Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-2003 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter Absent: None Staff: Planners Oosterhous ~ Welsh, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 28, 2003. (APPROVED 7-0) 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 June 5, 2003. 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. APPLICATION #03-021 (393-45-45) -PEEBLES; 13755 Saratoga Avenue - The Planning Commission is required to determine the allowable floor area for the proposed project because the site area is less than 5,000 square feet (MCS 15-45.0309(d)). The proposed project also requires design review approval. The proposed project includes first and second-story additions to an existing two-story residence located at 13755 Saratoga Avenue along Heritage Lane. In general, the appearance of the existing residence remains unchanged. The proposed 558 square foot _.. additions are located to the rear and right side yard of the site and reflect the existing style and materials. The site is zoned R-120,000. (CHRISTINE OosTERHOUS) (APPROVED 7-0) 2. APPLICATION #03-079 (397-09-010) - WARRINER TRUST; 19120 Monte Vista Drive -The applicant requests approval to subdivide one parcel into two building sites. The property is zoned R-140,000. The proposed parcels are greater than one acre. The existing parcel is over 2.5 acres. The existing residence is to remain. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 7-0) NEW BUSINESS Edencrest Lane (503-12-029) -SNOW; Request for interpretation of Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-30.050(f) regarding grading. (ANN WELSH) Continued from Meeting of May 28, 2003 (ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on May 7, 2003 ADJOURNMENT AT 8:50 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, June 10; 2003 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot; 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. New Business - SNOW ~ ,~ Edencrest Lane - PEEBLES 13755 Saratoga Avenue - WARRINER TRUST 19120 Monte Vista Drive Item 3 2. Application #03-021 3. Application #03-079 LAND USE COMMITTEE Item 1 Item 2 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 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 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.. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 28, 2003. 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 tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta ff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 5, 2003. 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 #03-021 (393-45-45) -PEEBLES; 13755 Saratoga Avenue - The Planning Commission is required to determine the allowable floor area for the proposed project because the site .area is less than 5,000 square feet (MCS 15-45.0309(d)). The proposed project also requires design review approval. The proposed project includes first and second-story additions to an existing two-story residence located at 13755 Saratoga Avenue along Heritage Lane. Iri general, the appearance of the existing residence remains unchanged. The proposed 558 square foot additions are located to the rear and right side yard of the site and reflect the existing style and materials. The site is zoned R-1 20,000. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) 2. APPLICATION #03-079 (397-09-010) - WARRINER TRUST; 19120 Monte Vista Drive -The applicant requests approval to subdivide one parcel into two building sites. The property is zoned R-140,000. The proposed parcels are greater than one acre. The existing parcel is over 2.5 acres. The existing residence is to remain. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) NEW BUSINESS 3. Edencrest Lane (503-12-029) -SNOW; Request for interpretation of Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-30.050(f) regarding grading. (ANN WELSH) Continued from Meeting of May 28, 2003 DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on May 7, 2003 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to Rlanning@sarato ag ca.us • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION D~ g ~p DATE: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m: ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Uhl Staff: Associate Planner John Livingstone and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Told the Commission that he had intended to complain but with the quick and professional assistance of a member of the Planning staff, Ms. Ann Welsh, his concern was addressed. • Described his concern with the pending removal of a 75-year-old Redwood tree that stands 100 feet -tall. • Stated that he had just heard today that this tree was to be cut down and called the City to express his objection, fairly late in the afternoon, only to learn that a permit had been issued and that the 10- day appeal period had passed. Unfortunately, the Tree Ordinance does not require notification of approvals for Tree Removal Permits that might provide neighbors an opportunity to appeal. • Declared that Planner Ann Welsh was fantastic, calling him back after regular work hours to advise him that staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, had determined that due process had not been met in notifying neighbors of the pending tree removal and that staff had hand delivered a suspension of the Tree Removal Permit to the owner of this tree. • Expressed his thanks to all involved for their efforts and said that this tree has a reprieve, at least for the time being. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Associate Planner John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 22, 2003. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 2 REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS t announced that a eals are ossible for an decision made on this A enda b filin an Chair Hun er pp p y g Y g 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). APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of May 14, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of May 14, 2003, were adopted with minor corrections to pages 5 and 11. (6-0-1; Commissioner Uhl was absent) CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #02-248 (517-08-042) - KATZ, 20665 Lomita Avenue: Adoption of Resolution for Design Review Approval and adoption of two Resolutions of Denial regarding the Variance requests. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission approved the Consent Calendar Item adopting the Resolution for Design Review Approval and adoption of two Resolutions of Denial regarding the Variance requests for 20665 Lomita Avenue. (5-0-1; Commissioner Uhl was absent and Chair Hunter abstained) *~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03-040 (APN 503-53-030) - TRAN, 13622 Saraview Drive: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single story home that will have a maximum height of 21 feet. The total floor area of the new home with an attached garage will be 4,514 square feet. The lot is 20,515 square feet and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow aone-story 4,514 square foot home with a maximum height of 21 feet. • Reminded that homes proposed with more than 18 feet in height. requires public hearing before the Planning Commission. • Described the proposed home as a Mediterranean-style with beige stucco and the roofing while the neighborhood is predominately ranch-style homes with a few stucco homes. • Said that no Ordinance protected trees will be removed and that the Arborist had modified the design to protect Tree #10, a Coast Redwood. • Added that the applicant has revised their design to comply with the Arborist's requirements. • Stated that staff has a concern with the entry portion of the home, proposed at 20 feet in height and considered by staff to not be in scale with the neighborhood. • Said that staff has requested a reduction in this height and at the site visit the applicant was requested to develop revised elevations with a lowered entry height for tonight's meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 3 • Said that there have been no written letters of concern. • Recommended a conditional approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked how far the tree is from the home with the modified design. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that there is 15 feet from the clear of the trunk. Added that within 25 feet of the tree, pier and beam construction will be required. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if there is anything in the draft resolution regarding staff's recommendation to scale back the entry feature. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. Added that she wanted to wait to see how the Planning Commission felt on this issue. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the applicant had provided the requested revised drawings. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. Commissioner Garakani asked how far the entry pops out from the wall. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that per Plan Sheet A2.2, it is three to five feet. Commissioner Barry noted the R-1-40,000 zoning and the fact that this lot is 20,515 square feet: Asked if this is a substandard lot or if all lots in the immediate area are 20,000 square foot lots. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that this is not a substandard lot. It meets the width and depth standards. Commissioner Barry asked if this is a typical lot. Planner Lata Vasudevan pointed out that per the provided location map, it appears the lots across from this one are larger. Chair Hunter asked for the differences between the roof peaks on the left and right sides.. . Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 10 feet plus foundation height and 12 feet to the peak of the two small windows. Chair Hunter asked for the color and type of stone proposed. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied stacked ledgestone. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Brian Do, Project Architect: • Stated that he is here on behalf of his clients, the Trans. • Pointed out that the entry huts out only three feet from the rest of the main house and that he does not perceive it has huge at all. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 4 Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Do, given the fact that this is basically a wood siding and ranch style neighborhood, whether they had considered another architectural style. Mr. Do replied that he drove through the neighborhood and saw other homes constructed of stucco. Commissioner Garakani asked if the difference in elevation by 10 inches for the rotunda roof in the entryway is done purposely. Mr. Do agreed that it is a bit higher. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that is not symmetrical except in height. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Do if he had an opportunity to prepare the revised elevations per staff's request depicting the reduced entry feature. . Mr. Do said no. He added he was not happy with the idea of changing this entry design. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the Commission had asked to see what it would look like with the reduced entry feature. Chair Hunter: . • Stated that this is a very visible house located on a corner and that everyone that goes by will see this home. • Described this proposed home as impressive and grand with large entryway and pointed out that the Commission traditionally tries to make entries lowered. • Stated that this proposed home would not fit the neighborhood. • Asked if Mr. Do could draw a plan with an entry feature no higher than 16 feet or even lower. Commissioner Zutshi asked if Mr. Do had even a rough sketch. Mr. Do distributed a sketch to the Commission to look over. Commissioner Garakani asked for the distance between the columns. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that it appears to be about 18 feet. Mr. Do replied 15 feet, 4 inches. Commissioner Barry thanked Mr. Do for his drawings. Asked if the roof pitch could be lowered or if it were possible to lower the transom or make it smaller. Commissioner Garakani suggested that one way to reduce the height would be to eliminate the two side windows by the door so that the entry would be less wide and could be lowered. Commissioner Nagpal suggested reducing one or both of the sidelight windows. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page. 5 Commissioner Garakani pointed out that four feet of width could be removed without the two sidelight windows and then the entry feature could be lowered. Chair Hunter said that staff could work these details out with the architect and applicant. Mr. Mortazabi, 20838 Russell Lane, Saratoga: • Pointed. out that this property is at a higher elevation than the rest of the neighborhood. • Said he has concerns over the proposed height, saying that it would be more than he would like to see overlooking his property. • -Asked that the design and height be modified. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Mortazabi how much he would suggest lowering this home. Mr. Mortazabi asked the height of the existing home on this parcel. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied approximately 18 feet. Chair Hunter said that the proposed house is about three feet taller. Mr. Mortazabi reiterated that this house would be taller and that he is expressing his concern over that fact and asking for a reduction in height. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Mortazabi if his concerns are privacy or view impacts. Mr. Mortazabi said that the view of the hills would be blocked. Said that he had not considered if windows are facing his home on the north side. Chair Hunter asked Mr. Mortazabi if he signed the letter stating he had been shown the plans. Mr. Mortazabi said he did not see the plans. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Mortazabi if he lives on Russell. Mr. Mortazabi replied yes, his home is the second house down from the corner. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Mortazabi if he received the public hearing notice. Mr. Mortazabi said yes, that is why he is here this evening. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Mortazabi when he received this notice Mr. Mortazabi said he saw the notice a couple of days ago and came to the City to look at the plans. Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that the applicant is required to discuss their plans with the immediate neighbors and that the 500-foot public hearing notice was mailed three weeks ago. rt zabi asked if the two trees in the corner are at issue. Mr. Mo a Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 6 Chair Hunter replied no. ' correct. The a licant revised the desi n to save the two Planner Lata Vasudevan stated that this is pp g Redwood trees on the north side of the property. Mr. Mortazabi asked what he should do now. Chair Hunter said he should now listen to the rest of the comments and that he has the option to appeal any decision made, should he so desire. Mr. Andrew Cresci: • Stated that he didn't understand this process and asked if there is a carport depicted on the elevations. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Mr. Andrew Cresci said that he has issues with the entry and with the carport sticking way out. Said these features may detract from the visual appearance. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Cresci if he objects to carports in general or just the location of this Carport. Mr. Andrew Cresci replied the location. 1 asked Mr. Cresci if he si ned the letter sa in he had been shown the plans. Commissioner Nagpa g y g Mr. Andrew Cresci said that his neighbor asked him to sign something after quickly showing his plans. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the carport and garage are at the same setback. Chair Hunter asked if the carport-would be used as a carport to park vehicles. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the house will also have atwo-car garage. Mr. Andrew Cresci pointed out that carports are not normal in this area. Chair Barry: • Asked Mr. Cresci, since he is new to the neighborhood, how he feels about the existing character of this neighborhood, with its dominant use of stone, brick and wood siding. • Asked him what initially attracted him to the neighborhood. • Questioned whether he was just as happy to see this house constructed in stucco. Mr. Andrew Cresci said that the drawings don't demonstrate what it will look like. Added that he does like the area. Said that he really can't say if this house will fit in. Commissioner Garakani asked why the carport square footage is not counted in the total square footage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 7 Planner Lata Vasudevan explained that per Code, only areas that are enclosed with three or more walls and a solid roof are counted. Chair Hunter explained to the applicant and architect that there are concerns with the home's design due to its vastly different architectural style and incorporation of a large entry feature. Mr. Tran, Property Owner: • Stated that he would reduce the entry by two feet. • Pointed out that there are five trees on the corner that are at least 40 feet high and that he is willing to plant more if his neighbor would like him to do so. Commissioner Garakani explained that the issue with this neighbor is his ability to look up at the hills, a view he feels would be obstructed due to the proposed height of this house. Mr. Tran said that there was a gap in the trees. Mr. Do said that existing trees would block windows from the neighbors. Mr. Tran said that one window is for a bedroom and another is obscured for a bathroom. Commissioner Garakani suggested changing the roof pitch to four and twelve. Mr. Tran said that if his neighbor is not concerned he would prefer to plant trees than reduce the height. Commissioner Garakani asked about the carport. Mr. Tran said that the carport is inside the setback and would stick out from the garage by about five feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked if it were possible to pull back the carport to the same level as the garage. Mr. Do replied that they did not want too plain an elevation. Commissioner Schallop asked why there was a carport instead of a three-car garage. Chair Hunter advised that a garage is counted in the total square footage. Commissioner Schallop stated that the neighbor is accurate in saying that carports are not common in this neighborhood. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that she did not notice any .but did not look specifically for them. Commissioner Schallop said approving a carport would be setting precedent in this neighborhood. Chair Hunter agreed that the Commission does not generally see carports. Commissioner Barry agreed that they are not typical. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 8 Commissioner Nagpal stated to the applicants that they have now heard the discussion over use of stucco versus other materials more common to the neighborhood. Said that she likes the proposed colors for this home and asked the applicants if any thought has been put to not using stucco or do the Trans really have their sights set on using stucco. Mr. Tran said that stucco is more durable. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Schallop: • Said he had no concern regarding the entryway and would defer to the rest of the Commission on that issue. • Stated that in his opinion a carport does not fit this type of home or neighborhood and would be unattractive. Commissioner Zutshi asked Comiissioner Schallop if he has concerns over the proposed roof heights. Commissioner Schallop replied that he wanted to hear the other Commissioners' opinions. Chair Hunter cautioned that per Ordinance, this home could be even higher than is proposed.. Commissioner Barry: • Said that she has difficulty with this proposed design due to the prominent position this site has in its neighborhood. • Said that she initially did not even realize that this parcel is higher than other properties and feels that this home would change the character of this neighborhood with its prominent Mediterranean design. • Stated that this, is a very coherent neighborhood right now and this home would represent an opening to changes in the character of the neighborhood. • Added that she has a problem having the Commission allowing that without more neighbor input. • Suggested that if the applicant wants three cars, they should be stored within an enclosed three-car garage. • Stated that the entry needs to be redesigned to be less prominent. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that it is clear the applicant is wishing to change the look of their home. • Added that other houses in the neighborhood are also changing. • Said he shares the concern over the entryway and suggested reducing it to a lower height and width. • Agreed that not a lot of carports are seen and that he does not see the necessity for a carport. • Said that with a reduction in roof pitch to four and twelve the height could be reduced by one to one and a half feet. • Expressed concern about the straight line of the stone and suggested that the heights of the stone elements also be varied to avoid the appearance of one straight line. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed that the entry is out of proportion and supported the idea of redesign with a lowered entry. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 9 • Said she concurs that the carport is not necessary and would prefer a larger garage to accommodate the third car to including a carport. • Advised that she is not sure about the height issue and did not recall the fact that this -site is elevated. • Said she is comfortable with the current home's' height and supported the use of more stone. • Stated she needs help with the concern over use of stucco over other materials. Commissioner Zutshi: • Agreed that the carport does not look good and that she is also not in favor of including one. • Said she had no problem with the roof height as it is. • Said that the entryway is not in symmetry and is too huge and that the rotunda and entry compete. • Added that with the reduction in the entry, this project is okay. Chair Hunter: • Agreed with Commissioner Barry's point that this is not right for this neighborhood. • Advised that the Commission has lowered entryways to 16 feet or less in the past and the end result still looked too tall. An entryway at 20 feet in height is what is proposed here. • Said that the whole design, with its huge entry, rotunda, etc., does not look like this neighborhood. • Reminded that this corner lot will be very visible to everyone and that the design should be worked on more. • Stated that this particular design would look better in a more appropriate neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani asked what recommendations the Commission should make for the design of this house. Chair Hunter replied by lowering the entryway and rotunda. Commissioner Barry stated that she would like to see a continuance for redesign since there appears to be enough disagreement between the architect, applicant and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schallop reminded that the applicant sounded willing to lower the entry to 18 feet. Chair Hunter said that she still could not support it at 18 feet. Commissioner Nagpal said that she liked the idea of a continuance and that the Commission has provided the applicant with lots of ideas. Additional time would allow the applicant to coordinate with the neighbors. Commissioner Barry said that while sometimes the Commission leaves issues to staff. to settle, in this case the application should be brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Schallop said that the Commission has provided clear guidance that requires lowered heights and use of more stone. Chair Hunter suggested a straw vote as it appears the Commission is at a three to three situation right now. