square feet on a 2.75 acre parcel located within the Saratoga Heights subdivision and within a hillside residential zoning district. He said this is the last lot of the approximately 60-lot subdivision that was approved in the early 1980's. He described the property as being at the end of Masson Court, a private cul-de-sac minimum access road which is developed with two or three relatively new single-family homes. He said the architectural style in the area is an eclectic mix of newer French chateau, Mediterranean villas style, and traditional wood-sided gable roof buildings. U00®53 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 3 • Director Walgren added that the Liu application is unique in its design which he described as a very organic, free-flowing, modern building. The building uses natural materials such as stone and wood. He said the plan proposes a copper roof which was a topic of the October 13 Commission discussion. He said the materials should integrate the building well into the hillside terrain; however, he opined that the issue of integrating and compatibility with the existing single-family homes is a difficult decision to make. He stated that a significant landslide exists on the property; that the project had been under geological review for sometime to pinpoint the landslide and to determine what needed to be done to correct it. He said tl~.e landslide repair to stabilize the site does not require any significant native vegetation removal. However, he noted concern had been expressed that a particular Coast Live Oak tree be retained, and upon further geotechnical investigation, it was confirmed that the tree would be retained. Director Walgren reported that staff had previously told the applicant that staff would take the design review application to the Commission for a preliminary consensus regarding Commission support before the applicant continued to spend time and money in obtaining the necessary geological clearance. The item was heard at the October 13 meeting, and concerns were raised regarding the amount of impervious surface proposed. He said at that time, discussion focused on architecture, landslide repair, and copper roofing and the environmental effect of copper draining into the soil and potentially the storm drain system. Commissioner Barry had not been appointed Commissioner at that time, and the 4- 1 vote of the six-member Commission (Commissioner Jackman was absent) resulted in a consensus that the architecture could be supported. The applicant then proceeded to finish the plans. The plan was revised to slightly reduce the lot coverage by eliminating the driveway which previously extended parallel to Masson Court and modifying it to a direct connection perpendicular to the cul-de-sac. He said the pool has been reconfigured to reduce its paved area; the grading plan has been revised to outline the landslide; the landscape plan has been completed as requested; and the area of fencing is under the 4,000 square feet permitted in the hillside districts. Director Walgren reported that the applicant has provided the research materials on copper roofing, noting that the report concluded that copper components that get into the, public storm water system become bioavailable and. diluted. (For an explanation, he referred to the report on file). He said that the report stated that for this type of application, it is found that there is no environmental concern with the proposed material. He said this finding is consistent with the findings presented to the Planning Commission several years ago by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board. He said that the applicant has noted that should copper roofing material be unacceptable to the Commission, an alternative asphalt shingle roofing could be used. i U®O®S4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 8,1999 Page 4 Director Walgren read into the record three letters received from the public regarding the project since distribution of the agenda packet. A letter from Robert and Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, noted concerns about the location of the building and its proximity to their home. Correspondence#rom Joseph C. H. Park, 14800 Masson Court, expressed concern with the siting of the home, its height, and the copper roofing. Jon and Kathy Kwong,14581 Saratoga Heights Court, expressed concerns with soils support and compatibilit~~. Director Walgren responded to.Chairwoman Bernald's questions regarding the project meeting the required setbacks and consistent standards for all homes in the area. Commissioner Barry noted that the letter from the neighbors at 14805 Masson Court states that all existing homes on Masson Court are one-story or were required by the Commission to make the front part of the house one-story to m;n;mize massiveness and that all houses have setback of 30-45 feet. Director Walgren stated that not all homes are one-story; that they are all two-story buildings. He said 30 feet is the minimum front yard setback requirement. Commissioner Barry asked whether staff had done any checking beyond the industry- funded copper runoff study that was presented to the Commission. Director Walgren responded that this was done on the applicant's initiative, and staff had not done any additional research. Commissioner Barry commented that she had more current information on this subject Commissioner Barry expressed concern that Commissioners did not have a chance to review the grading specification. Director Walgren said that the City Geologist made it clear that it would be necessary to make this a stable building site. tie said the only concern was the exact location of the landslide. Staff felt that the landslide was large enough, and close enough to a native tree, that it requested a more accurate definition before the project went through the design review process. He noted that the City Geologist reviews the document and it was provided as a very clear graphic depiction of where the landslide is exactly located. The location was on the original Exhibit A, and it has now been more clearly defined. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the information presented tonight was substantially different than what the Commission was led to believe in earlier submittals. Director Walgren responded that it was not expected to be different, and the concern was that it is a significantly large area of repair. He said from a construction standpoint, it ~D00055 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page ~ would not be unusual for it to grow 10-20 feet in one direction or another. Considering there was a significant tree in the area, it was necessary to have a clear depiction. He further noted that the landslide encroaches onto the Kwong property, and if the landslide is to be repaired, it would require the Kwongs' cooperation and consent. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether Commissioners had been previously made aware of anv reference to actual size, and Director Walgren responded that the landslide was plotted on the original plans and the exhibit presented tonight is very similar to the original plan. Additionally, supplemental geologic information was submitted with the original report. Commissioner Jackman stated she felt at a disadvantage being handed Exhibit C tonight. She said she was absent at the October 13 meeting; has read and reviewed the October 13 minutes; and made recent site visits, individually and as a group. She expressed concern with the landslide and noticed an area in back of the Kwong property that has also slid. She said she does not feel comfortable making a decision on this tonight and she would want to go back and look at the area. Director Walgren reiterated that the geologic review process on the project did not occur recently. He said the application was submitted in November 1997, and has been in geologic review since. The landslide information was defined earlier and acknowledged. However, the process is that once the area is defined as a landslide needing repair, the exact location of the landslide is deferred until the applicant applies for the building permits. He noted Exhibit C is only a graphic depiction, and that the information has already been presented to the Commission. Commissioner Page said this is not something the Commissioners would normally see because it is part of the process conducted by staff before the building permits are issued. Director Walgren said that when landslide repair is involved, the applicant is required to submit a preliminary identification of the area to determine how many trees would be removed or whether the building can be shifted to another location that does not require landslide repair. He reiterated that the landslide was depicted on the plans reviewed at the October 13 meeting, and staff asked the applicant to go back and verify the extent of the landslide, which is what was presented tonight. Chairwoman Bernald noted that of four new Commissioners, three have expressed concern with addressing the issue at hand. 'She asked since the Commissioners are new whether additional time is needed for their consideration. Commissioner Jackman said she did not want to delay the hearing again and asked if this is what the Planning Department routinely does in the geological preparation. ~®~®~s PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'T'ES December 8,1999 Page 6 Director Walgren responded that the information submitted at the October 13 meeting is standard process. He said the Geologist had granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance at that stage based on the several extensive studies that had been done; however, staff felt that. the applicant needed to go to the next stage, particulazly because of the large oak tree, for a clear understanding that the landslide could be repaired without impacting the tree. Commissioner Barry stated she was prepared to go forward in discussing the project. However, she noted for the record that there is an issue to contend with regarding late- arrivinginformation which cannot be made part of her deliberation if she has not had time to review it. She said her issue is not because she is new but an issue of the timing of the information. Commissioner Jackman stated she was ready to go ahead with discussion. