Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-2003 Planning Commission PacketS~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 1~CTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 9, 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: Planner Vasudevan, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 25, 2003. (APPROVED 6-0-1 HUNTER ABSTAINED) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 3, 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 #03-040 (APN 503-53-030) - TRAN, 13622 Saraview Drive; -Continued from 5/28/03 Public Hearing. Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single story home that will have a maximum height of 21 feet - 5 inches. The total floor area of the new home with an attached 3-car garage will be 4,515 square feet. The lot is 20,515 square feet and is located in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 7-0) 2. APPLICATION #03-019 (503-82-027 and 028) - SHARMA, 13095 Paramount Court; - Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 6,141 square foot house with a 2,081 basement on a vacant lot. The gross lot size is 47,288 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 1/z feet. (JoxN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE 7-0 TO JULY 23, 2003) 3. APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-030) -Appellant CORSON, Site Location - 18372 Swarthmore Drive; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit at 18372 to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (Appellant has requested this item be continued toJuly23, 2003) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE 7-0 TO JULY 23, 2003) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on May 21, 2003 ADJOURNMENT AT 7:40 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 23, 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@saratoaa.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, July 8, 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, JULY 9, 2003 ~~ `...../ ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA Application #03-019 - SHARMA 13095 Paramount Court Item 2 2. Application #03-040 - TRAN Item 1 13622 Saraview Drive Architectural Reference Sites relating to Tran Application ^ 20518 Verde Vista ^ 20800 Verde Vista ^ 14450 Fruitvale Avenue LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee . conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 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, July 9, 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 June 25, 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 taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 3, 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 #03-040 (APN 503-53-030) - TRAN,13622 Saraview Drive; -Continued from 5/28/03 Public Hearing. Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single .story home that will have a maximum height of 21 feet - 5 inches. The total floor area of the new home with an attached 3-car garage will be 4,515 square feet. The lot is 20,515 square feet and is located in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) • 2. APPLICATION #03-019 (503-82-027 and 028) - SHARMA, 13095 Paramount Court; - Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 6,141 square foot house with a 2,081 basement on a vacant lot. The gross lot size is 47,288 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 ih feet. UoxN LIVINGSTONE) 3. APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-030) -Appellant CORSON, Site Location - 18372 Swarthmore Drive; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit at 18372 to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (Appellant has requested this Item be continued toJuly 23, 2003) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on May 21, 2003 • ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 23, 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 Tannin sarato ag ca.us ®~ r ~e MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Zutshi called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Chair Hunter Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of June 11, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of June 11, 2003, were adopted with minor correction to page 2. (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 19, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any- decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b) except for Item #1, for which the Planning Commission action is final. CONSENT CALENDAR ' There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #02-039 SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Appeal of an Administrative Decision: The Saratoga- Homeowners Association has filed an appeal of an administrative- decision made pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-50.120, Tree Regulations, Violations Penalties. The administrative decision requires $35,439.00 in cash and $17,719.50 in native replacement tree for removing a total of 12 trees without a City issued tree removal permit. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association is appealing the monetary fines .and replacement requirements imposed for 12 trees that were removed from Saratoga Oaks without benefit of permits. • Informed that the Municipal Code sets the criteria for monetary fines based upon the value of the removed trees. • Said that originally three trees were removed improperly without necessary permits. At that time, the Homeowners Association was warned of the rules for, tree removal permits. However, afterwards an additional nine trees were later removed. • Said that the HOA is appealing the penalties (both the fine and tree replacement requirements). • Advised that staff has prepared a draft resolution to uphold the administrative action. Commissioner B asked staff to whose attention the warnin -was made followin the im ro ei- arry g g P P removal of the first three trees. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous replied the attorney for the HOA. Commissioner Barry restated that the HOA, despite a warning after the improper removal of the first .three trees, later proceeded with the removal of nine more trees. Commissioner Uhl asked why the attorney was notified instead of the HOA. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous replied that the applicants would be able to .explain- why their attorney was involved early on. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Tom Sander, 14652 Placida Court, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the President of the HOA. • Said that he did not have much to add. . • Stated that these trees were not removed for financial gain or any ulterior motive but rather strictly for reasons of safety. • Advised that the verbal notification to the attorney was never relayed on to him. • Pointed out that they are an inexperienced board and that he has the longest tenure at three years. • Added that they have just recently changed their property management company. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 3 • Said that they didn't request permits and that task simply slipped through the cracks. Everyone thought that someone else had done so. • Said that $17,000_ in replacement trees is being imposed upon them and they do not believe that trees are a good choice in this area due to the steep slope. • Asked that they be allowed to have their proposed landscape plan installed rather than to have the City dictate the planting of trees. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is any justification for the concerns expressed about dangers. Mr. Tom Sander said that these shallow rooted trees are inappropriate per several Arborist' reports. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Sander if the HOA has at other times removed other trees with the required permits. Mr. Tom Sander replied that three huge Sycamore trees had to be taken down, as they were hollow and structurally unsound. Tk-ey had had an Arborist report prepared, the City's Arborist had been consulted and the necessary permits obtained. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Sanders how he knew that the necessary permits had been obtained in that instance. Mr. Tom Sander replied that he didn't see the permit itself but had been told that it had been obtained. Commissioner Garakani asked why no permit was obtained this time around. Mr. Tom Sander said that they had thought that their vendor had taken care of that step. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that the Commission is not looking at plans for replacement trees this evening but rather is simply evaluating the fines and requirements for tree replacement that have been imposed. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous replied .correct and added that these replacement trees do not have to be planted in the exact same location as those removed. Said that native replacements are being required. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Sander if the HOA was aware of the requirement for a tree removal permit at the time that the nine trees were cut down. Mr. Tom Sander replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if he contends that this detail had simply "just slipped through the cracks." Mr. Tom Sander replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked how the first three trees came to be improperly removed. • Mr. Sander advised that one homeowner, without the ermission of the HOA, did the removal of the P first three trees without permits. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 4 Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Sander how the HOA can prevent such an occurrence from happening again. Mr. Tom Sander advised that they have changed the landscaping contract to assure that such.. an occurrence is not repeated. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Sander if their attorney or property manager is here tonight. Mr. Tom Sander replied that the property manager is present. Acting Chair Zutshi asked if the HOA Board makes big decisions for Saratoga Oaks. Mr. Tom Sander replied yes. Added that the HOA Board had approved the contract for the removal of the nine trees. Acting Chair Zutshi asked Mr. Sander if the Board was aware of the need to obtain permits. Mr. Tom Sander said they knew the process but was not sure if it was necessary in this case. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Sander when the three Sycamore trees previously mentioned were, removed. Mr. Tom Sander replied 2000 or 2001. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this was before the first set of three trees was improperly removed. Mr: Tom Sander replied yes. Commissioner Uhl clarified that Mr. Sander contends that the' Board approved the removal of the trees and assumed that the Tree Company obtained necessary permits. Mr. Tom Sander replied that they had thought that the permits would be obtained as necessary. Commissioner- Uhl brought up the warning given following the improper removal of the first three trees. Mr. Tom Sander reminded that the removal of those three trees went against the rules of the HOA and that they had notified the City,of that activity. Commissioner Uhl reminded that the HOA was given a warning this first time. Mr. Tom Sander advised that he was unaware of said warning. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Sander why an attorney was involved at that time. Mr. -Tom Sander said that the Board was unsure how to handle the situation, being an inexperienced Board, so they contacted their. attorney. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 5 • Commissioner Uhl questioned whether the attorney was acting on behalf of the HOA in that matter. Commissioner Garakani asked if the attorney is present this evening. Mr. Tom Sander replied no. The attorney was not asked to come to this meeting. The property manager, Mr. Bill Hubbard, is present. Commissioner Barry said that she sits on an HOA Board herself and asked Mr. Hubbard what his role was. Mr. Bill Hubbard said that he relies on the professional experience of the vendors used and come on board in June 2002. Added that the landscaping company usually dealt with permit requirements. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hubbard how long he has been a property manager.. Mr. Bill Hubbard replied five years. Commissioner Uhl asked whether Mr. Hubbard is using the same landscape company that removed the trees. Mr. Bill Hubbard replied no. Added that the attorney is on the case to deal with the resident who removed the first three trees improperly. • Commissioner Uhl asked staff to confirm that notification was made to the attorney. Associate Planner- Christine Oosterhous said that she could confirm that the conversation with the attorney occurred following the improper removal of the first three trees. Mr. Pete Joachim, Stone Bridge Drive, Saratoga: • Said he has been involved in community activities over the years. • Stated that his property abuts Saratoga Oaks. • Informed the Commission that about four to five years ago Saratoga -Oaks' tree company took down a redwood tree on his property. He was unable to contact anyone affiliated with Saratoga Oaks to complain and simply gave up trying. He added that their tree people often come onto his property • Pointed out that these 12 trees were removed one year ago and that he was the one to call the City to complain. Nothing has been done over the last year about this situation. • Expressed concern that Saratoga Oaks does not plan to replace these trees. • Said that he does not really care about the fine but that he is looking for protection from further tree removals. • Stated that he does not want to look down onto the Saratoga Oaks swimming pool. • Added that since the removal of these trees he hears the noise from the pool use that he never heard before the trees were removed. . Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Joachim where his home is located. Mr. Pete Joachim said his house is the first one on Stone Bridge Drive. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Garakani asked if he filed a complaint with the City. Mr. Pete Joachim replied yes. . Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Joachim if Saratoga Oaks notified him prior to the tree removal.. Mr. Pete Joachim replied no. Added that it was a total surprise to find the trees gone when he returned from vacation last July. Said that he would like to be shielded from looking at the pool. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Joachim how big the redwood tree was that was cut down on his property. Mr. Pete Joachim replied very big. Commissioner Uhl asked why it was done. Mr. Pete Joachim said he had no clue why, saying he thinks they were out of control. Acting Chair Zutshi asked Mr. Joachim if his property has the same slope on the back. Mr. Pete Joachim replied yes. Acting Chair Zutshi asked if there are trees planted on his slope. Mr. Pete Joachim replied yes, there are pine trees approximately 20 to 30 years old. Acting Chair Zutshi asked if the trees are growing straight up or leaning over the slope. Mr: Pete Joachim replied straight up. Mr. Tom Sander said that they move slowly and deliberately at Saratoga Oaks. Pointed out that there is no way to prove that their tree company removed the redwood on Mr. Joachim's property. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Garakani said that he supports the staff recommendation, that it appears this HOA Board does not know procedures but that City Codes are well defined and straightforward and these Codes cannot be twisted tonight. Commissioner Nagpal concurred that guidelines are in place and that, while she can empathize with this HOA Board, it is hard not to support staff's recommendations: Commissioner Uhl: ~ Agreed that the City has to send a message and the rules are very clear. • Pointed out that the HOA did notify the City when the first three trees were improperly removed. • Said that it is unfortunate that their attorney is not present. • Said that while he agrees a fine needs to be levied, the question in his mind is whether to reduce it. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 7 Commissioner Barry: • Agreed with Commissioner Uhl. • Said that trees area major issue and a value to the community. • Stated that it is important to uphold Codes and hold those who do not do so accountable. • Pointed out that the HOA has a fiduciary duty and cannot get around that. • Said that there is no basis to change staff's recommendation. Acting Chair Zutshi reopened the- Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bob Kibort: • Said he is a homeowner at Saratoga Oaks. • Pointed out that the hills are unstable, a point verified by soils engineers. • Said that other. trees removed were hollow in the middle. • Stated that if they had come to the City prior to the removal, the City would probably have given permission for the removal. Acting Chair Zutshi said that there are proper channels. Mr. Bob Kibort said that this is a bureaucratic approach and that this situation was not: an act of malice but omission. • Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the permit process allows neighbors to be notified. In this instance, the neighbors' rights have been taken away. Mr. Bob Kibort insisted that the trees were a danger. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether this was an eminent danger. Mr. Bob Kibort replied yes. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the three Sycamore trees removed had proper permits. Added that if this request had gone through the appropriate process, they probably would have received a Tree Removal Permit but with mitigation imposed. Ms. Barbara Fonner: • Said she is the Secretary of the Saratoga Oaks HOA. • Apologized for the mistake made. • Said that concern over the trees and landscaping is of prime importance. This tree removal came about when plans to replace a retaining wall required removal of the trees. • Reiterated that this is simply and purely a mistake. • Pointed out that the Sycamores were removed with proper permits and that they thought the landscape company was going to-get the necessary documents like they had when the Sycamore trees were removed. • Said that everything done is performed through their management and landscape companies and that they simply assumed that necessary permits would be obtained as they had been done before. • Assured that they would not wantonly cut down trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 8 • Stated that a fine would be better spent on replacing trees and landscaping and retaining walls. ' i ner Garakani asked if the landsca er who arran ed the removal of the Sycamore trees Commis o p g included a permit expense on the contract. Ms. Barbara Fonner: • Said that she was sure the permit was obtained because the City was highly involved in the process. • Said that the contract for the cutting of these recent nine-trees stated that the HOA was responsible for obtaining permits and that the tree cutter was not responsible for getting the permits., ~ Added that they believed either their management or landscape companies would handle that detail. Unfortunately, between the Board, the landscape and management companies, the need for the permit fell through the cracks. • Asked the City to work with them on this and allow -these funds for the fine to be applied to the landscaping. Commissioner Uhl asked staff for clarification on the fine and replacement fee assessed. Director Tom Sullivan said that the $17,719.50 amount is for on-site replacement trees, to purchase and install trees on their property. The $35,000 is the assessed value to the community for the removed trees. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the replacement value is $35,000. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the replacement value amount is based upon the impact. Mr. Bill Brenchly: • .Informed that he lives right in the center. • Said that after the removal of the trees it looked like a war zone but that these trees were failing and tipping. • Assured the Commission he believes in the importance of trees and has donated one million dollars to environmental groups for trees. • Said that there is no question that the site must be replanted but that the hillside cannot take trees of that size. • Stated that he lives in Saratoga due to trees, the environment acid the schools. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Brenchly what he would have the Commission do in this matter. Mr. Bill Brenchly said that it is clear that the replanting expense ($17,000) has to happen but that the $35,000 fine is not appropriate since it was clear these trees needed to come out. Mr. Don Rubio: • Stated he is the Treasurer for the HOA. • Said he has watched the slope deteriorate over the years and come down. • Said he reads all contracts and has a history of getting necessary permits. This case is an oversight. Acting Chair Zutshi reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 9 Commissioner Barry: • Said that the Commission has read the HOA's packet and that it is aware that the hillside is failing. • Stated that she asked their engineer if the danger was eminent and was told no. • Added that this means there was sufficient time available to apply for permits. • Said that this represents an internal problem and that the property management company or attorney may have failed them. The result is that the HOA has violated City Code., • Said that the Community Development Director has clarified. that the $35,000 fine represents the valuation of the nine trees and the impact of their loss. It is not just a punitive fine. • Added that the value of these now missing trees will be replanted elsewhere in the City. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that no one disagrees with the $35,000 figure. However, he suggested that the difference be split as this act was not done deliberately but rather was a mistake. • Reminded that this is a densely treed area. • Said that he agreed with everything the Planning Commissioners have said in that the Association failed in their role in this instance. Commissioner Garakani said that it was not a bad idea to reduce the fine. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the HOA will be required to plant $17,719.50 worth of trees on the Saratoga Oaks property and not necessarily on the hillside. Commissioner Garakani reminded of the neighbor's concern for screening. Commissioner Uhl said that something would have to be replanted on the hillside Director Tom Sullivan said that the landscape architect would have to be relied upon to select species of trees that will bind to the soil. Commissioner Garakani asked if this plan will come to the City for review. Director Tom Sullivan said that the-plans for the proposed retaining wall would. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous clarified that a Condition requires the landscape plan to come to the City for approval. Commissioner Nagpal suggested cutting the $17,719.50 amount in half. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the _$35,000 fine comes to the City. Commissioner Uhl said his recommendation was not to cut the amount for replanting but rather to reduce the $35,000 fine by $8,500. Director Tom Sullivan questioned the rationale for such a reduction since the episode when the first three trees were initially removed without permits was used by the City to warn the' attorney for the HOA about the requirement for tree removal permits. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Nagpal said that the applicant was warned and told that the City would not impose a fine at the time that the first three trees were improperly removed. Therefore, she suggested that since three trees were not penalized, 25 percent of the total fine could be removed from the $35,000 or $8;000. Acting Chair Zutshi asked for a straw poll. Commissioner Garakani was okay with-the reduction in fine. Commissioner Schallop expressed support for the current draft resolution. Commissioner Barry agreed, saying that this reduction would reward them for ignoring the warning they were given. Added that the property management and /or attorney failed. Supported the staff resolution. Acting Chair Zutshi said that she supports the staff recommendation and cannot justify a reduction in the fine. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission took action to-deny an appeal and uphold the Administrative Decision to impose upon Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association a $35,439 cash fine and $17,719.50 in native tree replacements,- adopting the resolution drafted by staff, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: Uhl ABSENT: Hunter ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Garakani suggested an amendment to allow the use of some of the $35,000 fine to plant directly on site at Saratoga Oaks. Commissioner Uhl added a request that neighbors also be consulted. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the action of the Planning Commission was amended to include the provision to allow some of the $35,000 fine to be used for planting on site at Saratoga Oaks and to require the consultation with neighbors about replacement landscaping, by ,the following roll call vote: AYES: .Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 11 APPLICATION #03-006 (APN 366-43-007) - CHEN, 12161 Parker Ranch Road: Request for Fence • Variances to the front and .side yard setbacks, design and height requirements. The lot size is approximately 1.01 acres and the site is zoned Hillside Residential. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that- the applicant is seeking Fence Variances for front and side yard fences, including .setbacks, design and height requirements. The Code requires that the fencing be open and contain no sharp points. This fence design incorporates decorative points, which the applicant is seeking to keep. • Recommended denial for all Variances except for the northern fence, with the removal of the decorative points. For the northern fence, the necessary findings, all of which must be made in the affirmative, can be made. The first finding, that special circumstances exist so that without a Variance the applicant is deprived of privileges enjoyed by other similar property owners in the area. The unique topography of the lot can be considered a particular circumstance existing for this property. Additionally, since there is a five-foot drop from this lot to the lot below, lack of this fencing deprives the safe use of much of the front yard. The second finding that this Variance would not represent a special privilege can be made in that there is the unique circumstance with the hazardous five-foot drop. The three required finding, that this Variance would not be a detriment can also be made in that the fence would help reduce the possibility of an accidental fall. • Said that the applicant has provided additional material this evening: Commissioner Barry asked if other potential mitigation had been considered, such as landscape plantings as a barrier from the five-foot drop, which might equally solve the safety concerns. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Commission could look at other alternatives. Said that staff finds the fence to be the safest solution in that location and reminded that it is an existing fence. Commissioner Garakani asked what the objection is to decorative points. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that sharp points are prohibited in Code. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the restriction is to assure that wildlife does not become impaled upon the fence. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Lee Wieder, Applicant's Representative: • Declared his belief that these Fence Variances solve safety concerns due to potential hazardous conditions. • Said that staff has not had an opportunity to see their letter distributed this evening. • Stated his agreement with the findings for the north fence. • Added that it would be best to retain the fence in its current location since if it were moved it would be more visible to the neighbors. • Gave his interpretation of the required findings. . • Said that allowing his client to keep the 10 feet of front fencing as it serves as a secured pedestrian gate {Item II, page 2 of their letter) in its present location would not represent special privilege or be detrimental. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 12 • Said that allowing the front fence between the north property line to the main entrance to remain at less than 30 feet back from the property line (Item III, page 2 of their letter) can be supported due to .special topographic conditions, to serve as a safeguard for children and pets and would not represent a special privilege or be detrimental. • Said that allowing the south fence to remain at less than 20 feet setback from the property line can be supported because exiting the property is challenging due to the curves in the road and the difficulty in seeing traffic. This would not- represent a special privilege or be detrimental. • Said they agree with the requirements except for two conditions of approval, Conditions 3 and 11. Acting Chair Zutshi asked for the distance. Mr. Lee Wieder questioned if she is referring to the frontage onto Parker Ranch Road. Director Tom Sullivan provided the response at 115.3 feet. Robert Yorio, Esq., Attorney for the Applicant: • Stated that they are in litigation with the HOA and the City but that this issue would not impact said litigation. • Pointed out that if landscaping were to be used as a barrier in lieu. of a fence, that landscaping would still have to be planted and maintained, which could be a hazardous situation for the maintenance people who risk the five-foot drop. • Asked that the fence be kept in its current location. Acting Chair Zutshi asked Dr. Chen how long she has resided on the property. Dr. Chen replied since 1991. Acting Chair Zutshi asked whether the previous owner had a fence on that side. Dr. Chen replied no. Commissioner Uhl asked Dr. Chen if she-were aware of the HOA rules for fencing. Dr. Chen replied no, she was not very clearly aware of the requirements. Commissioner Garakani asked Dr. Chen when this fence was installed. Dr. Chen replied approximately a couple of years ago. Commissioner Nagpal asked Dr. Chen why she felt this fencing was necessary. Dr. Chen replied that the driveway and courtyard area where her children play include slopes going up and going down. Balls can easily and quickly roll downhill directly onto the street with the risk that children would chase them onto the street. • Commissioner Garakani asked whether Dr. Chen has the option to bring the fence up the hill in order to meet setback requirements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 13 Associate Planner John Livingstone said yes, the applicant has that option. ommissioner Garakani asked if and wh Dr. Chen would ob'ect to that o tion. C y ~ P Dr. Chen replied that the fence is currently on the lowest spot where it is less visible. If it is brought up to where it is permissible, the fence would be on the highest spot and more visible, which would be more intrusive and not to the taste and feel of the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani asked if someone complained about the placement of the existing fencing. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. The. complaint started as the fencing was being installed. Commissioner Garakani asked why this matter is here today since it is already in litigation. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this hearing represents a part of the administrative remedies available. Applying for Variances shows that the applicant has exhausted that remedy. Dr. Chen added that at the time she installed the, fencing she was unaware of the Variance options at that time. William Clayton, Esq., Attorney for the Parker Ranch Road HOA: • Stated that there is already an abatement order imposed and that if the Planning Commission proceeds on these Variance requests, it would cause greater entanglements and less clarity. • Said that staff's recommendation is based upon the applicant's argument for safety concerns. However, the applicant had two young children when they moved onto the property in 1991. Those children are no longer small. There was no fencing when the family moved. in and a photograph circa 1991 was distributed to demonstrate that fact. • Stated that the concern for safety is solely hypothetical. • Added that mature landscaping is already in place to serve as a physical barrier to the five foot drop and that in the 12 years the family has been on this property not one incident of injury occurred. Said that the issue of safety was brought up as a concern during the abatement process. • Informed that there is a standard process to follow, as outlined in the CC&Rs, and that Dr. Chen knew and followed that process for the installation of the gate posts but not for the rest of the installation. • Said that as a result, the HOA is now in litigation with her. • Reiterated that he does not believe there is any mitigating issue to support this fencing Variance. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Clayton how he would like to see this proceed. Attorney William Clayton said that the CC&Rs require plans be submitted to an HOA Architectural Control Committee for review and approval. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the process is on going to deal with the HOA and this litigation. That is not the purview tonight. Resolving the situation for the HOA is not a part of process. Attorney William Clayton said that there is a conflict between this administrative process and the judicial process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 14 Commissioner Barry clarified that this item is before the Planning Commission due to Land. Use issues • in the form of a Variance request. Commissioner Uhl asked Attorney Clayton whether the HOA's rules are similar to the City's. . Attorney William Clayton said they are identical. In fact, their CC&Rs where amended to take the City's setbacks into account: Commissioner Uhl asked-when that occurred. Attorney William Clayton replied 1990. Commissioner Uhl pointed that this is before Dr. Chen moved in and said that she should have received a copy of the CC&Rs at the time of purchase. Director Tom Sullivan warned the Commission to focus on the application before it and make its own determination as to whether the required findings for the Variances can be supported. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there have been other fence requests made to the HOA that have been approved. Attorney William Clayton replied yes. ked how man Commissioner Nagpal as y Attorney William Clayton said he was unsure. Said that on occasion work had begun prior to necessary approvals but the owners complied with the required approval process once aware of the need to do so. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Dr. Chen was made aware of the requirements. Attorney William Clayton said yes. He said that copies of relevant information was provided to Dr.. Chen when the posts were initially installed. Ms. Anne Gadd • Said that she is present to read a letter from Dr. Chen's neighbors, John and Pam East, into the record, which makes the following points and recommendations. • Stated that they bought their home in Parker Ranch due to the open feeling of the community.. • Advises that the fences in question were built against regulations a few years ago and the stated, reason was safety. • Suggested that the home should not have been purchased if it was considered too dangerous for its family. • Pointed out that the illegal fence adversely impacts their home. • Suggested three options. One, to change the design to comply with requirements. Two, to go through proper channels to change the fencing restrictions. Three don't build the fence at all. • Said that she has known Mr. and Mrs. East for 30 years and that the view from their property i looking up at this fence gives the appearance of San Quentin prison. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 15 • Reminded that this is not a case of seeking permission to build a fence but rather to keep an improperly installed fence. • Stated that Pam East wrote Dr. Chen a letter in 1999 warning that such a fence is against the rules. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Gadd if the East property is next door on the north side of this property. Ms. Anne Gadd: • Replied yes. • Pointed out that the retaining wall that represents the five foot drop that is of concern to Dr. Chen is actually 10 feet away from their property line. • Added that this fence is really ugly and should have been done legally. Commissioner Garakani asked about chain link fencing on the Easiest' property and asked what it is for. Ms. Anne Gadd said that this was legally requested fencing. Added that since this is deer grazing country, this fencing is permitted to keep deer out of a portion of the rear yard landscaping however front yards are supposed to be kept open. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the distance between the retaining wall and the property line is four feet. Jolie Houston, Esq., Berliner, Cohen, Attorney for John and Pam East: • Said that necessary factual findings to support this Variance request cannot be met, as there is nothing unique. • Pointed out that they can have legal fencing within the proper front and side yard setbacks. • Stated that safety concerns have not been supported by any evidence. • Reminded that existing fencing regulations have been previously reviewed and approved by the City's Planning Commission and Council as well as by the Parker Ranch HOA. • Added that if the regulations don't apply any more, they can be amended or removed from the Zoning Code. • Said the Commission should not grant a Variance for one property when .there are existing mitigation options including the natural barrier of landscaping. • Stated that for the five-foot" drop to be a safety .issue, trespassing would have to occur onto the Easiest' property. • Said that she was available for questions and declared that such a Variance would represent a special privilege as there is nothing unique about the Wu/Cheri property and that the property is large enough to accommodate legal fencing. Commissioner Garakani asked where the legal placement of the north side fence would be located. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the 20-foot setback is about the edge of the house. . Mr. Lee Wieder: • Said that some existing fencing in the neighborhood is grandfathered. • Said that the lot configuration represents a special circumstance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 16 • Said that visual impact seems to be the biggest concern of the property owner on the south side and that the way of buffering that visual impact could include additional vegetation. • Stated that they have made the offer to do so. • Said that he was glad no accident has occurred yet but does not mean it could not happen. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Wieder what type of mitigation he is proposing. Mr. Lee Wieder-said the visual impact would be greater if the fence is moved to where it is permissible without a Variance. Suggested moving the fence but not as far as the legal setback requirement. Commissioner Garakani asked for the reason for fencing on the right side. Mr. Lee Wieder said to create a secure area. Commissioner Garakani suggested moving the fence in front of the bushes rather than behind them so that they would screen the fence for the. neighbors. Mr. Lee Wieder said that it would be okay and that they are more concerned about the north side. Commissioner Nagpal asked what landscaping proposals they have for the north side. Mr. Lee Wieder replied landscaping that will drape over and soften the fence so that this fence would disappear. Commissioner Garakani said that the fence would simply become a big green wall that would still have a big impact. Reiterated his suggestion to bring the fence in front of the existing bushes. Mr. Lee Wieder said he would if he could but that the fence would appear higher because of the slope of the property. Commissioner Garakani said that if the purpose of the fence is to protect the family, why not bring it into the property and simply lower it. They only need about two feet. Mr. Lee Wieder said that they would have to bring it back pretty far to get behind the shrubbery and that it could not be installed in a straight line. Commissioner Garakani said that there could be curvature of the fence. Mr. Lee Wieder added that if the fence is too low, it is not accomplishing the safety function. Commissioner Garakani asked for the current height of the fence. Mr. Lee Wieder replied five -feet. Commissioner Garakani suggested that dense bushes would solve the problem. Mr. Lee Wieder said that it would take ears to grow sufficiently and that it is not realistic.. y Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 17 Attorney Robert Yurio said that if the vegetation is simply increased; it would -still require the maintenance that could endanger the gardener who does the work. Commissioner Garakani reminded that the property line is four feet away from the retaining wall. Attorney Robert Yurio reiterated that the current location of the fence is the best placement. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Uhl: • Stated that he cannot. make. the necessary findings to support these Variances.. • Added that to do so would be a special privilege. • Reminded that there is a process available through the HOA, • Said he does not even support the north side fencing request that staff does. Commissioner Barry: • Expressed her agreement. • Stated that there can be no expectation that a Hillside property would be similar to a suburban lot. • Said that the fencing regulations on the Hillside Zoning District require that said hillsides remain open and rural. • Advised that she is not convinced that the case for safety has been strongly made. • Said that Variances in the Hillside have not been taken lightly in the past. • Agreed that the case for Variances have not been made here, not even for the north side. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that he thinks otherwise, especially on the north side. • Said that if he was the north side neighbor, he would have put a fence in himself to prevent any problems from a possible five-foot drop. • Agreed that safety concerns cannot be substantiated for the rest of the property. Commissioner Uhl added that fencing can still be installed but just within the rules. Commissioner Garakani said that moving the fencing could make them a more intrusive impact than the current placement. Commissioner Uhl said that the fencing needs to come down now because they are in violation. The applicant can come back in the future and make a case for any desired fencing. Commissioner Garakani said that it would be a good idea to put in fencing. Commissioner Barry pointed out that there is no Design Review proposal this evening, just a Variance request. Reminded that the Commission has been strict in .applying findings for any Variance and that it isnot supporting here. Commissioner Garakani said that that draft resolution is okay with him. Commissioner Schallop: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 18 • Apologized for missing the site visit. • Advised that he had received a call from Mr. Lee Wieder asking to discuss issues with him about. -this request: • Said that he told Mr. Wieder that he prefers not to discuss it separately from the public hearing. • Expressed agreement with the staff report. • Said he prefers not to approve the north, fence Variance. • Suggested that the. applicant can let Council deal with this further on appeal.. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed that she too has .difficult making the findings for anything but the north fence, which represents a potential safety issue. • Said that an appropriate remedy would be an appeal to Council or to have the applicant come back with an appropriate design to look at and allow neighbor participation. • Stated that she cannot grant these Variances. Acting Chair Zutshi disclosed that Mr. Lee Wieder had also called her. Agreed that there is no justification for. any of the fences. Director. Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission take no action on Resolution #1 and amend Resolution #2 to include all fences. Commissioner Uhl reported that he too received a call from Mr. Lee Wieder. Commissioner Garakani said he also received a call from Mr. Lee Wieder. Commissioner Barry said she received a voicemail message from Mr. Lee Wieder but did not return the call. Commissioner Nagpal reported that she also received a call from Mr. Lee Wieder. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner, Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission followed the Community Development Director's recommendation to ignore draft Resolution #1 and to -add the north fence to draft Resolution #2, thereby denying each of the Fence Variance requests for property located at 12161 Parker Ranch Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-021 (APN 397-17-033) - JILAN, 19805 Versailles Wad Request to amend an . approved project. The applicant is requesting the relocation of the swimming pool. The change of location would require the removal of two existing redwoods and two existing Monterey pores. (TOM SULLIVAN) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 19 Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the- applicant is requesting an amendment to an approved project, which staff found to represent a significant enough change to warrant being returned to the Commission for review. • Said that the pool was originally to be located on the lower left hand corner of the lot and the new proposed location for the pool is where an existing redwood grove is located and within the canopy of a large oak tree. • Recommended denial of this relocation of the pool due to its impact on the redwood grove and oak tree. • Suggested that the original approval remain. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there are any trees in the area where the playground was proposed. Director Tom Sullivan pointed to page 24 of the staff report that depicts the site plan used by the Arborist. Added that some trees have already been removed. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that trees 7, 8, 9 and 14 have been removed at this point. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Robert Mowat, Project Landscape Architect: • Said that it is better to ask permission rather than forgiveness. • Said that they want to discuss the removal of four redwood trees at this point and that the pool location can be dealt with separately. • Said that these are not Ordinance trees but rather were included on the survey for. the pre- application. Pointed out that they are not 40 inches but rather only 11 inches. . • Stated that they proposed to install four 36-inch box trees in replacement. • Advised that they do not propose a lot of paving and are staying away from the trees on the north side. • Added that they are open to increasing the number of replacement trees. Acting Chair Zutshi asked Mr. Mowat how many trees have been cut down so far. Mr. Paul Doble, Project General Contractor: • Assured that permits were received from Director Tom Sullivan -for any trees removed. Acting Chair Zutshi questioned why change now. Mr. Paul Doble said that the Commission considered the project when it was transitioning to requiring landscape plans during the Design Review process. Since they did not yet have one, the project architect drew the proposed pool as .part of the house plans. Commissioner Uhl asked why the pool has now been moved and why the trees must be removed. Mr. Robert Mowat said that the pool is being relocated to keep it away from trees on the far western edge that would result in debris in the pool. Additionally, the owner wants to be able to see the pool Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 20 from the house- so that their family's two children can easily be supervised. They want a logical connection to the house and also to be able to incorporate-solar services for the pool. Commissioner Nagpal said that while Mr. Mowat has said that the pool has nothing to do with the tree removal requests, it really does since the trees would need to be removed to relocate the pool where desired. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff considers the relocation of the pool and hndscape to represent a significant change to the project, which is why it is back before the Commission. Commissioner Garakani sought clarification that with the approved project, some trees were allowed to be removed to accommodate- the pool. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Barry reminded that the pool was not drawn up by a landscape architect and when a landscape architect was retained is when the suggestion was made to change the pool location. Commissioner Garakani asked when the landscape architect was hired. Mr. Paul Doble: • Said that the landscape architect -was hired immediate but that. the rules had just changed by Saratoga to require a landscape plan for consideration at the Design Review stage. • Said that at that time, they were not yet ready with their formal landscape ,plan, as this was an unexpected new requirement. Commissioner Garakani asked. why the already removed trees were removed. Mr. Paul Doble said he could not remember. Mr. Robert Mowat clarified that thus far only two trees have been removed, Tree #8 and Tree #9. Tree #8 was a Monterey Pine 6-inches in diameter. Tree #9 was a Monterey Cypress 9-inches in diameter. Values of the two-trees were $488 and $216 respectively. Mr. Paul Doble said that they have also trimmed the oak tree and deep fertilized the other trees: Only undersized trees have been removed. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that 10-inch diameter or smaller oaks and 12-inch diameter or smaller for all other species trees can be removed without permits. Said he brought. this issue back to the Commission because he felt these proposed changes were significant for the project. Mr. Robert Mowat said he understands that it is the circumference rather than the diameter of the tree. that is measured per the City's Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan said it is a 32-inch circumference for oaks and 40-inch circumference for all other trees, at 24-inches above grade. Reminded that the approved, project included the maintenance of the redwood grove. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 21 Commissioner Barry said that it was considered to be a significant feature of the property. r f su ort si ned b all but one nei hbor. Added that the Mr. Paul Doble said that they have a lette o pp g y g y are willing to replace the trees removed, even at a two to one .replacement ratio,. but just further back onto the property. Advised that his client is out of town and could not attend this evening's meeting. Commissioner Barry asked for the impacts on the oak tree.. Mr. Paul Doble said he would seek just permission to clear the redwood trees at this time. Added that they could have grass coming up to the pool coping and assured that the area under the oak would be constructed with a pier and beam system. Commissioner Nagpal asked how old the grove was. Mr. Robert Mowat replied from five to seven years as these are fast growing trees. Added that they will be putting in a lot more trees than taking out. Commissioner Barry said that she planted six or seven redwood trees on her own property about six or seven years ago and that they are not as big as these trees are now: Commissioner Uhl asked for the size of replacement trees. Mr. Robert Mowat said that they propose four 48-inch box trees, which would be from 10 to 12 feet tall. Commissioner Garakani asked about the size of the pool. Mr. Robert Mowat said that it would be smaller than originally depicted. by the architect. Commissioner Nagpal suggested replacement of the trees, like for like. Mr. Robert Mowat said that anything is possible.. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the applicant would be willing. Mr. Paul Doble said that the applicant would probably prefer more trees rather than bigger trees. Said that they would have to bring in a crane to put in 60-inch box trees. They would be happier with 48- inch box trees. Suggested that the Commission approve for either and let Director Tom Sullivan make the final determination. Mr. Robert Mowat pointed out that the valuation of the current redwood tree is $3,400 and that their proposed replacement trees would be valued at $5,200. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr: Mowat how he is preserving the natural landscaping. Mr. Robert Mowat said that he is enhancing the natural landscaping. Acting Chair Zutshi pointed out that lots of stuff is currently leaning against protected trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 22 Mr. Paul Doble promised that this material would be moved away from the trees the next day. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that the size of the already removed trees was negligible and that these three redwood trees would prevent the applicant from the full enjoyment and use of his yard. • Said that provided they plant more trees, he does not see this as a problem. • Suggested the importance of coming forward with a landscaping plan at the beginning of a project. Director Tom Sullivan said it is now a policy to do so but that this application pre-dated that policy. Commissioner Schallop said his only concern is Tree #10.. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she has struggled more. • Stated that there are beautiful trees back there but she could see why they would want that particular area for their pool. • Said that her preference would be to preserve the redwoods and put the pool in the corner. Tf not, she would prefer that like size trees replace like size trees and not just 36-inch box trees. • -Said that she would have difficulty supporting without sufficient mitigation. • Asked if moving the redwoods would be possible. Director Tom Sullivan said that redwoods do not transplant that easily. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the applicant look into the possibility. Commissioner Barry suggested that there are two approaches to working with such a site, one of which. is to take off whatever is in the center and plant around the edges. Said that these redwoods are worth preserving. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that this backyard will only be seen by this family. Commissioner Barry disagreed, saying that it is a matter of the character of the City. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that one of the redwoods is growing into the canopy of the oak tree. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that it is hard to say if this proposal is preserving the natural landscaping. • Offered that this landscape design would be a beautiful one but not a natural environment. • Said that it appears the neighbors are comfortable: • Suggested that stipulations be made that new redwoods are planted and more of them replanted than are removed. Acting Chair Zutshi: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 23 • Stated that she likes the redwood grove. . • Cautioned that replacing them with more may be a kind of balancing act. • Said she too struggles with this issue. • Stated that she does not like to see such a change to an approved design. Commissioner Nagpal said that the applicant should address whether they can realistically move this grove, as she is not sure it is possible. Acting Chair Zutshi agreed, pointing out that they are pretty close together and that the root systems are likely tangled and could be damaged during the move. Acting Chair Zutshi reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Robert Mowat if the redwood trees could possibly be moved. Mr. Robert Mowat said that there are two options, purchasing trees of equal size or to try to move these trees. Warned that the success rate from moving the trees may not be 100 percent. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Mowat how he strikes a balance between preserving and improving a natural landscaping. Mr. Robert Mowat replied that Saratoga is not a natural environment. This project does represent an enhancement to the existing landscaping. • wat where it would be ossible to lace a new rove of redwoods. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Mo p p g Mr. Robert Mowat said his client may not like his response but that the proposed play area is thebest site for the new redwood grove. Mr. Paul Doble reminded that more trees are also proposed for the back property line. Commissioner Barry reiterated that-the redwood grove is a unique feature of this property. Mr. Paul Doble said that the previous property owners did not have the resources to landscape the entire property and planted this redwood grove to cut off a large portion the back end of the site where nothing was done. Acting Chair Zutshi asked how this removal would occur. Mr. Paul Doble said that Davy Tree Service would do the job with all necessary permits obtained. Commissioner Uhl said he could support what they are proposing with the replacement of the removed trees with robust redwoods. Acting Chair Zutshi reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved the changes to the landscaping to include the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 24 relocation of the pool and removal of a redwood grove on property located at 19805 Versailles Way with the following conditions added: . • Everything possible must be done to protect Tree #4 (oak); • Replace Tree #7 and Tree #9 with four new trees, which will be a minimum of 48-inch box or as close to the size of the removed trees as possible, and • A natural grove of redwood trees is to be planted in a cluster on the site by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Barry thanked staff for bringing this matter back before the Commission for such a significant change. Reiterated the importance of removing the items stacked below the protected trees. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the. Planning Commission approval was amended to include the added Condition of Approval that the existing trees on the site be properly protected as part of this approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter ABSTAIN: None Mr. Robert Mowat suggested to the. Commission that the staff report and packet for this item that included just a resolution for denial gives an applicant the impression that the action. of the Commission is a -done deal prior to the meeting and public hearing. Suggested that Resolutions for both outcomes be drafted. ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Uhl questioned the purpose for the copies of letters provided in their packet. Director Tom Sullivan said that these copies are provided simply to keep the Commission up to date. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 Page 25 Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Acting Chair Zutshi . adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk C. • ITEM 1 • • r~ u REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-040;13622 Saraview Drive Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Hung Tran, property owner Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner Date: July 9, 2003 APN: 503-53-030 Department Head: 13622 Saraview Drive ~®0®01 Application No. 03-040; 13622 Saraview Drive (Continued from 5/28/03 Public Hearing) CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 02/18/03 Application complete: 04/04/03 Public Hearing: 05/28/03 Notice published: 06/25/03 Mailing completed: 05/20/03 Posting completed: 05/20/03 (Continued to Date'Uncertain at this Meeting) ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD (Residential -Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 20,515 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.7% GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. • • (~~OOU2 Application No. 03-040; 13622 Saraview Drive (Continued from 5/28/03 Public Hearing) . PROJECT DATA: Proposed Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable: 35 % 35 Building: 4,515 sq. ft. Wallzways, Driveways, and Pool: 2,640 sq. ft. TOTAL: (Impervious Surface) 7,155 sq. ft. 7,180 sq. ft. Slope: 4.7% (No grading proposed) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable: House: 4,052 sq. ft. Attached Garage: 462 sq. ft. TOTAL: 4,514 sq. ft. 4,518 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement: Front: 30 ft. -2 in. 30 ft. Rear: 23 ft. - 3 in. 20 ft. . Interior Side: 23 ft. -Sin. 20 ft. Exterior Side: 26 ft. - 4 in. 25 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence: 21 ft.-Sin. 26 ft. i~ ~~~~~~ Application No. 03-040; 13622 Saraview Drive (Continued from S/28/03 Public Hearing) PROJECT DISCUSSION: . The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct aone-story 4,515 square foot home with a maximum height of 21 feet - 5 inches. The project includes the substantial demolition of an existing 3,697 square- foot one-story residence. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-45.060, a Design Review public hearing is required for any new single- storystructure over 18 feet in height. The proposed home will not have a basement. At the May 28, 2003 public hearing, the Planning Commission motioned to continue this project to a date uncertain because of concerns over the scale of the proposed entry, and concerns about the proposed carport and potential impacts on views raised by two neighbors. As shown in-the attached Exhibit A, the applicant has reduced the scale of the' entry and has modified the design of the columns. The fascia of the entry projection has been lowered by 2 feet and is now 14 feet in height, with the apex of the entry roof at 18 feet in height. Since the entry roof slopes back towards the house, the height of the entry is visually defined by the location of the fascia. The width of the entry has also been reduced by 1 feet - 6 inches than previously proposed. Staff finds that the entry is now proportionate to the scale of the home. A letter signed by the neighbors is attached indicating that there were no concerns regarding the revised design. The attached plans show that the originally proposed carport has now been replaced with a 3-car garage. The applicant has also investigated potential impacts on views that were voiced by a neighbor at 20838 Russell Lane. The applicant has met with this neighbor to further review the plans, and has indicated to Staff that the neighbor no longer has concerns and has signed the attached letter. As with the previous design, the applicant does not propose to remove any ordinance size trees. Staff has included as conditions of approval in the attached Resolution, compliance with all Arborist Report recommendations and review of grading and drainage and final landscape plans by the City Arborist prior to issuance of City Permits. Correspondence Staff has so far received two correspondences from neighbors regarding this application, ..which are attached. Both correspondences indicate concerns over vehicular visibility at the corner of Sarahills and Saraview. The applicant has readily agreed to remove the juniper hedge at the street corner of his property. To address both neighbors' concerns; the removal of this Hedge and requiring no construction vehicle parking within 50 feet of the intersection of Sarahills and Saraview on both sides of -the. street, have been added as conditions of approval. At the May 28`h public hearing, there .was no consensus to recommend lowering. the maximum height of the proposed home. Nevertheless, Staff concurs with a comment stated in one of the correspondences that the 21 feet S inches height of the home seems to be at the maximum limit in relation to the size of the lot and in reference to the bulk and height of the ~®~~~~ Application No. 03-040; 13622 Saraview Drive (Continued from S/28/03 Public Hearing) neighboring residences. Although a minor difference, the previously proposed home .presented at the May 28`h public hearing was 21 feet 3 inches. Staff finds that the height of the proposed home shall not exceed 21 feet, and has added this as a condition of approval. Residential Design Policies Below is a discussion of how this project implements the Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk The home is articulated with varying rooflines and circular elements with bay windows. The stone veneer accents also help to reduce the appearance of height. The proposed home will be approximately 3 feet taller than the existing home, and will be well below the 26 feet maximum height limit. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The proposed home, with limited number of materials and earth tone colors, will blend with the natural environment. No ordinance size trees are proposed for removal. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views The proposed home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing home, and will be single story. The applicant has submitted a petition signed by surrounding neighbors,, who have indicated support for the project. The petition is attached for your reference. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The site is located in the foothills in the western portion of Saratoga. The homes to the west of the site are situated at a higher elevation. However, access to views will not be affected by the proposed single-story home as indicated in the letter signed by neighbors. Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence will have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements, and will be equipped with energy efficient heating and cooling appliances. Conclusion Staff finds that the proposed home implements the Ciry's Residential Design Policies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Design Review Application No. 03-040 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Arborist Report, received March 10, 2003. ~®a~Q5 Application No. 03-040; 13622 Saraview Drive (Continued from S/28/03 Public Hearing) ` 3. Letter signed by neighbors indicating they have reviewed a copy of the proposed revised plans. 4. Correspondence from neighbors 5. Affidavit of Mailing Notices and List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 6. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A". • • ~~~~os • ~~~®o~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. _ Application No. 03-040 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION., STATE OF CALIFORNIA Hung Tran;13622 Saraview Drive WHEREAS; the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to demolish the existing home and construct aone-story 4,515 square foot home; 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, which proposes to .construct a new small single-family home, is categorically exempt from. the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This .Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk The home is articulated with varying rooflines and circular elements with bay windows. The stone veneer accents also help to reduce the appearance of height. The proposed home will be approximately 3 feet taller than the existing home, and will be well below the 26 feet maximum height limit. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The proposed home, with limited number of materials and earth tone colors, will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. No ordinance size trees are proposed for removal. Policy#3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views There will be no impacts on privacy or views. The proposed home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing home. The applicant has submitted a petition signed by surrounding neighbors, who have indicated support for the project. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The site is located in the foothills in the western portion of Saratoga. The homes to the west of the site are situated at a higher elevation. However, access to views will not be affected by the proposed single-story home. ~~Q)®~8 Policy #S: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence .will have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements, and will be equipped with energy efficient heating and cooling appliances. 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 No. 03-040 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. Any proposed. changes to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report received March 10, 2003 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The height of the proposed home, as defined in Municipal Code Section 15-06.340, shall not exceed 21 feet. The complete construction plans. shall include section and elevation drawings showing elevation points at the highest point of the structure and at the immediate adjacent natural grade. 4. -The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. S. 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." 6. A grading and drainage plan combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 7. The grading and drainage plan shall- incorporate all Arborist Report recommendations, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of City Permits. ~~~®09 8. A final landscape, irrigation and utility plan shall be submitted for Arborist review and approval prior to issuance of City Permits. 9. The hedges at the street corner of the property and along Sarahills Drive shall be removed prior to issuance of City Permits. 10. There shall be properly maintained front yard and exterior side yard landscaping prior to Final Building Inspection approval. 11. No construction vehicles shall be parked within 50 feet of the street intersection of Sarahills and Saraview, on both sides of the street. CITY ARBORIST 12. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report received March 10, 2003 shall be followed. 13. Tree protective fencing, the platform buffers and other protective measures as stated in the Arborist Report, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 14. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $6,132 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 15. Prior to Final Building Inspection. approval,. the Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of any required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. CITY ATTORNEY 16. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs .anal expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 9th day of July 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, r~annmg 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 • ~~:~®11 • Attachment 2 • °- ARBOR RESOURCES ~. p ~J p p p n ~'LO~EIILDIZQL PjZ1T04(.G~1lL~U.Z0.L C.:OYIlItCtLll9 GT J2EE C.:Q~LE AN ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 13622 SARAVIEW DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: HUNG TRAN APPLICATION #: 03-040 APN: 503-53-030 Submitted to: 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 26, 2003 Site Inspected: March 4, 2003 Report Submitted: March 6, 2003 ~~~o~~~ MARL 0 2003 CITY OF SARATOGA "!IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C P.O. Box 25295, San. Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 000013 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 6, 2003 SUMMARY Ten Ordinance-sized trees were inventoried and evaluated for this report. Plans indicate .each tree will be retained and I recommend a bond of $6,132 to ensure their protection. The only foreseeable significant impacts involve a 24-inch diameter Coast Redwood (tree #10). Design modifications are suggested to the portion of home proposed within 7-feet from tree #10's trunk. I anticipate each tree will remain vigorous and structurally stable provided all recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans. ASSIGNMENT This report has been prepared at the request of the City of Saratoga's Community Development Department in response to the proposed demolition of an existing and construction of new one-story single-family residence at 13622 Saraview Drive, Saratoga. My assignment includes reviewing effects the proposed project will have on Ordinance- sized trees located on the- subject property; identifying each tree's overall- condition, species, and size; establishing an appraisal value to each tree; and determining bond values. This report presents my findings as well as recommendations for mitigating possible damage to inventoried 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 an attached copy of the Proposed Site Plan (sheet A1.1) prepared by TD Building Design, dated February 18, 2003. Recommended tree protection fencing locations are also shown on this plan. OBSERVATIONS Ten Ordinance-sized trees were inventoried for this report. These include two Palms #1 and 2; three Olives #3, 4 and 5; and five Coast Redwoods #6 through 10. All trees appear in overall good condition. Each tree has been assigned a high, moderate or low suitability for preservation rating based on its health, structural integrity, location, size and specie type. Trees #1 through 5 are. assigned a moderate suitability, and-the remainder (#6 through 10) a high suitability. ~'~I believe the most valuable trees on site are the Coast Redwoods. I attribute their healthy ~`' condition to the relatively undisturbed soil beneath their canopies. 13622 Saraview Drive, Saratoga Page 1 of5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division 000014 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 6, 2003 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLANS Plans indicate all trees will be retained. The two unnumbered trees shown on the Proposed Site Plan are smaller than Ordinance size, and thus, not inventoried for this report. No more than minor impacts are anticipated to trees #1 through 9. High impacts are anticipated to tree #10. This tree's trunk is situated approximately 21- feet from the northwest most corner of the existing home. Plans propose establishing the _.. .home's footprint approximately 7-feet from the trunk.. Unfortunately, this will affect the tree's longevity and vigor, as well as expose the future home to possible structural damage in the future. .~ .--~ To promote this tree's longevity and avoid foreseeable structural damage to the home, I suggest the following: (1) establish the home's footprint no closer than 15-feet from the trunk shown on the plan, and (2) design the home's future structure using a pier and on- grade beam type foundation for the portion constructed on exposed soil within 25-feet from the-trunk (not to include the existing portion of home within 25-feet from trunk). TREE APPRAISAL AND BOND VALUES The appraised tree values are presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached to the end of_this report. The values were calculated in accordance to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, established by the Council of Landscape Appraisers and in accordance with the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. The cumulative appraised amount for all trees is $40,880. I suggest a 15-percent bond of $6,132 to ensure their protection. • 13622 Saraview Drive, Saratoga Page 2 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division 444415 David L. Babby, Registered Consul#ing Arborist March 6, 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are based on plans reviewed. If revisions to the plans occur, the recommendations may require modification. Protection Fencing 1. Fencing must be installed and inspected by the City of Saratoga prior to obtaining a demolition permit. This fencing 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. The fencing should be established,.as per the attached Plan, and be placed no further. than four-feet from the future home's footprint. 