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Barry made the motion for continuance and Commissioner Nagpal seconded that motion. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that Permit Streamlining requires that a decision must be made within 60 days unless the applicant requests a continuance. Commissioner Nagpal recommended reopening the Public Hearing to discuss this with the applicant. Chair Hunter reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Tran if he prefers a continuance or a vote this evening. Chair Hunter: • Told Mr. Tran that his options include taking a chance with a vote of the Commission and if he is denied he would have an option to appeal that decision to Council. • Added that since the Commission would like to see specific changes to support this project, a continuance is proposed by the Commission, which would have to be agreed to by Mr. Tran as the applicant. • Advised that in past situations such as this, when the applicant works with staff, a continuance works well. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that this could delay the project by about one month. Chair Hunter said that this project could come back quickly. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that if the applicant were to request a continuance, it should be made to a date uncertain. The item would be renoticed. Commissioner Barry said that the calendar is quite open and this project would not be in line behind a lot of projects. Mr. Tran said that he would choose to request a continuance and asked that it occur as soon as possible. Chair Hunter reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Barry restated her motion to continue to a date uncertain, -with a reduction requested in the overall height of this structure, and Commissioner Nagpal repeated her second to that motion. Commissioner Schallop suggested that the impacts on scenic views be evaluated. Commissioner Barry said that she liked the 16-foot threshold as something to aim for. Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that if it is the consensus to lower the structure below 18 feet, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Review Process. Chair Hunter said that 21 feet is okay. Commissioner Nagpal said that she did not think the height has to be reduced. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 11 Commissioner Barry restated that if a structure is lower than 18 feet it goes through an Administrative Hearing and if it is higher than 18 feet, it comes to the Planning Commission. Chair Hunter asked about the reactions to the carport and the suggestion to remove it from the design. Commissioner Nagpal said it appears unanimous that the Commission feels that way. Commissioner Garakani restated the need for the stone feature to have some articulation rather than running across the elevation in a straight line. Chair Hunter agreed. Commissioner Zutshi did not, saying it had to be symmetrical. Chair Hunter said that she thinks that is okay. Commissioner Nagpal said that materials should be more consistent with those of the neighborhood although she likes the proposed colors and use of stone. Added that it will be easier to pass judgement when it is seen. Planner Lata Vasudevan asked for clarification regarding the Mediterranean architectural style. Commissioner Barry replied that she would love to see something other than a Mediterranean design. The Commission will need to look at the revised design that comes back. Chair Hunter agreed. Commissioner Zutshi said that she did not see anything wrong with the design. Associate Planner John Livingstone outlined the issues raised as being the carport, work with the height of the front entry, checking view impacts, siding and design. Said that staff would work with the applicant and come back with a revised design taking those issues into consideration. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #03-040 for a new single-story home on property located at 13622 Saraview Drive to a date uncertain, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None Chair Hunter thanked Mr. Tran for agreeing to a continuance saying that in the end it will be good for this project. Thanked him for his patience. *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 PLICATION #03-110 APN 517-09-020 - ELLENIKIOTIS 20514 Sarato a-Los Gatos Road: At Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to establish a dental office in a tenant space of an existing building. The square footage of the new office will be 1,710 square feet and will be located behind an orthodontics practice that occupies the front portion of the building. The building is located on a 25,699 square foot parcel in the CH-1 zoning district. (I..ATA VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a dental practice within a 1,710 square foot tenant space located directly behind an orthodontics office. • Said that this new dental office has no street frontage but rather is accessed through the rear of the building. • Informed that usually no Use Permit is required, for a dental office without street frontage but as part of the Use Permit for the main space, a condition was imposed to require Use Permits for any additional uses of the property. • Said that the applicant's proposed hours of operation are from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. • Stated that the site provides 30 regular parking spaces with two handicapped spaces. Per Code, the parking requirement is one space for every 200 square feet. The 5,659 square foot building results in a requirement for 28 spaces. Therefore, sufficient spacing exists on site, which was verified through a staff visit to the site. • Reminded that the building owner occupies the main portion of this building. • Said that necessary findings can be made and that this use is compatible and would not be detrimental. • Recommended approval and advised- that the applicant and property owner are present. Commissioner Barry asked what the basement is used for. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied storage. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Barry reported that the property owner, Dr. Ellenikiotis is her neighbor but that she has no conflict with considering this application since it is for a different property apart from his home. Dr. Ellenikiotis: • Stated that he came this evening in support of Dr. Alex Nguyen. • Said that he does not have a lot to say but did express his opinion that this has been a long tedious procedure and very long ordeal and quite draining. • Said he has four children, his practice, teaches and lectures. • Said that while the Planning Commission does a great job, renovating this building has been a hard process to be put through especially since he is only there two days a week. • Added that he has been getting lots of compliments on his building and that he is proud of it. • Declared that Alex and his wife are both great dentists and that their plan for this space is very nice. • Stated that he is proud to have them as tenants in his building. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 13 Commissioner Nagpal told Dr. Ellenikiotis that his property looks great and thanked him for his efforts. Commissioner Zutshi asked how soon Dr. Nguyen and his wife would open their practice in this building. Dr. Alex Nguyen replied September. . Commissioner Zutshi asked Dr. Nguyen if they would be there all week long. Dr. Alex Nguyen replied that they would like to be. Dr. Ellenikiotis explained that they currently have no patients in Saratoga but rather currently practice in San Jose. The Nguyens will practice from two locations just as he himself does. Commissioner Barry stated that parking is not a concern and that this proposal is fine and an easy decision. Chair Hunter pointed out that there was no problem with parking here before Dr. Ellenikiotis said that he is proud of his building and did not want to be a bad neighbor as far as letting others park on his property. To ensure that he did not get into trouble with his Use Permit conditions, he advised that he has been leaving notes on peoples' cars asking them not to park on the property. Commissioner Barry said that he can stop writing those notes. Chair Hunter said that this building looks wonderful now. Dr. Ellenikiotis said that he did lots of improvements although he is not there as often as he had hoped to be. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application #03-110) to allow the establishment of a dental office in a tenant space of an existing building located at 20514 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Garakani said that this is a good addition and welcomed Dr. Nguyen. Commissioner Zutshi said that a dentist is needed in the Downtown. Commissioner Nagpal said that she appreciates everything done. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2003 Page 14 *** NEW BUSINESS Edencrest Lane (APN 503-12-029) -SNOW: Request for interpretation of Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-30.050(f) regarding grading. (ANN WELSH). REQUEST THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING ON JUNE 11,2003. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that staff is recommending that this item be continued to allow time for additional research before bringing it back to the Commission. ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEM5 There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Hunter advised that she attended a Business Development meeting. Commissioner Garakani reminded that Austin Way has been dedicated as a Heritage Lane but that none of the promised improvements has yet been made. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the work has been scheduled and signs are being made. The work was to have begun in May. The Public Works Department has it all organized to repair potholes and restore the asphalt from the bricks and will see if better drainage can be accomplished. Commissioner Nagpal asked how it could be accomplished that some sort of written follow up be taken on the compliments made about Ann -Welsh and staff by the speaker during Oral Communications. Said that such a written letter would support staff's efforts. Commissioner Barry asked staff to follow up. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on April 14, 2003. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk I• i• • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-021;13755 Saratoga Avenue Type of Application: Design Review and Floor Area Deterrnination~ Applicant/Owner: Sandy Barker of Barker Associates, Architects Wade and Gigi, Peebles, Property Owners Staff Planner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner Date: June 11, 2003 APN: 393-45-045 Department Head: L~ 1J ~ // V0.l Gll-V~LI 1 1 Y t-11N~. * Floor Area Determination: The allowable floor area for lot sizes less than 5,000 square feet is to be determined by the Planning Connmission MCS 15-45.030(d). 00000 Application No. 03-021; 13755 Saratoga Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • CASE HISTORY Application filed: 1/17/03 Application complete: 3/25/03 Public hearing conducted: 6/11/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Planning Commission is required to determine the allowable floor area for the proposed project because the site area is less than 5,000 square feet (MCS 15-45.0309(d)). The proposed project also requires design review approval. The proposed project includes first and second-story additions to an existing two-story residence located at 13755 Saratoga Avenue along Heritage Lane. In general, the appearance of the existing residence remains unchanged. The proposed 558 square foot additions are located to the rear and right side of the site and reflect the existing style and materials. The site is zoned R-1 20,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 03-021 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Documentation of the property owner's neighbor notification. 3. Arborist Report, dated February 4, 2003. 4. Mailing labels for project notification and affidavit. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". U 000002 • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1 20,000 GENERAL PLAN: Residential Low Density (RLD) Maximum Dwelling Unit Per Acre 2.18 MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 6,634 square feet (gross) 4,678 square feet -adjusted for slope AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 20% GRADING REQUIRED: None ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction of additions to asingle-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 2 exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the original one and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the original. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Proposed materials and colors of the first and second floor additions are to match existing. Existing materials include brown composition shingle, and an apricot exterior siding. 000003 Proposed Lot Coverage: Building Paving TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Floor Area: First Floor Lower Floor TOTAL Setbacks*: Front Rear First Floor Second Floor Interior Side First Floor. Second Floor Exterior Side First Floor Second Floor 50 % (existing condition to remain) 1,963 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 3,363 sq. ft. Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 45% 1,751 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 1,627 sq. ft. 3,378 sq. ft. To be determined by the Planning Commission for net lot size less than 5,000 square feet. Minimum Requirement 25 ft (existing to 30 ft. remain) 32 ft. 15 ft. 35 ft. 15 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 11 ft. 11 ft. 1 ft. (existing to 15 ft. remain) 5 ft. (existing to 20 ff. remain) Height:, Maximum Allowable Residence 24 ft. 6 inches 26 ft. * Lot width and depth are non-conforming. Side and rear yard setbacks are determined by . MCS 15-65.160(a)(b). 000004 PROJECT DISCUSSION The Planning Commission is required to determine the allowable floor area for the proposed project because the site area is less than 5,000 square feet (MCS 15-45.0309(d)). The proposed project also requires design review approval. The proposed project includes first and second-story additions to an existing two-story residence located at 13755 Saratoga Avenue along Heritage Lane. The proposed 558 square foot additions are located primarily to the rear of the site and reflect the existing style and materials. The zone district is R-1 20,000. The property has a 20% slope; therefore, the lot size is reduced from 6,634 square feet to 4,678 square feet. The property slopes away from Saratoga Avenue so the residence appears as a one story from Saratoga Avenue (front elevation), but a two story from the rear elevation: In general, the appearance of the existing residence remains unchanged. The existing two-story residence is 2,820 square feet. The total proposed floor area is 3,378 square feet. The height of the existing residence including the proposed additions is 16 feet, as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (front elevation). The proposed additions at the rear of the site total approximately 500 square feet and are 24 ft 6 inches in maximum height as viewed from the rear elevation of the lot. The proposed first story additions are 361 square feet and the proposed second story additions 197 square feet. The proposed additions are visible from Saratoga Avenue with the exception of two new chimneys. Other proposed improvements include the enclosure of a portion of an existing covered porch, aone-story stairwell, and excavating an existing crawl space area. The front -entry gable for the enclosed front entry will be approximately 10 feet maximum height. The one- story indoor stairway is constructed on grade and provides access between the upper and lower levels. The stairway addition is 10 feet in .maximum height and proposed along .the right side property line. Existing crawl space areas with ceiling heights of less than 5 ft will be excavated to ceiling heights of 8 ft. Prominent existing features of the property include a tall wood fence which encloses the front yard into a private courtyard area. The existing wood fence also encloses the side and rear property lines. The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the proposed project plans because the site is located along the City's Heritage Lane. The HPC approved the project plans on April 8, 2003 with a condition that the proposed skylights be tinted. There are several historic and architecturally significant structures in the vicinity of the project. The adjacent craftsman style residence located at 13741 Saratoga Avenue is listed on the City's historic inventory. The HPC did not find the proposed project would have a negative impact on the adjacent residence historically significant residence nor on the City's Heritage Lane. • Q~QOQ~~ The existing residence. does not meet the required off street parking requirement of two covered spaces within a garage for asingle-family dwelling. One covered parking space within a garage is provided. An abundance of paved uncovered parking is .available at the front of the residence. Staff has not required as part of this remodel that the off-street parking on the site be brought into compliance with the municipal code standard for new construction because of the abundance of uncovered parking existing on the site, limited demolition of existing walls, and because the topography (20% slope) and narrow shape (50 ft width) of the lot create a hardship for the applicant to provide additional covered parking. The municipal code does not specify when during a remodel substandard parking conditions are required to meet code; therefore, staff evaluates each project on a case-by-case basis. New residences are required to provide two covered spaces in a garage and likewise remodels which include a demolition of 50% or more of the existing lateral walls maybe required to meet the covered parking requirements of the code. The property owners have provided documentation that they have discussed the project with each of the surrounding property owners and that no one has voiced any concerns with the proposal (see attachment 2). The City Arborist has reviewed the project plans. In summary, there are four ordinance protected oak trees on the project site or the vicinity. No construction impacts are anticipated • to trees #1, 3, and 4. Construction impacts to tree #2 are expected to be moderate or tolerable. The applicant shall be required to file a tree bond in the value of $7, 609 with the planning department. Tree fencing shall also be required. All four trees are listed in good condition. The subject parcel includes anon-conforming site and anon-conforming structure. The property is non-conforming in site width and depth. The minimum required lot width is 110 feet. The lot is 57 feet in width. The minimum required depth is 140 feet. The lot depth is 120 feet. The existing residence has non-conforming left side yard setbacks and lot coverage. The existing left side yard setbacks range from 1-5 ft. The required setbacks are 6-11 ft. The municipal code permits a 45% maximum. coverage. The existing coverage is 50%. The proposed coverage is 50%. An existing deck on grade is to be removed to allow for the additional coverage resulting from the addition. The existing nonconformities are not increased. Design Review Findings Staff recommends the Planning Commission in determining the allowable floor area refer to the findings for design review. Staff finds the proposed project supports the findings for design review; therefore, staff recommends the planning commission approve of the proposed project. The ro osed ro~ect implements the following Residential Design Policies: P p p J 000006 i • The proposed project utilizes existing crawl space to maximize the living area and minimize the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • Additions are minimized in height. The entry gable and foyer -are 10 feet in maximum height. The one-story stairwell additions are 10 feet in maximum height. The proposed ceiling heights are minimized at 8 feet maximum height with the exception of the proposed master bedroom which includes 10 foot ceiling heights. • The 50 square foot enclosure of the existing covered porch is appropriately scaled and will provide more architectural detail and interest to the front facade of the residence. • The mass and bulk of the 197 square foot second-story addition is mitigated by its size and placement at the rear of the site. • The second story building line is recessed from the first story at the front and side elevation. • The proposed additions will reduce the mass and bulk of an existing two-story building plane at the rear elevation. • Gable rooflines, bay windows, and trellises are proposed features, which add architectural interests, and reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed additions including the existing residence. • Natural materials and colors are proposed including an apricot colored siding. The proposed materials and colors will blend with the natural environment. • No trees are proposed for removal. Existing vegetation is preserved and integrated into the proposed project. • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate and surrounding neighbors support the project (see attachment 2). These property owners include the parcels immediately adjacent and behind the project site as well as additional neighbors. Conclusion The proposed residence conforms to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. The residence does not interfere with viewsheds or privacy, it preserves the natural landscape, and minimizes the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed project supports the findings required for design review as detailed in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 03-021 by adopting the attached Resolution. QQ~~O • Attachment 1 • QOQ~~B APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. and Mrs. Peebles, property owners; 13755 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review for the construction of first and second-story additions to an existing two-story residence; 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 2 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: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: • The proposed project utilizes existing crawl space to maximize the living area and minimize the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • Additions are minimized in height. The entry gable and foyer are 10 feet in maximum height. The one-story stairwell additions are 10 feet in maximum height. The proposed ceiling heights are minimized at 8 feet maximum height with the exception of the proposed master bedroom which includes l0 foot ceiling heights. • The 50 square foot enclosure of the existing covered porch is appropriately scaled and will provide more architectural detail and interest to the front facade of the residence. • The mass and bulk of the 197 square foot second-story addition is mitigated by its size and placement at the rear of the site. • The second story building line is recessed from the first story at the front and side elevation. • The proposed additions will reduce the mass and bulk of an existing two-story building plane at the rear elevation. • Gable rooflines, bay windows, and trellises are proposed features, which add architectural interests, and reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed additions including the existing residence. X00009 Application No. 02-021; 13755 Saratoga Avenue • Natural materials and colors are. proposed including an apricot colored siding. The proposed materials and colors will blend with the natural environment. • No trees are proposed for removal. Existing vegetation is preserved and integrated into the proposed project. • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate and surrounding neighbors support the project (see attachment 2). These property owners include the parcels immediately adjacent and behind the project site as well as additional neighbors. 