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was mainly concerned with the size of the repair area and how it would impact the neighbor. Chairwoman Bernald shazed her earlier experience as a Commissioner and said that when reviewing her agenda packet it is a tight timeframe in which to digest all the information, but Commissioners with questions do have three days to contact staff for answers. She would like to reiterate that when Commissioners have questions on issues as complicated as this, it would be most helpful if Commissioners contacted staff and had their questions answered. She said staff does a tremendous job in presenting information to the Commissioners in a timely manner, and that they have certain things which are out of their control and certain things -that they present to the Commissioners just for their further edification and not necessazily for their means in making a decision. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Non Chi Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, California, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicants. He described the revisions made to the plan based on comments made at the October 13 Commission meeting. They include: reducing the lot coverage from 14,914 square feet to 13,805 square feet by changing the driveway configuration to m;nim;~e the hazd pavement area. He said the grading plan was revised to clearly indicate the area of landslide and completed the landscape drawing to indicate the vegetation to provide privacy for the neighbors. He stated that the plan now includes a fence around the pool as required by code. Describing his efforts in reseazching the copper roof issue, he explained that he spoke to a geotechnical engineer to understand the possibility of installing a drainage system on the property, and in the engineer's opinion, that solution would not be good for the property because of the landslide problem. He said putting more water into the soil would create a greater burden as runoff from the copper roof would be led through the hazd pavement into the storm drain and lead to the bay. He Q~~~©S'7 r CANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 7 noted that was the only method to address the issue, and now has to rely on the research he did to provide a solution. He asked if that would be acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Wang said that after the October 13 Commission meeting, he met with the neighbors. He said concerns expressed in the Park letter were raised since he met with Mr. Park, and that the issue would be discussed with him later on. He said he spoke to,Mr. Kwong about privacy issues. He said because of the long and narrow size of the lot, it is necessar~~ to push the limit of the setback. He tried to mitigate the problem by architectural means to address the privacy issue. He addressed Mr. Kwong's other concern regarding the soils on the Kwong property, explaining how the soil would be protected. Commissioner Barry noted that although she was not a member of the Commission at the October 13 meeting, she was in the audience, heard the presentation, and took notes. Chairwoman Bernald referred to the privacy issue and asked Mr. Wang to describe and explain the project on the model which was passed to Commissioners for their review. Commissioner Page asked whether raising the soil level would be part of the landslide repair and whether additional fill would be required. Mr. Wang responded that fixing the slide takes quite a bit of excavation. The grade cannot be altered and would have to match the Kwong property grade. Mr. Wang responded to questions from Commissioner Kurasch regarding using semi- permeable material to reduce water runoff. Commissioner Jackman inquired about the percentage of permeable coverage, and Mr. Wang said that it could probably go up to 30 percent but it would depend on the type of material used. Commissioner Roupe asked whether plans were to use iron pipe for the drainage from the copper roof. Mr. Wang said he read the report and understood iron piping is significant material to absorb copper ions; therefore, he would use cast iron as a drainage pipe to absorb copper. Mr. Wang confirmed Commissioner Roupe's comment that instead of draining the roof to the concrete surface, the applicant would be willing to use an iron pipe going to the storm sewer system. Respondin to a uestion from Commissi g q over Roupe, Director Walgren recalled that previous discussion required the roof drains go into pervious landscape areas and not U00®58 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'T'ES - December 8,1999 Page 8 __ directly into the storm drain system. Commissioner Roupe understood from the Geologist report that the drainage should not go into the soils, but should drain across the concrete into the st©rrn sewer system directly. He reiterated that he was still concerned with the report from the Copper Institute regarding this issue, and he would suggest that perhaps more study could be made on this point. He said he was hesitant to render a decision regarding this issue until he could see additional data or see how the applicant proposes to address the issue to conform the site to the report. Commissioner Barry cited the following from a flyer published by the Regional Quality Control Plant operated by the City of Palo Alto: "Copper in our roofs is copper in our bay and that's a problem for mussels and other organisms, and the recommendation is to builders and architects to use alternatives to copper roofing and gutters and to advise your clients of the adverse effects of copper and copper products." She said that with respect to a further study, her information from a local water district contradicts the Copper Institute report. Director Walgren said that a condition could be imposed which would defer to the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board on the topic, and materials could be forwarded to them for evaluation and determine whether they would recommend that local jurisdictions not permit copper roof and rain gutter materials. Commissioner Patrick asked what difference it would make in the plans if copper roof were used or not used. Mr. Wang responded that the only difference would be that he would not have to do the iron drainage system. He said asphalt would be the alternative because it is like a metal roof and flexible. Mr. Wang asked if another type of metal material would be acceptable other than copper. He said other metal roof materials are available which do not create the pollution concern and do not have metallic sheen if it is treated. Chairwoman Bernald responded that they would be acceptable as long as the material meets fire ordinance standards and color requirements. Mr. Wang described the alternate materials as zinc-plated metal, noting that asphalt shingle is not the best option. If another type of material were acceptable, he would submit a material sample for approval. ~~~~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 9 -_ Mr. Wang thanked the Commission for challenging the information he previously submitted which encouraged him to do more research and learn more about copper. Mr, Joseph C. Park, 14800 Masson Court, presented three concerrss which he discovered this morning. He said the location of the house is such that the entry cuts right across a part of his property which extends beyond the cul-de-sac. Another issue he raised is the height. He said he was led to believe that the location was different than the mock-up shows. He said the copper roof was of concern to him because of the unique characteristics of the area. Using the property drawing tacked on the wall, Mr. Park described and demonstrated his concern regarding the building location. Jon Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights.. Court, addressed the Commission regarding the landslide area in back of his house. He said his concern was the soil moving downhill and once. it goes downhill, it can no longer support the adjacent soils. He noted that iri 1995, the soil slid downhill and went down 10 feet overnight. He said the proposed repair does not address his concern. He said he is a registered engineer and soil compaction is not the issue. He said. the soil adjacent to his property is natural and is. better than 98 percent compacted. He said if is still eroding because there is no support on one side of it. He said that without support, no amount of compaction is going to do any good. He said the applicant is doing the proper thing where the pool is, but it does not guazantee that his part of the lot will not continue to erode. He said this is not being addressed, and Mr. Wang has told him it will be addressed later. He is concerned that the erosion will continue onto his property. He cited a letter from the City Geologist dated September 2,1999, stating that, "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant portion of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." (Later in the meeting, Director Walgren addressed this letter.) Commissioner Roupe noting that once the repair has been made, asked Mr. Kwong whether he would be in a better position regarding his property, and Mr. Kwong responded that the issue had not been addressed. Commissioner Jackman referred to Mr. Kwong's statement regarding the 1995 land drop, and asked when the landslide is rebuilt and regraded whether the new property would bring the property back to the 10 feet it lost. Mr. Kwong responded that the subject had not been addressed. Director Walgren noted that the landslide repair is not only for the ool area, but for the P substantial portion of the property which goes into Mr. Kwong's property and it raises the ooooso PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 8,1999 Page 10 • property approximately 10 feet back up to its condition before the landslide. He said he noted earlier in his comments that this would have to be coordinated with Mr. Kwong to do the improvements. He said this is shown on page 3 of Exhibit C. - ,, Chairwoman Bernald asked Director Walgren to provide Mr. Kwong with a cope of Exhibit C. Mr. Kwong addressed the privacy issue and said that the vertical structure of the building is not compatible with the surrounding homes. Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Barry regarding the Geologist report dated September 2, 1999. Director Walgren explained that when an application for the hillsides comes in, staff uses acity-wide base map developed by the City's consulting firm of geologists to determine whether the area is subject to unstable soil. Staff refers the plans to the consulting firm who reviews the proposal based on their database of information, and submit a response memo indicating that the property has been cleared or further investigations are necessary. He said that in this case further investigations were necessary and have been ongoing for the past two years, an unusually long period. He noted that every time a geotechnical or geological report is prepared, it is resubmitted to the City Geologist for review and response to the City. Mr. Kwong was probably referring to the latest response memo which was available .prior to the October 13 public hearing. At that time the geologist had granted the projec~ a preliminary geotechnical clearance. He reiterated that the project was delayed to have further investigations done, specifically because of the landslide. If it had not been for the landslide on the property, the October 13 meeting would have been the point where the geologic work for this process would have concluded. Commissioner Barry asked whether the Geologist had considered and addressed that if the repair work was done, there could be natural forces moving the ground. Director Walgren replied in the affirmative, noting that the process was designed to uncover such issues and that the City Geologist and consulting firm was like a checks and balance system. Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, stated that she did not realize how tall and close to the street the house will be, and it does not blend in with the neighborhood. She said that her view is almost completely obstructed and asked that something be done so that it is not such an imposing structure. Commissioner Page asked Ms. Sze if her view which would be impacted was from the second story, and she replied that she could not see from the second story. 000061 r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 11 ~1 ~J In response to Commissioner Roupe's inquiry, Director Walgren referred to the staff report of October 13, and noted that the site map indicated a larger subdivision that was approved as a single subdivision comprised of cul-de-sacs that access off Pierce Road or Saratoga Heights Road, and almost all of them are five, six, or eight clusters of development within themselves. He said this particular cul-de-sac is the only private cul-de-sac which accesses four lots - three on the west side which have been developed, and this project would be the fourth. He said the large parcel which runs down the center is the dedicated open space. He said as is required on all hillside subdivisions, a site development plan is required at the Tentative Subdivision Map stage which indicates where the homes are going to be placed for the purposes of evaluating grading, tree removal, geology, etc. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Sze if she reviewed the plans before purchasing her home. Ms. Sze responded that a different owner existed at the time she purchased her home; that the land had a different house proposal; and because the building pad was larger, it was her understanding that the house would be more spread out. Ms. Sze responded to questions from Commissioners regarding the year she purchased her home and the square footage of the house. Mr. Wang indicated he had a lengthy discussion with Mr Kwong a few weeks ago and a communication impasse exists in that Mr. Kwong maintains that the issue will be addressed later. He said the landslide issue is the foundation of the project and if the issue cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner, the applicant will not put the house at risk on the lot. Mr. Wang said that Mr. Liu purchased the lot three years ago and the landslide happened five years ago. The longer the property sits there the more damage it will sustain to the neighbors. He said once the landslide is repaired, Mr. Kwong's property will benefit from the repair, and that is how the applicant intends to work with the neighbors. Mr. Wang said the intent is to excavate 30-40 feet down in the landslide area to remove the dirt and put in appropriate materials to stabilize the soil. He said the concern is if the landslide goes beyond the Liu property, what would be the Commission's position in asking the neighbors to work with the applicant in sharing the costs for the repair. Director Walgren responded that this would not be a question for the Commission and would be an issue between the two property owners. Mr. Wang indicated he would work with Mr. Kwong as -the issue will not go away and needs to be addressed. Mr. Wang responded to the issue of the design proximi to the nei hbors noon this is a • tY g g very narrow lot and every effort has been made to be friendly to the surrounding buildings 000062 :~~ ._ , _ • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 12 and not intimidating to the neighbors. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether Mr. Wang's geological engineer had suggested putting in piers or steel supports either in the house or to backup the swimming pool or under the driveway. Mr. Wang responded that two-methods to repair the landslide were considered -one is not to excavate all the way to 40 feet, and install piers to stabilize the soil, and ignore slide planes. He said he chose to excavate the entire slide to give better stability rather than just installing something to hold it. Chairwoman Bernald asked what kind of support would go in the back wall of the swimming pool. Mr. Wang responded that the area had not been designed yet; however, he said once the soil is compacted and has been certified, it should support any kind of structure put on it. However, if necessary, materials would be installed to support the swimming pool. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:14 P.M.). PASSED 7-0. Chairwoman Bernald asked Commissioner Barry if she would Iike to read into the record the report regarding copper roofing. Commissioner Barry responded that if the Commission as a whole agrees that they will not accept a copper roof tonight, she would be pleased to make the report available to Director Walgren for further study. Commissioner Bernald stated that as long as the Commission is not voting for a copper roof tonight, she would prefer that the information be provided to Director Walgren. Commissioner Roupe commented that the Commission has visited the site twice, and while he finds that the house is contemporary and unique in its design, he also sees the ; neighborhood does not have a prevailing style. He said the design is acceptable and as a condition of his support, he would want the copper roof issue be held in abeyance until further information is available, with the option of other materials being considered. Commissioner Kurasch commented on the architectural style and the compatibility due to the materials and style of the house. She said she agreed with the neighbors that the house is quite imposing. Her main objections are aesthetic. She stated that asphalt may be a more acceptable option for the roof instead of copper or an aluminum look. ~o®os3 PLANNING COMMISSIi~N MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 13 Commissioner Page stated this is a lovely design with a contemporary look. He said he revisited the site today and saw an area filled with unique styles, noting that a lot of stone and wood is used. He noted that aside from its unique style, the design uses primarily dark .wood and would keep it in the blending of the area. He expressed concern with the metal sculpture piece in the front which does not help to blend in. He would prefer to see an asphalt roof and do away with the copper roof altogether. He would support the project without a copper roof, not for what it would do to the soil and environment, but what it would do to the view. Commissioner Jackman noted this was a very well designed house; however, her concern is the neighborhood compatibility. She said it is such a different house and the site is on a knoll. She said she could not support the project because of the appearance of bulk. She would be interested in seeing the same style of house in aone-story design that goes down along Masson Court. She said that the project violates many of the recommendations ofthe Hillside Residential Design Handbook of having projects blend into the community such as the views. She said because of its prominence on this location, she cannot support the project. Commissioner Patrick stated she will support the project. She remarked that it is a wonderful design and cannot say she would want it to be compatible with what the neighbors say they want. Her view of the neighborhood is that they are homes which reflect the light, very visible homes that do not fit into the hillside, and do not fit into the environment. However, she feels this house does fit in. She would prefer the copper roof, but cannot support it because it is not environmentally safe. She commented on the landslide area and landslides that slide into the neighbors' homes. She said the only way to stop the slide is to-build on the property and work with the geotechnical firm to get the necessary support to the hillside. She said that because of the site size, she did not see any other place on the property where anything else could be built as suggested by others. She said she would prefer to have another type of roofing, other than asphalt, submitted for review. She reiterated she would support the project without copper roofing. Commissioner Barry expressed concern with design handbook issues. She said the Commission has on every other occasion that she has been present, whether as a , Commissioner or in the audience, taken to heart concerns of the neighbors, and the neighborhood appears to be unhappy .with this design. She cited from the design handbook, policy 1, technique #5, the difference between relatively similar homes and one that is significantly