2. The fencing for tree #10 should be installed in two separate phases, one for demolition _ .. _._. and one for.construction (see attached Plan). 3. Once established, all fencing must remain undisturbed and in place throughout the construction process and until the project receives fmal approval. Modifications to the fencing location must be allowed only by permission from the City of Saratoga. 4. The fencing should be inspected by the City of Saratoga prior to issuing the demolition permit. 5. All construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas. 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. Design Modifications for Tree #10 r ~ 6. The future home's footprint should be located no closer than 15-feet from tree #10's trunk. In addition, the new portion of the home proposed beyond the existing home's .footprint and within 25-feet from the trunk should be constructed using a pier and on- grade beam type foundation with no soil beneath the foundation being excavated.. Root Zone Protection 7. Prior to the construction phase, afour-foot wide platform buffer must be installed ___. beneath the canopy of tree #10, between th_e protection fencmg and home s footprint. It should be placed on the exposed ground surface and consist of a three to four-inch layer of coarse wood chips covered by plywood approximately 3/4-inch- thick. This plywood should then be securely fastened to enable a sturdy walking surface. 8. Prior to commencing demolition, a three to four-inch layer of wood chips or organic composted mulch beneath should be placed beneath canopies of trees #8, 9 and 10. Root Severance Guidelines 9. 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, • ~~ LJ 13622 Saraview Drive, Saratoga Yage 1 of ~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division. 0000.6 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 6, 2003 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. Drainage 10. All roof drains must be designed and constructed so water is displaced away from retained trees. 11. Any alterations to the natural grade must ensure water drains away from rather than towards trees' trunks. Below Ground Pipes and Utilities 12. Pipes and/or utilities located underground and beneath protected trees' canopies should be abandoned. If their removal is absolutely necessary, the work must be performed by hand. . 13. Plans for installing utilities must be reviewed by me prior to installing. I advise all utilities be installed outside from beneath the canopies of trees #1 through 5; and no closer than 20-feet from the canopy edge of trees #6 through 10. Tree Pruning 14. Any pruning performed before or during the development process must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist or tree worker. No more than 15-percent of the live canopy should be removed at any given time. 15. To maintain tree #5's natural structure, I suggest no branches larger than '/z-inch in diameter are removed. Landscaping 16. The landscape design should incorporate placing three to four-inches of organic composted mulch on exposed soil beneath canopies of Redwoods #8, 9 and 10. This mulch could then be covered with a few inches of decorative .bark, wood chips or gorilla hair. 17. Irrigation heads must be directed away from all tree trunks, including areas where turf would be proposed. Minimize the removal, replacement and/or addition of irrigation lines beneath canopies of retained trees. 18. Irrigation trenching, if performed, should be outside the canopy edge of each tree. If inside, the trenches must be in a spoke arrangement radiating out from the tree trunk, as spokes on a wheel. This will help minimize root damage by trenching in-line with the natural direction of root growth. Radial trenches should be at least 10-feet apart at the canopy perimeter and must not encroach closer than five times the trunk diameter from the trunk. 13622 Saraview Drive, Saratoga Page 4 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~®oO~rf David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 6, 2003 19. Avoid rototilling or installing bender board beneath tree canopies. Watering 20. Supplemental water must be supplied to trees #4; 8, 9 and 10 during the dry summer and fall monthsl and continue throughout the development period. The suggested application rate is 10-gallons per inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. The water should be applied by soaker'-hoses placed beneath approximate mid-canopy. The length of time required for application can be determined by placing the installed soaker hose inside afive-gallon bucket and monitoring the time it takes to fill. The soaker hose should remain on as long as it takes to provide the necessary water and wet the soil to a depth of 12 to 24-inches. General Construction Guidelines 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. Temporary construction facilities and utilities must not be placed over the exposed ground surface beneath the canopy of any protected tree or in a location that would affect their canopies. ' A dry month can be described as receiving less than one-inch of rainfall. • 13622 Saraview Drive, Saratoga Page S of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~~0018 i. • ~ ARBOR RESOURCES ~t0 fES1E0I1QL OTt~OtLLStLLf4tQL C.:OILSLLLELIL9 ~ JtEE C.:Qt6 TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET .~ ' N .., ~ .~ ~, " ,, ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ 3 ~ b Ua b ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~o o .~ .~a ~ b :~ ~ TREE ~,~ ~~ '~ ~ ~o. ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~x U y NO. TREE NAME F., .~ H :~ x U x .. ~ .. O ~ C H ~.Vwuici.~. Mexican Fan Palm 2 (Washingtonia robusta) 24 16 14 9 100% 100% Good Moderate 5 - $770 Mexican Fan Palm I I I I I o f ° I I I I - I I 1 (Washingtonia robusta) 13 6 7 6 100 /0 90 /o Good Moderate 5 $410 .•...., e.,+~ V V11LL11W1W. Olive 12, 12, 3 (Olea europaea) 7 9, 9, 6 16 18 75% 65% Good Moderate 5 - $2,010 r,..., o„r~• i• Olive 10, 9, 9, 8, 6, 4 (Olea europaea) 7, 4 4 14 18 75% 65% Good Moderate 4 - $2,010 (`nmmvntc• Olive 10, 10, 5 (Olea europaea) 9 9, 9, 8 14 18 75% 65% Good Moderate 4 - $2,230 (`nmmonte• Coast Redwood 6 (Sequoia sempervirens) 26 25 90 26 100% 90% Good High 5 - $7,900 !~n nn4e• Coast Redwood 7 (Sequoia sempervirens) 38 35 95 34 100% 90% ('rood High 5 - $14,600 r,, o.,*~ - vvuuuwaw. Coast Redwood 8 (Sequoia sem rvirens) 18 13 35 18 80% 90% Good High 4 - $2,370 r.. o.,r~ Coast Redwood 9 (Sequoia sempervirens) 20 16 46 25 80% 90% Good High 4 - $3,200 Coast Redwood 10 (Sequoia sempervirens) 24 22 52 25 80% 90% Good High 2 - $5,380 Comments: lob: 13622 Sarowew Drive, Sraatoga Prepped for: Qr[y ofsarauugq Pta~rB D~-idos Prepared by: Davrd L Bobby, RCA Page 1 of I Morcli-6, IOB3 0~00~9. I. _...., -...IaN..~ I ~- a5_. ~ ~ ..`I'- '.• _ ~ 209/4 .e :' '~ 7 ae ~~._ - - ..~ 1., ~_. _ ~ .. :' .. _ t - '• Im_-_.._ '~. - .__ "-_ ' . __ _ ~.-- 99• L . 50 -X ., _ ..III -....... _, ~ "~- `.. - ~_ Papered Dy: Anson RFSOURCGs m..F..n.r nY•cn...u...r c.....tlly a Dn. e... rO.IW ]S]rS • Sm MYm, CA •~9M0] Nmm:1610163a-1]SI • FmY:ubmauaml~SaVwk.nn .._ - _ ~ n ~. - -, ~`` can -~. .. -. -_. ..- SARAHILLS DR. - -- --- `. i ~ -- ------ -- --- ~-- ----- - _r__ ~ { -'------ i ~ TPRO}°05ED SITE PLAN - '•''°'°• A~ 7 rD OV II~11NG DRSIGN ~n A•Mel Cwn (wen, fA )]iN l Td: rY~fC-f!Y 1M11 Imme+ce a w•. ]urAS mA+l Isrz~ ynwvp0+ IMt1Yt ,A,a,.r~, u..~,o A.r« >q - ~a - oeo I•.~n rwaroem slre rwl n° '. o~cen °]° - 3 otmo_ ~ r•lo•o_ _ ....:.r ,<41. ~ Iu... O N O • • • ~E6OND5: ~~ ~~, C~//.~ /~ Mr sos. romrmnr I . _ ...... - 1 1 Lr..-..- ......J m am. tlolaoi+]r Inc i ~ cwlc..w Y .~~+ m ]]~ ]o •m..M ~ __o-e/r]o. lave .o anw] - :~t~ . - - rwaaaex the y - - - - - ee]nvc tae . c SI1G-Ad~ISM1~ 17621 Sweview Ihiw, Sertlnq• ' ~S; t%aYOf SrmoV Camlmmily Dewlopmma Depeuneal Qpg: MorcL 6, 200] r~r~ M,a+aa~xmal~ckaimn«-~,aaaaa>,. t]aapy diamnamm.m.ppNaimMr. Map if mdticrd tram it oricind aiae +M u not aeceseMilY ro acne. L~_ +- ~ Tlse Protetlion Feodnp (Comtroelioa) • • Tne Protection Fendnp (Demolitipp) i ~ -Tree ProledMn Fentinp (Demolit{oa el Cumtroclionl • Attachment 3 • Q+~`i~®i~.~ Hung V. Tran and Mai T. Truong 13622 Saraview Drive Saratoga, Ca 95070 June 7, 2003 Dear Neighbors: We had been so pleasant by this wonderful community. And, we are here by to present our proposal of a new one-story home at 13622 Saraview Drive. As the City's requirement; we need your approval for this house. Our new home, of course; will meet all building codes. Plus, its elegant architectural style and surrounding landscape would bring more harmony, more joy, and better value to our community. Please indicate here that you had reviewed the revised architectural plan, dated June 6, 2003, and agreed this house could be present here in this neighborhood. We thank you for your time. Name (s) /Address ,,----S-i~gnature 1 Date ~~an i~~:~.~ ~~#~- ~ ~ 9, ~ ~ 2. 1''lv~-F ~ r~3 ~?~'j i2~it~~~~~ ~ a-r~r~C~~r ~'n7n ~tza ~~~ 2c~(3 SA~A~ILLs ~2.~ S~ 2~T cG A l C~ '~SD~v 6. ` ;f ~;~' % ~-~ .~.- l~, 6 Z • • j~~ tie : ~,~. ~~ tG~,. ,~.' wc.5 c - Cect~, ~..at~ C~- ~5 ~( tee %.~, ~ ~ ~3 • (~~'~®~~ • i• i~ Attachment 4 ~~'~®~.~ r ~_ G) _ / ,~y/ ~ cg-rrll~"7~~~`S (~ l~ / ~ _ /Z~ (~~- ~ ~~ ~~ % Cif ~r~slv2~ ~~i1i>,/'~ ~F ~l ~ ri c~ ~~ n `~ ,~ G~Jf-zc ~ 1~ ~~~/ hj ~~ /~~ .. ~G/~ /,~-0~ C.~~-~11.i % ~ll'C~1"/ ail/ ~~J~=f 11,~G~2 L~ N~ ~~'~/~r/~ G~Ji~77~~1v /`r 1-J~~ ~" 1`/`.Es'i1~C -P ?r %~~ ~~°~i c~/~'~ C_..4~9~ JrD~T ~~ ~ivr'~3-~~ ~~ ~i~~'~-~>~/~' - C% L= ~r-~f~~ ~~'L~1 ,L.v- ~i4rC'~1 6'~ ~~i4~11 ~. ~ ~1~1~'A U1~~1 ~-// 11 S ,.~~5 ~/ ~,C L~~ ~ S' ~S S~~iq /7 ~L L ~ ~~' . .. ,. ~~,~>~-~~ ~ ~~r~~~~~~~-~~ y~~ ~ ~~4 Lata Vasudevan m: Madan Valluri [mvalluri@quickportal.com] ent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:15 AM To: 'susie vedantham'; Lata Vasudevan; jhunter95070@yahoo.com; Tom Sullivan Subject: RE: Saraview/Sarahill > Madan Valluri wrote ................. > >There is a property around the corner from us that is having > a planning > >commision hearing next week. > > > >It is at the corner of Saraview and Sarahill, the house was recently > >sold. > > > >Cars going on Sarahill tend to be driving fast as the come down the > >hill > >or > >pick up speed off a dip. > > > >There is a hedge in front of the house which is a problem. > > >As one makes a left turn from Saraview onto Sarahill,-the hedge limits >the visibility and is a hazard. "> > > >If you are at the meeting could you ask for the hedge to be > lowered or > >removed? > > > >If your aren't going to be there, could, you tell the other > committee > >members? > > > >Thanks. > > > >Madan > > > > > > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail • ~~~®25 Attachment 5 • d~0026 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, OS Cc~"Gt VQ,a,(,~~¢,1lCWl~ ,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 property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing 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. /~ Signed ~~Q~~~~ YING-CHI & TSUN-SOU LIN ROBERT E & JOAN HALES DONALD. W & JUDITH or Current Owner or Current Owner COULTER 13698 SARAHII.LS DR 13688 SARAHII.LS DR or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 13674 SARAHILLS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ALFRED & RITA MABEY MARTIN E & CHRISTINE MARY L & RUSSELL BATE or Current Owner KAVANAGH or Current Owner 13662 SARAHILLS DR or Current Owner 13699 SARAHILLS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 13669 SARAHILLS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 MARY L & RUSSELL BATE DANG Y & MEN YAU LAURA E JACOBUS or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 13699 SARAHILLS DR 13655 VERDE VISTA CT 13667 VERDE VISTA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SYLVIA & TOM CHANAK STEVE Y & LUCY YUEN JIMMY C & NANCY NIU or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 13673 VERDE VISTA CT 13685 VERDE VISTA CT 20894 VERDE VISTA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070. RAMADURI & VASAN CHYAN SAMUEL & BETTY JOSEPH or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20850 VERDE VISTA LN 20767 SEVILLA LN 20886 VERDE VISTA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID D & JANET CHYAN or Current Owner 20767 SEVILLA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 HENRY M & VICTORIA SANDIGO or Current Owner 20789 SEVILLA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 ARNOLD J & ANNE PAHLER or Current Owner 20801 SEVILLA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 LEVY. or Current Owner 20802 SEVII.LA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 ORLAND K & HAZEL ANDERSON or Current Owner 20972 SARAHILLS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 FONGSON or Current Owner 20780 SEVILLA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 ABID & MUNA MOGANNAM or Current Owner 20956 SARAHILLS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 NATHAN N & EDITH KALLMAN ANDREW & LYNN CRESCI or Current Owner or. Current Owner 20900 SARAHII.LS DR 20884 SARAHILLS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 MAOLING S & YUN SHEN or Current Owner 13535 HOLIDAY DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SANJAY & MANISHA JAIN or Current Owner 20813 SARAHII.LS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 HSHIEH or Current Owner 20768 SEVILLA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 JEFFREY T & OLIVIA YU or Current Owner 20932 SARAHILLS DR 500 SARATOGA CA 95070 DIDINGER or Current Owner 20862 SARAHILLS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 FARINA or Current Owner 13622 SARAVIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~~~i~8 STEVE J & VELDA VOLEK MORTAZAVI BLUNDEN of Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner '~ 13580 SARAVIEW DR 20838 RUSSELL LN 20816 RUSSELL LN TOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 VALLURI JAMES C & JOAN CAROTHERS ROBERT Q & VIlZGINIA LEE or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20794 RUSSELL LN 20778 RUSSELL LN 20750 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 PAUL Y LEE WILLIAM L & ELAINE REVELL RICHARD E & JOAN DENNIS or Current Owner or Current Owner. or Current Owner 20811 RUSSELL CT 20823 RUSSELL CT 20835 RUSSELL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA .95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 QI & YING LU FRED I & CELIA FRIEDLANDER DANIEL J & JENNIFER PRAISE or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20847 RUSSELL LN 13540 SARAVIEW DR 13500 SARAVIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 CHANG H & PAN WU or Current Owner 20903 SARAVIEW CT SARATOGA CA 95070 A & JEANNE STANDIFUR or Current Owner 13587 SARAVIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 TIMOTHY GORSULOWSKY or Current Owner 20958 SARAVIEW CT SARATOGA CA 95070 DONALD HANDA or Current Owner 20901 SARAHII,LS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 LEE or Current Owner 13545 SARAVIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL M & CYNTHIA LAI or Current Owner 20975 SARAHII,LS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ROGER L GORDON or Current Owner 20791 SARAHII.LS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MARIE J HEDGES or Current Owner 20933 SARAHII.LS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 • GRAPHIC LEGENDS• IN SECTION ~~---- woRK roINT, vlr~aloNs LgfRIIL FOIM LR DA APOIM dI p1nEIPIpN PoIM Ia TD LENTlR LINE TO norRS Alm WIWGS EARiH BUILDING OR WALL 9BLTION ~ sccnoN lDEHnriLAnoN ~ d'.• , .°~ 9' ROOK FILL %NSi YNBE SELTIa 15 CRW4N DIMENSILNI POIM IG TO FPLE a smD, (FO51 Ar w.15 Q ELEVATI ON ~dEVATI'JN 'ti ' ' "~~: :~' .'~~~y1 IOENTPIWTGN r 1 ' ' • CgNORE7E 5HEET WEPE SELRON IS LRAWN O DOOR TYPE ® DeraL MA°AMRY OETAtL IDEMIFILATIOX ® WINDOW TYPE ~T YeP RE DETAIL 19 DRAYW ' w'I PLA5TH2 I ~ YWLL TYPE ® Ms~4TUw~ ~ IHiB2101R EiEVATION9. ' ///--- 81NATION mBITIFILATbN ARROWa lo--- KEY NOTE ItmILA1E%BEVATIAI9 VIEW I ~ ANlevan®PL~6aU I SHEET W[FE BPVAtIDN 15 ORAwPI 4 ® WDOD FIN151&p ~~^ RYMOOD ~ ', REJIBIOH ` ~-r O..AD ARLW RMISON '^" " 6YP5UM WALLBOARD `••'•l ~~~~ PBYI51g1 NFPER - IN5ULATION GATT GENERAL NOTES: I, P' LASE CP DISLREPAHLY CONLERNIN6 DINBdI0N5, OVMTITIES, AND LOLATION, 5. PROVIDE ALL NELE55ARY ANLHOR46E BLOLKINS, BPLKING AND FRAMNG ifE CONTRALTOR AND/OR TfE APPLIr.Aw p 91.8 LONTRALTOR SNAIL, IN VatITINB, NOT XBLESSARILY LIMITED TO THE M5TAIIATION OF LIGHT FIXTtx+E$, Nor GALL TD THE ATTEItfiON OF 7HE ARLHITELf ANY DISLRB'ANLIEB E@TWffi: TOILET ACLEY.cORl6 AND BRALKETS. - SPED]%LATIONS, PLANS, DETAILS, OR SGAEWI.E5, THE ARLHIRLT WILL TIEN MPPRM TFIE LONIRALTOR A10/0R TIE P/'RILABLE SUB GONTRlOTOR IN 6. ALL DOORS NOT LaATED BY DIMENSION ON PLAN OR DETAIL SHAH ~ 5' WRITINS, WIIOH DOOMENT TAKES PRELEDENLE, T/EfE SHPLL BE NO ADJISTNBJi " (myE INLVES) FROM FACE OF G1Ui TO PALE OF Nx°Rg7 DC~BA.K OR TO TH c CDaT OF TE WCRK RESA.TIN6 FROM S1LH LLARIFILATION OF nISLREPAI~IES. U.7{TcREp ON ROOM 3. FAILIRtE TO REPORT A YANZILT IN TIE COHTRALT DOO DENfS 5HALL BE T. DOOR 51ff51NDI0ATfD ON DRANllN65 ARE OP"NIH6 DIMENSIONS; DEEMED EVIDENLE 71N71hE fAMRPLTOR PNDlIX21}E A PI.ILABLE AI'LOWANLES FOR TNftEagL09, ETL SXP1L BE TAKEN FOR NEt WOR 51TES. 'JELONTR+ILTOR HAS ELECTED TO FRCLEED IN TXE MORE EstPEN51VE MANIffR. B. DETALS MARKED T?ILAL (TYPJ SHA:I. A°PLY 1N ALL OA5E5IA+LE% 3, TIE CONiRALiOR MD/OR TIE /WPLILABLE BUBLONiRALTOR SHALL SPELIFILALLY INDILATED OTHERWISE. INVESTIGATE, VERIFY ANO BE RE5PON510LE FOR hLL CONDITIONS AND DIMEN510N%OF THE PRO.ELT AND SHALL NOTIFY TIE ARLifITELT ABOJT 9. WERE NO SPELIFIL DETAIL IS SHOWN, TIE FRAMING OR LONSTRIJLTION SHALL CONDITIONS RcCdIIRINS hpDIFILATONS BEFORE FROLEEDING THE YiDRK. BE IOENTILAL OR sIMILAR TO THAT INDILATED FOR LIKE LASER OF ca+STRUCnoN oN TH15 PRO.ECr. 4. DIMENSICNS: A. It SHALL ~ THE LONTRP0TOR6 AIOJOR ilE APP' ILPBLE SRCONiRALTORS 10. PROVIDE SOLID BLOLKING BEHIND ALL BATHROOM PLLE550RIE5 LOLATIONS. RESPONSIBLLIIY TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS SHG/W ON TILE ARLNITELNRAL DRNUHl'a5 WITk RELATED RECdIiRETENTS OF 11E STRBLMLAL, MECHAWLAL, II DEFEiiREO SUZNITTALB (DRAWIN66 AND/OR LALLSJ WILL fE REVIEVEO BY PLUMBINb, EI~LTRILAL, AVD LANDFsLAPE DRAWINGS; NDTIPY ARLXITELi OF THE ARCXITfxT AND/OR ENGINEER BEFORE THEY ARE `JJBMITTED FOR ANY DISLREPANLIES BEFORE PRLGEEDINS WTN iVE WORK APPROVAL 8Y THE BJILOING DEPARTFENT AS RELVIRFD BY'#LTION 106 34.3 LBL. DEFERRED SUEMIITTPLS INLLIIDE, EUi ARE N0i L'MItED TO. FLLKJR AND B, U5E DIMENSIONS SHOWY RATHER aLALING DRAWINGS. ROOF TRL55E5, AWJ REMOVABLE LPBINETS. L, ,ALL DIMENSION5 SHOYN ARE FD.S. (PALE OF SRO) NSE55 A LENTER.INE (LINE INIEPRUPTED WTH LNE DOT) OR NOTES ~ IS SHOWN. _ 3 L RTA SAFELY PROLEaJRES BE FOLfAIWED DJR~N6 NEW CANSitd11T Ok THE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE RO15H UNLE55 OiFPPJVISE SHOWN p PIKE PREY@1ilON &.REAU WILL BE iNSPELTING TILE 51R IN ALLORDANLE WITH, . . THIS ARnu.E E. LERiNG FEIGMt DI51EN%IONS ARE FROM UNFIN15NED F OOR TO FINI5HED PALE OF LEILING. 