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, application #03-021 for design review 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. 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 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. 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. 7. The skylights shall be tinted per the Historic Preservation Committee approval. 8. The rear deck on grade is to be removed prior to granting final occupancy inspection. CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. d(~(~01~ Application No. 02-021; 13755 Saratoga Avenue FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10. All development review conditions from the Saratoga Fire Department shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. CITY ATTORNEY 11. 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. 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 11th day of June 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • QQ~~~1. Application No. 02-021; 13755 Saratoga Avenue 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 • • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 2 • C~OQ~13 The Saturday, March 22, 2003 Peebles SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 408 868-1231 voice .408 867-8555 fax Family Please find attached a copy. of the preliminary proposal. This is what. we have spoken with .all of our immediate adjoining neighbors. about on .Saturday, March 22"d, 2003. No one at-this time express any concern as to our proposed plan, further they were supportive, since it would improve all surrounding property values: The following individuals are whom we have spoken with; NORTH /REAR SOUTH /FRONT EAST /SIDE WEST /SIDE Parviz Ghaffaripour Promod Haque Robin & William Michele Brading 13765 Heritage Creek Ct 13780 Saratoga Ave 13741 Saratoga Ave 13785 Saratoga Ave Saratoga, Ca Saratoga, Ca Saratoga, Ca Saratoga, Ca If you have any concerns or comments, I can. be reached on my cell at 408 821-9901. Thank you again for your time and effort in this matter. Sincerely, Wade & Gigi Peebles 13755 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 408 741-3249 ~o~~ 408 741-3209 fax cc; sandy barker • • • Attachment 3 • (~~Q~~Jr O RESOURCES ~ _ ~k :~v ARB '' , ~ ~ROfEi1LOlZQ.L C77"'L1704GG~tl.Ltll.'L[LL C~OYLbU.C~LYL9 ~ J~GEE C.:Q~LE AN ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL AT 13755 SARATOGA AVENUE. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: PEEBLES APPLICATION #03-021 Submitted to: Kristin Borel Community Development Department, Planning Division City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Plans Received: February 1, 2003 Site Inspected: February 1, 2003 Report Submitted: February 4, 2003 Project No. SAR.Sar.01 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 QOO~J~.6 • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 r~ • TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE SUMMARY .............................................................:...... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1 1.1 Assignment ............................................................... 1.2 Limits of Assignment ................................................... 1 2.0 OBSERVATIONS ............................................................ 2 2.1 Species Count and Composition ..................................... 2 2.2 Suitability for Tree Preservation .................................:.... 2 2.3 Tree Conditions ......:................................................... 2 3.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLANS ....................................... 3 4.0 TREE APPRAISAL AND BOND VALUES ........................... 3 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 4 5.1 Tree Protection Fencing ................................................4 $.2 .... Root Zone Protection ..:............. - • • 4 5.3 Root Severance Guidelines ............................................. 4 5.3 Grading, Excavation and Soil Fill .................................... 4 5.4 Drainage .................................................................. 5 5.5 Tree Pruning ................................................................ 5 5.6 Root Collar Clearance .................................................. . 5 5.7 Tree Pruning ............................................................. 5 5.8 ................................. Root Collar Clearance ................. 5 5.9 Landscape Design Considerations ................................... 5 5.10 General Construction Guidelines ..................................... . 5 6.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .................. 6 7.0 LETTER OF CERTIFICATION ........................................ . 7 ~~~~~~. • David L. Bab ,Registered Consulting Arborist • February 4, 2003 by SUNIlVIARY This report has been prepared at the request of Kristin Borel from the City of Saratoga's Community Development Department in response to the proposed remodel and addition of a single family residence located at 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga. My assignment includes reviewing the proposed project and its effects upon four Ordinance sized trees located on and immediately adjacent to the subject property, as well as identifying each tree's species, size, overall condition and appraisal value. This report presents my fmdings as well as recommendations for mitigating damage to affected trees. A summary of my fmdings is presented on a Tree Inventory Spreadsheet. attached to this report. The trees consist of two Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and two Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata). Each tree is assigned a high suitability for preservation and is in overall good condition. No construction impacts are anticipated to trees #i, 3 and 4. 'Moderate (tolerable) impacts are anticipated for tree #2. • • • ii ~~~~~~ • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 • 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Assignment This report has been prepared at the request of Kristin Bores from the City of Saratoga's Community Development Department in response to the proposed addition and remodel at 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga. My assignment includes reviewing effects the proposed project will have on Ordinance sized trees located on and immediately adjacent to the subject property; identifying each tree's species, estimated sizes and overall condition; and determining each tree's appraisal value. This report presents my findings as well as recommendations for .mitigating possible damage to affected trees. A summary of my findings is presented on-the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached to this report. Each tree's approximate location, number and canopy dimension are shown on a copy (attached at the end of this report) of the General Info & Site and Roof Plan (sheet A1.0) prepared by Barker Associates and dated 1/27/03. The recommended tree protection fencing locations are also shown on this plan. 1.2 Limits of Assignment Tree #1 is not shown on the plans reviewed. Its approximate location was plotted by me and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. All observations presented in this report are derived from my site inspection on February 1, 2003, as well as my review of plans provided by the CiTy of Saratoga. As trees #1 and 2 are located on the adjacent western property, I was unable to measure their trunk diameters or view their entire canopies and trunk areas. The root collars2 of trees #3 and 4 were buried, and as a result, I was unable to fully determine their health condition. 'Size refers to the trunk diameter, tree height and canopy spread. z This refers to the area where the main support roots merge with the trunk, indicated by an appazent swelling at the trunk's base. 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Page 1 of 7 Kristin Bores, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department CGO00'~9 • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 2.0 OBSERVATIONS 2.1 Species Count and Composition Four Ordinance sized trees were inventoried for this report. These include two Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) #1 and 3, and two Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata) #2 and 4. Trees #1 and 2 are located on adjacent surrounding properties and were inventoried for this report as their canopies are located over the subject property. 2.2 Suitability for Tree Preservation Each tree has been assigned a high suitability for preservation. This means the trees are of significant value and/or importance and all efforts should be made to retain and protect them their current condition. This rating also applies to all trees located on the adjacent properties, regardless of condition (provided they do not appear to be a significant risk to public safety). 2.3 Tree Conditions All trees presented in this report appear in overall good health with stable structures. Tree #2 contains several large 7 to 10-inch diameter cuts at the ends of large branches located over the property. As a result, these cut areas are exposed to decay and should be frequently monitored. The root collars of trees #3 and 4 were buried with soil. To minimize the risk of various root and root collar diseases, I suggest exposing the collar areas be exposed and inspected. I did observe a moderate amount of watersprouts growing along the main trunk of tree #3. These serve to indicate the tree is stressed in some fashion and I likely attribute this to its current growing environment. • • 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga t'age L of i Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Q,~QOiZ® • i David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 . 3.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLANS The trunk of tree #2 is situated on the adjacent eastern property, against the boundary fence and approximately nine-feet west of the existing trunk. Plans propose expanding the home three-feet towards the east and constructing a chimney eight-feet southwest from the trunk. I estimate these features will require 15-percent of the live canopy be removed and damage approximately 10-percent of the total root area. I believe the cumulative impacts will be at a moderate (tolerable) level. I anticipate no impacts to trees #1, 3 and 4 as the proposed home modifications home are planned well away from their root zone area. There is a Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) located on the adjacent northern property. It appears in good health and its trunk is situated an estimated 25-feet from the northern property fence. An estimated 10-feet of its canopy grows over the subject property. No impacts to this tree are expected. 4.0 TREE APPRAISAL AND BOND VALUES The a raised tree values are resented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached to the pp p end of this report. The values were calculated in accordance to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`" Edition, using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. Trees #1, 3 and 4 have a cumulative appraised value of $40,790 and are not anticipated to be impacted. I suggest a 10-percent bond ($4,059) to ensure their protection. Tree #2 is anticipated to be impacted at moderate levels. Its appraised value is $14,200 and I suggest a 20-percent bond ($3,550) to ensure its protection. 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Page 3 of 7 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~~~~ • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS • 5.1 Tree Protection Fencing a. Fencing must be installed prior to commencing project activities and be comprised of five to six-feet high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven two- feet into the ground and spaced no more than 12-feet apart. The fencing should be established as per the attached Plan. b. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and in place throughout the construction process and until the project receives final approval. Modifications to the fencing location should be allowed only by permission from the City of Sazatoga. c. All construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas as well as from beneath the canopies of retained trees. These activities include, but are not limited to, the storage of materials, vehicle parking, and dumping of concrete or other construction materials. If accidentally spilled, the materials should be removed immediately and disposed of off-site or to apre-approved washout pit. 5.2 Root Zone Protection a. A root zone buffer must be installed on the exposed soil surface azea3 beneath tree #2's canopy as shown on the attached Plan. This buffer should comprise a four to five-inch layer of coazse wood chips placed along the flat azea adjacent to the trunk and five-feet (slope distance) uphill. Plywood of approximately 3/4-inch thick could be placed on the chips and securely fastened to enable a sturdy walking surface. 5.3 Root Severance Guidelines a. Roots two-inches and greater in diameter that become exposed and/or damaged during the construction process, should be cut clean with a hand or chainsaw and, if possible, back to a lateral (side) root. As soon as severance occurs, cover or wrap the root end with a plastic bag secured with tape or rubber band and backfill with soil as soon as possible. This procedure can reduce recovery time and impact on tree health. 5.4 Grading, Excavation and Soil Fill a. The project design must avoid the need for grading and/or surface scraping beneath canopies of retained trees. The only areas which should be disturbed are approved locations of the future expansion. No soil should be placed within the fenced azeas. s This refers to the area with undisturbed soil. Do not include the lawn or rocked area downhill from the trunk. 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Page 9 of 7 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~,~~~ • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 5.5 Drainage a. All roof drains must be designed and constructed so water is displaced away from retained trees. b. Any alterations to the natural grade must ensure water drains away from rather than towards trees' trunks. 5.7 Tree Pruning a. Branches from trees #1 and 2 interfering with construction traffic or the future home expansion should be cleared away prior to construction occurring. Pruning services performed before or during the project must be under the supervision of an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Member or an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. All pruning must be limited to the above as well as removal of any dead branches one-inch and greater in diameter. To promote the trees' vigor, no more than 10 to 15-percent of the live canopy should be removed at any given time. 5.8 Root Collar Clearance a. I suggest the root collars of trees #2 and 3 be cleared of soil to expose the main buttress roots. This work should be performed under the supervision of an ASCA Member and/or ISA Certified Arborist. The purpose for this activity is to minimize the risk of root collar disease infection. 5.9 Landscape Design Considerations a. I suggest any future landscape design be reviewed by an ASCA Member and/or an ISA Certified Arborist prior to its implementation. Mulch should be placed no closer than two-feet from any trunk and not exceed four-inches in depth. 5.10 General Construction Guidelines a. Tree trunks must not be used as a winch support for moving and lifting large loads, nor must signs, fencing or construction materials be attached to them. b. Concrete pumping equipment must be carefully positioned and operated so damage to trees does not occur. Please note that the articulating arm on this equipment can significantly damage trees. c. Do not store construction materials beneath the canopies of any protected trees. • 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Page S of 7 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Q~~O~~~ • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 6.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS • 1. All information provided by David L. Babby covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. 2. Unless otherwise stated,. the inspection is performed from the ground only, and is limited to visual examination of accessible items without probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. David L. Babby cannot, in any way, assume responsibility for any defects which may have only been discovered by performing the mentioned services in the specific area(s) where a defect was located. 3. The assignment pertains solely to the trees specified in this report. David L. Babby holds no opinion towards other trees on or surrounding the property. 4. David L. Babby cannot provide a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of the trees, plants, or property in question may not arise in the future. 5. No assurance can be offered that if all the provided recommendations and precautionary measures (verbal or in writing) are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be achieved. 6. It is assumed that the property where the inspection or evaluation occurs is not in violation of any applicable ordinances, codes, statutes or other governmental regulations. 7. Unless otherwise stated, no analyses, investigation or testing was performed by another party. 8. All information received from the client and/or reliable sources is assumed to be correct. David L. Babby cannot guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of the information provided by others. 9. David L. Babby assumes no responsibility for the methods and/or techniques used by any person or company implementing the recommendations provided verbally and/or in this report. 10. David L. Babby shall not. be required to attend court or give testimony by reason of information provided unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of additional fees for such services. 11. David L. Babby's liability, including indemnification, is hereby limited to the specific conditions, limits, and sublimits of his insurance policies. 12: The information provided by David L. Babby represents his opinion and his fee is in no way contingent upon reporting a specified finding, conclusion or value. 13. This report is proprietary to David L. Babby and may not be copied or reproduced in whole or part without prior written consent. It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the parties. to whom submitted for the purpose of contracting services provided by David L. Babby. 14. Information provided in this report assumes the tree(s) are accurately located on the plan(s) provided. 15.-All photographs, drawings, maps, graphs, etc. in this report are ,intended as visual aids and are not necessarily to scale. They shall not be interpreted as engineering surveys or reports. 16. If any part of this report or copy thereof be lost or altered, the entire evaluation/appraisal shall be invalid. 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Page 6 of ~ Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~O®02~ • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 • 7.0 LETTER OF CERTIFICA'T'ION I, David L. Babby, state the following to be true and correct: ^ I have personally evaluated the subject matter discussed in this report and believe the findings, conclusions and recommendations are accurate and best describe the likely outcome. To the best of my knowledge, I certify the information to be true and correct. ^ I have no personal bias or interest with respect to the parties involved, subject matter evaluated or outcome of the report. ^ All material discussed within this report are the opinions of myself and were construed through the use of commonly accepted and practiced arboricultural standards. ^ My compensation is by no way contingent upon the outcome of findings, values or conclusions presented in my report. Signed by: ~`~"' 1 Date: ~ ~ "~ ~ Attachments: Tree Inventory Spreadsheet Copy of the General Info & Site and Roof Plan CJ 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Page 7 °~ 7 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department 400025 ~. ,~, ._ • ~~, ARBO RESOURCES J"40 fESSLOILQL PT4fTOaieuLtU.'LLlL C.:O-28U.Ctin9 & ~~z$e C~a~e TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET .~ ,.; ~~ H v . o 3 o 3 ~ U~ 3 ~ ~,, ~ ~ h ~i '" b ° o ~ ono •~ ~-, u ~ ' ~ b o. ~,, o N o ~.. °° y ~$ a~ v •' :~ y ~a :~ H ~ a ' 'b Ca ~ o 4r t~ ~ ~'' ~CC. ~n ti °~' ~ .C~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ p A~ ~ A~ m ~ ~ >, a a U~b ~ ~o ~n o r. ~ ~ ^~ p ~ a ~'~ ^' ~o o ~ Q. b a~ w TREE ~ °' ~ °' ~ °~~ ~ ~ °o ~ c ~ ~ y ~ ~ x U > ~ 0 0 NO.. TREE NAME F.., ~ H .~ x v x ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ Coast Live Oak 1 (Quercus agrifolia) 40 36 50 70 85% 85% Good .~ 5 - $29,200 X ~,ommen~a: Valley Oak 2 (Quercus lobata) 29 26 58 65 80% 85% ('food High 3 - $14,200 X ~,ommcuw: Coast Live Oak 3 (Quercus agrifolia) 20 19 38 42 65% 90% Good ugh $ - $6,600 - wnuucuw. Valley Oak 4 (Quercus lobata) 15 13 45 32 85% 80% Good ~~ 5 - $4,790 - Comments: Job: 13753 Saratoga Avtnuc, Saratoga Preparedjor: CSty oJSaratoga, Planning Ikvision Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA Pagel of 1 February 3, 1003 ~ X00®26 ~' l f---._---9riJew~eu-~.o Fcyifenc , ~~- TREE PROTECTION ~r°~-"'~ ~~ ' FENCING 51oE 0.G 3: ,,.Da • 7m ~~ .~ t``~' ROOT ZONE BUFFER ~. ` 4 .e ~`~~ F -' - ~~ ~ ~ CANOPY EDGE ~' )8. .y (.pa,rN m ~ p 3 ~ `` In r 1/' F ~IVEWM( ~ -3iC d e~suEar /~ (o. P•!Fr• ~I,~ryl0~abrQal ~. a%I 7r, PE7®. W L II RESIOt%N~ES - nm +114 \\ _ 'r . I hDOFA DFGK I~~ ~ •:PM1D ' IlI (,SNOWN Sxhoc~l tr) oEwc -1 1 Aw~. m~ JJ I b (sxo~x~oE V) u z~ ' o. __- _~___:_--__•~ 2-~NEW cx~MNkx~ . •Jf4 -. ~- 37G f.P. HEW f.P~ ~4' ~ ~ Y CHIMNEH `~' h }IEy14 E ~ G•ASPNM•T '(' INS q~t 1 4 °r o .. "~ ~9~~-w~ . . ~ E K'I 9T 6 H~o USE '~ _..._... ...'.'.. 1 ~_ 3[m~ coNG• 516Ie = NEW q~GM45 o I - 98ZCSk~U 6WT5 o ',._ _ y ~~ • .. .::: ~ ;~ h 1 ~, - `~~ ._ • ,. '~- ~ ~ 4 '. Opt E.x I. ~.. T G ._ ~~' '':. 8(o J 6A GE ~ ~C,rFlh (f1 PMH \~ ~'~ 1 ~~~~ I I £%147 Ca ~N ) ~ ~ ~~ ~. K,~w FEYr-E - _ _ ' b E - I ' 7TeTpep ~: a' TYP. 1 ~~ ~ .. ~ ` E%1576 RET'6. whw 1 _ i ~~Di4~ Exl5T6 1`ENC.~ ` \ I 4 ~. I `d Y ~` lC'1 panEwaY : ~ /~ ~ y+N I f ,.ryr~-, ,~ -~ .S n 1 N ~ ... 1 u a r ai-~ 1 co 1 ~ee.~' de.4e' f r ~ 1 ~ )4•_6" t f 0 !D6l oPfhVlMCNT SP.RpT OGf+ AV ' ~ 51TE/'R'OOF PL,4N !f J • NORTN Srte Name: Pables Residence i of - Prepared By: ~ dA drcs;: 13755 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Preoared for: City of Saratoga ARBOR RESOURCES rF.