different. She said this home is significantly different and stated this is a violation of the design handbook. She also cited from policy 2, technique #2, which specifically says to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting, and said that the design is a foreign object in this setting. Additionally, she referred to the hillside plan book, she said she could not support the project as it is now. 000064 • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 14 Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Jackman regarding parts of the house stepping down into the hillside. Chairwoman Bernald noted that when she first saw the plans for the house, she visited the hillside and realized that this was an eclectic neighborhood. She noted that the house is significantly different from the other homes; however, the design mimics the beautiful hillsides in which it would be placed. She stated that she repeatedly got an impression of the gently rolling hillsides that surround the home; strongly feels that the house fits into the setting; and is probably better designed to fit its location than any of the surrounding homes. By placing the home as a two-story structure, it provides more open space to the surrounding area. She said she understood the neighbors' concerns regarding their vie~~; however, the homes were purchased with the idea that cluster homes would be built. The fact that the property has a landslide is of no fault to the owner and what the owner is proposing to repair would also benefit his neighbors. She said this is an exciting design well-situated in its location. She expressed concerns with the copper roof and leaching. She would like to have more information and alternate materials, other than asphalt, considered. COMMISSIONER ROUPE/PATP`ICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR-97-061 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COPPER ROOF ISSUE BE DEFERRED TO FURTHER STUDY, BROUGHT BACK FOR STAFF REVIEW AND BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. PASSED 4-3 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, JACKMAN, AND KURASCH OPPOSED). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess at 9:40 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:50 p.m., the same Commissioners and staff were present. 3. DR-99-049 (397-28-047, Lot #5) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14088 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,067 square foot two- story residence with a 792 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 15,200 square foot (net) vacant parcel in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. Director Walgren reported that this is lot #5 of a five-lot subdivision approved last year. He said the design is very compatible with the other homes in the subdivision. He said staff recommends approval with conditions outlined in the resolution. At the request of Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren explained there had been an issue which arose upon review of lots #1 and #2 regarding which zoning ordinances apply to the development of those lots. He said that a vesting tentative map is specifically designed to allow a builder to use the ordinances in effect when the map was approved if they provide certain details to the City. The details can be as minimal as a building ~©~~ss • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • U®0066 ~-- Attachment ~ RESOLUTION NO. DR-97-061 CITY OF SARATOG A PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Liu: 14805 Masson Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant ?.~~ acre lot; 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 a«dence; and WHEREAS, the applicant- has met the burden of proof required to support said application, 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 neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference v~~th ~1e~~s and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements and is located along a similar topographic line or lower than other residences in the neighborhood. . -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follo~~~ the natural contours of the site and m;n;m;~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, in that no ordinance protected trees will be removed, the site is ~~irtually void of natural landscape and the amount of grading is ].invited to the amount necessary to accommodate the structure and landslide repair. -The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will m;n;m;7e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements that minim;~e the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the natural environment. -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 coning 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 height, mass and bulk of the residence is comparable to surrounding residences in the neighborhood -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the Ciry. 00046'7 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court -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 li-4~.05~. NOW, THEREFORE, the Plannuig 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 Iiu for Design Re~~iev<• approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit `A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to 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 reflecting the Cite Arborist's recommendations, 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. d. The roof material shall be asphalt shingle, shown as an alternative to the copper roof on the color and material board. The applicant may choose another roof material if approved by the Planning Commission. Any alternative material must not cause run-off of minerals, metals or other harmful substances into the storm water, or pose any threat to water quality. • 3. No retaining wall shallhave an exposed height that exceeds five feet. In addition, 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. ~. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 6. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated December 17,1997, shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and a gr ding plans shall be revised to 0®0068 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court indicate the followin g The Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan pave. to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. ii. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shown at as recommended b~~ the Arborist with a note 'to remain in place throughout construcaon.' iii A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored ~~ithin the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. iv All fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade b}~ hand in any azea within IS feet of the trunk. v. No trenches or excavations even for utilities (gas, cable, phone, etc.) shall be installed within 25 feet of the trunk of the tree. vi. The drainage system for the house shall be directed a minimum of 40 feet from the other trees on this site. vii. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Cleazance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $4,943 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and presen~ation of trees on the subj ect site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: i. Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. ii. The Ciry Arborist shall schedule unannounced visits to the property to verify that all }lee mitigation measures are being complied with. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: i. All recommended tree cabling and endweight removal shall be completed by an ISA certified azborist. ii. The Ciry Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released 000069 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court .Any future landscaping or irri anon installed beneath the cano ` g py of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the 'Planting Under Old Oaks' guidelines prepared b}• the Cir<• Arborist. No imgation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of anv existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. " ~. The Project Geotechnical Engineer, with input from the Project Engineering Geologist, shall prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections (1"= 20') to depict the extent of proposed grading, landslide to be removed, subdrains, property lines and proposed improvements. The plan should include repair specifications, notes and details pertaining to earthwork, drainage and geogrid placement. The cross section should depict existing and proposed surface topography and excavation depths. One section should extend from the building pad downslope along the axis of the active landslide, including and sho«•ing the lower landslide repair area (per Terratech drawings). A second section should be oriented roughly east-west across the landslide and portray Masson Court, proposed driveway, active landslide to be removed, and landslide on the adjacent propern• to the east. The mitigation plan should specify the appropriate geogrid slope gradient. T}Picall}•, geogrid should be designed to stand at its angle of installation (i.e.,1.~:1~~), if not ~~Tapped. The landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections shall be submitted to the City to be re«ewed and approved by the Ciry Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit. 9. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall re~~iev~• and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., landslide mitigation, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultants' recommendations ha~•e been properl}' incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider recommending crushed rock, which has more void space. than Class 2 aggregate base, for the capillary break material. The .results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geologic and geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspection should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations (including pier holes for structures and shear pin wall) and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare a geologic map of the landslide excavation and confirm that landslide material has been removed. Information from the excavation and pier holes shall be used to revise and update the engineering geologic map and cross ,sections. An engineering geologic map and cross sections of final, as-built conditions shall be prepared to depict the depth and extent of grading activities, and U~~®~~ File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court geolo 'c conditions includin removed ~ ( g landslide mass). The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters, and as-built geologic map and cross sections, and submitted to the Cin• Engineer for review prior to finalization of the grading permit. ' 11. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated «~th the Citt• Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 1?. The owner (applicant shall enter into an agreement holding the Ciry of Saratoga harmless form any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil of slope instabilin•, slides, slope failure or other soil related andlor erosion related conditions. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance «zth the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 1~. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the residence and garage. 16. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. 1%. 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. 18. 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 Cirq's action with respect to the applicant's project. 19. 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. 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 tom the date of adoption. ~~~~~~ File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of .California, this S`~ day of December 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Comaissioners Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Bernald NOES: Commissioners Barry, Jaclanan and Kurasch ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~.~ Chair, Pl~nin Commission ATTEST: V ~ 1-~ ec tary, P g Commission • Attachment 9 City Council Ititinwns January 19, 2000 agreemer-t before the budget intendment is brought back to the Council. ~_ STRETf/WALTONSMTTH MOVED TO APPROVE A 5150,000 CONTRIBUTION, TO BE APPROPRIATID FROM THE GENERAL FUND, TO SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AQUATIC CENTER AT SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL PENDING DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL. MOTION PASSID 4-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 p.m A. Reconsideration of City CounnTs decision to overturn We Planning Commi9sion approval of applications SD 99-005, UP 99-018, DR 99-037 (12312 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Applicant: Azule Crossing, Inc., considered by City Council on December 15,1999. Reconsideration granted on January 5, 2000. RPrnmmrnrlntinn~ Continue the heating to February 2, 2000 as requested by the applicant. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report. Mayor Bogosian opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. ls~k Mann ~, 12258 I{irkdale Drive, expressed his concern about excess housing and two-story setback away from the road, which is uncltaricteristic of the City, and expressed support for more space. wAtk~, 2rtd5 t c~,o ,tt~~ reiterated that he would hke to see the process of having neighborhood involvement in any redesigq consideration of second story, redistribution of the retaiUcommercial versus residenuial for this project continue, and requested the Counal consider returning it back to the Planning Commission for additional study and neighborhood partiapation. tnAn~ r^~~~~P.rcommarted on the tradeoffs of keeping the property wnmtercially zonod and dealing with the increased traffic that comes with enhartoed commercial districts, or allowing higher density or lower cost housing. She acpressed concern that the Coundl denied the project without an ahernative proposal that would meet the needs of the entire cornrrumity. NIEEIAFFEY/WALTONSMTTH MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 2, 2000, AS REQUESTID BY THE APPLICANTS. MOTION PASSED 4-0. B. ppeal of Planning Commission approval of DR 97-061, a design review to nstruct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75-acre lot. The property is located within a hillside residential zoning duttict at 14805 Masson Court (Appellant: Kwoag, Park and Sze; Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Liu, APN 503-77x014). RPrnmm~ndntinn• Contuwe the public hearing to February 2, 2000, es requested by the appellants. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report. Cotmcilmember Streit requested staff to stake out road, lot and set poles in correct locations before the Council's site visit. Director Walgren concurred. Mayor Bogosian opened the public healing at 7:52 p.m. There were no public testimonies at this time. STRETf/WALTONSMTTH MOVID TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 2, 2000, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPELLANTS. MOTTON PASSID 4-0. . C. Use of Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS) !rending in fiscal year 99-00. • Approve the recommended allocation offends. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report. ~ 3 ors UOC~®'73 City Council Minutes February 2.2000 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT FINAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW IS LEFT TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF INCLUDING THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF IN$~A~LING AN ELEVATOR IN THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING. MOTION PASSED 5-0. G B. peal of Planning Commission approval of application DR 97-061 (14085 asson Court, APN 503-72-014, Appellant: Kwong, Park & Sze; Applicant: Liu). Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75-acre lot Approved by Planning Commission on December S, 1999. (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 19, 2000) Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the application: Director Walgren presented the staff report and announced that Commissioner Page is present this evening for any questions of the Council. In response to Council, Commissioner Page provided background of the review of the project and some of its key issues including the looping driveway, copper roof, design, privacy and grading specifications. Discussion ensued. Mayor Bogosian announced he visited the site and spoke to the appellants in person and by telephone on this matter. He opened the public hearing at 9:33 p.m. Nonchi Wang, Architect representing the applicant, provided background and illustration of the project with architectural renderings and models. Highlights of his presentation included: • Architectural compatibility • Complied with the City's Design Guidelines. • Front and side yard definition has been addressed • High quality view of the surroundings In response to Mayor Bogosian, Mr. Wang replied that shifting the structure down the hill toward the valley would require cutting the slope drastically; and added that the landslide will be repaired to the fullest extent. Mayor Bogosian invited the appellants to speak. Joseph Park; 14800 Masson Court, appellant, commented that the concerns by the appellants included neighborhood compatibility, setback and height standards, and a gross violation of one's own property rights, pointing out that the latter issue involves his property only. The design as illustrated in the staff report includes a second driveway, which extends 18' beyond their easement into my property. This was verified by the property map dated January 25 obtained through the Planning office. This violation was overlooked in the design review process. Subsequently, it was recognized by the applicants and their architect, who responded that they would make revisions. However, to this date, he has not seen the revisions. Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court. appellant, reiterated their concerns about the front and rear setback violations, architectural compatibility and noise, which has aggravated all of the other issues. The location of the proposed structure, as illustrated is the photos she submitted, will encroach on the neighbor's property, obstruct. their view and invade their privacy. She also commented that consideration should be made to use the landslide area, after it has been repaired, as part of the building pad as it was originally intended. She expressed the desire to work these issues out with the applicant and his architect. John Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, commented regazding the inaccurate information received about the survey markers on the property. He reiterated concerns of architectural compatibility, property line encroachment, setbacks and the landslide. There is insufficient, conflicting information in the files on the setbacks and location of the proposed house. There has been no dialogue between the applicants and the neighbors and no attempt to resolve any of the concerns addressed by the neighbors. He reiterated he does not wish for the applicant's landslide repair to encroach into his property and said that this project does not comply with City code. Page 7 of 10 City Council Minutes February 2, 2000 He further demonsnated some of.his issues~using•the architectural•modbl and maps. Questions and responses were exchanged between the Council and the appellants regarding setbacks and the landslide. Director Walgren refeaedao:the geologyntap;attached•in the.packet:for the several slumps and landslides occurring.to the.north~of this•.property. He canfirmed~that the landslide repair would • cross a small degree onto.Mr: Kwong's property; however,~stafl'has asswed Mr. Kwong that the conditions of the approval.will _state that the applicants cannot repair the•landslide beyond their own property without the consent of Mr: Kwong: Furthermore, he clarified the discrepancies and inaccwacies alluded to by Mr. Kwong about the City files was due to the many revisions made throughout the process.. Architect Wang clarified the discrepancies of.the survey pole and driveway location. Discussion continued. ~ . In response to Councilmember~ Waltonsmith,`DtrectorWalgren replied that the.landslide can•bt: repaired without encroaching on:another person's property and can be built to support a house