15. FINAL APPROVAL IS DEPENDENT t70N F1ELD INSFELTIONS AHD/OR ANY F. KL DIMENSIONS SHALL <E VERIFIED IN 1NE FIELD BEFORE PROLEEDINS WTH NELE55ARY ACLEPTANLE TE5T5. THE WORK. ABBREVIATIONS: T Mm Lb. coRtR GJAftD ela. EmRnr NM. HALar XPrAL r.. PLAR sro, stANDARD PKAE L.I. LIST IRON EsP. EOPNSION NWN NDT YNt6t (PARR PLA4. PLASTk: LAMNAR STOR STGwK 0 AT L.NBD. M1LCdlARD E%D, EW09® NR Ip~R PLPA%. PORTLAND GB~91T %iR. 91FLLiLRA1 ¢ LOPBe LINE Ll GONTROI..OIM E%i. EXTERIOR I PLAS'N3t 9TSL0 <yyp, y~DED ' D. R PPDPER}Y LRE LLb. LELIW FE FlR E%TINSiJB1El IN`A6 IN91[X DIAK 1@t PM. Pour . INSAATtlN PT. pOIM SYN. 9TiRlTRGAL 9 DIAMETB20R RAND C0., LAllW Fb. WNISN GRADE MT. INt~IGR P.TD. PARR Tp'fi.q i iPEAO 1 WatPBlDIOAAR OOIPO. LAP091iGH FN. WrR fIYDRAHY Rl•D. RTYtlLD T8. tOVEL BNt NAHETt 40X4. CONCRETE .Di. FNL. FFE NYSE LAHINT .DST P.VL. POLY VNM G40RI~ TL. TOP OP CLRB I¢J EXI%T?AS 40NT [OtMN045 FIH FINIG4 LASL L4aNAR R RISER iAL. TLP OF LONLREfE ~ ITV DF. gLSYJXG POMrAN PL FLOOR NV. LAVATORY RB. RRBHt BA+.E 1a, Rs9Fq£ ~~ DETAIL FLEVI. FLABNNS Li. LIGHT RD. PAYR DRVN TDA. TGP OP aPADE A& ANLXdt BOLT OIA. 01AAPT0R PAL PACE Of [QlL181E LV0. LCU2R - REF. REPpJ6CMtOft TNPS IHREEHOIA ABY. AB012 DWg1AL FAF. PALE OP PINBN DIAb RCItP. 0.ERPORL® Tf. iBShNT IMPP02MENT . ~. wA,gH, ASFH4T. DIXEIBICN FAR PALE OF 5PA DIM MAMiMAX RUOD. RPWIPBD TeG TALXE I bROOh . . M:T AK ANt fAtmIMPYNG `R FTB. PAOnNb DY.rPENS DISP ~~ RESL. RESIL!tM iPD TOIIFf PA^ER DISPBPER ~. . _ ~. M.115TAXE ~ ~~ lUN.FA4TUR:R PPG. ROOFAV6 . 1B.EYISION PGGR AGGPEGAR ' bA. GNIGE MN DOOR GPBdW DA ~ MINR4T1 RF.X. ROOF NA1LN TmIGAL Ai P11 BIMLAR . AL. AILNINM GALV BALVANIZEp MIY, MiYELLANBGU% RPNR. RKR°AE%F.NR GONDRCN AYH. ARLHI11L1LRAL ~ R6IX 6EIEML M0. MA%OIIRf OPEIeNG FXA RODM VAN. VSE55 OTIER1VSE tnTED GALVANIZED L p; NJ.C: N1GD DW4. DRUVINb 11Dr IN COMRAGT RA ROYM GPIMINS V.i. VINM1 iI1F 6L GLAFG ~. BOARD OYR ppww~ NT,S. NOT i0 xALE 9aP SHELF AW PAE VERT. VEftTWAL BLDG. BWLDIlL9 ~' ~~ Ib' MAR 9L. SOLID GORE Vb. VERTKAL GRAIN E1K. BIDLK EA EMM GYP. 6YPSlH OL. CN CENTER 5D. 50M DI5RKER YIN YINTL ELKG. BLOCKIItl EJ. E%PAN51ON JOIN GY/B. GYPSM WALLBOARD OD. Ol510E DIAIETE2 SGT. SELTIDN W WITH &1 BP1M ELEC. ~ELiRIL - MDR ~A'~ CM DlHUEAD 51®.Y. GELVIXG WC. vY.tE0. LLO•.,Ei EpT, 0G110M fl.EV. BSVAMW MS. HOSE &BB OPG. OFHViNE W. SFEET WO0- EP B.E'TRIL PAlEL ML. N0.LDW LORE OFB. OUTSIDE FKE W %ND &M. 5kLA0. WO WTgJi GAB. LABIIET E0. ELVIL ImWp, NAA:RIOOD NrtR AP 5TRlLMWL RYWOOp WP WoTBRFXar-IH5 ,. cc cENrEft r0 cE eaAr. I'AAPN1Btf GENL LEMBNf NORZ IMaZONTAL P. PRGII STL. STEEL W9 PEATlE11 STRIPING NEW ONE STORY HOME Mr. & Mrs. HUNG TRAN 13622 SARAVIEW DRIVE Saratoga, California 95070 m. ~~D~~ TD BUILDING D13SIGN 86D Anheey Conn Blk Grov , G 95fi7A Tel; 9166625580 FTC 916bB9-7099 .nFuchmm ~~~ The use o! these tlrGwings o^d specifications zhall be restricted to the specific sRe for which Uey were prepared and pubilcotton thereof shall be expressly Ilmite0 to such . Re-NSa, remr douction or pe; blicallon by an eth d n whole purl is prohi011etl. Title to these plans arb specllicahons ehDll remain wllh TD Bulltling Design without preNdiee, and vlsuol eontael 'with them shall conslitule prlmo foc e eVdence of acceptance of these restr et'ons Q N Bu lding Oeslg^. Cmsulfonl ^ MOT F~ C.OYNSTRUOTION) LA(,f PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ DE516N REVIEW B1~+IITTAL ^ BUILDING DEPARTMENT ^ PLAN OHEOK SUBMITTAL ^ APPROVED FOR C.ONSTRIOTION PROJECT D I ?EGTORY Mr. d Mra. HRIG IRAN 16843 DIMDEE AVENUE SARATC6A, OA 95070 TEL. (408) 915-2502 FAX. (408) 974-0605 AROHITEOIVRE TD BUILDING DE516N 8619 AUBREY OT. ELK GROVE, OA 95624 TEL, (916) 662-5590 FA%, (9161 689-5009 BH~,R.,~YAN TRAM DO cmL BIGINEER LEE ENGINEERS 1211 PARK AVENUE SUITE R 112 5AN .105E GA 95128 ' TEL. (4005 299.3899 v I ~ I ~ : I .r.~ .. A ... I` NoT roro DRAWING INDEX A0.1 COVER SHEET A01 AREA OALGULATION T-I TOPOfiRARiIC MAP AI.I SITE PLAN A2.1 (~ d DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN A2Z FROP05ED FLOOR PLAN A23 ROOF PLAN A4.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A42 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A43 BUILDING SEOTIONS A4.4 BUILDING SEOTIONS APN: 503 - 53 -090 ZONING: RI-40,000 TYPE OF GON5TRIOTIOH: VN LOT 51ZEI 20,515 SF. LOT SLOPE: - 4.7% PROPGSED BLDG. HT: 21,_5" MAX. FAR: 4SI8 BF. MAX. LOT GOVER.4GEI 7,180 SF. (95%) FIRE SPRINKLERS: - NO EX U5E: ONE STORY SFR 4 BED / 3 BATH PRLPOSED 115E: ONE STORY SFR 4 BED a GAME ROOM ! 4 BATH 5ET BAf.K R~C,b11Rm PROVIDED 15T FL , FRONT: 30'-0" 30'•2" REAR: 20'-0" 29.3" LEFT: 20,-0" 25,-5" RIGHT, 25'-0' 26'-4" AREA OALCI¢F7ION5 (REft'it TO SHEET PD21 EXI5TIN6. (cJ HOUSEI 3,104 5F. . (E16ARA6E: 593 SF. TOTAL: 9,697 5F. ADDITION: LIVING 742 5F. TOTAL NEW: LIVING: 3p~46 SF. bARA6E: 669 SF. TOTAL: 4SI5 SF. FROM POROW: 60 5F. REAR PATIO: 145 3F. (FJ SWIMMING POOL/EO.: 629 5F. DRIVEWAY: 676 5F, WALKWAY /PAD? 1,136 5F. TOTAL: 2,640 SF. I FAR: 4SI3 ~. a 4SI8 5F, (OK) LOT OOVERA6E: 4515N2b40= 7,155 5F. =348% I FROJEOT ADDRE`OSI 15622 5ARAYIEW DRIVE 5ARAT06A, C»4 95070 5GOPE OF WORK: I APPLICABLE GORES: REMOLOEL /NSID ADD I BEDR~M, i 2001 LALIFORNIA BJILDINS LODE BATHROOM TO AN E%IBTING IXE STORY 3W1 LALIFORNIA XffLNANiLAL LODE HNSE. REPi.PLE EXI51TN6 RGOF SNAKE WITH NEW f4NLREiE LYaHTWE1GHT FLAT 3001 LALIFORHXA PLUMBING CODE TILE. KEEP EXTERIOR ARGNTELNRAL 3001 LALIFORNIA ELELTRIL FADE STYIF Aim LOLOR BLENDING TO 3LOI LALIFORTyA FIRE LODE '~I } 3001 LALIFORNIA HEALTH / SAFEtt I 3001 TITLE 24 ENERGY ~aM.~ ~ r~ a ~ ~I JUN2720.0 GTYOFSARATOGA Ney Plon Pro~ea TRAM RE51D0'IGE Mr. d WB. HUNG IRAN 13622 SARAVIEW DRIVE SARAT06A, OA 95070 APN: 503 • % -030 Drowinq DOVER SHEET Pro' No. 02-060 Drawn BTD DRIC 06.06.03 Score NTS Sheet ~Ay r \O.I Sheet Nw of Totoi Sheels i • 6'-4' x 14' 3 LIVING AREA: GARAGE AREA: O.. - 44 5F, 61 bb65 5F, 0 435 5F. Q 45e 5F. 04 -, 45b 5F. 0 3,IT5S 5F. 8 1815.2 SR. ~ 65 5F. OB 19 9P, 0,,, 99.96F. TOTAL: 9846A 5F, I 1 61 ~nr~I I I I 21'0" x 91'-10" = 6605 5F. TD BUII.DING DBSIGN a6uApn,~ycofve %Oc Gmx, G 95631 Te1.:9I6.6623550 Pac 916~689~3699 ' www,Wett6.com ~~~~~ me use or roese drawiegs one speclflcstlans ha0 be reslri red m the spe ilrc si.e for wnlcn they were pholl be exp P331bhca~~te0 t(vhereoh s e. Re-vs rerpr duction par publication by any eNotl in whale or pert ~e pronmued. rate to these pons vnd spec~licolions shall remaN with TD 8viltling Design without preNdice, and rlwN conlpct with tnem snail cansawte prima toeio ehdence of occeptdnce al these restrictions. ®7D Gadding Oeslgh. Cansultanl Aarisvns Key Plan SF. 35'-6" x 3'~6' ~ 65 5F. Projxt iRNI RE9IDENGE FY. 0 Mre. NUN6 TRAM ' 19623 SARAYIEW DRIVE SARATO6A, GA 950'10 APN: 503 - 59 -030 • Drowi,g ' AREA GALGULATIOH Pro No. 03-060 Drawn BiD I AREA GALGULATIQN 3/16"=~'-~" ~ Datw 06A6A3 0 ~ Scnle 9A6'=I'-0' sneer f~t0.2 ~ sn«t Na. ad roml sneers • • • / ~ fPJ FENCE ~ / ~ rD REMAIN N 89°32' E 194.dY ml7^P -->' - -- -- - - - - ~ ~' ~IPRIbW'~~ GIRT 097' RW / 016' 105 DRIP 36' / DRIP 13' ' 012° PINE , ~ (FJ POOL 018°d I RISb M1IPOpI-Eq. &iUIPMENT . CL ~ ~ (4'I ' HYJ 70 BE RELOCATED -DRIP 38' ~- - _- - I.ANPi , 024' RW 1 / : ~ ~l DRIP 24' ~', I I ~0~ ~I ~~ F f ~I m z a ~Q Iw ~} 105--~ U- I 10~ m !!e t~3 I 6 "_~-. N ~` MH ~ ~ _ I j~R-IMF i ~ ~ 4 a ~ ~~ - - --~ .~ ~ R= 20.00 ~ DIRT I Lt 82°48'44" I ° d ° , L= 28.81 Y mBxe° 4 ~ ~ ~ d° ry~ ~ I ~ , ~ 8 ° ~ ~ ~ I e PLANTER AREA _ ,~i ° ~ A ~ a R= 2457 D= I° 10' 3 L =50,96 a `~87°52'23 57.42 / `° FL GU7T SARAHILLS DR_~ ------_ LEGENDS: -T_ lCl../_[_[.l.LL.J TD BUIIDING DESIGN 1 11U BLDG. FOOTPRINT ~~~~~ HOc Grove, CA99611 r i - - ~ Te1:9t6d625580 Aa 9164894079 L i _ - J (E1 BLDb. BOJNDARY LINE C ~aa''//w.t~d~g~c~h/,eJ,m{n /" ° '~ ~ ~ ° CO11C, PAD _/ ~7/~h~~%R~~ Te use of these drowln9s and ' sDS¢ilic¢t~°ne shall be restricted t¢ 11;1 7Rff. TO REMAIN the specific ute (¢r vhlch They wue prepared and publication tnere°f shall be ¢rpressly limned to such e. Re-usa. raproductionhpe ^ I. ^ (EJ 6' Mm FENCE puGic¢tl¢n 6y any rnelnod in w 70 REMAIN >ICns¢r~ids prphlbited, TIUe to those p ~ecifc¢li¢ns shill remain ~- - - -- - (FJ COND. PAD /WD. DECK With TD Building Oe¢ign wlthovt preNtlica, antl visual contact with TD ~ ~M~D them snail c¢nsutule prima lade PROPERTY LINE evltlen¢e of acceptance of these restrlcti¢ns. ® 7D GVllding Desi9n~ - -1 - - - 6ETBAOK LINE C°n°alm°t (PJ FENCE a GATE TO REMAIN (PJ 6A5 METER TO REMAM __ i Bey PI¢n ~ Pr¢je<t FL TRAN RE91DBd:E GUfT Mf. d Mn. V01N6 IRAN 13617 5ARAVIEW DRIVE SARAT06A, GA 95010 _- APN: 503 - 53 - 030 mawln~ PR.OPO~D SITE PM.AN 1 pro' No. 07-060 f orD«, BTD Date O6A6.03 0 P Iu.~D'-D• 1 ; [PROPOSED 51TE LAN ~„_~o'~e eat I.-. _ ~ ,hl .I Sheet N¢. of 7¢tal Sheets _. Ij I ~'f10 ~1 I~. TD BUILDING DESIGN en~cer~,wvuza Td; 91666255W Fsx 916d89,7A9q aww.tdtirchmm '~~~~~t • F f 9 0 n 2-GAR bARA6E n n Ij t o t STUpY M ED ~ 6AMe RM I ry P 10 A ~ 0 S n V ~ I Irv I ~ ~ ~- /~ M BAL I I I° ~ ll I I I I I II 0 I I LIVING ROOM ~j DINING ROOM - I I +LA66 0 0 ~ O 4 ~I ~' I I KISGHPN I ! i NOOK PAMILY ROOM I I I lit i Iii q 'r _ L_~ io o r__J 1 - @~D ~ BED i I I ' a m¢ eae e! mean drawings tlna speciricotions shill be restricted to the spaifc Bite I¢ which they were preparetl and publi¢tlllon thereof snail n¢ expressry umn¢a to such ¢. R¢-us¢, r¢mrodua;orvnoie p~mm¢uen by any etnoa m or part Is prMibited. title to throe plans rod specifications shill remain with TD Buiid'mg Design wi!hout preNdice, and J,sud <onto«fode them shall c nstitute prima eritlenc¢ of accepttlnce o} Loses reatrlctlona. ®TD 6u~dinq Design. ColSUllonl eeh~tlpa Nay Ptan prtll¢tlt IRAN RESIDENCE Mr. a Mro. ++uN6 TR.w 19623 SARAYIF.W DRIVE SARI~TO6A, 0A 95070 APN~ FA9 - 53 -090 • FJClsnrls ruu ro REMAIx exlsrlxs ruu ro REMOVED FIX TO BE REMOVED Dmvirig E%15TIN5~bEM0 FLOOR PLPAI pro' rvo. 02-060 Orows 0TD 0¢le 06.06.03 0 xde 3/16"•I'-0' ~ sneer 1"~n.) sneer eo pr rotas sn¢eta iJ • (FJ wAU. ro R'cMAiN (W 2x4 5ND YIALL ITV 7x6 SND WNl TD BUILDING DESIGN BIUAnMey CWtt fie Grove, G 93674 Te1.916L6255B0 Fu:916fi89J099 f( www~M~~-!a~'r'~c~h/'cam"a~m~/~'_ _! ~~y~~ The u e of these drawings and speclflcotlons stroll be restricted to Ue ~pedfc site !or which they were prep rstl and publication theteot Shall be expressly limfled to Such Re-use, reproduction o publication by any method in whale or part Is prohibited. TDe to Nese plans and specifications shdl remain with TD Building Design without preUdlce, and Vlsaal concoct wlPh Them shall constitute primp fade evidence of acceptance of these restrlctlons. ~ TO Building Design. Consultant flevislons Key Plan Propct 7RIJ1 RE310ENOE FY. 1 Mro. HUNG IRAN 13622 SARAVIELV DRIVE SARAT06A, GA 950"f0 APN: 503 • 53 -030 orawmg PROP05ED PLAOR PLAN wo' No. 02-060 Drawn BTD Date 06.06.03 0 stale 3/16"el'-0' ~ meet //~~ rr~~ J'12 .L Sheet No. of iolal $haets ~ PR0P05ED FLOOR PLAN 316"=~'-o" ~ ~ NoR-H • •i ==i-------~~==~~"~=___ ~== M = --- Ilr\ I ---_ __--_ III p 1 \ I I L -- f L/~/ I 1 I 1 I~ r I it I ~i II i I I I II I II I II I I I II i l I `~ it I I I I~ I II I~ I II I I I~ L_ {_JlI III II ~ ~ ~ I ~~-~------~ ~-~ I I II7 '~ p A4 4 'll t I III ` ' I I I I I ` I I I . . Itl ~ ! III I I ~ I ~ ` w I I F-~' I I II I, III ______ III ~ - _____---- --~r- II ly I I \~ I I I I ~___ -~r_~__~_ ~_ _~__~ _ I ___ ~__~__~_ ~__~__~J~___~I II ~ II 11 P I I I I I II it I I I II I I 4 I I II I , 11 i i I'l II I ~ I ~ ~ ~- A --- I ~ ---------~ II I II I l I '~- -- --~~------1 I I ------------ II ~~ II II ~~ I ~ r ~ I 1 I M I r III I III li II J `--------J II II Il I t I ~ I I !II A 43 ' _ II III II I I; ~I II II II III W III -~~ L___ III --- IV tcc-~-- --i~ f'~ ~ ~ ~V it ~--- II it -, ~l 1, ~~ L--- 'l --- ~ I w ~ I~ __V__ ' ~ Tf' ~ f-~-~ l II ~'lllr~ Iv~. ~ ,~Tr---~~~ ~ ~ t ` ~ - ~ r ~ I I II Ilf I ---- -i,l II ( IIII I ~_ 1 II v A ~~' 1 -~~ -- \ ~~ I r---~~ _ -_______ II _ ~~~ __-___- -- ~ ~ r j ~ v 1 ~ a ~ C ~ I I © I I I I I l . I _ 11 ~ I I I v ~ ~ - lu ~ ~- L - -~ I t t ' I r ~ ~ ,~ ~ lu v ` W ---- - ,i ice---- -- 1 11 __tt______________ - fir----~r--------------- ~ _~{ \\ -~ \ , ' ~ ri__, __________ __ ~~ i ' ~ Y Jr ~ ~ h~ I 111 II _ r-- --------- - 1 / I I III 1 It / Ili . J II i ~ II r-----~ II ~ I ~ ~~- LJ ~ -'~ ~ I - L I~ I i , ~ -- ~ _ \ ~ ~ ~ r ~ I - ~ - II I~ I I i I 1 I II I I II I ~ I . W II it I ~ II II ILf I 2 i J l I I l I I l I I I I~ f t - \ II I ~\ /~ II IC r~\ ' J /'~ ~ if II II ~~ II L______~ IT I II I ~ ~ L_______~ II \` II II \ fj I I ~~ II ~E I II a II Ir'-=~3-1---~=='-F==~== - _ -J~ _ ~ ~'L-- __~__~_=~- --L-'~ ~ II I II I -~L_ -- -- .J r 'r- - i L ~ -_ -- L ~ J --- _1__` III W I f! II II li ,, i~ ~ ~~ pA _ _ \\\ i'~ `~ \ \ 10 ~ \ pl 1 I M I I III l } ~ ~ Ill \ ~ / k i M \ ~ ~ /q ~0 _ /// ~~ ~~~ _~~ o.H, tYP, TYPICAL ROOF NOTE5 I. ROOF SLOPES: 5:12 ('fYPJ U.ON 2. ROOF MATERIAL WD. SHAKE NATURAL CA1AR 3. ALL EAVES AND RAKES SHALL B"c IB' O.H, NA.NJ 4. PROVIDE 26 GA. 6.1. VALLEY FLASH7N6 AT ALL ROOF VALLEY6. 5. PROVIDE SADDLE AND FLABNINS AT CHASE. TYPICAL b WOOD BURN ONIMNEY PROVIDE APPROVED SPARK ARRE5TOR5 7. LINE OP ROOF OVERHANb B. LINE OP BTRUL7I,RE 9. 6.1. WTTER 10. DOGtli SPCUTS TD BUILDRVG DESIGN 8613 Au6rty Court Hik Curve, G936N Te1.816fi6LdS88 Fmc 91668A3098 www.td-avch.com The < of These dfc and spec ueotions shell be restnaled to In the specific elle to which they were prepatetl and publication tHGeot mall be expressly Ihniiad to such . Re-us•. reproduction e publication by any method in whGe or port is prohibited. Title to These plans one ~ecillcations ehdl remain with TD Bu~1dinq Design without preydice antl usual rnntact with tbem shoo c nstllute prima (acle •videne¢ or ~ceeatance or mesa r¢emcrane ®To Emkfing De¢tsn coneelmm Rehsicns Key %an Pm7eG TRAM R~ID@1CE Nh. 1 hYe. M1N6 IRAN 1563] 5ARAVIEW DRIVE SARAT06A, GA 95070 APN: 503 - 53 -050 Droning ROOF PLAN • ROOD PLAN_ 3ilb"•,'-oe I Pro' No. 02-060 Drown BTD C Dote 06.06,03 ° scale 3A6"•I'-0' s~eet a2.3 Sheet No. of 7alol She¢ls • f y~y "I I T -~ -b 4 1 . tL~FT EL~Vt~TION ~~~6,~_~-o, I' • I ELEVATION NOTES: I. 3 CHATS 7/B" STUCCO 2. 5TK00 SCREED 3. PROVIDE APPROVED SPARK ARRE5TOR5 w/ 6.1, OHINII~EY GAP 4. b.l. SADDLE AND ftASHING 5. ADHERED THIN 5TONE VENEER ~~ 6. b,l. FLASHIWr AT ROOF TO WALL i, ROOF MATERIAL - 5EE ROOF PLAN 8. STKLO CORBEL 9..4TTIG VENT REFER TO ATTIC VEM GALLS. 5EE A42 10. 4' % 14" FGUNDATION VENT I REFER TO FOWATION VENT GALLS. 5EE SHEET A2.1 IL 5TL'CCl' 0/ FOAM TRIM 13. NON-ACTVE WD. SHUTTER 13. SKYLIGHT -SEE ROOF PL4N I EXT. COLOR SCHEME: I. STII'CO W4LL. K=i , Y-MOORS PAI\ 230 bRAY5TONE 2. ADHERED STONE vENEER CULNRED STONE I CAROLINA LEDGE570NE I ONYX BROWN -3. ROOF: CONCRETE FLAT TILE EAGLE-CITE , LHPBi06 CASCADE BLEND I 4. ALL TRIMS, fjJf cR, FASCIA, W.I. RAILS, GARAGE DOOR: KELLY-MOORS PAWT 23 5W155 COFFE I 5. WINDOWS t SLIDE DOOR. I !ID CLAD FRAME, DUAL-PANE, CLEAR, LOW-E GLA55 b. FRONT DCOR~ DARK BROWN CHERRY I 7. 5KriI6HT:- VELU% FIxED 9KYLIbHT 22x28 FSIOI AND 22x46 F5f06 TD BUILDING DESIGN 86U Aubtty Cam Hlk Grove, G 9562! 7e1:916fi62.5580 Fw 916~689~3099 aaw.M-atch.cpm ~~~~ The u e cf Ihese dra»'inge and specifications snot! be re ricted to 9t me ~edrr ene ror an~~d~ mer,ere prepared and publication lbereot ebdit ae expressly limited to sum e. Re-us reprctluclion ar puGimtion by any metnod in nnWe or pan is prpnmuea. roe ro mese Nlons and specllicellons sh µremom ith TD euiltlinq Design ithout preydiae, ontl "suet contoot witn them sdal] cpnsl+tute pHma lode evitlenee of Occeptance at mesa restrictions. ®TD 9uAding Desgn. Cmsul(anl ReHeidae Key Pan P r TT , I fI r -^' -~ ~ -tFl prdje4l IRAN RESIDENCE FY. d W2. MN1lXa TRAN 1562 9ARAYIEW DRIVE SARATO6A, GA 95010 APN: 503 - 53 -030 • oroainq ELEVAT IONS Pro' Np. 02-060 mtlw,n ero Date 06.06.03 0 stole 3116"=I'-0' sneer AA /"~~.I sHeel No. m mtnl sneers 12 5~ r 8 •I N 'IT T _"r 'oP I ELEVATION NOTES: I. 3 ODAiS 1l8" STUCCO 2. STlLLO SCREED 3. PROVIDE APPROVED SPARK .ARRESTORS Hl b.l. LHIMNEY GAP ~~ 4. G.I. SADDLE AND FLASHING 5. ADHERED THIN STONE VENEER I 6. G.I. FLASHING Ai ROOF TO WALL T. ROOF MATERIAL -SEE ROOF ?LAN 8. STULCA CARREL l 9. ATTIC VEM REFER 70 AtTIL VEhT GALLS. 5~ A41 10. 4' % 14" FLGNDATION VENT REFER TG FOL97ATION VENT LALLS, SEE SHEET A2.1 II. STUCCO O/ FOAM TRIM 12. NON-ACTIVE WD. SHUTTER IS. SKYLIGHT -SEE ROOF PLAN ~ EXT. COLOR SCHEME: I I. STUCCO YiA11.: KELLY-MOORS PAINT 2'A 6RAY5TONE 2. ADHERED STONE VEP~ER GRNRED 570N"c ~ LAROLINA LEDGESTONE ONYX BROy01 3. ROOF: CONCRETE FLAT TILE EAGLE-LITE LHPb'1O6 LA~ADE BLE7~ 4. ALL TRIMS, 6UTfER, FASLIA, n w.l. RA(L5, GARAGE DOOR: KELLY-MOORc' PAIM 'Q ~ 13 5W155 COFFE m s, wlr~coWS ~ a!DE DooR: wD LLAD FRAME, WAL-PANE, LLEAR,LOWf GLA55 I ~ b. FRONT DOOR DARK BROWN LHERRY T. 5KYL16H7i Ff VELUX FIXED SKYLIGHT ~ 12x28 FS7O1 AMJ 21x4b F51O6 1 -`-~ 7D BUD,DING DBSIGN 88UAubrty Coup IDk Cmrc, CA93614 Te1.:91668L9500 Feu 9166893099 .odaecdmm ~~~~ IDe oae or mesa a.a.m9a and spealllootioos shall be rastrkleb t° the specific slla tar which they were p.epmad and paercmion tnerear shau ee expressly rmfled to such . Re-use ramroduct^ W °f publicalbn ey any ethpd i hole art is prohlbfled. TiOe Ip these pions and specilicalions shall i haut with T- Building Design wl preNdice, and tiwal <ontocl wlth them shop constitute prima lode evltlence of acceptance of these restrlpllon s. ®i0 BoAding Design conswtom Aerlsions x y plan U ~~ N TT T ~^r -4 P Project TRAH RE51DL31CE Mr. 6 We. FN1N6 TRAN I%22 SARAVIEW DRIVE SARATO6A, GA 950'70 APN~ 503 - 53 -030 • Drawing ELEVATIONS Fra No. 02-060 Drawn BTD Dore 06.08.03 0 Score 3116"><I'-0" Sheet ~T.~ Shea! Na. of Total Sheets • i 7D BIIILDING DBSIGN e6un>,n~ycaart ID~ Graver CA95624 Td.:916~66Z55~ Pau 916689,1099 wva•,Idarduara -~~~~ the ase of these arowmys a^d spec'Jkations shall D¢ msvkted to me ~^apona x evomioo t nmereor ehaPllabe expressly IGnted to such e. Re-us ,reproduction or publication byeony melhoa in xhale or pat Is prahibllod. ¶tle ;a these pions and sPecifi<ations moll remain with 7D Budding Oeslgn without preNdice, and visual contact xlth them shell canslltute prima facie evlaenee of cceptonce of these estrlcti^os. ®70 Bulb~g Oesig^~ Cansullant Rehsians Key Plan PraRCt TRAM RESIDENCE tk. a r+s. TRAM 196]3 SARAVIEW DRIVE SARATO6A, GA 950'10 APN: 503 - 59 -090 Drawing SECTIONS • TI ore. Date Scale Sheet 03-060 9To O6D6.O3 0 3A6`=I'-0' A4.3 Sheet No. of Total $hePls ~4 • • ,~ I) , I / ~ I ~ 103.66 9 G/rP N 89°32' E 134.97 ~ 1006 TC 99.6 012' RW 64 9972 PL 99,16 pRIP 1g GUTi9928 C ~ .10 ORIP~ ~10 2 0@'PME RU41D0.00 018' P lp9 L77 104.42 019' RW scALE~ r=1o' / D3.z~ 1o pwPZe' / I ~ Ilos22 ' o~ ~ Y/ I 03.46 105,22 1 5.36 / ' 10 .5 ~ ll ~ 02 1 10 I 02,0 ' /, 1 2,11 , , KC/// ~ o ~ I ~ ~ t0 25 ~ ~ FP1 82t WG M 3 07 th / 03X10' O X03 I z~ n~a 3 6.56 'Lf~I I ~ ~ 10 d5 106.09 ~ 1o3s7 °3' i I 1 3.61 ~ I , CONC. WALKWAY Z I ~~ 106.61 06.66 4 91 LAWN l0A 1 X5.49 ~. 