•/ ,at•..L ~•6••..n4...1 G'•.•.Cwy 6 rJ•x• C'... ~: February 4, 2003 P.O. Box 25295 • San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone: (650) 654-3751 • Email: arbortesources(a~eanhlink.net Notes: Map identifies four Ordinance sized trees at risk of development impacts. Canopy dimensions are approximate. Tree (11 was added to the plan and its location is approximate. Map is reduced from it original siu and is not to scale. l1'll.ll!'~~`~ • Attachment 4 • li''JQ~~s~` ®09'[5 aase~ ~ HQO & MENG TANG 19826 MERRlBR00K DR STOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA CA 95070 GLENN D & DARLENE GRANT 19814 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT L & LOIS RUSSELL 19806 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN D & IRIS NELSON 19887 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STEWARD 19822 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 s~aga~ ssaappd oA213/~H ~~ KELVIN & DZUNG WRIGHT 19818 MERRTBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CALIFORNIA STATE OF SARATOGA CA 95070 _.___ _ _. _. _ . JOHN L & SHERRY MCCOLLUM 19810 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ANDERSON 13690 ROSSMERE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -._ - -.._ DARLENE G & GLENN GRANT 19814 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ___ __ SHERRY H & JOHN MCCOLLUM 19810 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 RALPH T & FLORA YOSHIDA 13701 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 _- _ --- _ _ JOHN D & IRIS NELSON 19887 MERRiBR00K DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CHAFFIN 19871 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STEVEN B & MARY KETCHUM 19856 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -- __ __. FRANK Z & GWEN ZHAO 19857 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SHAD-MING & YONG-CHWEN LUN 19894 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 __ _. VIVIAN O SCHEMBER BILLY B & MARTHA TIPPIN 19807 MERRLBROOK DR 19811 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 GLENFORD V DENNEE 2265 EL CAMINO REAL 3 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 __. --- _--. WILLIAM G & MARIE SCOTT 19805 MERRIBROOK CT SARATOGA CA 95070 _.__. YUWEN & CHEN HSIA 19825 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA -95070 _.. _ -_ _ _ _. -_- JOSEPH J & E FITZSIMMONS PARVIZ & AZITA KWON 14611 BIG BASIN WAY E GHAFFARIPOUR 20487 CHALET LN SARATOGA CA 95070 13765 HERITAGE CREEK CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 _._ . _ _ _. -- --- __ _ EPH J & E FITZSIMMONS GLENFORD V DENNEE 4611 BIG BASIN WAY E 2265 EL CAMINO REAL 3 SARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 ..ncrt poi aieidwa~ asn dooo~9 wi`;aa4S Paa~ y~oowS ®09ti5 aase~ ~ MICHAEL & JENNIFER ~ STEINBERG 19956 BARONI CT ~ SARATOGA CA 95070 KENNETH D & PAULA WALLACE PO BOX 963 SARATOGA CA 95071 s~age~ ssaaPPV ®wslanv ~7/ TIMOTHY E MUNIZ PO BOX 3141 SARATOGA CA 95070 GREGORY C & JANICE GOELZ YIl'ING & GU LIU CHUNG Y & HSI YANG 19931 BARONI CT 19909 BARONI CT 13837 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~ ---- . ANTHONY T APRILE SCOTT C& BRIGETTE BRADY S C V W D PO BOX 8404 13855 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CRUZ CA 95061 SARATOGA CA 95070 GLENFORD V DENNEE 2265.EL CAMINO REAL 3 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 ABRAHAM & HELEN WEI 13850 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 __ ._ _ _-- WILLIAM T & ROBERTA FOSTER 13741 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PROMOD & DORCAS HAQUE 13780 SAR.ATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID F & MARY OCONNOR SOUSA 13818 SARATOGA AVE 13830 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 _ _ _ _ --- - THOMAS A & EUNICE COMBELLICK 13810 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PEEBLES PO BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94042 VINCENT W & LILY CHEUNG 13820 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 .. __. . . ROMAN CATHOLIC WELF CORD OF S 13724 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 000030 _ _._ nn*~ ~n~ „n,a~~~„ ~~~ ~ - w15~aay5 Paa~ 4loow5 l • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR.A ) I, C~1 ~~s~ ~. ~~ ~'~- ~"`~ , being duly sworn, deposes and says:. that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ day of 2003, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said ersons are the owners of said ro erty who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing P p p pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~ - V Signed • . ~~~~~~ LEGEND NO7 ALL AFPLICAOLE REFERENCE DESIGNA71gJ • ml COLUMN GRID REf~RENCE I SECTION NJMOER !WALL OR OLDG.) A5.0 SHEET NUMBER 01 ELEVATION NUMBER e SHEET NIMBER 01 DETAIL NJMBER A81 SHEET NIFffiER ~7~ ~ uANDCw TrFE 3A PARTITION TYPE q 101 ROOM NUMBER ' ® DOOR NUMBER Q REVISION NIMBER ELEVATION PROM DA1UM POPIt OR %i~RENCE POINT ' ~- MAtCH LINE j ~ Ga NORTH AReow ho RA 4 z ox AT DEIENSIONS FACE OF STUD UOC oI' y IF-- CLEAR - FACE ~ FINISH ¢ A C9lTER Lll~ff - 0 I . NEW GRADE/ELEVATICN ELECTRICAI-eMECHWJICAL STI'IBOLS f SJFPLY DIFFUSER ~ TELEPHONE JACK ® RETUfdJ DIWJSER $ SWITCH EXHAU5I DE'R1SER ® 5MOKE DETECTOR . ~ FLUOfEESCENT FlMIIRE 0 FIRE ALAFd~ FULL StATIgJ : /x SJf~ACE MIXAIIED e~] STROBE LIGHt V HXN~ ~T,,~ ~ HORN/STROBE ' pECESSED DWNLIGM Q E%1T LIGHT DU'LEx OUTLET PLAN MID SECTION 5YtE30LS EARR1 ' POROUS FILL ' RocK GR4V~L, ETC. v :.>~~•. ~ LONCRETE . " // /~. CONCRETE BLOdC (~ NEw wALi PLMI -------------- REMOVE WALL SYMBOLS ______________ PLYUIOOD . _ ~-I U40D -ROUGH ® ~ (5TRIICTURALIBACKIr•Ki/ ---oN~~ gal ~~ ~\ y NA7 1D 'E -;OAK l~ t ~y~a'-II In ^ 1~, 51bE b o ~ , ///r 3.12 ~, ~[>p~NEVIAY . ehsr~dr (o FeAF ' pE41nC1kE5 qIN J.o'/ED DELK ARBh- (SHOWN SHAF61'I) ~G ~~" HEW F.P./ X14" Tf CHIMNFN !-~~ n{9"~-a° . CoNG 3fEP9 yyL V r'< 3Sm ~ z ~ ~ /J / ~/ 4N6 OF' N/dl-~YVP. E7(14T (~ 7T6 d L Q .4 r S i. N ~ NE f3' LPuN ;l I t ' 9T 6 Ho USE f_ .. { E' L~ ~y_ PF.~,fe.0q ~.~ (E) PORCH ~PMIO (E) DEOx I I I 9'-2 I/2 cE) SlcEy/ m cD VICINITY MAP Q Y N1 3T0 PETp. ~~~~~~ ~ ,±4' ~;9. ~~ BARKER ASSOCIATES AECHIT ECTS ~ PLA NNHRS SITE -~~ AFTA aF Ammeµ '~ (sHaw, sNA~ED) ~ ~74 , rel ....~\ ~II ZONING ANRLY515 ~;..~ ~ ~ Rxslvernx_ --.~EEV. CNII~HE)f ~ xouAO ~ An ea3 as s5 .~ 3'IG P P ~ x ~~^ ox+.oxron.,ms ' •3u Mat <eatMRlco-~aeq< ' NEWT EXI9T(~~MFNM-T ve xore te„ s<.c.ce on wen.. -~- 3'IB sHINGI.E'p~+ eMx rr relxwroxro2wm3 ~ - rr r2lxoxcoxronrm3 • 5rte oertx tro 13 tai zo )xax<oxrortHm3 z ~.~. ,.. I rt roxo+.aero,m eewmrom.+qee 3E~ tetwy ,.3m t= rtrelxan mnfom~ngntnwG,engee +tpry IT relxan~onfamngwtAw Nangee t y ti ttle.~ (nle rt NEW FLAT/GLASS SKYLIGHTS +tay *rtI+.YMIt'IS~R1xo+co„ro,nd+91x1 CK WITH D!~tK SOLAR TINT PER ~~q 3 ~ - 382 P iueo5 lwetay 35 M133IT ox ' HPO AP ROVAL 4/8/09 - _ ' ew MEltbn ta(e19eEe -'/84 tit::: at>s~ar.o~„rex. .3,e 3 . ~~ ~o ~3r . I~`I~CTC. r~wnnrtu ,rear exie ~ sr `' ~ ~v~~ IE> t~Rr ,mt~ 3A AuOIA l E r--- __..) Im. ~~^ ~ PR0IEGT DESCRIPTION THE PEEBLES PROP05E TOUPDATE THEIR EXISTING 1554 5F NOU5E BY E) - BUILDING-OUT THE EXISTING UNFlNISHED LOWER LEVEL AND ADDING A I A4M1o H1 I SMALL TWO STORY BEDROOM ADDITION ON TO THE REAR SINGE THE G+ - ~ EXISTING LOT OF 6634 5F HA5 A 19%, 5LOPE, THE SITE AREA 15 - ADJUSTED BELOW 50005F, AND THU5 ANY FLOOR AREA ALLOWED HAS T08E REVIEWED 6Y THE PLANNING C.OMMI5510N. ' ----+EXI5T6 RET~6. WAIT' IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT THE HOUSE WILL REMAIN A 7W0-BEDROOM ~_~ HOUSE. NO GRANGES WILL BE SEEN FROM THE STREET. THE 5MALL TWO 570RY ADDITION IN THE INTERIOR REAR WILL ALLOW ONE OEDROOM TO EXPAND TO A REASONABLE SIZE ON THE UPPER FLOOR AND ALLOW THE EKISTG fENI[~ MASTER BEDROOM BE RELOCATED TO THE LOWER LEVEL, ALONG WITH - THE CREATION OF A FAMILY ROOM, UTILITY AND WORKROOM. A MINOR IN-FILL OFACOVERED PORCH WILL CREATA SEPARATE ENTRY. THE PROP05EDBUILD-OVT ANDADDITION WOULD HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ' ' ~ ON THE V15VAL SIZE OF THE HOUSE AND WILL BE IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES. THE ONLY ADJACENT HOU5E ISA45TORY ' HOUSE THAT ABUTTS THE EAST PROPERTY ALONG SARATOGA-AND ITS FIR5T FLOOR 15.4' ABOVE THEIR FlRST FLOOR, A5 THEIR HOUSE 1551TED ' BELOW THE STREET LEVEL. THEOTHER YARDS, ONE SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD5 ARE DRIVEWAY5T0 RESIDENCE BELOW THEM.THE EXTERIOR FINISHES WILL BE REPLACED AND UPGRADES AS PART OF THIS PROP05ALINCLUDING NEW HORIZONTAL SIDING AND WOOD WINDOWS, BUT THEE%15TING STYLE OF THE HOUSE AND SCALE WILL REMAIN AND ENHANCED. Itf Satl+Alegnite Aveme ~~i~ (NAXl~/9BHl13 aFfi '.A~Yaavtde~salm, W I JF i Q d. y 0 ~~~ Z ,~`` ' j ~ .V X F ~ O' Z m ~ d d z ~ . ~~}' 0 Q ~ p ~... ~. 0 ~ ~ ~' ~ .. uQi Q r: W' I•- Q 1Q S/ I T/03 REVI5ED PER 5TAFF COMMENT ' PLANNING REVIEW SEi Rev 3/]1/03 [~ WOOD - FWISH (MILLWOPoG ~ _ _ _~ ~ ~ PEP C~~ NORTH " , II`1l/GJ~ ' .. _ ~ va•-r-a 154-01 METAL rSTEEU - ~ - ~ ~ 4p BITE A 1.0 ' GENERALINFO " ~ ~ oa GYPSUMw.au.BOaRD ~ , AND ROOP PLAN - Az.O PLOORPLANB , GENERAL - A9,0 E%TERIORELEVATONS , 'INFO ' c ~. INSULATICNI - LoosE Flu oR BArr - _ ' ' '. ~ - 1 TOPOGRAPNIGMAP/ d $ITE E ROOF" SEalarmETAIL - WE9TFALLENGINEER9,ING. FLAN . C SYMBOLS INSULAtION -RIGID _ _ __ _ X1.0: 1 • t} 45'-6" 71'-II b'7 " i ~ .--RpLF OVER Eae6.ME+17 DO3T ~ 'I" ~ ----k a~DmaNSELeu REEOGd€ED EpW L NDCW € O C£'G. aCC"'Gh' ~ ~-- - r ________. __.~______ ~ ~ __._ 1 iNE ~ y ~ ~ ~ r .erK_ebrs a f i _ Mas-~z eweaou ~, ~ E PECK ~ m s t~ i ~ 1 1 ,- ( GL. i - ---- -- -- IVir-rFlPea~.ct=r [ BATN SEDROO~"~ ~ l v :~` M ~ ®~. __-- DIt~W6 } J ;tJ GaO FiR=PIdGEt CN f?+ t i A ilf O P ~ ! iNt GaS FlRERGGE aNE3 CV#t49Er ET PAMILY ROOM ~ GL08ET I~ - ~ :~ ~ s ~ - NE `V INFERIOR i ~ ~ ___-f~-.~_ - I wars f~o-u: sa>~oi a I ~ } 1 ~ HALL ~ ~.~' b~ ~. BATH >1 ~ \ ~, ~ i LIViNb ItCOM K Gtl N i '~ ~ fEi EiCpD FCREF:.fiGE --` ~ , u kTlk~ ~~c ~°°~q W° ~& ~ 1.R . o w Ewc ATH ~ . (.4 i RarrE ~ ~'` ~ ~ ... ~.. r ~ ...~ -~~ \,. F~hfRY p ~\ GOY>°RECPORGN ~ : ~ . .. . o a o ~ 0 4j-u 6r 0 0 Ek1521W a2Fd TO E:E &lit.T p:T 6ARAbE & 0 0 0 Z LOWER FLOOR PLAN F'ROP05ED -_.. _~ fiDDfO eREa r; E~dCED PROPOSED .._~ aGDED caEa 19 yaaDED STffIR3 ib DECK ABb'/E ,~___.... __..__,.__.I. _____~_~r~ 768E REI".CVED LINE PP '-"~ ~ '--_ ao''''' ~ , 1 r___; DECK 0.EQVY i ~~--~ , _-....... i i E ~ ~i r i ~ it EXISTM6 WORKROOM/ 970RA6E ~ ii it ii ii _ ii . ~ _ ~ .______.. ~__x_~______i__-...._ Ir ~~~ EXIBTIN6 CRAWL SPACE 91aIR5 _i '__~ I~ ~I 0 EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PL,~N ~' 0 ~- I ~,- EI 167P'G DECK ~,,,,.-- 57Akk5 Tp BE F~I'FO'rED pEGK WAIL i0 EE REf1bvED FOR Expa;SlpN 5NGU1. DoSUED, TrP, i I ..... .w.. .. ~» ~ ' ~ ~' BATH ~ECROOM Ez~rUYa DEG>< ~', ; BEDROOM 74 BE REyPrED `'* "icL f~~ G4. I ~~' ~.p ~ 3 + `~~ ~~ ~~ i i t ~1 ~t, ~' DiNiN6 4, ~ .H 3 o~:_'~ .fi ,.~~A LIYIN6 RODM ~ ~i ----AREA CF FLPrQ ',{"~ TQ Ef kEYlOV20 POR KITCHEN DEN ° aEJi iN7~bR gtdlR 1," i-, r~ PORCH GARAbE XISTING UPPER FLOOR PLt~N gpt~k:i;l~ A55UCI~'1'ES ,IgC, 411T£CTS g Pt.p?ii ER5 11,1 >+~ ypp k ..~. `~ r.+. ~_. t 2 ~- ~` d '~ x ~ z ~ ~ f ~ 0 ~ y~ R . .++ V ~ a ~ ~ o x _ ~ ~ a ~ m ~ Q -p ~ '~ " ~ Q Q ~ T L ~ ~, ~ n ~ r m W p ( Y~ W n srvxa >ZeviBEO PER ' B aFF C.^Mt7EN75 FL ANNIrKd ~EflIPW SET I t1 ti03 1I8"=)`•O" 154-?~I PLpOR PLANS ~2.Q LJ • 1 I _ I I yIIf ~~ 4 I _. _- 'lw~e~ I ~Il: 1`1,111 F ~+--~-.~ ~~--Ntv1 CNIMNCY ;n EA5T ELEVATION m~~ '` 11'-op - poPITIOlJ 8'^~I fo~KCN ce) iWIN6 ReoN1 t) 1''. BpnRmH I L ~ Itvq. d :. ~ I '_ N R ~ I ~ . ~~ L?'~ ~- .NEW. 0 __ CLO~¢T MA9t BEUPM - - W4Ef ' L84G/. ~..:_ ., b%15T'G ~No USf~ I 12~n" yI -...._._-.._.. ENTaY ~ S*AIP•ADOH'I=N ~ ratci,h/lau ND~----g-~--~I . AoolnoN {I -- - ~ BARKER ~ _ _ ~,wl„,tcxsi sbii.ue~l ASSOCIATES n~(`I AR CHIT 6CTS J ~ A PLANNERS _ ExIS~G fENGFr ~{I VNw (Anna, cvh,Wl7et~ - - - 1„~',i uwea __9 .F '.fp' olN'I{Ij)- New, "- 1wAI15 ~ ~ ~~ -_ - _ - ~ ~ - I. - ~ ~~~~ II \- _. __. 'I'~" - ~ -'- -- - --- ---- LCapzNiV6L. n WEST ELEVATION mM~ I 4 12~ o" I'~RF- ~ .. ponltloN 6xlcr'G~ -il euaE „ 2y i I Z 0 9 I' Ve16R Q - ISVTL N H 50UTH ELEVATION U 0 ~ ti I . W 4 F. _ EXI5T6 floUSE ~~ ~ O AnvltloN ~ LL . s I ~ ~ ~ . P ~ ~ O ~- -_ ~.~ , __ - d LL OgIMR sl, d ,b :..~ - - -___-~- i ~ ~ ~ . m t m `~ _ ~ ~ deddr.llw 7 _ I I ~ 1 I °°__: i ~~ ~' r--T--i ~ ~` NewJwaod Fe1h5 epu' ~Yv. doK F- ~ ~ ll '~ ' ~ (OmdwxM)i~ I ~ ~ ~ `I'- ~ ~ ~ (E)uFKR_ ~~ F _ ~ ' J - I t- ~ I ~ ~ r I :.-:-~ ,_ Exisfl ~wlc IC~Jf0.~ -~W oldrl• ) ~- ~ ~ O ~-. ~ ~. Y 1 L L Il .0. ~ ~ ~ I r ~ ~ ~~) --'t, -~ 1 ( y I~ ELLS X71 i - r I~~, I ~ ~ G w ''' 1 . / ` ~- ~I ~I ~i~f .y, .. - ~'~- ~ r Q~zu WnJaU -_~. ceue (Ela~ - E ' ~ I Q 1 0 Q ~i ~- n NORTH ELEVATION ~ i a ~Q m nr ~ II I ~- g a . I ~ ~ .N Q w ~ N r m ~ C I/2Y03 154-OI ITEM 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Ann Welsh, AICP, Assistant Planner DATE: June 11, 2003 RE: Request for Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-13.050 (f) Grading - 1,000 cubic yards maximum allowable CC: Mr. Mark Snow At the Apri19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, a letter from Mark Snow requesting interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance regarding corrective grading was discussed. At that time staff was directed by the Planning Commission to provide background on the Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-13.050 (f) regarding grading. The request for interpretation involves the issue of whether corrective grading to artificially stabilize a site should be considered as different from normal grading to prepare a building site. This distinction is important since the Zoning Ordinance requires certain findings be made if an applicant proposes more than a 1,000 cubic yards of grading in the Hillside Residential District. If corrective grading to stabilize a site subject to sliding or other earth movement is not governed by the limitation on grading then the findings required for allowing more than 1,000 cubic yards of grading in the Hillside Residential District would not have to be made. A policy which exempts corrective grading from the process of public review would create a major gap in the land development review process. If corrective grading is exempt from the public review process, major earthmoving activities would be permitted without benefit of public input. This policy would be inconsistent with the full disclosure policy of the city in terms of land development activity. In terms of future development, since the city is basically built out, the remaining undeveloped areas are generally the more difficult sites, sites with unstable soils, riparian corridors or fault zones. In order to build on these sites, extensive remediation of the soils is often required which involves removal and replacement of large quantities of soil and major alterations to the natural landscape. The existing grading policy provides a public forum where the impacts of the corrective grading are discussed and evaluated in the review process. Relaxing this existing policy would allow remedial grading to be exempt from the review process. The current city policy does not prohibit corrective grading. to artificially stabilize a site. However, where the grading requires major impacts on the character of the terrain such as substantial tree removal and alterations to riparian corridors; the findings outlined ~Q~Qa~ " If grading for a project, as specifically approved by the Planning Commission, City Geologist and City Engineer, corrects a geologic hazard, then roads, driveways and structures may be located on such graded areas as approved. " The Planning Commission is being asked to consider whether corrective grading maybe exempt from the findings required for standard grading to prepare a building site. The General Plan language on this matter does not exempt corrective grading of 1,000 cubic yards or more from Planning Commission review. However, it does appear that corrective grading could be allowed provided it is acceptable to the city geologist and the Planning Commission and does not degrade the visual quality of a site. On sites designated as Md (moving deep landslides more than 10 feet thick) and Mrf (moving deep landslides more than 100 feet thick), a variance would be necessary to allow any construction on such a site even if the site received the city geotechnical consultants approval. These sites would need to meet not only the findings of the Planning Commission for extensive grading but also the findings for a variance. In summary, it is the staff's recommendation that there be no distinction between corrective grading to stabilize a site and typical grading for normal construction. Both types of grading should be required to meet the findings identified in the zoning ordinance for such grading. Attachments 1. City Geotechnical Reports dated June 13, 2002 and May 13, 2003 2. Letter from Mark Snow & Associates 3. Letter from GeoForensics Inc. dated October 2, 2002 4. Letter from Marvin Kirkeby dated February 20, 2003 5. Cross-section of subject area 6. Site Plan of parcel • r~ ~Q~002 below must be made on a case-by-case basis. The Planning Commission must determine in terms of grading, what is reasonable development of a property. The zoning ordinance prohibits grading in the Hillside Residential District, which exceeds one thousand cubic yards, unless the Planning Commission can make the following findings: 1. The additional grading is necessary in order, to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. 2. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. 3. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the. construction with the natural terrain. 4. The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. 5. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. 6. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. The zoning ordinance does not define grading or make a distinction between normal grading to create a level building surface and corrective grading to artificially stabilize a site. In discussing this with the city geotechnical consultant he noted that some cities allow an applicant to artificially stabilize a site but they can deny this on the basis of aesthetics. While other cities prohibit artificial stabilization entirely and limit construction on Pd (Potentially moving soils) soils as well as Md (Moving soils). In terms of the General Plan, the Hillside Specific Plan adopted in 1981 and amended in 1994 addresses the issue of grading. The Hillside Specific Plan -Policies and Action Programs -Site Grading - #3 states that the city shall: "Allow corrective grading in the western hillsides to minimize risks from geologic hazards especially for new or existing development provided it does not remove major trees or irrevocably damage the City's scenic resources. " Thus it appears that Saratoga's General Plan will allow corrective grading to artificially stabilize a site provided this grading can be done in a way that does not dramatically impair the visually quality of the site. The General Plan in the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan appears to assume that grading for remediation will have Planning Commission review. The Plan states that ~'0~00~ Attachment 1 • ~~~~~~ ~`, j C~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ° ~~ 00 ~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408)867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: john Cherbone, Public Works Director DATE: June 13, 2002 FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Geologic and Geotechnical Review (S1230F) RE: Rogers/Kennedy (formerly Young, Chisam, Murren) Garrod Road/Edencrest Lane (APN 503-12-029) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At your request, we have performed a geologic and geotechnical review of the application concerning development of the subject property using: • Slope Stability Revisions (letter) prepared by GeoForensics, Inc., dated January 22, 2002; • Revised Figures (letter with attachments) prepared by GeoForensics, Inc., dated January 22, 2002; and • Grading and Drainage Plan and- Development Plan (1 sheet, 20-scale), prepared by Mason- Sulic, dated November 8, 2001. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files concerning previous development applications of the subject property. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to construct asingle-family residence on the subject lot. Design drawings have not been submitted at this time, however, significant grading and drainage work is anticipated. The property is bounded on the north and south by moderately steep to steep hillside topography, and on the east and west by a narrow drainage valley associated sti~ith a ravine that flows eastward th_roizgh the center of the property. The property is situated within a potentially unstable area known as the Garrod Farms Landslide Complex. The subject property is characterized by moderately steep to very steep (15 percent to greater than 100 percent inclination) natural hillside and creekbanlc topography. The preferred building .site in the northern portion of the property is on a small ridge formed by the intersection of two, actively eroding gullies that have been incised into the south-facing hillslope. The property is underlain, at depth; by sedimentary bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation (i.e., semi-consolidated siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate). Previous investigations have established that intact bedrock is overlain by more than 50 feet of landslide ~naterials of the Garrod Farms Landslide Complex (i.e., displaced materials derived from the Santa Clara Formation). Bedrock and landslide materials are locally overlain by unconsolidated and potentially expansive (~~~4~5 I ~ John Cherbone June 13, 2002. Page 2 S1230F - colluvium, alluvium and artificial fill. Based on previously submitted geologic information, the property wo>~ probably fall into the "Pd" movement potential category. The "Pd" category is defined as "potentially unstable ground (landslides, colluvium and weak bedrock) greater than 10 feet in thickness." In previous review memorandums, we stated that development of the property is constrained by unstable materials, erosional gullying, soil creep, potentially expansive materials, non~ngineered fill, and susceptibility to strong seismic shaking. Previous- reports did not sufficiently characterize site conditions. Consequently, the design criteria provided in these earlier reports, that are intended. to mitigate potential constraints, should be considered premature and inappropriate. In our previous memorandums (dated December 13, 2000 and May 18, 2001), we rioted that it might be feasible (as GeoForensics proposes) to improve stability conditions through excavation of a portion of landslide material and replacement with engineered fill, installation of drainage improvements, construction of shear pin walls (or other retaining structures), construction of a buttress fill in the vicinity of the gullies, or some combination of these measures. Then, if an acceptable level of hillside stabilization can be achieved, residential development could proceed using an appropriate foundation design (e.g., shallow rigid grid or deep piers, depending on the selected stabilization measure). However, we also stated that before the feasibility and extent of hillside stabilization measures can be properly evaluated, the landslide conditions must be fu characterized and assessed. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Our review of the referenced documents indicates -that the majority of our .previous comments have not been satisfactorily addressed. Some of our recommended tasks do not appear to have been completed. Those tasks that were addressed, have not resulted in a clear characterization of landsliding or an adequate demonstration of long-term slope stability. At this time, it appears that several declarative statements about the stability of the property can be made. 1. At this time, the property is best categorized, in terms of ground movement potential, as "Pd". The City ordinance addresses certain limitations and guidelines associated with development in "Pd" terrain. 2. It might be possible (based on the results of additional technical analyses) to sufficiently stabilize the property by constructing an earth buttress similar to that depicted on the referenced Grading and Drainage Plan. However, the City ordinance provides restrictions to site grading, and C~ staff will need to determine whether proposed site grading (estimated to be approximately 4800 cubic yards) should be allowed in this situation. ~~~~Qs John Cherbone Page 3 ~_~ June 13, 2002 S1230F Geotechnical evaluations should be considered along with City ordinances that provide guidance for development and grading limitations in hillside terrain. Depending on the applicant's preferences and consultants' advice, we offer the following possible courses of action to help move the project forward: 1. If the applicant and consultants wish to challenge the "Pd" designation, and demonstrate long-term stability of the property, then we recommend that: (1) our previously recommended supplemental analyses be satisfactorily completed; and (2) additional data and analyses be completed, as needed. Demonstration of long-term stability would lead to an "Sls" designation, and allow development without corrective grading. 2. If the applicant and consultants are satisfied with the "Pd" designation, and wish to pursue stabilization measures that would be accepted on both a technical and regulatory basis, then full characterization and accurate portrayal of landslide geometry, subsurface conditions and proposed remedial grading measures will need to be completed (i.e., per our previous recommendations). However, it might be beneficial to meet with City staff, prior to completing the supplemental analyses, in order to get their input regarding the amount of grading and other improvements that would be allowable in this situation. We are available to meet with the applicant, project consultants, City staff and any other person or group interested in defining the steps needed to prepare an appropriate development plan that ensures long-term stability of the property. 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 are 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. • (4440'7 C~~~~ ~~~ ° ° ° X00 C~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director DATE: May 13, 2003 FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Geologic and Geotechnical Review (S1230G) RE: Rogers/Kennedy Garrod Road/Edencrest Lane (APN 503-12-029) At your request, we have performed a geologic and geotechnical review of the application concerning development of the subject property using: • Revised Geologic Map and Additional Sections (letter with attachments) prepared by GeoForensics, Inc., dated March 31, 2003. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files concerning previous development applications of the subject property, completed a recent site reconnaissance, and discusse~ geotechnical aspects of the property: with the City, owners and project consultants in a meeting held on September 6, 2002; with Jim Baker (Project Engineering Geologist) in a meeting on September 21, 2002; and in several telephone conversations with the applicant and project consultants (most recently on May 5, 2003). DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to construct an earthfill buttress to improve slope stability for the future construction of asingle-family residence on the subject lot. Design drawings have not been submitted at this time; however, a previously submitted grading plan indicates that a net import of approximately 4,948 cubic yards of artificial fill material and drainage improvements are .anticipated. The property is bounded on the north and south by moderately steep to steep hillside topography, and on the east and west by a narrow drainage valley associated with a ravine that flows eastward through the center of the property. The property is situated within an unstable area known as the Garrod Farms Landslide Complex. The subject property is characterized by moderately steep to very steep (15 percent to greater than 100 percent inclination) natural hillside and creekbank topography. The proposed building site is in the northern portion of the property on a small ridge formed by the intersection of two, actively eroding gullies that hav~ been incised into the south-facing hillslope. Proposed earthwork activities would involve filling the gullie and placement of drainpipes to improve drainage. (~'~O~OS John Cherbone Page 2 May 13, 2003 S1230G The property is underlain, at depth, by sedimentary bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation (i.e., semi-consolidated siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate). However, previous investigations have established that intact bedrock is overlain by more than 50 feet of landslide materials of the Garrod Farms Landslide Complex (i.e., displaced materials derived from the Santa Clara Formation).. Bedrock and landslide materials are locally overlain by unconsolidated and potentially expansive colluvium, alluvium and artificial fill. Based on previously submitted geologic information, the property is classified as "Pd". The "Pd" category is defined as "potentially unstable ground (landslides, colluvium and weak bedrock) greater than 10 feet in thickness." According to the State's Seismic Hazards Zone Map, the property is within an area of potential earthquake-induced landsliding. In previous review memorandums, we stated that development of the property is constrained by unstable materials, erosional gullies, soil creep, potentially expansive materials, non-engineered fill, and susceptibility to strong seismic shaking. Previous investigation reports have addressed various geotechnical constraints, but have not sufficiently characterized all potential site constraints. Consequently, much of the recommended design criteria provided in these earlier reports, that are intended to mitigate potential constraints, should be onsidered premature and inappropriate. In our latest memorandums (dated May 18, 2001 and June 13, 2002), we noted that it might be feasible (as GeoForensics proposes) to improve stability conditions through excavation of a portion of landslide material and replacement with engineered fill, installation of drainage improvements, construction of shear pin walls (or other retaining structures), construction of a buttress fill in the vicinity of the gullies, or some combination of these measures. If an acceptable level of hillside stabilization can be achieved, residential development could proceed using an appropriate foundation design (e.g., shallow rigid grid or deep piers, depending on the selected stabilization measure). However, we also stated that before the feasibility and extent of hillside stabilization measures can be properly evaluated, the landslide ,conditions must be fully characterized and assessed. Our meetings and discussions with project consultants have been attempts to help direct investigative efforts toward complete site characterization and assessment. Landsliding on the north-facing slope, south of the building site, has been the key geotechnical issue not previously addressed. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Our review of the referenced document indicates that the Project Engineering Geologist has provided a revised site geologic map and three new cross sections along southern side of the central drainage. However, complete description and assessment of landslide conditions have not been provided. ~~~~~~ John Cherbone Page 3 May 13, 2003 51230G We concur that an ade uate evaluation has been completed for the northern (south-facing slope); q however, our previous recommendations for a summary description of the multiple landslide conditions (text and drawings) have not been satisfied. Furthermore, information presented in the referenced submittal does not sufficiently address conditions south of the ravine. The data provided by the consultants are not sufficient to revise the City and State landslide designations, and no independent evaluation of slope stability of the north-facing slope has been provided in previous reports submitted for our review. Thus, we cannot conduct an adequate review of the perceived level of risk and potential impacts posed by the, north-facing slope and underlying conditions on the proposed project. We again recommend that the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist complete a full Landslide Characterization and Evaluation Investigation. In addition, the project consultants shall provide a clear portrayal of proposed earthwork activities, including anticipated subsurface geologic conditions, extent and depth of keyway, and existing and proposed elevations on geologic cross sections across the building site. The recommended work should include at least the following information: 1. Provide a written description and assessment of the landslide conditions that may impact the proposed development (location, size, depth, physical properties, etc.). For example: Do th ltants believe that a lar e landslide is resent south of the buildin site (yes or no, an~ prolect consu g p g explain the basis for their conclusions). If landsliding or potential landsliding is present, the project consultants should identify and evaluate potential impacts on the proposed development (buttress, drainage improvements, residential structures, etc.), and provide the basis for their evaluation. 2. In order to depict and evaluate the proposed earthfill buttress, the project consultants shall provide at least two, geologic cross sections across the proposed building site (perpendicular to the drainage ravines) that accurately depict property lines; current topography, the proposed fill buttress and ravine drainpipes (depth, elevation and extent), building envelope, roads, ravines, boreholes and intersecting cross section locations. 3. As part of the above, the project consultants should provide a complete Site Engineering Geologic Map of the entire property by including: (1) clear (readable) and accurate topography, (2) site geology (extent of existing fill, colluvium, landslides), (3) borehole and cross section locations, (4) the proposed fill buttress, (5) proposed building envelope, and (6) locations of trees, roads and ravines (much of the existing conditions is depicted on the Grading and Drainage Plan and Development Plan prepared by Mason-Sulic, dated November 8, 2001, but should also be include with other information on.the geologic map). • John Cherbone Page 4 May 13, 2003 S1230G The above information shall be summarized in a written document, with accompanying geologic map and geologic cross sections, and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and :City Geotechnical Consultant prior to completion of the City's review of the Landslide Characterization and Evaluation study. 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 are 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. L` r~ L_~ Attachment 2 • ~~~~~.~. ~~o~ • ~ March 13, 2003 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Attn: Erna Jackman Planning Commission Chair Re: APN: 503-12-029 Edencrest Lane, Saratoga, CA. Dear Ms. Jackman, I am requesting that you make findings to allow for us to grade the above mentioned site in accordance with the attached letters from Marvin Kirkeby and Daniel Dykman. Per the city of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance Section 15-13.050 (F) we are requesting that you make findings to allow remediation grading to mitigate the current site deficiencies. I have included only a copy of the above mentioned letters; however I do have a site drawing and floor plans and elevations for your review if needed. Please contact me directly at your earliest convenience. You can contact me at my office or cell phone (408) 314-7702. Respectfully Submitte Mark H. Snow Cc. Mr. James Kennedy • 6455 Almaden Expressway Suite 218 San Jose, CA. 95120 (408) 997-2400 phone (408) 997-2610 fax mark(c~mhsnowassociates.com ~~~~~..3 Attachment 3 • 10/16!2002 10:25 0000000000 U~~R~N5ICS INC• ~" ~ California 94404 561 Pilgrim Ar., Suite D, Foster City, File: 200031 October 2, 2002 $oil Phone: (650) 349-3369 Pax: (~0) 571-1878 ~' Jim Rogdrs Suitt 202 3707 W't11ia~ Road, San Jose, Caltfocnia 95117 Edeacrest Lane property Subject: Sir-a,toga, CAl;forma OOMMEN7ARX ON FILI- CONSTRZJ~TION Dear Mr. Rogers: ortance of constructing~>~eg~°~ its At your request, we have prepared this letter to address the imp technical and g ravine b0 at the subjcct site. We have previously prcpared several g e ro'ect, but have only discussed the beneficial affects that d~the funh~er offlsrte ~ ficls which on th p ) the development potential of the subject lot. W e have not rscu will be achieved through the construction of the ravine fill. Roadway Stability -Currently, Edencrest Lane is in a poor start of repair. The fill wedge along the downslope margins of the street are experiencing downslope crap movements along the length of the roadway. The construction of the proposed 511 on the subject lot would substantially reduce, or even eliminate this creep movement along those portions of the street which pass along the proposed new fill. In addition to the obvious current distress, the potential for movements of the larger landslides which could destroy the roadway would be substantially rcduccd beyond the limits of the proposed fill, and eliminated adjacent to the proposed fill. If sliding does occur, it would cut off access to the several residences which are currently only accessible from Edencrest Lane. Driveway Stability -Recent mapping by the Town's Geologist indicates that active landsliding is occurring downslope of the driveway which lines the southern side of the subject site. The construction of the buttress fill will stabilize that driveway, permitting the homeowner on that adjacent lot to continue to access his residence. Erosion Reduction -The street drainage culvert on the northern side of the subject site is causing severe erosion on the steep slope on the subject property. Construction of the ravine fill will collect that water and safely convey it down to the base of the slope where it can be rclcased in the center of the drainage ravine. Similarly, the erosion occurring on the existing fills orr the subject lot will be corrected, leaving the runoff from the subject site area .cleaner and substantially Tower in sediment load to be cleaned out of downstream City facilities. Tree Retention -While the construction of the fill will require the removal of some trees, the wrrent design minimises the number of trees required for removal, and will also help to preserve some trees outside of the fill area which are currently at risk of toppling due to the erosion problems discussed above. - .. -- ~~~~D~.S File: 200031 October 2, 2002 In summary, the proposed ravine fill will have beneficial affects on the surrounding street, driveway, and drainage conditions well beyond those for which ~ ~ ~ actually been designed Should you have arty questions regarding the information contained in this report, please contact the undersigned. __~~ ~i~ ~~ ~ J4iy ~~ Respectfully Submitted: /y ~~:= `~.'~~;~~s-\ i.~~ • -rc (F. ~yckman, PE, GE Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Glr 2145 cc: 5 to addressee . ~~.~ ;= ' ~ ~~. ~~ , ~`.. , ~ ~ # ~ ~ _r F OF CAI~~j • • ~I ~~~~~'6 • • Attachment 4 • ~~~~~.~ t7'L/ j y/'1b19.i 1b: 1 Z QbliyE~4Gj:35 Kjh9Ctt~Y tl`~jiVttK11W MARVIN D. IdRKEBY 3Z~9 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. #101 SAN JOSE, CA 9Si 17 (48a) %4.8331 February Z0, 2003 Job No. 23008 Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA Gend~mcn; Re: A.P.N. 503-12.029 Edencrest bane, Saratoga, CA I have r+eviewod the proposod grading plan for the subject lot. T}us property has bad an extensive geaechnical review and the reaching plan wan reviewed for the amount of fill that would be required. 'The plan design is to fill to an devation of 500.00, which would 4, 8 cubic yards. If the pad was lowered t4 an Ckvation of 499.00 the fill would be 4,446 cubic yards and if lowered to elevation 498.00 the fill would be 3,961 cubic yards. information is required please contact the undersigned, r Q rs truly, `~ ~p,,_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^`Y {V/ = ~~ ~ Marvin D. Kirkeby c, Registered Civil Engineer ~ E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~/~ CtVI~ ~~! '~lF Of CAI~F~Q ,, ,, f ! ' ~ s{ f, 1, l :; ? w;Ff F ~i r/` r,~: s` ~ ~-.g~... .~... _ T'~ Z .~ r-a~x ul • • • Attachment 5 • ~~~~~ C~ 900 ,. ... 800 W J W ~dencrest Lane ~~H~k • ~~ ~ looking Northward - - -- `_. I J ~ Section B - B' intersects Re mmended Buttress Fill /1A~ ~._ ..L_e Section A - A' crosses r-- 0!s ~-------------- ------------- -~~ ~. G11ad _.._.. l - - - - - - .. - - - '~ .~ _ _ Qls _ - _ _ QIS o ~ar~~o ---- ~' Qls QTsc ---- 700 ~------------ --------------------=- ------- -------------- 50 0 50 100 Feet 700 FIGURE 9 -Cross-Section C - C' GeoForensics, Inc. t-,~ :~ 0 Edencrest Lane, Saratoga, CA Date: 3-29-01 C' -----~ 900 :800 • • •. NOTES: AnbMwpaa~mrco wwee IEC ~Ri ~ Ba n Be=.e aee>e~wee. ~-- Pmpwry eAw e~~w.Hr« ~ ~~_ ~ .. twe.Ne 1 .~ Rlpledw,T Lew .~SL. _.._- . BuOdipEe9eAWw NCiES: €,p? ' Edped Foamed t. AIL GRADING SHALL BE IN gCCORDAI ABBREVIATpNS: -~~__ FAemmune INSTALL SUS-0RAINS RER THE DIREC Ex or Enn. Ennug ~ q 4.AS. Ematq SNfery Sewn IYw 3. REED OR PLANT SLOPES PER SOILS f RM1Y LBE E RiEMc4Way I G~V~'b~ eGNerou . 0.E - rgrenBEpneaEaeemed Road Eaeaam ---- 0,1.6. NerSermue A i FMl N p EYAE Emargenry Velide Axon Eanmem ew na t e FP. Edge of Prvemem ®~I y New FleM Mn NON . Monumem .r-~ ~•~ Nw Enwey GeelpMx lP. bon Pipe ~° ~-. R.na wm loge ~I ES.L BVIMIrg Setback LVa ~Bx-/ E~°B tmva PSE Pabfn: Savix Easemed J SE Sbpe Eacemem ~6_- °~'~` ~ PSOE. PnvNe Sorm Oreln Eazemem .usc Bpd Elenbn P.UE Public U'11y EuemeM R__~ pee4a Beelon Dr1V E DXvawky Eaaamenl -~- ' CL CemeAne , Ealetlp Duecaoe d Fbw ,LP. " Joint Pole ,e,~ .... _ _.....___._.__ pep, CoecEm d Fbw WR Sap OrW Driveway ~ ' FF. FnicN Floor ~ e4s' ~'°'' BPOn . D.S Dawn spoor (TypialJ _°-~'+~---- P.eWwp 1W PeL Wan ~ RatnMng wan Nw.wM r.w. taP PI ww ` B.W. Booom of Wall r..^.... ~~ ~ '"'"~~"" w„ "'° .'" ,r r'°"' r~ r.r ,•" ,1 ~ ~ 1 ~~ - .~~ ~~ 1 ~ r ~ ~ ', , ~ , a ~ l ~1 ~ h , ~'° ,t! r' /~° SITE PLAN SCALE' 1'=20' o~ m v A.P.Ne503-12-029 N f • GRAOINGS OUANTTIIES ~. ¢jDlg~__ t'uolC VZres Appmxlmete BnppH Far BNNees Pd 4,327 NOTES: t. iOPOGPAPHYPREPARED BY ASfl 6ASSOCUTES ANDPIgvIDED BYDWNEA. 2 COMOURIN1EflYAl152FEET ANC td FEET. 3. BFNCNIMRKIS CItYOF SARAT0GI DANM. /, THIS TOPOGR4PHIC MAP REPfiE3EM5 GUAFACEFEANRES OIdY.- E. PROPERTY UNEB SHOWN ARE RECORD DATA G THERE NILLBENO TREE REMOVAL OF ANYIpNO. T. All OflADINGSHALLBE IN ACCORDANCE WTTH THE GEO7ECHNICPLGWLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED NE'Nfl610ENCE' PREPARED BYGEOFOflENSICS, INC.IN OCTOBER 2000 ANDTNE'SUPPIEMEMAL GEO~.OGICGEOIECMNIGLREPOfl7'PREPAAEO BY GEOFORENSHS, INC. IN MARCH 1W1. 8. THE SINGLE DPoVEWAY SHALL HAVE 2Y. NINIMUMT04%MAMIMUNCAOSS SLOPES. 9, THE LONGRUOINLL PROFILE OF THE DMVEWAYFOLLOWS THENATURAL TERPAINTO MNUAIh GRAOING.ISEE P WaJ 70. PROVIDER SMOOTH EARTH SWAfE DURING RNAL IANDSGPINO IN THE VIGNITYOF THE HOUSE AS SHOVMTOIMEACEPT STOflMRUNOFF.POSITIVE SUR'ACE GPAOIEMSHALL BE CONSTRUCT®AOJACEM TO THE RESIDENCE ANDPAVEMEM TO DPAIN WATER AWAY Exhibit A GFNERAI NOTES: OWNER: NENNEOYB POGER9 3737 W WAMS SAN JOSE. CA BEI1T (~ 21BBB00 EXISTRq USE: VACAMLOT PROPOSED USE: SINGLE FAMRV RESIOEMIAL STDRN: EXISnNG SWALES DDLYERTS AND DITCHES SANITARY: $ANRARV SEWER E%ISnNG IN EOENCREST UNE WATER: GARROD MUTUAL WATER DISTflICi EMISTING IN EDENCREST UNE GAS P.G.6 E E%I9TING IN EDENCREST UNE ,I <.':'. '!W J ' A ' ~ I EIECTAIG P.G.BE. _ FROMTNEM EXISnN31N EDENCRE3T UNE -- r-"-~ ~ ~ 11. M11MAIN N4TUMlDMNAGE PATTERN$ANO EXISTIND SHEET~ROWIMOE103TING ale SWAB. ,~ 1 TEIFPXONE PAGFICBEf1 I Y, ° ~ 12 ALL DOWNSPOUTS SNgLL OJIiNECfTOTHESTORM DPAIN SYSTEM VIA 9'PVC PIPE WBHA 1 E%ISTING IN EOENGiEST UNE i ~ J 2%MNIMUNSLOPE. '•`Y I 1 ~ ~~ _ a'LI 1& ALL SURFACES SHALL HAVER/%MINIMUM SLOPE NITHINE FEET OFTHE PEPoMEfER OF S ~ p ~ THE ROUSE. MPEPNOUS SUflFACE33HALL HAVER MNIMUM GAAgEM CF2%AWAY FROM ~'' 1 I CABLE N: AT 6TBROAOBAND •.~~" ~~. :, ~ , ~~^e.` ,~dve - FOUNOAtION, i ~ I EN1SnN01N EDENCfkST UNE `!~?B' "' `.~'fy SNRY MAP 14. ALLA.D.IAIIEA ORMNS)SXALLBE CNRISTYVI ORAIN30%ES OR EQUAL 1~ IV --- ° ^~-~ - NT.6 73. ALLFIEGINLETS SHALL SE GBIISTY IH210R EQUAL 1. E+~ t1' ~ 311E ISOFRECORD: PARCfl'H"20W AC. NET I .p I'~. ~" ... ~~ ______ PWiCEL MAP BODK 331 AT PAGE AO V SHEET NVMBER OF ~ ~ SHEETS D RAWING NO. 01333-1 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MAY 7, 2003 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:30 p.m. Conference With Labor Negotiators (Government Code section 54957:6): Agency designated representatives: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager & .Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Employee organization: SEA Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Liti atg_ion_ (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Nora v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV810985) Conference With Legal Counsel -Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) Initiation of litigation pursuant to section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case) Public Employee Performance Evaluation:(Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Attorney MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk John Cherbone, Public Works Director Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Morgan Kessler, Civil Engineer Christine Oosterhous, Associate Planner REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MAY 7, 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of May 7, 2003 was properly posted on May 2, 2003. . COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Wanda Kownacki, 19280 Bainter Avenue, requested that the City continue to be involved in the annexation proceedings with the County on Redberry Drive. Ms. Kownacki requested that the Council agendize a discussion regarding the annexation process. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF • In regards to Ms. Kowanacki request, Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that an item be placed on the agenda to discuss the annexation process. Councilmember Kline asked what the topics for discussion was suppose to be. City Attorney Taylor stated that there are two issues: 1) does the City want to take a position 2) the request has been filed to annex. City Attorney Taylor stated that the report could be informational only. Councilmember Kline supported Vice Mayor Waltonsmith's request. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS PROCLAMATION -SUPPORTING VOLUNTEER CENTER OF SILICON VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and presented it Tim Quigley, CEO/Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley. 2 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -MARCH 19, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. PLANNING ACTION MINUTES -MARCH 23, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0 2D. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY MITCH CUTLER REGARDING A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 71/Z FOOT TALL WALL TO REMAIN AT 14480 OAK PLACE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-021 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONTAINING FINDINGS AND DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DENIAL OF VARIANCE SOUGHT BY MITCHELL AND TRACY CUTLER FOR 190-FOOT WALL AT 14480 OAK PLACE WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION REGARDING DENIAL OF VARIANCE SOUGHT BY MITCHELL AND TRACY CUTLER FOR 190-FOOT WALL AT 14480 OAK PLACE. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OPPOSING. 2E. CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR MUNICIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND STREET SWEEPING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve aone-year contract renewal with Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.; approve a one-year contract renewal with Los Altos Garbage Co. Councilmember Bogosian requested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he approved the contract renewal with Los Altos Garbage. In regards to the contract renewal with Fehr & Peers Associates, Councilmember Bogosian asked how much the City has spent on traffic engineering services and would not support this contract without those figures. City Manager Anderson responded that staff would bring back a report listing the cost tat the next meeting. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH LOS ALTOS GARBAGE CO. AND CONTINUE THE CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH FEHR & PEERS TO THE MEETING OF MAY 21.2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2F. PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE VTA RESTROOM PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve proposal from Bill Gould Design. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSAL FROM BILL GOULD DESIGN. FOR THE VTA RESTROOM PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. RESOLUTION -SUPPORTING THE DRAFT EXPRESSWAY DRAFT PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING THE COMPREHENSIVE COUNTY EXPRESSWAY DRAFT PLAN WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE DRAFT EXPRESSWAY STUDY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS • 3. APPLICATION #SD-O1-001 & ED-O1-003 - (397-27-029), JAVANMARD, 20440 ARBELECHE LANE; -THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO BUILDING SITES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open and continue the public hearing. Christie Oosterhous, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Planner Oosterhous noted that the applicant has requested that the public hearing. be continues to July 2, 2003. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 2, 2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.02- 259 TO CONSTRUCT ATWO-STORY FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 14165 VICTOR PLACE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Hold public hearing and take appropriate action. Christie Oosterhous, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Planner Oosterhous explained that on March 12, 2003 the Planning Commission approved Design Review Application No. 02-259 with conditions. The design review application includes the construction of second-story additions to an existing one-story single-family residence. One balcony is located on the front facade and a second balcony is located on the rear elevation. Special conditions of approval include requiring obscure or clerestory windows on the second floor to protect the appellant's privacy. Planner Oosterhous noted that at the hearing on March 12, 23003 the appellants Rajiv and Minakshi Mathur requested that the property be restricted to single-story development, that the proposed floor plan be re-designed, or that the rear balcony be eliminated. The Planning Commission could not support eliminating a second story balcony on the rear of the proposed residence based on the following findings: 1) the size of the balcony would not lead to much use, 2) the appellant resides in a two-story residence which overlooks the applicants property 3) the balcony on the rear of the residence was necessary for architectural balance with the balcony on the front facade and 4) obscure or clerestory windows on the • second floor would avoid a unreasonable interference with privacy. Planner Oosterhous noted that the Planning Commission could not justify prohibiting the applicant the very property rights the appellant enjoys when unreasonable interference with privacy could be mitigated with obscure or clerestory windows. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing. Miniakshi Mathur, 14185 Victor place, explained that when the applicant approached her to sign a letter of support for the project, she was very busy and did not read the letter properly. Mrs. Mathur noted that the applicant told her there would be plenty of time to review and discuss the project. Mrs. Mathur noted that they feel the applicant mislead them. Mrs. Mathur noted that this project will change the character of the neighborhood and invades their privacy. Mrs. Mathur noted that the second story windows and balcony overlooks their backyard, side yard, and first floor bedroom. Mrs. Mathur noted that their house was already a two-story and when they remodeled they stayed within the guidelines. Mrs. Mathur urged the Council to reject the project as is. Hayong Lee, Architect/HL Design, 6601 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, noted that his clients are willing to install obscure or clerestory windows. Rajiv Mathur, 14185 Victor Place, requested that the Council reject the project and send it back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing.. Vice Ma or Waltonsmith noted that she visited the site and noticed that the only Y property the project would, affect is the Mathur property. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she supports the Planning Commission decision. Councilmember Kline concurred with Vice Mayor Waltonsmith to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Councilmember King stated that if the property owner and the architect are willing to install obscure or clerestory windows on the ,second floor she supports upholding the Planning Commission's decision. Councilmember King stated that balconies look nice and homeowners don't usually use them a lot. Councilmember Bogosian and Mayor Streit concurred with their colleagues. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND DENY THE APPEAL WITH THE PROVISO THAT OBSCURE OR CLERESTORY WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. APPEAL BY WILLIAM F. BRECK OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE FORA 25-FOOT LONG FENCE AT 14480 OAK PLACE (CUTLER RESIDENCE) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing and take appropriate action. 6 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan noted that the appellant is requesting the City Council overturn a Planning Commission approval of a variance to allow over-Code height for the 25- foot section of a proposed property line wall along the southeasterly side (adjacent to the Goldman property) of the Cutler parcel to be 6-feet tall. As this is within the front yard of the parcel, the code restricts the height offences in the front yard to 3- feet even if the fence is along the side of the parcel. Director Sullivan explained that the approving authority may grant a variance as applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the approving authority makes all of the findings. Director Sullivan briefly explained to the City Council the findings that must be made. Director Sullivan explained that in granting the variance the Planning Commission did not attach any conditions of approval, however, if the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission decision to grant the variance; it could do so conditionally. Director Sullivan described the proposed conditions and stated that if required by the Council the conditions could be made a prerequisite of the issuance of the variance. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated the he submitted a letter requesting a continuance due to the fact that many of the neighbors were out of town and unable to attend tonight's meeting. Mayor Streit instructed Mr. Breck to continue with his presentation and Council would consider his request after the public hearing. Mr. Breck noted that there is no valid reason to grant this variance; Mr. Cutler is not being deprived of any realistic privileges. Mr. Breck stated that Director Sullivan characterized Cutler's wall application as "egregious" and over 300 visitors who saw the concrete wall had the same conclusion. Mr. Breck stated that former and current Chairs of Planning Commission said they are against the variance. Mr. Breck stated that the neighbors expect their elected City Council members to help preserve their neighborhood and Mr. Cutler's wall is "Jail like" concrete walls right on their borders. Mr. Breck requested that the Council deny the variance because there are no special circumstances nor should any privileges be given. Mr. Breck stated that the wall is detrimental because of the following reasons: • Wall is detrimental to neighboring properties • Excessive mass and bulk right on their borders • Concrete is an obnoxious material choice • Height violates view corridor rights • Crucial natural visual screening is destroyed 7 In summary, Mr. Breck stated that in summary there are many negative findings- that can be found such as the only special circumstance is a protected oak right in the middle of the structure, all other properties in the vicinity have identical limitations, and the wall is detrimental to neighboring properties. Mr. Cutler noted that he had no comment. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, presented Council a report from a Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 1979. In October 24, 1979 the Planning Commission confirmed that the lot was a flag lot. On Oct 18, 1979 the Planning Director at the time issued an interpretation to the whole matter and denied a dual access 25- foot minimum access on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The easement is a fire lane. Mrs. Davies asked that the Council to please confirm that the 13-foot wide easement is a secondary nonconforming access that should not be equated with the 20-foot wide minimum access road, which is the sole legal access to the parcel. Mr. Breck reiterated why the variance should not be granted and requested. that Council continue the public hearing to the next meeting because the Goldmans could not be here tonight. Mr. Cutler noted that he had no comment. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing. Councilmember Kline asked if the City had any ordinance prohibiting concrete fences. Director Sullivan responded no. Councilmember King asked if the Goldmans spoke or submitting anything in writing at the Planning Commission. Director Sullivan responded that to the best of his knowledge the Goldmans did not speak at the Planning Commission nor has his department received anything in writing. Director Sullivan stated that he hasn't-had any personal discussions with them either. Councilmember Kline noted that he supports granting the variance because of the following reasons: • The lot is a flag lot. • Would not be giving Mr. Cutler special privileges • Would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity Councilmember Kline noted hat he supports the added conditions recommended in the staff report and suggested a seventh. Councilmember Kline noted that the variance should. only be issued if the other fence on the property is put into conformance in a timely manner. City Attorney Taylor noted that the Council could grant the variance tonight and staff is only allowed to issue it once all the added conditions are satisfied. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she supports denying the appeal and granting the variance. Councilmember King concurred with her colleagues. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he can make the findings to grant the variance but doesn't necessarily support the added 7th condition as proposed by Councilmember Kline. Mayor Streit noted that he agrees with his colleagues and supports the variance and supports denying the appeal. KLINE/KING MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL; GRANT THE VARIANCE FORA 25-FOOT LONG FENCE AT 14480 OAK PLACE (CUTLER RESIDENCE) WHEN THE SEVEN CONDITIONS ARE MET IN A TIMELY MANNER; DIRECT -STAFF TO BRING BACK THE RESOLUTION ON MAY 21, 2003. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OBSTAINING. 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 16 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE BY ADDING 16-75.050 -MAINTENANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SITES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open and continue the public hearing. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan noted that at the City Attorney's request this item is being continued and readvertised to include additional amendments to the Article 16 of the Saratoga City Code. KLINE/KING MOVED TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAY 21, 2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit declared aten-minute break at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. OLD BUSINESS 7. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report; increase authorized library construction budget; provide direction to staff regarding possible opening art exhibit at the Library. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. 9 Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that following: • Budget Status - $14,681,991- (total costs both committed and change ` requests) staff requests increase the budget to $14,750,000. • Construction Schedule -completion date of May 21, 2003. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that the Arts Commission, with assistant from Vice Mayor Waltonsmith, has been a pursing the idea of special art exhibit to coincide with the first 30-60 of the Library's opening. A local resident has a spectacular art collection, a portions of which he regularly loans to museums. He is willing to loan paintings for display under certain circumstances. Assistant City. Manager Tinfow noted that the following are required by the resident: • Issuance -painting need insurance coverage while hanging in the Library - cost approximately #313.00 per month. • Protection & Supervision -requires constant monitoring (56 hours per week) -approximate cost $1,120/week. • Art Wall Display -the wall must be painted a specific color. • Lighting -paintings require specific lighting. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that the Library has made it clear that they will not take the responsibility for these paintings or for managing this particular exhibit. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that the staff was requesting direction on whether or not to proceed with the art. exhibit. LeRoy Murray, Chair/Arts Commission, noted that he agrees with staff's concerns. Chair Murray noted that he recently talked with Dr. head and he has agreed to shorten the time frame of the displays to 30-60 days, although any shorten time frame would not be worth the time. Mr. Murray noted that the Arts Commission has yet to discuss the idea of gathering volunteers to guard the art displays. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he appreciates all the work the Arts Commission has done and appreciates Dr. Head's generous offer but he also has concerns with the security issues. Councilmember Bogosian noted that some of the windows in the Library are out of site. Councilmember Kline noted that we have an operating library not a museum. Councilmember King asked what types of art do other libraries display. Councilmember Kline noted that other community libraries display community art. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith asked about the security around the windows and if it is being addressed. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the County was responsible for. choosing the contractor and approving the scope of work for the security system. Assistant City Manager Tinfow added that the bond did not pay for the security system. 10 Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that the County feels they did a great job developing and identifying security issues. The system reflects their needs and past history. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would be open for more extensive security system. Mayor Streit thanked Assistant City Manager Tinfow for her report. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO INCREASE THE BUDGET TO $14,750,000. MOTION PASSED 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 9. WEST HOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PARKING AGREEMENT FOR EL QUITO PARK GROUP USE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve lease agreement with Westhope Presbyterian Church; approve an increase to the existing contract with G. Bortolotto & Co. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that the El Quito Park Task Force has been meeting on a regular basis over the past year,- with meetings focused on various park infrastructure and issues dealing with the usage of the park. Residents living near the park have raised concerns that there is inadequate parking for the. current use of the park. El Quito Park does not have an off-street parking facility. Visitors that drive to access that park must park their vehicles on the west side of Paseo Prasada. Parking on the east side of Paseo Presada is prohibited to minimize intrusion into the adjacent neighborhood. Director Cherbone explained that EI Quito Park is 'the City's second most used park by user groups behind Congress Springs Park. On certain days, the parking demand exceeds the capacity of the available -curb space on Paseo Presada and neighborhood intrusion does occur. The popularity of the park and its intense usage has impacted the surrounding neighborhood in a negative way, so one of the task of the El Quito Park Task Force was to find a solution to the parking issues. Director Cherbone explained that over the past year, staff has been working with the governing body of the Westhope Presbyterian Church in hopes of utilizing their parking lot for group users of the park. The Westhope property borders El Quito Park along a portion of the park's westerly property line. .Director Cherbone explained that staff is recommending that Council approve a 10-year lease agreement with Westhope Church. The lease agreement will allow the City to utilize the church parking lot for El Quito user groups. The rental term of the lease is the improvements of the parking lot and maintenance of the same. The improvement work entails the asphalt overlay and re-striping of the existing I1 parking and driveways and the construction of a drop off zone for park users. Maintenance in the form of seal coat and re-striping work will be performed every five years over the term of the lease. Director Cherbone explained that the cost of the initial improvements is estimated at $75,000, which is budgeted in the current fiscal year budget. The cost of maintenance is estmiat4d at $10,000 over the term of the lease. Additionally, Director Cherbone noted that the lease contains a stipulation that provides the City with the first right of refusal to purchase the property if it becomes available. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lardo, noted that she appreciates the efforts of everyone involved in this process. Ms. Wyckoff noted that this agreement is a win-win situation for everyone. Director Cherbone explained that staff and the City Traffic .Engineer held two community meetings with e condominium development north of Westhope Church property. At the first meeting residents in the development indicated that it is sometimes difficult to find adequate gaps in the traffic on Saratoga Avenue when they turn out of their development. They were concerned that an increase in the parking lot usage would make it even more difficult for them to exit. Gaps are controlled by the Cox Avenue signal. Two driveways that connect to -Sara Park Circle serve the development. Director Cherbone explained that the most important issue for drivers of vehicles turning out of Sara Park Circle is to be able to select an adequate gap in traffic. To maximize sight distance; prohibition of parking was recommended fro the northern Sara Park Circle driveway to the northern Westhope Church driveway. In addition, Director Cherbone explained that elimination of parking would allow drivers to accelerate and decelerate through relatively wide bike lane, instead of having to possibly turn around an adjacent parked vehicle and enter the travel lane immediately. It was also decided that the northern Westhope Church driveway on Saratoga Avenue will be closed at all times except during church services. Director Cherbone explained that with these mitigated measures incorporated into the plan the residents were satisfied that the parking proposal would not have a negative effect on them. Bencr Nagy, 12916 Glen Brae Drive, noted that he was the treasurer and an Elder at West Hope Church. Ms. Fuance thanked John Cherbone for all of his work. Joan Faunce, 18644 Bucknell Road, noted that she has lived Saratoga fro 25 years and was a member of the El Quito Park Task Force. Ms. Faunce noted that there still is a problem with the egress and ingress on Saratoga Avenue. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENT AND INCREASE THE EXISTING G CONTRACT WITH G. BORTOLOTTO & CO. MOTION PASSED D 5-0. 8. INTRODUCTION OF 2003-2004 PRELIMINARY BUDGET STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. 12 Director Baloca noted that on behalf of the City's Management Team he was present tonight to submit the City's 2003-2004 Operating Budget to be reviewed and considered by the Council. Director Baloca noted that it has been a difficult year where staff has had to be proactive because of the continued economic downturn and reactive. to the potential threat by the State's budget crisis. Fortunately, the City implemented a. timely mid-year strategy to assume worst-case scenario and adjusted-the budget to reflect revised revenue projections. Director Baloca noted that the revised revenues included the Governors December 2002 proposal to takeaway a $590k from the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenue. Any operating surplus at fiscal year end June 30, 2003 would be applied to partially offset the projected take-away from the State Budget process or to re-establish reduced service levels. Director Baloca stated that his is the first year that the City presents a pure operating budget, resulting from the completion of the Library Expansion Project and the transfer of prior year ongoing capital improvements projects (CIP) to the 5-year CIP budget, which was established for new projects in fiscal year 2001-02. Director Baloca briefly went through the proposed budget noting that the preliminary 2003-04 Budget was further developed using worst-case scenario concept to reflect potential VLF revenue loss of $1.2 million and booking fee reimbursements of $23k. Reserves designated for technology replacement and future PERS obligations have been segregated into a separate fund. Even with the potential State funding cuts, the General Fund maintains its operating contingency reserve of $2.367 million and economic. uncertainty reserve of $1.5 million. In conclusion, Director Baloca stated that the City staff has developed an operating budget that clearly reflects fiscal conservatism during these challenging economic times by balancing the City's limited resources with the needs of the community. Jim Hughes, Chair/Finance Commission, noted that the Finance Commission reviewed the budget on Monday night and made their comments. Chair Hughes noted that the approach is great. When the State budget becomes final, we will need to revisit the City budget to make necessary changes. Councilmember Kline note that he appreciates the Finance Commission's input in the budget process and requested that they take a look at setting up "sinking funds" for building maintenance. Councilmember King thanked Director Baloca and the Finance Commission for their hard work on the budget. Due to budget constraints this year, Mayor Streit asked whether or not the City should hold it's annual Commission Appreciation Dinner. Councilmember Bo osian re uested that the dinner o forward because it's a great g q g opportunity to say thank you to all the City's Commissioners. 