pad. There being no more discussion, Mayor•Bogosian asked the applicant and the appellants for their closing comments. Architect Wang coatrnented that the negative feedback from the neighbors was based on their understanding of how the setbacks were determined. Director Walgren has explained how they were determined when the• subdivision was. approved and that's what the applicants work with. He reiterated that the_projeet complies with the Zoning codes. Although he respects the opinions and concems of the neighbors, he feels that a lot of effort was put into the proposed design to address the privacy rissucs: He'also explained the need for the' front driveway. He expressed thew desire to work.with the neighbors to resolve their issues. Mr. Kwong commented~he~would:lilce to:see~a.survey markerplaced on the property line to eliminate any confitsion when'the landslide is repaired. To summarize, he reiterated the conflicting and ambiguous information available to the neighbors, which has resulted to this hearing. He added~that the?architect has been.unwillutg to work with the neighbors and asked the Council~to overturn the Planning Commission decision to approve this•project. Mayor Bogosian closed the public hearing at 1'0:21 p.m. and asked the pleasure of the Council. Councihnember Bakerezpressed i:oncern about the•accurete:location.ofthe.proposed house, he supports its design, and recommended continuing the public hearing until its exact location is clear. He also expressed coiicem about building a pool or parking pad in the severely eroded area and felt this should be a concern of both the applicant and the adjacent property owner to find it in their best interest•to •work together to repairthis erosion:> . Councihnember Streit concurred with Councilmember'$akerregardrng staking.its exact location and has no problem with the setbacks or the design. He would not support moving the house down in the valley. Councilmember Waltonsmith commented the modem design is good but felt the proposed home could be redesigned to make it more rectangular and could be moved around to go down into the repaired slide area. She commented about good neighbor practices and the importance of working with neighbors' concerns. She expressed concern about the ambiguity of the location of the poles and is not prepared to accept it as it is currently proposed. She recommended the neighbors and applicant work together to resolve the design shape issues, the position on the issues, and the landslide repair issues. Vice Mayor Mehaffey concurred with his colleagues and is disturbed that the poles have not been fixed and should be a cause for continuance or denial. He has no problems with the architecture; the biggest problem is that if the house should face as proposed, consideration should be made to meet the setbacks. He concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith to elongate it to bring it Pace 8 of IO wl 000 / S Citv Council Minutes February 2, 2000 further from Mr. Kwong's property. He would like to see some concessions made to the issue that it is fronting on Masson Court and backing towards Mr. Kwong's property.. Mayor Bogosian recognized the issues of azchitecture and style and privacy and views. Contrary to the Planning Commission's concept of what constitutes this neighborhood, he feels that the neighborhood consists of the homes clustered up in that area from the Saratoga Heights Court over to Masson Court. These lots were plotted to preserve an open space easement and a free flow of the hillsides. He concurs with Councilmember Waltonsmith and Vice Mayor Mehaffey to see a redesign of the proposed house to address the setback, encroachment and height issues. He would like to see the neighbors work together to resolve the matter and reconvnended moving the proposed house to the pool area. He cannot support the project as presented. In response to Mayor Bogosian, Director Walgren replied that the Council could continue the public hearing to allow time for the neighbors to work out their concerns, or act on this application and give the applicants direction as articulated this evening to submit a new application before the Planning Commission. The process would be expedited; it would not have to redo all the investigations. However it may take a few months before the revised plans are submitted. With Council permission, Bill Liu, property owner and applicant, expressed desire to work with the neighbors to resolve the matter. When he talked to Mr. Kwong about repairing the landslide, even beyond his property line, Mr. Kwong refused. He does not understand why and is concerned about the further erosion of the landslide. He also demonstrated the .topographical issues of moving the proposed house as expressed earlier and possibly violating the City's Design Guidelines. He expressed he is willing to change the design and reiterated his desire to repair the landslide before it gets worse. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.TO MARCH 15, 2000 TO ALLOW ALL PARTIES CONCERNED, TO WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED TONIGHT AND SUBMIT REVISED PLANS AND CORRECT POLES FOR THE NEW DESIGN. MOTION PASSED 5-0. At this time, Mayor BOQOSIan moved back to item 6A which was deferred earlier: OLD BUSINESS A. Amendment to Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Humane Society to extend Animal Control and Sheltering Services from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment to the Animal Services Agreement between the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley and the Cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, Campbell, Monte Sereno and the Town of Los Gatos. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented the staff report. Discussion ensued. In response to Vice Mayor Mehaffey, City Attorney Taylor replied he will review the plan regarding insurance provisions and report back to him. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY'S HUMANE SOCIETY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. - ~ At this time, Mayor Bogosian recognized a request to speak which he received on an item not on the agenda Chris Hawks, 20390 Bluer Drive, commented regarding continuing concerns about the Argonaut Shopping Center including noise (from pressure washer on sidewalks and congregation of young people around the coffee shop), bright lights, regular skateboarding on the premises, the landscape hedge and the map illustrating the stores coming into the center and urged Council's assistance in resolving these issues. Page 9 of 10 • • C7 ®0~~~ ~. • Cin~ Council Minutes Vice Mayor Mahaffey indicated he would like to revisi days. ~~ - 14arch 1:. ?000 with in 45 3. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF LIU (APPLICANT) KWONG ;' (APPELLANT) APPEAL HEARING. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council grant continuance to Council Meeting of April 19, 2000, per Council adopted continuation policy. James Walgren, Director of Community Development, presented staff report. The public hearing was declared opened and closed at 8:50 p.m. STREIT moved continuance be granted to the Council meeting of April 19, ZOOO.seconded by BAKER and ca_,_ rried unanimously. Mayor Bogosian declared a 10-minute recess at 8:40 .m. reconvenin at 8:50 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. 4. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR (TFCA) PROGAM MANAGER FUNDS (40%). STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the resolution. Chris Korn, Administrative Analyst, presented the staff report. Appearances: Steve Blaylock, representing ALTRANS, was available for Council questions. Councilmember Wnltonsmith inquired about monies for covered bus stops. Mr. Blaylock indicated it was not currently in the budget, but he could recommend this to the advisory committee. 8 ®0~~~~ Ciry Council Minutes May ]7, 2000 3C. CALIFORNIA WINE TRANSPORT, CLAIMANT, CLAIM No. 99-003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council reject claim. STREIT moved re,~ect Claim No. 99-003, seconded by BAKER and carried with BOGOSIAN and WALTONSMITH absent. RESOLUTION TO UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A 2-STORY, 6500 Sq. Ft. RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 14805 MASSON COURT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION 00-029: RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; APPLICANT-LIU/APPELLANTS-KWONG, PARK, SZE; 14805 MASSON COURT; DR-8-061 STREIT moved adoption of Resolution 00-029. seconded by BAKER and carried with BOGOSIAN and WALTONSMITH absent. 3E. RESOLUIITN TO UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A 2- STORY, 4258 Sq. Ft. RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 20550 LOMITA AVENUE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION 00-030: RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: APPLICANT-SAUNDERS/APPELLANT- PURVIS; 20550 LOMITA AVENUE; DR-00-064 • 3 ~~~~~~ Attachment 10 • RESOLUTION NO.00-029 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; APPLICANT-LIU/APPELLANTS-KWONG, PARK, SZE; 14805 MASSON COURT; DR-97-061 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 6,500 square foot, two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot; and WHEREAS, on October 13,1999 and December 8, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga held duly noticed public hearings on said application at which all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission voted to grant Design Review approval subject to various conditions; and WHEREAS, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council of the City of Saratoga by Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Park, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Sze, and Mr. & Mrs. Jon Kwong; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2000 the City Council conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing on the appeal (which hearing was continued to April 19, 2000) at which time any person interested in the matter was given the full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to the application, and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, as follows: A. After careful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the appeal from the Planning Commission is denied and the action of the Planning Commission is affirmed as set forth below, based on the following findings: 1. 