1°425 02x,0' 106.19 13 /~~ 105 ' I °6.91 .93 I I 1ba, o o /105 097 RW DRIP 36' 10 I 105,23 10530 4,96 10423 I ~ Ias.4z s.lz oRamza LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS OS~40pL 15,3 ~, EGUiPMEN - PROPERTY LINE 105.68 ms.14 -0 ~ -FOUND IP IN MONUMENT BOX W00° 79 04'46 - - STREET CENTERLINE DECK ,, o I WOOD FENCE I 105, lass 104 z TC I, TOP OF CURB 1DS,67 GUTT I GUTTER FL ~ FLOW LINE 105.75 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SSMH 1 .a3 fosse ~ c m I WM WATER METER CO ~ SEWER CLEANOUT ~ a W Z f 107.22 I 06 93 10571 105.778 N 05.45 V O O . I W 6~34 N 10 5.76 I i07,0 ~ osn ~ 105.22 i NOTES: I' I ~ D F -ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN u 07.08 to . FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF ° I 6 D -REFERENCED ASSUMED B.M.: ,m,ze 59 TOP OF SEWER CLEANOUT LOCTED AT SARAVIEW DR., ' 7~D4 PLANTFAAREA m6. DISTANT 23.00 ~T. SOUTHWESTERLY OF NORTHWESTERLY 3e 106.03 PROPERTY CORNER EL.: 100,00 ID6. 6 -THE BEARING N 03°53' W BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ON SARAVIEW DR. AS SHOWN UPON THAT TRACT MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 163, AST PAGE 39 WAS TAKEN AS BASIS OF BEARINGS obaa FOR THIS SURREY. 107,00 107. 106,91 I 107.03 106,99 106 106.98 1 .96 1 6.56 10770 I 106.94 107 1D7,1a uwN DI 107 106.82 107.01 laze4 25.00 foals foe 1~ O7_s9 R= 20.00 s3 , T m6,7 az9o p=82°48'44' 1oz42 GUTTi 6.29 L= 28.91 Daxe' ~ .`.. \. . ~_ ~ 109 VWN ~ ~~~~8 of F7J fA'~±i , ~-- I o 107.46 1 ~ !y ~ ID • IDae3 ~ ~~ I R~3 Yniif I~jE .79 110 PLANTERAREA ,95 108.04 ~ 07.24 1~~1 ~~1y~7/,r.,~,~~c . 109 106,50 ~~StR~F?~'? as R=2475 ~ ~'~~~°•,,lfo! ~°1°10'39'. ~~,.~,:,.,f ~ L=50.86 1 8587°52'23" 7 111 ~; 7,61 57.42 zob M Up ~ Tc uD.o r73 FL 109.64 109.0 3 7.63 GUTT109.83 -~_ N ~ TG 1065 ~ LEE ENGINEERS ` '---~~ FL 105.4 ~ III6~06~ _ _ ) GURI05.5 1 1211 PIARH AVENUE SUITE 112 TEL I._S~MH 112.77 111-gp ---~,.,_ ~ SAN JOSE, CA 95126 408-293 3833 I RUIM 11568 ~'- 109. _ ~li~A UTT T C+ - - 107, _ TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 111LLIJ ~~~ 106.39 OWNER : HENRY TRAN PROJECT: SARAVIEW DR. Ooh 771 LOCATION: 13622 SARAI4EW OR. 105,93 SARATOGA, ~A ' 106,24 ~ °A"'"~'S.P. ~` 1"=10' ! °"'0 h a2-m-o3 ~""°°~'~ -_--___'--- - rPx i ITEM. 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: Date: APN: App # 03-019/ 13095 Paramount Court Martin Oakley/Raghav and Seema Sharma John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner,~~~ Design Review for a new single-family house July 9, 2003 / 503-82-.027 and 028 Department HeadL~~'" 1 13095 Paramount Court ~~~®®~. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 01/24/03 06/05/03 06/25/03 06/20/03 06/19/03 Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 6,141 square foot house with a 2,081 square foot basement on a vacant lot. The gross lot size is 47,288 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23.5 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for Design Review with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City Arborist Reports (2) 3. City of Saratoga Noticing Labels, Noticing Affidavit, and Notice 4. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • ~~~~®~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner DATE: July 9, 2003 RE: 13095 Paramount Court, Agenda Item #2 Due to an error in the noticing the City Attorney is recommending that the Planning Commission continue this item to the next meeting on July 23, 2003. Staff recommends that this item be moved to number one on the agenda, advise the audience that the item is being continued, and take any testimony from people that have requested to speak. File No. 03-019; 13095ParamountGourt/Sharma Property • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 .GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 47,288 square feet gross and net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9.8% GRADING REQUIRED: -The applicant is proposing 378 cubic yards of fill and 574 cubic yards of cut. The City Code does not count basements as grading therefore the basement is not included in this calculation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures",.Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 32.5% 35% Building Footprint 6,141 sq. ft. Driveway, Patios, Pool; light wells and Walkways 7,148 sq. ft. Sport Court 2,075 sq. ft. TOTAL 15,364 sq. ft. 16,550 sq. ft, Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Main Floor 5;181 sq. ft. Garage 840 sq: ft. Porch 120 sq. ft. (Basement), not counted (2,081 sq. ft.) TOTAL 6,141 sq. ft: 6,160 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 41 ft. 34 ft. Rear 55 ft. 50 ft. Left Side 66 ft. 27 ft. Right Side 50 ft: 27ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 23.5ft. 26 ft. Detached Garages . N/A 12 ft. C:\MyDocuments\Design Review 03\I'aramount Cour[ 13095 Staff Repo.doc (~; ~ ~'~ o File No. 03-019;13095Paramount Court/Sharma Property PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant; is requesting approval for Design Review to construct a new one-story 6,141 square foot house with 2,081 square foot basement on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23.5 feet. The proposed house is located in a unique location at the end of a road next to a vineyard. The homes in the area vary in age and design with no consistent design pattern. The proposed exterior finish will. be a combination of stucco siding and a stone veneer. The stucco will be a light brown earth tone. The roof will be a brown tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be 23.5 feet in height, 2.5 feet below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines including stonework along the front facade and main entry that will breakup the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. • Poli 2 "Inte .ate Structures with the Environment" The ro osed project meets this ~y , g-" P P policy in that the house will be set into the hillside reducing the height and bulk of the structure. The proposed roof and exterior stucco will be brown earth tone colors to help blend the proposed house into the hillside. • .Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The proposed project will protect the privacy of adjacent properties in that it is a large lot and the applicant is exceeding the minimum required setbacks. The applicant will also maintain the existing Oak trees that surround the property in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan. • Policy. 4, "Preserve, Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. The house will be a one-story house down hill from the closest neighbor to the rear. The existing mature trees that surround the site will also be maintained. • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. C:\MyDocuments\Design Review 03\Paramount Court 13095 Staff Repo.doc ~ ~ ~ ®O File No. 03-019; 13095ParamoUntGourt/Sharma Property Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces withal a garage. The. applicant is proposing a large 840 square foot three-car garage with open parking provided in the driveway. Trees There are 23 protected trees on the site. 'The applicant is proposing to remove two small Palm trees. The City Arborist has recommended replacement trees. The City Arborist reports dated February 4, 2003 and March 29, 2003 (attached) contain recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The Arborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project approval. A certificate of deposit is also required as a condition of project approval for. tree protection. Fireplaces The applicant is proposing three gas fireplaces. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this. application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The .applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. . GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Llse Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will be located in a unique location at the end of a road next to a large vineyard surrounded by existing and proposed trees thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will be earth tones that will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape. CONCLUSION The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of -the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves C:\MyDocuments\Design Review 03\Paramount Cour[ 13095 Sraff Repo.doc \.F ~ ~ ®~ll S File No. 03-019; 13095Paramount Court/Sharma Property the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with 'the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in-terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height, and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve -the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • C:\MyDocumen[s\Design Review 03\Paramount Court 13095 S[aEf Repo.dac ~+ ~ ~ ®O v Attachment 1 ~~ ~~~~a~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.O3- CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sharma; 13905 Paramount Court WHEREAS, the. City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new one-story 6,141 square foot house with a 2,081 square foot basement on a vacant lot. The gross lot size is 47,288 square -feet and zoned R-1- 40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23.5 feet.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and. WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review Approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of. Bulh" The project. meets this policy in ,that the proposed house will be 23.5 feet in height, 2.5 feet below the maximum 26 feet allowed. .The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines including stone work along the front facade and main entry that will breakup the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the house will be set into the hillside reducing the height and bulk of the structure. The proposed roof and exterior stucco will be brown earth tone colors to help blend the proposed house into the hillside. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privary" The proposed project will protect the privacy of adjacent properties in that it is a large lot and the applicant is exceeding the minimum required setbacks. The applicant will also maintain the existing Oak trees that surround the property in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. The house will be a one-story house down hill from the closest neighbor to the .rear. The existing mature trees that surround the site will also be maintained. • • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating. and cooling appliances. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review- and Grading Approval, and' is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Llse Element Policy5.0 The City shall -use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will be located in a unique location at the end of a road next to a large vineyard surrounded by existing and proposed trees thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will be earth tones that will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideratiori of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the. application of Raghav and Seema Sharma for Design Review has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped April 30, 2003, incorporated by reference: All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community. Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ~~~~09 ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The -site plan shall contain a note with the follov~nng language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The final landscape plari submitted during the building permit plan check review will need to meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 15-47 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained. on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 7. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to 'water pollution. 8. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants. that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 9. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any. hadscape area. 10. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 11. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and iricorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 12. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 13. The height of the structure shall not exceed 23.5 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. ~~'~®~~ PUBLIC WORKS 14. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading,. site .drainage improvements -and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans; specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 15. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as- built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Inspection. . 16. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of the Building Permit. CITY ARBORIST 17. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated February 4, 2003 and March 29, 2003 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as ,~ recommended by the Arborist with a note to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 18. Prior to issuance of a Building or Grading permit if required, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount recommended by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. ~~~~~.~ 19. Prior to Final Building approval, the City Arborist or Staff shall inspect the site to verify compliance with. tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 20. The applicant. shall submit one complete set of plans with the Building Permit submittal to be routed to the City Arborist for review of the final landscape, irrigation and grading plan. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 21. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,500 gpm at 20psi residential pressure. The required fire flow is not available from area water mains and fire hydrants that are spaced at the required spacing. 22. Required Fire Flow Option: Provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail and Specifications W-1/SP-4. 23. Required Access to Water Supply Hydrants: Portions of the structure are greater than. 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. Provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. 24. Provide an Earl Warnin Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, Y g installed per City of Saratoga standards. 25. Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Standards #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth flat horizontal ceiling. CITY ATTORNEY 26. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the Ciry's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution 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. ~~C~~12 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9th day of July 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date i~ ~~~®13 .I Attachment 2 • ~~~~~~ ~":~ ,,ts_~ ARBO .RESOURCES ~YOfE11LO~lQL PT21TOR(.¢U.Lt16QQL C.:0121U.~'Ein9 & ~REE C~Q.RE • AN ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE .PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 13095 PARAMOUNT COURT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: SHARMA APPLICATION #03-019 APN #503-82-027 & 028 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 i~ Project No. SAR.Par.01 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California. 94402 Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 ~ Fax: 650.654.3352 ~ Licensed Contractor #796763 ~~~'®~,5 • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION TITLE LIST OF TABLES .....................:....................................... ii SLTIvIMARY ................ .....:...............:........... .. ....:... ii 1 0 ........................................................... INTRODUCTION 1 . : : 1 1.1 ...... ............ Assignment ... ...... . ..... 1.2 Setting ..................................:...:.:.............:.............. 1 i 1 1.2 gnment ...............:................................... Limits of Ass 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 . 3.1 Impact Summary Table ...............................:............... 3 3.2 Trees #1, 2, 4-15, 17 and 18 ...........................:................ 3 3.3 Tree #3 ....................................................................... : 3 4 3.4 .......... .................................. Tree # 16 ...................... 4.0 TREE APPRAISAL AND BOND VALUES ....:.................:.... 4 5 0 RECOMMENDATIONS .: ................................................. 4 . i 4 5.1 ..............................:................. ng Tree Protection Fenc 5.2 Root Severance Guidelines .........................................:... 5 5.3 Grading, Excavation and Soil Fill ........... ......................... 5 5.4 ................ Utility Installation : ...:.................... 5 5.5 Drainage ..............................:........:............................. 5 5.6 Garden Wall ............................::............................... 6 5.7 Tree Pruning ........:...............:..:................................. 6 5.8 Root Collar Clearance ...........:...................................... 6 5.9 Fencing Around Perimeter ........:.........................:........:. 6 5.10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ... Watering ...:.........................: 6 5.11 Future Swimming Pool and Sport Court ....................:....... 7 .5.12 Landscape Design Considerations ........................:......... . 7 5.13 General Construction Guidelines ..........:........................... 7 6.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .................. 8 7.0 LETTER OF CERTIFICATION ......................................... 9 ~~~®~,s David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 • .LIST OF TABLES TABLES HEADING PAGE 2-1 Tree Conditions ............................................................... 2. 3-1 Table of Impact Intensity ..:........................................:......... 3 SUMMARY 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 development of the vacant lot at 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga. ~i lvly assignment includes reviewing the proposed project and its effects upon 18 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 findings as well as recommendations for mitigating damage to affected trees. A summary of my findings is presented on a Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached to this report. The trees consist of 13 Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and 5 Monterey Pines (Pinus radiata). All trees are assigned a high suitability for preservation and are in overall good condition. The proposed plans are expected to impact the inventoried trees at very minor levels. The most significant impacts will be to tree #16. • ii ~~O®~.