13 Consensus of the City Council to go forward with the Commission Appreciation Dinner. Director Baloca noted that the 2"d Budget Workshop would be agendized for May 21, 2003. 10. SARATOGA SPEED ZONE SURVEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Morgan Kessler, Civil Engineer, presented staff report. Engineer Kessler explained to Council that California Vehicle, Code establishes statutory speed limits for broad roadway classifications; these regulations cannot cover every local road or traffic conditions. Because of this, governments have the authority to modify the statutory speed limit to accommodate specific local conditions. To accomplish this, a licensed traffic engineer must conduct a speed zone study periodically. The study's purpose is to examine local speed trends and existing speed limits, and to establish speed limit recommendations based upon the 85"' percentile of observed speed on a given stuffy segment. The survey is then brought before the government's decision-making bodies for review and acceptance or modification. Engineer Kessler explained that last year the City hired. Higgins Associates, Inc. to perform a speed zone study. The report was brought forward before the Public Safety Commission (PSC) and the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department fro . review and comment of the study's recommendations. Following the review the PSC voted on each recommendation item in the study, and under direction of the City's Traffic Engineer, made a decision whether an item should be accepted, ore rejected with no change to existing conditions. Engineer Kessler briefly explained speed limit recommendations regarding certain Saratoga street segments, as made by Higgins Associates. Inc. Mayor Streit noted that the survey only recommends increasing the speed limit on three segments and the PSC opposes the increase. Councilmember King noted that she here's in the community that the residents want the speed limits kept down and noted that she supports the PSC recommendations. Consensus of the City Council to support Higgins & Associates speed survey recommendations. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith and Councilmember King opposed. 11. CITIES ASSOCIATION LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE -POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct representative accordingly. 14 Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she represents the City of Saratoga on the Cities Association Legislative Task Force. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that in the packet were bills the Task Force would like the City to consider. The members of the Task Force want consensus on the bills, whether to support, not to support or monitor. The City Council discussed each bill and the following is the consensus of the Council, which will be reported back to the League of California Cities via Vice Mayor Waltonsmith. ACA 1 - Longville • Reduce to simple majority the pass the State Budget Consensus to support a "Super Majority" of 60% ACA 7 - Dutra • Reduces to a 55% vote for Sales Taxes for Transportation from a 2/3's requirement Oppose -Maintain the 2/3rds majority for Sales Tax ACA 11Levine • Reduces to a 55% vote for new local government bonds for infrastructure Consensus to support AB 53 -Simitian • Sets cap for ERAF • Support AB 51 -Simitian • Requires that by a date certain Land Use Elements consider the location and need for Daycare Facilities No position AB 162 -Cohn • Provides Tax Credit for loans to Teachers for housing 3/2 Support "as is" 5/0 Support with amendment to include all local government employees AB 218 • Provides housing credit for Seniors living in Congregate Care facilities Support AB 829 • Merges MTC and ABAG No position AB 1160 Revises last sessions 2"d Dwelling. Unit legislation Oppose 15 SB 17 - Escutia • Speeds up the property tax change of commercial properties when they change hands Support SB 400 - Torlakson • Broadens Sales Taxes to include tangible personal property such as leased furnishings, video rental and the like. It also includes specialized services. 'The bill seems to stop short of including professional services. Oppose AB 1221 - Steinberg • Reduces by 50% the amount of sales tax that local governments receive from the 1% Bradley-Burns sales tax; exchanges that amount of money for an equal amount of property taxes Oppose COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Streit reported the following information: Finance Commission -reviewed the budget VGNA Task Force -considering 2 sign, needs 60% approval Vice Mayor Waltonsmith reported the following information: Parks and Recreation Commission -reviewed the park designs for three parks which will be coming before Council on may 21, 2003 . Councilmember King reported the following information: Youth Commission -holding their first Music Festival at Wildwood Park on May 17, 2003. Councilmember Kline reported the following information: Gateway Task Force -met with the newly appointed Task Force and stated that the members are getting along and working well as a group. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following Information: Library Expansion Committee - CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian noted that at a recent Emergency Preparedness Council a Councilmember Kline noted the Mountain Winery sent out VIP tickets to the Moody Blues and reminded the Council that the tickets should be paid for. In regards to the Rotary Art Show that took place this past weekend, Councilmember Kline asked if the City's sign ordinance addresses large sign in the medians. 16. Director Sullivan noted every year that apply for a Temporary Use Permit. Councilmember King announced the essay contest for students for the Library grant Opening. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith announced SASCC annual fundraiser desert buffet and "No No Nannette" show on May 29, 2003. OTHER CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Streit noted that the Council would return to Closed Session at 10:55 p.m. There being no further business Mayor Streit adjourned Closed Session at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk C 17 ~.. • i• i~ ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-079;19120 Monte Vista Drive Type of Application: Tentative Parcel Map Approval Applicant/Owner: Warriner Trust Staff Planner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner(j~ Date: June 11, 2003 APN: 397-09=010 Department Head: r: \ ~~~'; aoo aso soa Aso n ~~~- ;- ~~ a~ ~ s ~i i 19120 Monte Vista Drive ~?QQUO Application No. 03-079; 19120 Monte Vista Drive EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 4/02/03 Public hearing conducted: 6/11/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.6 (gross) acre lot with an existing residence into two separate building sites. The existing residence would be retained on Parcel 2. Parcel 1 would include a new building site. Parcel 1 is 1.2 acres (net) and Parcel 2 is 1.13 acres (net). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the Tentative Parcel Map Application Number 03-079 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Arborist Report, dated May 8, 2003. 3. Mailing labels for project notification and affidavit. 4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". • (~Q~04®2 iy I • ~~ STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: MEASURE G: EXISTING PARCEL SIZE: PROPOSED PARCELS: PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 R-1 40,000 Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) Maximum Dwelling Unit Per Acre 1.09 Not Applicable 2.3 acres (net) 2.6 acres (gross) 1.2 acres (net) 1.13 acres (net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3.5% GRADING REQUIRED: None ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes subdivision of one lot into two building sites is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The Class 15 exemption applies to the subdivision of certain properties in urban areas into four or fewer parcels. Categorical exemptions represent activities that generally do not result in significant environmental impacts. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Not applicable. The existing residence is to remain on Parcel 1. A design review application will be filed for the residence on Parcel 2 when a residence is proposed. 000003 Proposed Code Requirements Parcel l Site Area: Minimum Lot size (net) 52,272 sq ft 40,000 sq ft or 1.2 acre Minimum Frontage 148 ft 100 ft Width 155 ft 150 ft Depth 347 ft 150 ft Maximum Floor Area residence 6,260 square feet not proposed at this time Setbacks: Minimum Front 70 ft 70 ft Right Side 20 ft 20 ft Left Side 20 ft 20 ft Rear 88 ft 87 ft Maximum Height residence 26 ft not proposed at this time Maximum Lot Coverage residence 35% not proposed at this time ~Q~~~~ Proposed Code Requirements Parcel 2 Site Area: Minimum Lot size (net) 49,223 sq ft 40,000 sq ft or 1.13 acre Minimum Frontage 230 ft 100 ft Width 189 ft 150 ft Depth 150 ft 150 ft Maximum Floor Area: 2,650 sq ft 6,200 square feet Setbacks: Minimum Front 93 ft 53 ft Right Side 20 ft 20 ft Left Side 80 ft 25 ft Rear 66 ft 66 ft Maximum Height approx. 24 ft 26 ft Maximum Lot Coverage 6% 35% ~~'~9Q5 PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one parcel located at 19120 Monte Vista Drive into two parcels. Parcel 1 would include a new building site. An existing residence is to remain on Parcel 2. Parcel 1 is 1.2 acres (net) and Parcel 2 is 1.13 acres (net). The existing parcel is 2.6 acres (gross). There is atwo-story, 2,650 square foot, single-family residence located on the existing parcel. The existing structure is to remain and is located on the proposed building envelope of Parcel 2. The proposed building envelopes and surrounding areas are flat. The propose parcels are located in the R-1 40,000 zone district. The General Plan designation is "Residential Very Low Density" with a maximum dwelling unit per acre of 1.09. Development in the immediate surrounding area is characterized by low-density single-family residential uses. Lot sizes in the surrounding area are predominately 40,000 square feet or approximately one acre. The proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot size required by the municipal code. Each proposed parcel will be in excess of the 40,000 square foot minimum. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code. The proposed parcels will be regular and- rectangular in shape. The proposed building envelopes are ample to accommodate future improvements. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided. to meet the development regulations. Future development on the proposed parcels will not be compromised or constrained as a result of the subdivision. Existing trees do not preclude development on the proposed parcels. Access to each of the proposed parcels. will be directly off a public right-of--way. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape, that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that they do not include physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. At this time, a residence is not proposed for construction on Parcel 1. Design review approval will be required, as applicable in the municipal code, for a new single-family residence. At that time mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences will be examined. The existing driveway which provides access to the residence located on Parcel 2 shall be relocated so that it lies entirely within the property lines of Parcel 2. Additionally, the existing shed located in the right side yard setback of Parcel 2 shall be demolished. These two conditions shall be satisfied prior to Final Map Approval. The driveway relocation proposal shall require city arborist review. • ~Q~QOs • Arborist Report The City Arborist has prepared a report dated May 8, 2003 which evaluates the condition of the trees on site and suggests which trees might be removed to accommodate future development. Prior to the construction of a residence on Parcel 1, during the design review application, an additional analysis by the city aborist will be performed. The May 8, 2003 report does not authorize the removal of any specific trees on site. It can be concluded, from the aborist report, that existing trees on the site do not preclude future development on Parcel 1. Taking into account the existing trees, an ample building envelope exists for future improvements on Parcel l . The Arborist Report is attachment 2 of this report. Tentative Map Approval Findings: The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports ariy of the following nine findings (Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b)). Staff has provided evidence, which does not support the findings. (1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot size required by the municipal code. Each proposed parcel will be in excess of the 40,000 square foot minimum. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code. (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed parcels will be regular and rectangular in shape. The proposed building envelopes are ample to accommodate future improvements. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the municipal code, for a new single-family residence.. At the time an application to construct asingle-family residence on Parcel 1 is filed with the planning department the mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences shall be examined. (3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The proposed building envelopes and surrounding areas are flat. Future development on the proposed parcels will not be compromised or constrained as a result of the subdivision. Existing trees do not preclude development on the proposed parcels. Access to each of the proposed parcels will be directly off a public right of way. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape, that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that they do not include physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. ~~QQ~~ (4) That the site is not, physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The • subdivision application may result in the construction of asingle-family residence on Parcel 1. One dwelling unit per site is a permitted density in the municipal code. It is also consistent with the general plan maximum dwelling unit per acre designation of 1.09 residences per acre. The potential for the construction of asingle-family home on Parcel 1 is consistent with the surrounding uses and densities in the area. Similarly, the existing residence located on Parcel 2 meets the above-mentioned zoning requirements and general plan designation. Densities in the immediate surrounding area is characterized by low- density single-family residential uses. Lot sizes in the surrounding area are predominately 40,000 square feet or approximately one acre. .Lot sizes in the surrounding area are predominately 40,000 square feet or approximately one acre per single-family residence. (5) That the design of the subdivision are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed project which includes subdivision of one lot into two buildings sites is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The Class 15 exemption applies to the subdivision of certain properties in urban areas into four or fewer parcels. Categorical exemptions represent activities that generally do not result in significant environmental impacts. (6) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the Municipal Code and general plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed and conditioned by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and Public Works Engineers. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Building Department and. Planning Department. (7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access or use. There are no easements on the property. Access to the proposed parcels will be directly from a public right-of--way. (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. Not Applicable. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara. County has reviewed the proposed subdivision. Sanitary sewer service is available from the existing sewer main in Monte Vista Drive. District records indicate the existing structure is connected to the district's sewer systems. Approval from the district will be in the form of sewer connection permits. Cost of the permits is estimated at $2,000 for Parcel 1 and approximately $250 for Parcel 2. C~ ~~~~~8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff review of the proposed tentative map indicates that there is no evidence to support the findings listed in MCS 14-20.0709(b); therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed subdivision by adopting the attached Resolution. • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 1 • ~~~~~~ RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NO. 03-079 19120 Monte Vista Drive, Warriner Trust WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one existing parcel into two parcels, set forth in file no. 03-079; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement is nconsistent with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specific in such General Plan reference the staff report for further particulars; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2003 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map or building site if it makes any of the nine findings listed in Municipal Code Section 14- 20.070(b). The findings were not supported based on the following evidence. (1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot size required by the municipal code. Each proposed parcel will be in excess of the 40,000 square foot minimum. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code. (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed parcels will be regular and rectangular in shape. The proposed building envelopes are ample to accommodate future improvements. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the municipal code, for a new single-family residence. At the time an application to construct a single family residence on Parcel 1 is filed with the planning department the mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences shall be examined. G(~0~0~1 (3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The proposed building envelopes and surrounding areas are flat. Future development on the proposed parcels will. not be compromised or constrained as a result of the subdivision. Existing .trees do not preclude development on the proposed parcels. Access to each of the proposed parcels will be directly off a public right of way. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape, that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that they do not include physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The subdivision application may result in the construction of asingle-family residence on Parcel 1. One dwelling unit per site is a permitted density in the municipal code. It is also consistent with the general plan maximum dwelling unit per acre designation of 1.09 residences per acre. The potential for the construction of asingle-family home on Parcel 1 is consistent with the surrounding uses and densities in the area. Similarly, the existing residence located on Parcel 2 meets the above-mentioned zoning requirements and general plan designation. Densities in the immediate surrounding area is characterized by low-density single-family residential uses. Lot sizes in the surrounding area are predominately 40,000 square -feet or approximately one acre. Lot sizes in the surrounding area are predominately 40,000 square feet or approximately one acre per single-family residence. . (5) That the design of the subdivision are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed project which includes subdivision of one lot into two is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 15 exemption applies to the subdivision of certain properties in urban areas into four or fewer parcels. Categorical exemptions represent activities that generally do not result in significant environmental impacts. (6) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the Municipal Code and general -plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed and conditioned by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and Public Works Engineers. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the. Building Department and Planning Department. (7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access or use. There are no easements on the property. Access to the proposed parcels will be directly from a public right-of--way. (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. Not Applicable. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. a~oo~~ (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County has reviewed the proposed subdivision. Sanitary sewer service is available from the existing sewer main in Monte Vista Drive. District records indicate the existing structure is connected to the district's sewer systems: Approval from the district will be in the form of sewer connection permits. Cost of the permits is estimated at $2,000 for Parcel 1 and approximately $250 for Parcel 2. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the Tentative Parcel Map, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter including but not limited to evidence that the proposed project could have a significant environmental impact, Subdivision Application No. 03-079 is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. The existing driveway which provides access to the residence located on Parcel 2 shall be relocated so that it is located entirely within the property line of Parcel 2 prior to Final Map Approval. 2. The existing shed located in the right side yard setback of Parcel 2 shall be demolished prior to Final Map Approval. 3. 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. 4. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 5. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 6. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents aooo13 required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Public Works Department for examination.. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14- 40.030 ofthe Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Department. 7. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 8. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 9. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of--way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 10. The owner (applicant)-shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: a. A storm water infiltration device shall be constructed. at El Camino Grande. Asphalt swale shall be constructed along El Camino Grande to divert stone water into the infiltration device. 11. The. owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction.. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the Public Works Department. ~~~'~~~ 12. The owner (applicant) shall .pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 13. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 14. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval.. 15. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Department with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 16. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 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. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 18. No fire department conditions or requirements at this stage of submittal. Based upon possible future construction plans to be submitted, the applicant will be advised on fire department conditions relative to site access and water supply. CITY ARBORIST 19. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. 20. The driveway relocation shall require City Arborist review. 21. Construction of asingle-family residence on Parcel 1, during design review, shall require review by the City Arborist. • ~~'~~~5 CITY ATTORNEY 22. 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. 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, The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, held on the 11th day of June 2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • t~~~~'~6 SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and. shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent • • Date Attachment 2 • !~~~'~~8 • ,~ ,. '~~ ~ ~-~ ARBOR RESOURCES ..,:. ~ ~zo fsssiorzaC ~zfiozieuCtuza~ eonsu~Ein9 ~ ~zss ~aze AN ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 19120 MONTE VISTA DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: WARRINER TRUST APPLICATION #03-079. APN #397-09-010 Submitted to: Kristin Borel Community Development Department, Planning Division City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered ConsultingArborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Report Assigned: Apri125, 2003 Site Inspected: April 30 and May 6, 2003 Report Submitted: May 8, 2003 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arbo.rresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 GL~0019 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 8, 2003 SUMMARY • Forty-seven Ordinance-sized trees were inventoried and evaluated for this report. Of these, 18 are assigned a high suitability for preservation, 22 a moderate suitability, and 7 a low suitability. Trees assigned a high suitability should remain and be protected at all costs, trees assigned a moderate suitability should remain but could be removed to accommodate development, and trees assigned a low suitability could be removed regardless of the development. Replacements are recommended for removed trees. The majority of trees on site appear in good condition. Should the driveway be reconfigured to accommodate the lot split, I suggest the proposed changes are reviewed for impacts to surrounding trees. The appraised value of trees with a high suitability is $161,300; a moderate suitability $39,970; and a low suitability $5,090. Design guidelines for preserving the urban forest landscape are presented in this report. ASSIGNMENT • This report has been prepared at the request of the City of Saratoga's Community Development Department in response to the lot subdivision proposed at 19120 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga. This report evaluates and appraises Ordinance-sized trees located within and immediately adjacent to the property boundary,l and presents design guidelines to ensure preservation of the overall urban forest landscape. A tree inventory spreadsheet is attached to this report and provides information regarding tree size, condition, suitability for preservation, and appraised value. Each tree's approximate location, canopy dimension, and number are shown on an attached copy of the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated March 14, 2003. Numbered metal tags were attached to the trunks of each inventoried tree at approximately six feet above grade. Note trees #11 and 36 were not shown on the map reviewed. Their locations were plotted by me and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. t Tree #17 is the only tree located on a neighboring property which was inventoried. Additional trees bordering the property boundary and exposed to possible future development activities will be added to the inventory upon review of any future plans. 19120 Monte Vista, Saratoga Page I of S City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~ ~~~20 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 8, 2003 Trees #1 through 33 are located on lot 1, and trees #34 through 47 are located on lot 2. There are additional trees on site which are smaller than Ordinance size and not included in this report. SUITABILITY FOR PRESERVATION I.~ Each tree has been assigned a "suitability for preservation" rating based on their species, condition, location and. size. These ratings can be used for design purposes to help determine whether a tree could be removed or requires protection. The ratings and associated tree numbers are as follows: HIGH ,MODERATE LOW 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, 19, 22-26, 1, 16, 32, 39, 41, 45, 46 27, 31, 33-35, 37, 42-44 28-30, 36, 38, 40, 47 Trees assigned a high suitability for preservation must be retained and their survival and longevity protected throughout the development process. Trees assigned a moderate suitability should be retained and protected, however, could be removed to accommodate development plans.. Replacement trees equivalent in value to the removed tree's value must be installed for mitigation. Trees assigned a low suitability could be removed whether or not they are expected to be impacted by development activities. Replacements equivalent in value to the removed tree may be required. TREE APPRAISAL VALUES • The appraised tree values are presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached at the end of this report. The values were calculated in accordance to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. The combined appraised value of trees assigned a high suitability for preservation is $161,300; a moderate suitability $39,970; and a low suitability $5,090. 19120 Monte Vista, Saratoga City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Page 3 of S C?~0422 David L. Babb};, Registered Consulting Arborist May 8, 2003 DISCUSSION The overall condition of inventoried trees is good. Tree #33 is the most significant tree on site due to its enormous size and maturity. However, my observations reveal the tree's .health condition is .less than optimal and the lower trunk area contains an extensive amount of decay. To better understand the tree's condition, I recommend having the following performed under the direct supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist: a root collar excavation and inspection; a thorough examination of the lower trunk area to determine the amount of stable, residual wood (probing into the trunk will be necessary); and an inspection of the existing support cables within the canopy. To my understanding, the existing driveway may need reconfiguring for the .lot subdivision. If this happens, I anticipate trees #20 and 33 will be affected. Mitigation measures for designing the future driveway are presented below (line item #3). RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are guidelines which should be incorporated into future building plans. More specific recommendations can be provided as plans become available. 1. For trees being preserved, the area beneath their canopies should be regarded as protected and all construction, grading, trenching, and landscaping activities performed outside from the areas. The most effective way to achieve doing so is to install tree protection fencing at the canopy edge or beyond.2 The fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of heavy equipment and commencement of development activities. It must be comprised of five to six feet high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven two feet into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and in place throughout the construction process and until the project receives final approval. 2. Future building plans, including redesign of the existing driveway, must be reviewed so impacts to protected trees can be evaluated and mitigation measures provided. 3. Where within 30 feet from tree #20's trunk and 50 feet from tree #33's trunk, the new driveway must not require soil cuts beneath the existing hardscape surface. Should driveway expansion be necessary within these distances, it should occur near the canopy perimeters and not cover more than 10-percent of the ground area beneath their canopies. z As roots can be found at least 1-'h to 2 times the canopy width (much further for trees #17 and 31), the fencing should be established beyond the existing canopy edge where possible. 19120 Monte Vista, Saratoga Page 4 of S City of Saratoga, Community Development Department G?OOO~-~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist. May 8, 2003 4. I recommend a 30-foot setback from tree #17 and 31's trunk for new buildings, hardscape, grading and surface scraping, trenching for utilities and irrigation lines, and drainage features.. 5. The recommended setback for all other protected trees is a minimum of five feet from their canopy edges. The exception to this is when there are existing features (such as buildings, hardscape, lawn, etc.) beneath the canopies. In this case, the existing ground surface and roots located beneath these, features must not be cut. 6. Alterations to the natural grade and installation of drainage features must be designed so drainage flows away from the protected trees' trunks. 7. Underground pipes, utilities, and old irrigation lines beneath canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut at existing soil grade. Tree pruning, removals and .stump grinding should occur prior to installing tree protection fencing. All pruning must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and in accordance to the standards established by the ISA Western Chapter. To avoid unnecessary root damage, any existing or future stumps must be ground rather than pulled from the ground. 9. Irrigation heads must be directed away from all tree trunks, including areas where turf would be proposed. 10. Plants placed beneath canopies shall be drought tolerant and not comprise more than 20-percent of the total ground area. 11. Edging material should not be installed beneath tree canopies. 12. Tilling beneath canopies (as has been occurring for weed control) should not occur. 13. The following is a list of acceptable native trees to replace those being removed: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big Leaf Maple (Ater macrophyllum), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). The amount and size of trees to install will depend upon the value of trees being removed. New trees must not be installed beneath canopies of retained trees (a minimum setback of 15 feet from canopy edges is suggested). • 19120 Monte Vista, Saratoga Page 5 of S City of Saratoga, Community Development Department .~~-©~24 ARBOR RESOURCES " ~'iOfE33fOItaL o7''LDORfeuLtueaL CyOlt3itLtl-29 & ~'LES C~a4E TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET @~~ aU~ ~ :~~ ~b o ~ ~ ~ _ ~ n ~ ~," ° ,~ t~ - b a U c a" o ' ' ~ Q. A o .8 ~ C ~ pq ~PQ ~. ~ ~ ;~ . TREE A x ~ A ,~ ~ 'ob ~ ~ o ~ ,b ~ ~ °c ~ ~ ,b ~ ~ °o '~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ a~ ~ y ~ o ° NO. TREE NAME ,~ .~ °' c j ~ . ~ ~ O ~ ~ H ~ a Avocado 1 (Persea americans) 16 - 20 18 25% 0% Poor Low $160 - Comments: Severel deco ed at base. Olive 2 (Oleo europaea) 12, 9 - 30 28 100% 75% Good Moderate $2,520 - n~ onte• Valley Oak 3 (Quercus lobata) 16 - 32 35 100% 75% Good High $4,830 - ('nmmPntc• Deodar Cedar 4 (Cedrus deodara) 20 18 50 34 100% 100% ('rood High $3,870 - ~,, o,,.~ Monterey Pine 5 (Pinus radials) 23 18 46 30 50% 100% Good Moderate $1,020 - r•., mant~• Douglas Fir 6 (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 21 - 35 25 100% 50% ('food Moderate $2,070 - .I • r`n anr~• Coast Live Oak 7 (Quercus agrijolia) 17 - 28 25 100% 100% Good High $4,350 - n., onr~• Coast Live Oak 8 (Quercus agrifolia) 19 17 42 40 50% 50% Fair Moderate $2,170 - Coast Live Oak 9 (Quercus agrifolia) 7, 5 6, 4 20 16 75% 50% Fair Moderate $750 - Comments: Ad~acent to old slum . Coast Live Oak 10 (Quercus agrijolia) 7, 6 6, 5 15 12 100% 75% Good Moderate $900 - Comments: Adjacent to old Redwood slum . Coast Live Oak 11 (Quercus agrifolia) - 6, 5, 4 16 14 75% 75% Good Moderate $920 - Comments: Adjacent to an old Redwood slum . Coast Live Oak 6(5), 12 (Quercus agrifoli6) - 7(2) 38 30 75% 75% Good High $3,150 - Comments: Adjacent to old Redwood stump. Job: I9I30 Monte Ytata Drive, Sarmaga Preparedjor: (Sty oJSmaGOga Prepared by: David 4 Bobby, RGA Page I of 4 I [Mqr 8, 3003 li'~00~5 = ARBOR RESOURCES • "` J"tOfEi1~011QL ~'CITOaieuL~t1.4QL.C:O-211LL~Z129 fl ~YEE C:Q.4B TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET n /-~ y ~V! t 1 O o ~ Ub aU~ G a ~ •~ b o > `~ ~ ~o .~ o b ~ c ~° ~ :~ "o '~ ~> A~ ~> A~ „ ~ T ~~~ ~~b yU Q ~ ~~ TREE h ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ do ~ ~o W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ Y c o NO. TREE NAME ° H-~ ° H.~ ' x ~ a x ~~ ~~ H a California Black Walnut 13 1JuQlans hindsii) 16 - 30 32 50% 75% Fair Moderate $770 - ~~ ~.,*~ California Black Walnut 14 (Juglans hindsii) 20 19 55 50 75% 100% Good High $1,340 - California Black Walnut 15 (Juglans hindsii) 20 - 27 40 75% 50% Fair Moderate $1,010 - (`nmmonta• - ('nmmPnts• Almond 16 (Prunus dulcis) 13 - ]6 18 75% 50% Fair Low $890 . - i• Cnmmentc' Deodat Cedar 17 (Cedrus deodara) 20 18 50 40 100% 50% Good High $3,710 X Comments: Im cts from ad'acent develo ent are ted. Coast Live Oak 18 (Quercus agrijolia) 17 16 40 40 100% 75% Good High $4,560 - (~nmmentt~ California Pepper Tree 19 (Schinus molle) - 11, 8, 7 20 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate $1,230 - ('nmmeattc• Coast Live Oak 20 (Quercus agrifolia) 33 - 40 55 75% 100% Good High $18,200 - C%OmmentS: VVP+'~mm~eQ SOme ume o. Coast Live Oak 21 (Quercus agrijolia) 12 12 32 25 100% 75% ('food High $1,930 - Comments: Located a ainst existin shed. Koot collar is boned. Italian Stone Pine 22 (Pinus pinea) 18 - 32 25 100% 75% Good Moderate $2,080 - (`nmmrnta• Italian Stone Pine 23 (Pinus pinea) 15 - 32 25 100% 75% Good Moderate $1,680 - ( nmmentc~ Monterey Pine 24 (Pinus radiata) 24 22 52 35 50% 100% ('food Moderate $1,280 - Comments: lob: ]9120 Moore Vista Drive, Saratoga Prepared jor: Giry ojSaratogo Prepared by: David 4 Bobby, RCA Page 2 oj4 May 8, 20(!3 C~00~6 ARBOR RESOURCES ' ~'LOf811~0ILQ.L o]"2fT04lLSU.Lti14Q.L C~OIESU.L~LI29 t~ J'LCE C.:A.4E TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET ,.; ,-. ~ N .~ ~ .~ n o o ' ~ w ~ pa ~ ~ Ra U ~ ~ TREE A ~ ~ A o ~ +' ~ per', c ~ ~~ ~ o ~ I° o as iii .a t3 ~ Q ~ ~ ° NO: TREE NAME FG., ,~ .~ °' ~ j x ° v~ ° p ~ o ~ Monterey Pine I I I I I ° I o f I I I - I 25 (Pines radiata) 14 13 46 22 75 /o I00% Good Moderate $930 ~,, o.,t~ Avocado 26 (Persea americans) 18 19 30 26 75% 75% Good Moderate $1,980 - !`n onte• California Bay Tree 27 (Umbellularia californica) 31 - 46 40 100% 50% Good High $13,800 - ('nmmvntc• Tan Oak vV 18,13,9, 28 (Lithocarpus densiflorus) - 9,6 35 40 75% 50% Good .Moderate $3,590 - Comments: Dark stainin seen alo one stem. Coast Redwood 24, 19, 29 (Sequoia sempervirens) - 9 40 30 75% 25% Good Moderate $4,500 - Comments: To blew out or tree was to some time ago. Avocado 30 (Persea americans) 18 - 32 16 50% 50% Fair Moderate $1,000 - •I • ~,, a.,t~ .,.,.......,u~.,. Coast Redwood 31 (Sequoia sempervirens) 45,11 41, 10 80 32 100% 100% Good High $13,800 - (`nmmantc• Silver Gum Eucalyptus 32 (Eucalyptus coriiata) 44 40 38 12 50% 0% Poor Low $600 - ~n m,>„t~• Coast Live Oak 33 (Quercus agrifolia) 67 61 70 100 50% 50% Fair High $27;900 - Comments: Deco thm out lower trunk. Chinese Photinia *see 34 (Photinia serratifolia) below - 25 30 100% 50% Good High $3,400 - Comments: *Diameters include the folio : 12, 6(3), 5(3), 4, 4, 2 Deodar Cedar 35 (Cedrus deodara) 19 17 55 30 75% 75% Good High $2,460 - ~n o.,t~ ' l,Vyll111~u~J. Chinese Photinia *see 36 (Photinia sermtifolia) below - 16 30 75% 50% Good Moderate $1,300 - Comments: 'Diameters include the following: 8, 6, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2 106: ]9120 Monti Pum Drive, Saratoga Prepared jar: GHy ojSarmuga Preportd by: David L. Bobby, RCA Page 3 of 4 I~ Moy 8, 20Qi I ~"~'~'~' G"~ ARBOR RESOURCES ~$OfEiSLOIlQL ~'LDOtiaulEusaL C:OILbtLLtir19 ~ ~J4EE C.~a.'LE • TREE EWENTORY SPREADSHEET i• .. .. ~ ~ N .~ ~ .~ .. 3 3 ~ .~ aUb @~~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ o ' ~ ~ '-' ~ ~ „ ~ ~ °' ~ ° o ~ O0 0 a ~ ~ w w ~ b Q ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ q A A TREE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ o ~ a, o ~ o > ~ ai a~ o NO. TREE NAME F.., .~ H ,~a v x .. v~ O v~ H ~ Deodar Cedar 37 (Cedrus deodara) 28 26 55 50 100% 100% Good High $6,800 - LOquat 38 (Eriobotrya japonica) 14 - 18 18 100% 25% Fair Moderate $1,710 - ( nmmentc• Strawberry Tree 39 (Arbutus unedo) 16 - l6 20 50% 25% Fair Low $2,330 - Comments: Avocado 40 (Persea americans) 21 - 40 30 75% 75% Good Moderate $2,130 - nmments• Comments: Peach 41 (Prunus persica) 15 - 14 16 50% 0% Poor Low $560 - Coast Live Oak 42 (Quercus agrifolia) 21 19 30 36 100% 75% Good .High $7,800 - Comments: Coast Live Oak 43 (Quercus agrifolia) 24 22 35 42 100% 75% Good High $10,200 - Cnmments~ Coast Live Oak 44 (Quercus agrifolia) 36 - 40 55 100% 100% Good High $29,200 - Comments: American Elm 45 (Ulmus americans) 21 22 25 12 25% 25% Poor -Low $420 - Cnmmentt: American Elm 46 (Ulmus americans) 20 18 28 14 25% 0% Poor Low $130 - Cnmments• Comments: Large wound at base. London Plane Tree 47 (Platanus acerifolia) 34 30 50 50 50% 50% Good Moderate $4,430 - 'i lob: 19120 Mace Viste Drivt, Sarotogo Prepmcdjor 6ry ojSm~ogo Prepmed by: Dovid L. Bobby, RCA Comments: Pollarded. Page 4 of 4 I-lay 8, 20w03~pp ~~t~.-'~~iC7 ...... , .n,•r. .USt,a'• r.r•I fumhr. 1??/Ma,10 ', ___ i ~ ___-- ~~-\ -a" ~ 9mject aW,m: 19130 N,M•Ym Oti.e - ., ~ .^ __ _ --~__:%, t A, ~ ,t O.wtr - WYanv Trvv ((~ ~/ -,~`. ,r+~C~,-. ~_~ _ t LuriNdiuriq 0.-I-W ~' ~ , 14. 13 ~~. 12~,•i ~ ~ t. )' 7rr i y '_'___~ t rye ~ s;..x~a.w,r ~ 3u.ro :~: •~- - - .f< +~ ,t _ ' 1 .. • 6"~.,. 'Q' 4 f3 • ,1~~ r ~ .:t v...r~aa~sdxK. 36NU~ ~rv \` 9 ~ `. .' •..Ir '-'~'. _.,------_,~ J 5 °~, ! I• j e::ai„r i.9e.~.s w. ut,rhv du• 15 •~' r 10 ~ ` .~ -_..~-~ 8 + ,:! ... 2 . - :~a.r ~•• „H 3 we -' _ _ ..,. _ y .. ~. -- -- :;~ .. is.~ Poise. K. .:,.,~ - _ '^" ...., ~~'~" ~•`_' • ', r 31 ~~w _sz._..i 't 9.. 32. ~,...,,. ~ .y i t. \ ~ ._ t' - ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ - "~,.i ^~`r:: ` 30. ,ts / 2B ~r i,~' \ ~ ,~~ tt.,}tt - - - CANOP\'EDGE -- ~-~ ---.~~ ~'- ~ 1 Preoara rm csy „rsv.,,,,~, ,^ :"``=-°r-=e`p=„__.''_ ~. ":'.t~' . ,x: _ R.ICC ae> e. tom .. / '' ,>•y._. "• - .. -p - . Sara Alap dnnifias d; Ixdinmtm-saed rcrn r ~ .. : '+.`'i' . ; - ~ -1 ~ ai b .• rreesv~l m,d ?A xerc a0dedmthe ylvn S ,. •: .~~ t~"~'D~" %,- _ tlao„ daa oa•n.m9,.,l sas arvf n,.,r m,:ale 4 ~_I .. _•.._. _.. • 47.+ ~I ~ ~ ~ e~ _.:_, D 1 r`' ~, t~RBOR RESOURCES •'i - - ~~` _ ~' .....,..., ..r......_..rr_.., a.. ... ~: L --- - r' ` 39 138 ~ . r ~ - ~ 35 P ., r- ~ _ . r`t i7~~~ l~ .,.. _ •_ ' 1. :..,, . _ ~ _ ~.. _ ... i n . ~ .~ ~ ~ _ _... ..... ,, ., __ - ., _ - _ • - - >:= r.. .. ~ ~ .. ___ .,., ~•; . .: _.. - ' e-, .. ~ .. , ..... .. ,. t:. ~ ..~ ... _. _.. . ..._.. .. GRANDE ~..: VESTING TENTA"FIVE MAP (~ WARRINERTRUST y^:e i ''~' ~«-~ r~; WESTFALL ENGINEERS.INC. iyl.n>umrr•vl:•r.1uR1~•e.xnnnnwa T~ ~ ~ ... r'V^ W _ ,t• • ~. • Attachment 3 • ~~ "r ~'~= ~.r~iay® Smooth Feed SheetsT"" ~ ROBERT E & ROSALYN WORK RAYMOND W & VIRGINIA i 19015 SUNNYSIDE DR SAMPSON SARATOGA CA 95070 19045 SUNNYSIDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIAM R & GALLAGHER DANSER 15430 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070 SCOTT & JOANIE KRIENS 18974 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 GORDON T & JEANNE CASE 15300 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERTA P GIES 19110 SUNNYSIDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MAXINE DUC 969 BUCKEYE DR SUNNYVALE CA 94086 STRATTON D & JODY SCLAVOS 19222 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 HARWOOD T WA,RRINER PO BOX 217 SARATOGA CA 95071 MCINERNY 19175 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 Use template for 5160® DONALD P & MARY LEACH , . . 19075 SUNNYSIDE DR ~ ' SARATOGA CA 95070 _ ~'. MIROYAN RICHARD S & FYKE FALCONE 15400 EL CAMINO GRANDE 19020 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 i SARATOGA CA 95070 JEFFREY B & ELIZABETH BRYANT 19001 MONTE VISTA DR ' SARATOGA CA 95070. W L PELIO 14573 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 DANIEL T & CAROLYN DOLES 15280 EL CAMINO GRANDEE SARATOGA CA 95070 HELMUT F & MARIA LIPPERT 1301 DOVE ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660. FARHAD & ZA.,It]ZiNKHAMEH MOGHADAM 15440-VIA COLINA SARATOGA CA -95070 JIANDANI 19188 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 NORMAN A & SUSAN KIDD 15351 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070 TRUST DE CARTON 19199 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STANLEY W & SHARON GODDARD WINVICK 19140 PANORAMA DR 19174 PANORAMA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SAR.ATOGA CA 95070 AVERY® Address Labels BANK OF THE WEST PO BOX 1121 SAN JOSE CA 95108 PFEIFFER RANCH INVESTORS 1475 SARATOGA AVE 250 SAN JOSE CA 95129 AR ARET G~ FRANKLIN & M G 19264 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 HARWOOD T WARRINER PO BOX 217 SARATOGA CA 95071 DANIEL B & JOANNE ODONNELL 19135 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SMITH 19231 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 FLORENCE S BARKER . 19106 PANORAMA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 Laser 5160® ` Smooth Feed SheetsT"" Use template for 5160® RQBERT S & CAROLINE JAMES D & GRETCHEN MAIR DENNIS W & ANGELA FARMER JOHNSON 1690 DELL AVE 15485 EL CAMINO GRANDE 19 PANORAMA DR CAMPBELL CA 95008 SARATOGA CA .95070 S~TOGA CA 95070 JOHNS & ET MORSE HENRY C & VICTORIA WU SPINAZZA 15463 EL CAMINO GRANDE 19290 SARATOGA LOS GATOS 451 QUEENS LN RD SAN JOSE CA 95112 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 CHARLES L & YVONNE GOSS 19180 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 i~ aVEr~W® AririrP.ss Label ~~v~is?ii Laser 5160® r-oJ',` AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ~~ _,_. , I;~ ~.~~~:~~~.-i='.~'~:~> ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the /~ day of ~r ~'1 ~ ~~~_, 2003, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ......_ . _~~ .. . -- ~.__.- , . t _ -..... fa.~, .. . . Signed r ~