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 Resolution 00-029 Page 1 of 7 adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the proposed residence meets minimum setback requirements and is located along a similar topographic line or lower than other residences in the neighborhood. 2. 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, in that no ordinance protected trees will be removed and grading will be limited to the amount necessary to accommodate the structure and landslide repair. 3. 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 incorporate elements which articulate the elevations to minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. 4. The proposed 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 height, mass, and bulk of the residence are comparable to surrounding residences in the neighborhood. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. 6. 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. B. The Decision of the Planning Commission is modified and Design Review approval is granted subject to the following conditions: The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution Resolution 00-fig Page 2 of 7 ®®~~8(,~ as a separate plan page. b. Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans reflecting the City Arborist's recommendations, 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. 3. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds five feet. In addition, 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. 5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 6. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated December 17, 1997 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $4,943 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. In addition, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: The Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shown at as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." 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. Resolution 00-fig Page 3 of 7 --~ 000081 All fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade • by hand in any area within 15 feet of the trunk. No trenches or excavations even for utilities (gas, cable, phone, etc.) shall be installed within 25 feet of the trunk of the tree. The drainage system for the house shall be directed a minimum of 40 feet from the other trees on this site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. The City Arborist shall schedule unannounced visits to the property to verify that all tree mitigation measures are being complied with. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: All recommended tree cabling and endweight removal shall be completed by an ISA certified arborist. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the "Planting Under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. 8. The Project Geotechnical Engineer; with input from the Project Engineering Geologist, shall prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections (1"= 20') to depict the extent of proposed grading, landslide to be removed; subdrains, property lines and proposed improvements. a. The plan should include repair specifications, notes and details ' pertaining to earthwork, drainage and geogrid placement. The cross section should depict existing and proposed surface topography and excavation depths. One section should extend from the building pad -- downslope along the axis of the active landslide, including and showing . Resolution 00- 029 Page 4 of 7 ~anR~ a ~w the lower landslide repair area (per Terratech drawings). A second section should be oriented roughly east-west across the landslide and portray Masson Court, proposed driveway, active landslide to be removed, and landslide on the adjacent property to the east. b. The mitigation plan should specify the appropriate geogrid slope gradient. Typically, geogrid should be designed to stand at its angle of installation (i.e., 1.5:1 V), if not wrapped. The landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections shall be submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit. 9. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., landslide mitigation, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultants' recommendations have been properly incorporated. a. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider recommending crushed rock, which has more void space than Class 2 aggregate base, for the capillary break material. . b. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geologic and geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. a. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations (including pier holes for structures and sheaz pin wall) and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare a geologic map of the landslide excavation and confirm that landslide material has been removed. Information from the excavation and pier holes shall be used to revise and update the engineering geologic map and cross sections. An engineering geologic map and cross sections of final, as- built conditions shall be prepared to depict the depth and extent of grading activities, and geologic conditions (including removed landslide mass). Resolution OO~g_ Page 5 of 7 ~,~~~~Z y • b. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters, and as-built geologic map and cross sections, and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to finalization of the grading permit. 11. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 12. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an agreement holding the City ofSaratoga -- harmless form any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil of slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 15. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the residence and garage. 16. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. 17. 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. 18. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City 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. 19. 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 $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 20. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 21. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Resolution 00-029 Page 6 of 7 000084 *** • • The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of May, 2000. AYES: Evan Baker, Nick Streit, John tAehhafey NOES: None ABSENT: Ann Waltonsmith, Stan Bogosian ABSTAII~T: done TTEST: i Clerk May P~ Tew, Page 7 of 7 Resolution 00-029 0~~0$S THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000086 Attachment 11 ~.J TO: City Council City of Saratoga December I5, 1999 FROM: Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Park 14800 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Robert Sze 14780 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Jon Kwong 14581 Saratoga Heights Court We are appealing the Planning Commission's decision on December 8, 1999, Re. item 2, DR-97-061 (503-72-014) 14805 Masson Court, on the following ground. • 1) The first issue is one of neighborhood compatibility. Not just one neighbor, but the entire adjacent neighborhood finds that the proposed structure on 14805 Masson Court (referred to as proposed structure in the following) is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of its architecture, site setback, its bulkiness, and its departure from the policies given in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. Each one of these incompatibility and departure will be detailed in the following. These issues were raised both in letters delivered to City's office prior to the hearing, and raised during the hearing. Departures from the policies in the Residential Design Handbook were cited during the hearing. There are also issues regarding landslide problems and property boundary lines which must be satisfactorily addressed before design approval can be granted. In past practice, the Planning Commission has paid attention to the inputs of the neighbors and adhered to the policies and techniques detailed in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. The December 8th Planning decision represents a significant departure from this past practice. 2) Site Set Back. In the City's Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements, for the HR zone, front set back is specified to be 30 ft. minimum, and rear set back is specified to be 60 ft. minimum (for a two story). The front yard is defined to be that closest to the curb on a public/private right of way. The rear yard is that opposite to the front yard. The front and rear yards are not defined by the orientation of the house. In fact, the orientation of the house is not defined or mentioned in the Setback Requirements. A builder cannot circumvent the Setback Requirements by simply calling the front yard its side yard; or. by calling the rear yard its side yard. The proposed structure has a 20 ft. front setback and a 20 ft. rear setback, which do not meet the 30 ft./60 ft. requirements. 000087 This violation of the setback requirements aggravates the other issues of incompatible architecture, bulkiness, and intrusion on privacy. All the houses in the neighborhood other than the proposed structure diligently complies with the City's setback requirements. We the neighbors do not want a violation to ruin the neighborhood we have worked so hard to preserve. 3) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #2:Follow hillside contours; to avoid large, single form solutions, and to avoid tall support poles for overhanging areas. Proposed structure is mostly a large, single form solution, with tall crooked support poles for overhangs. 4) The proposed structure does not follow Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #4:Minimize building height; to minimize areas of maximum height, vary height of roof elements and to set back higher portions of structure. Masson Court is a narrow private road. All existing houses on Masson Court are either single story or two story with the second story setback, some at the request of the Planning Commission. Proposed structure's lack of second story setback, lack of minimizing areas of maximum height, lack of varying height of roof elements, all at reduced setback less than required, aggravates its problem of bulkiness. 5) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #S:Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood; to be compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and height, to have architectural style that is compatible, and to avoid overwhelming existing residences. The neighboring houses to the proposed structure are similar in terms of proportion, size, mass and height. They are either single story or two story with second story setback, 30 to 45 ft. setback from the curb to the house, and 100 ft. setback from the curb to the garage. Both 14800 and 14780 Masson Court are smaller in size than the proposed structure. The square footage of 14800 is approximately 50% of that of the proposed structure. Proposed structure with its reduced setback of 20 ft. (front and back) which is less than the required 30/60 ft., is larger than 14800 and 14780 Masson in size and proportion. Proposed structure is incompatible with 14800 and 14780 in terms of proportion, size, mass, and height, and at close proximity resulted from its reduced setback, it overwhelms existing residences on 14800 and 14780 Masson Court. 6) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #6:Use architectural features to break up massing to avoid vertical features that add to the perception of height. The proposed structure's excessive use of two-story high windows and tall, crooked poles drastically increase the perception of height to an already tall and massive structure. r~ ~~~~~8 r~ 7) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 2, Technique #2:Integrate with environmental texture and forms; to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting. The clustering of hillside houses as mandated by the HR zoning heightens the importance of each new structure to blend in with existing structures and not to be out of place. Proposed structure with its abruptly cutoff roof and flare out overhangs appears as a foreign object from outer space. 8) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 3, Technique #1:Control view to adjacent properties. to avoid window and balcony locations that impact privacy, to avoid reducing required setback distances. Proposed structure has a long balcony facing 14780 and 14800 Masson Court. At a reduced setback distances less than required, this balcony poses a major impact on the privacy of both 14780 and 14800 Masson Court. A small balcony on the opposite side also at reduced setback less than required poses a similar impact on the privacy of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. 9) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 3, Technique #2:Locate buildings to minimize privacy impact; to avoid siting structures in direct line-of--sight to neighboring residences. Proposed structure has a long balcony in direct line-of--sight to 14780 Masson Court. At reduced front setback less than the minimum required, proposed structure maximizes privacy impact on 14780. A small balcony on the opposite side at reduced setback of 20 ft., less than the minimum required of 60 ft., poses similar privacy impact on 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. l0) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 4, Technique #1:Locate structure to minimize view blockage; to not block view with structures, and to avoid using site plans that will create view problems. Proposed structure with its height and bulk at reduced setback less than required maximizes view blockage for 14800 and 14780 Masson Court, and creates major view problems for both 14800 and 14780 and 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. Proposed structure is located on a parcel of 2.75 acres. Yet the design calls for essentially vertical construction on a small foot print located directly in the line-of--sight of 14800 and 14780. At a reduced setback of 20/20 ft. instead of the minimum required of 30/60 ft., the proposed structure maximizes view blockage and creates view problems for all its adjacent neighbors. 11) The proposed structwe violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 4, Technique #3:Locate structure to reduce height impact; to not block view by excessively high and bulky structures, and to avoid roof forms and ridge lines that impact view. Proposed structure is designed to maximize square footage on a small foot print. To achieve this design goal, setback requirements are violated, and the proposed structure is located and vertically constructed to maximize height impact, and block view by excessively high and bulky strictures. 000089 12) A number of major landslides exist on the site of the proposed structure. In a letter dated Sept. 2, 1999, from the City geologist to the City, it was stated "second landslide (on 14805 Masson Court) extends offsite to the east, where it has impacted the residential development at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court." it was also stated "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant portion of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." The property owner of Saratoga Heights Court was never notified of this concern. Mr. Kwong of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court raised his concerns regarding the landslide problem and the lack of resolution, both in a letter and also at the December 8 public hearing. On the day of the December 8 hearing where the Planning Commission approval was given, no document in the City file on DR-97-061 adequately addresses the resolution of the landslide problem. During the December 8 hearing, a geological drawing was distributed,to the Commissioners which purportedly addresses the resolution to the landslide problem. The Commissioners did not have a chance to study the drawing. Mr. Kwong was given a copy of the drawing and .told to review it before returning to the lectern. This drawing was un-signed, un-dated, ambiguous as to the extent of the repair (e.g. how much cut and fill ), and it shows structures (buttress) that extends from the applicant's property 14805 Masson Court into Mr. Kwong's property 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. Down slope landslide was not addressed in this drawing. As noted in the City's geologist's letter, "owner (applicant) should be aware that there is a potential for further landsliding downslope from the proposed repair area", and "future landslide may require ... supplemental mitigation measures by the property owner." A few minutes later, Mr. Kwong was called back to the lectern. When Mr. Kwong raised the questions regarding this drawing he was told that was not the place to ask questions regarding the drawing. How can the City Planning Commission approve the plans for an applicant's structure that extends into neighboring property without the neighbor's approval ? 13) On December 7, the day before the approval Planning hearing, height poles were put up on applicant 14805 Masson Court. Unsured of where the property line lies, the height pole workers repeatedly placed stakes inside Mr. Park's 14800 Masson Court property, contrary to the markers placed by surveyor previously hired by Mr. Park. The same workers also placed stakes inside Mr. Kwong's 14581 Saratoga Heights Court property. Due to the property line marker (between 14800 Masson and 14805 applicant) being at the center of the applicant's proposed driveway, the applicant's driveway would have to partially pave over property, however small it is, of Mr. Park's 14800 Masson Court. The approval for the applicant to do so must come from Mr. Park and no one else. The drawings available in the applicant's file show conflicting locations. One drawing shows . swimming pool located at rear boundary with no setback. Another drawing shows house located at rear boundary with no setback. The inconsistency among the drawings and height poles creates a confusion as to what is the site location and setback that is being considered for design approval. • 000090 :A~:, ~~ 14) The following are points of fact. Some neighbors did not receive notices to the initial public hearing. The proposed structure's site plan drawings on file at the City office were either out of date or contain conflicting information regarding structure location and setbacks, obscuring exactly what is being considered for approval. New drawings were distributed during the approval hearing, allowing no time for review. Height poles were put up in the late afternoon after the Commissioners' scheduled site tour, and on the day before the approval public hearing. Some Commissioners, in fact, may not have seen the height poles. The sum total impact of the above is critical facts and information were not made available for consideration prior to the hearing. Timely and accurate facts and information to the Commission and the public are necessary for a fair and impartial public hearing. 15) The applicant proposed to cover the structure with a copper roof. The neighbors and several Commissioners have voiced their concerns regarding the copper runoff into the ground and into the bay. In the December 8 hearing, a report from the copper institute supplied b_y the applicant was presented, which maintains that copper runoff is not harmful to the environment. An opposing view may be found in a San Jose Mercury News article, dated December 10, 1999, where the environmental group San Francisco Baykeeper maintains that copper runoff is harmful to fish, plants, and other animals (copy attached). For protection of the neighbors, the environment, and the public at large, we, the neighbors and the public at large rely on the Planning Commission to make decisions based on findings and a • body of unbiased facts. To this end, we are appealing to the City Council, seeking the same protection for the neighborhood, the environment, and ultimately the public at large. We would like to work with the applicant, including study sessions, to resolve all issues to our mutual benefit. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. • 000091 ., ~~~' ~r t THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . r, Q®092