~ • A 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 Borel from the City of Saratoga's Community Development Department in response to the proposed development at 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga. My assignment includes reviewing effects the proposed project will have upon Ordinance sized-trees located on and immediately adjacent to the subject property; identifying each tree's species, size 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 Site and Topographic. Plan (sheet 1) prepared by Dunbar and Craig and dated January 2003.. The location of recommended tree protection fencing is also shown on this plan. 1.2 Limits of Assignment Please note trees #2, 5 through 9, 11, 12, 17 and 18 were not shown on the plans reviewed. Their 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 #5 through 8, 11, 12, 17 and 18 are located on the adjacent western property, I was unable to measure each trunk diameter or view their entire canopies and trunk areas. I was unable to examine the Oaks' root collars2 as either soil 'or grass covers the trunk's base. As a result, I was unable to fully determine their health condition. Size refers to the trunk diameter, tree height and canopy spread. Trunk diameters were measured using a metal diameter tape at 24 and 54-inches above grade. The heights and canopy spreads were estimated. z Area at the trunk's base where the main roots and trunk merge, mostly indicated by an obvious swelling at the trunk's base. • • 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga rage ~ of y Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~®~8 David L: Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 9, 2003 • 2A OBSERVATIONS 2.1 Species Count and Composition There are 18 trees of two various species. evaluated for this report. These include 13 Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) #1-5, 9, 10, 13-18; and 5 Monterey Pines (Pinus radiata) #6-8, 11 and 12. Trees #5 through 8; 11, 12, 17 and 18 are located on the adjacent western property 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 have been assigned an overall condition rating in regards to their health and structural integrity. These ratings are defined as follows: Good: Trees appearing in good health and having stable structures. Fair: Trees in overall good condition but have health concerns and/or structural defects. Attention towards improving the situation(s) is typically .required to improve the condition. Poor: Trees having significant health concerns and/or structural defects. Action is necessary to improve the condition. Table 2-1 below identifies the ratings and tree numbers, and indicates the trees appear in mostly good condition. Table 2-1. Tree Conditions GOOD FAIR POOR 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11-15, 17, 18 1, 4, 7, 9, 16 • 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page 2 of 9 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~®~9 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 3.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLANS This section describes anticipated- construction impacts based on plans reviewed, and provides mitigation measwes intended to summarize action steps to help achieve a reasonable assurance of tree survival. Refer to the `Recommendations' section for additional and more detailed guidelines. 3.1 Impact Summary Table To quantify the anticipated level of construction impacts based on the proposed plan, I have assigned a rating to each tree. The rating scale is "1" to "5", with "1" being a severe impact and "5" being very low. or no impact anticipated.: The table below summarizes my f ndings and shows the majority of trees will not be impacted. Table 3-1. Table of Impact Intensity IMPACT RATING COUNT PERCENT OF TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 Total 3.2 Trees #1, 2, 4-15,17 and 18 Q 0% 0 0% 2 11% 3 17% 13 72% 18 100% Based on the proposed plans, I anticipate construction activities will cause only minor to no impacts for trees:#1, 2, 6-12, 14, 17 and 18 as construction activities are designed at the canopy edge or a significant distance away. 3.3 Tree #3: Coast Live Oak Plans propose constructing a driveway and garden wall north of the trunk. Their respective distances from the trunk are 19-feet and 15-feet. These features will impact this tree at moderate (tolerable) levels. C • • 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page 3 of y Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~`~~~0 i ~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 3.3 Tree #16: Coast Live Oak Construction impacts will be most significant to this tree designated. as being in fair condition. Plans propose constructing a below ground staircase 12-feet east and a garden wall 6-feet east from the trunk. I anticipate these activities will damage an estimated 20-. percent of the total root area and regard these impacts as moderate to high. To minimize the impacts to this tree, I suggest the portion of wall proposed beneath the canopy be constructed on grade (cuts no deeper than four-inches below existing grade) by such means as using pier footings. 4.0 TREE APPRAISAL AND BOND VALUES The appraised tree values are presented on the Tree .Inventory Spreadsheet attached to 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 International Society of Arboriculture. Trees #1, 2, 5-12, 14, 17 and 18 have a cumulative appraised value of $62,970 and, are anticipated to be impacted at the lowest levels. I suggest a 15-percent bond ($9,446) to ensure their protection. Trees #3 and 16 are anticipated to be impacted at moderate levels. The sum of their appraised values is $12,280 and I suggest a 20-percent bond ($3,070) to ensure their protection. 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 is generally expected to be established at the trees' canopy edge or beyond. However, this is not practical for several trees on site due to close proximity of structures, property lines, hardscape and other features.. Where this not possible due to the approved plans, place the fence as close to features (i.e. property lines, hardscape, staircase, etc.) as possible. I suggest no further than .one to two-feet from the wall and driveway, and no further than four-feet from the home's.footprint. 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page 4 of 9 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~0~~ • • David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4; 2003 b. The fencing locations should be established as shown on the proposed Site and Topographic Plan attached to this report. c. 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. d. All construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas. 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. e. The fencing recommended east of tree #16's trunk should be placed no more-than two- feet from the proposed staircase due east of the trunk. This fence will require being opened to allow for constructing the gazden wall. The City of Saratoga should be contacted several weeks prior to implementing plans for doing so. A meeting should be arranged with me to discuss the change in fence location. 5.2 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. 5.3 Grading, Excavation and Soil Fill 5 The project design must avoid the need for grading and/or surface scraping beneath canopies of retained trees. The only azeas which should be disturbed. aze approved locations of the future expansion. No soil should be placed within the fenced areas. 5.4 Utility Installation a. Plans for utility installation must be reviewed by the City. of Saratoga prior to installation. The design should propose all underground utilities outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where this is not possible, tunneling by at least 4'/z-feet below ground may be necessary. Overhead utilities must be removed and/or routed without damaging protected trees. b. Overhead utilities must be routed without damaging protected trees. 5.5 Drainage a. All roof drains. must be designed and constructed so water is displaced away from retained trees. 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page S of9 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~®~~ • • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 b. Any alterations to the natural grade must ensure water drains away from rather than towards trees' trunks. 5.6 Garden Wall a. The proposed garden wall beneath tree #16's canopy should be designed on-grade, with no soil cuts deeper than four-inches below existing grade being made: 5.7 Tree Pruning a. Tree branches interfering with the existing home, future addition, and future driveway and patio, 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 the removal of any dead branches one-inch and greater in diameter. 5.8 Root Collar Clearance a. I suggest all root collars be cleared of soil to expose the main buttress roots. This work should be performed under the supervision of an ASCA Member andlor ISA Certified Arborist. The purpose for this activity is to minimize the risk of root collar disease infection. 5.9 Fencing Around Perimeter a. New fencing or other structure installed around the property's perimeter should be installed as far away from the trunks of retained trees and not driven into the ground where large roots are located. If at any .time large roots are encountered during installation, relocate the post holes to either side. 5.10 Watering a. Supplemental water must be supplied to trees #3 and 16. A guideline for the rate of application is 10-gallons per inch of trunk diameter every two weeks, applied during the dry summer and fall months3 and continuing throughout the development period. The water should be applied by soaker hoses placed beneath approximate mid-canopy. The length of time required for application can be determined by placing the installed soaker hose inside afive-gallon bucket and monitoring the time it takes to fill. The soaker hose should remain on as long as it takes to provide the necessary water and wet the soil to a depth of 12 to 24-inches. s A dry month can be described as receiving less than one-inch of rainfall. 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Page 6 of 9 ~~~~~~ • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 5.11 Future Swimming Pool and Sport Court a. I suggest the proposed future swimming pool and sport court be constructed at least five-feet beyond the outermost canopy -edge of protected trees. I do strongly advise tree protection fencing also be established prior to construction. 5.12 Landscape Design Guidelines and Considerations a. Landscape plans should be reviewed by the City of Saratoga prior to installation. b. Do not install new turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath the trees' .canopies. All plant material beneath tree canopies should be drought tolerant- and not exceed more than 10-percent of the total area beneath a tree's canopy. Irrigation heads should be directed away from all tree trunks. c. Irrigation trenching, if performed, should be outside the trees' canopies. If inside, the trenches should be in a spoke arrangement radiating out from the tree trunk, as spokes on a wheel. This will help minimize root damage by trenching in-line with the natural direction of root growth. Radial trenches should be at least 10-feet apart at the canopy perimeter and not encroach closer to the trunk than five times the trunk diameter. d. All new plant material located within 10=feet of the Coast Live Oak canopies must be watered by low-volume drip or laser line irrigation. This can be placed on-grade and covered with mulch. Rototilling beneath the trees' canopies should be avoided. e. Mulch should be placed no closer than two-feet from any trees trunk and not exceed three to four-inches in depth. f. When selecting trees for installation, anticipate their height and spread at maturity. g. With the exception of mulch, no more than 10-percent of the total ground area beneath a canopy should contain materials (such as walkways, stones/cobbles, and landscape structures). Installing bender board beneath canopies should be avoided. 5.13 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. • 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Kristin Borel, Ciry of Saratoga, Community Development Department rage i of r. ~~~~~4 i ~ 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 vvere 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. l4. 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. 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Page 8 of 9 ~~~0~5 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 7.0 LETTER OF CERTIFICATION 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: Date: ~~7 j Attachments: Tree Inventory Spreadsheet Copy of the Site and .Topographic Plan 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Kristin Borel, Ciry of Saratoga, Community Development Department Page 9 of y ~~~0~6 • • ARBC~ RESOURCES ~gOfES1LOr1QL oTZDORLG'l1.Ltl14QL C~Oll1U.Lt1.I29 ~ J4EE C.:Q'LE . TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET. N .~ ~ ~, ~ r. o 3 o 3 ~ ~ ° 3 ~ ~ .~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~ ab o •~b o • ~,°~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~~ b ~ 0 ~~ oflo ~~ ~ c w o ..,u ~~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ b o ~ A ~ A .~ U ~ , i~ ^' G'"ob ~ TREE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ o '~ ~ o c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ x °~' ~~ c ~ U ~ Q ~ ~ ~ c NO. TREE NAME F, ,~ H .~ x v x ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ A ~ a 1 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrijolia) 19 18 22 18 55% 85% Fair High 5 - $3,130 - Comments: Canopy color a pears abnormal and slightly brown. Coast Live Oak 2 (Quercus agrifolia) 7/6/4 - 22 30 80% 75% Good High 5 - $1;410 - ~,, e.,«~ V V11LLllbll W. Coast Live Oak 3 (Quercus agrifolia) 17/14 - 35 36 80% 75% Good High 3 - $9,000 - Coast Live Oak 1. 16/14/13/ 4 (Quercus agrifolia) 12/10/9 - 25 40 75% 30% Fair High 4 - $11,400 - r„ e..+~• 1iV111111Mi1w. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 20 - 20 32 80% 100% Good High 5 - $7,150 . ~ o..*~ Monterey Pine 6 (Pinus radiates) 17 - 25 22 80% 65% Good High 5 . - $1,000 X ~,, e..,~ ...,llllll..llw. Monterey Pine 7 (Pinus radiates) 17 16 32 30 55% 80% Fair High 5 - $880 X IiVLLL11lLL+w. Monterey Pine 8 (Pinus radiates) IS 14 32 20 70% 90% . Good High 5 - $980 X ~„ e..,~ ~V1lLLLMllw. Coast Live Oak 9 (Quercusagrifolia) '10/9 9/8 26 15 80% 55% Fair High 5 - $2,180 - l.Vllllllcnw. Coast Live Oak 10 (Quercus agrifolia) 27 - 38 40 85% 80% Good High 5 - $1.1,100 - Comments: Monterey Pine I1 (Pinus radiates) 18 17 36 30 80% l00% Good High 5 - $1,350 X Comments: Monterey Pine 2 (Pinus radiates ) Comments: Job: I309S Pwamornt Coact, Soratoga Prepmed jor: Quy of Smatogq Planning Di~tision Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA Page 1 of 2 Febraary 4, 2003 ry V6~~©~ uRCES ~ ARSE RESo J"4.OfE11LOILQL ~4~04LeLLLEta4LtL fn0-iSLL~fin9 & ~4E6 C-[1'ZE TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET ,-, i» o ~ o ~~ Ua ~ @~~ ~ ~~ ~~ b o ~~ > ~ ~ ~ A m ~ A m ~ : ~ A vim. I~ ~ ~ I~ ~ r" ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' ° &. c. TREE ° .~ '~ ' .~ ~ ° ~ ~o ~ o °o ~ o ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ° °'x a~i II ~ °' U ~ ~ ~~ o o . NO. TREE NA1vIE E., .a t~ .~ x U x ~ ~ C O v~ ~ ~ ~ H I 13 I (Q oast LivSr+f ~) I I - I I I ° I ° I I ~- I I - I I - I uercus a olio 20 32 32 80% 80% Good Hi 4 $7,200 Comments: Coast Live Oak l4 (Quercus agrifolia) 15 - 35 32 80% 85% Good High 5 $3,430. - ~.vuuua.aa~u. - Coast Live Oak 15 (Quercus agrifolia) 20 - 24 35 80% 70% Good High 4 - $6,000 - ~;ommems: . Coast Live Oak 16 (Quercus agrifolia) 12/9 - 25 30 60% 60% Fair High 3 - $3,280 - Comments: Coast Live Oak 17 (Quercus agrifolia) 11 10 25 23 85% 85% Good High 5 - $1 ~,. e.,«~ .,.,........u..~. Coast Live Oak 18 (Quercus agrifolia) 13 12 23 25 75% 85% Good High 5 - $2,400 - Comments: .lob: 73095 Pmamoant Coast, Smatoga Aepmed jor: GFry ojSmamga, Planning Division Prepmed by: Dovid L. Bobby, RCA Page 2 of 2 Fcbruar~y.4, 1003ss77 _.. . ' ~ S ~~ +~~g~1Y1~~pp ~p figg,~ = RE5/DENCE ' wa .-. >,- i acY~I~~VB'O $ V6'f. GRMiiI: SCAT .uav[sf oru.~ ^f' ~ ~ ---_ - ~~ 6~ ~ ~ 13095~~ARAMOUNT COURT, SARATOGA _ ~. ~ ~.. _ . 7. ~~ ~i _ . _ .~..R/LM.E SAKI CaKT ~`. ~ _ . .. . y ~ a ~ ~'~ - ~ - TREE PROTECTION FENCING / 1 .n n.e..wwr y..,rar tom:.... wnew+.. I 9 _ $~`' f '~i ti` \ ~ Myu~.sw.e6a~ a~owt ma.li uwrwt ~ ~ ~5~ ` \ \ \ a . ~~ ~ 'J \- rv.we sw~M~s awc F ~_~. ARBOR RESOURClS _ ~ \ \ - y ~ ; ~ " ~q I ' -~~ TREF. PROTECTION FENCING Z1~" - ..~ ~ ... .~. ,...a.~....., 3 ~ \ _ ~~\ ~-~ \ ~¢ lye ~ .~ ~..w..~.K Y. ~~ .o .~ 2 ` ~ 1 \~~1 ~ - ~ 5~uc L r __ . l ~ ~t 'ss ,mss ~.'-' .~; t .a..,,.,. .. ~, . , o ., ..,, a ~.~..., ~.. " PAR AMOUINT ~, ~ COURT <`F'~- - _ ,_W, R r._..,..u ussu ro- x µ ~x o'er n, - 9 r.a.wx~ ca+~ w awe w ~ ~ v ,t' ~ ~ L14' - .. ' ~~ rya.. .....z -- T~'~"-~, ____ -' ~ '~ ~ " ~CGOC, w r.or - .."c.G" CUne \~ ~~.. e e \., 7 " X84@ ~1Gil~ 4o~po~r~~~(~Bc~ _p~~w ` ~~~ f`-1~~~~ i '\~~^~r ~\ S y~~. ARBOR RESOURCES. _ .~ ~40fE11iOnQ.L ~'Z170'LiL'U.GtU.~LQ.L C..On3U.~'tin9 S ~'LeE C:Q.'LE . AN ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SI~[ARMA RESIDENCE 13095 PARAMOUNT COURT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: SHARMA APPLICATION #03-019 APN #503-82-027 8~ 028 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 Revised Plans Received: March, 25, 2003 Site Re-inspected: March 27, 2003 Report Submitted: March 29, 2003 Project No. SAR.Par.02 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352. • Licensed Contractor #796763 • ~'~~®~O David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2003 . SUMMARY Twenty-three trees were inventoried and evaluated for this report. Plans indicate two small Palm trees (#22 and 23) will be removed to accommodate the overflow parking area. I suggest one native tree of 24-inch box size be installed on site to mitigate their combined value of $490. To ensure protection of the remaining trees, I recommend a bond of $17,984. Design modifications to the proposed sport court are necessary to ensure the survival of trees # 17, 18 and 19. It should be designed. outside -from beneath their canopies. The trees proposed.'for installation beneath canopies of inventoried trees must modified and placed outside from beneath .canopies. The .planting areas also proposed beneath canopies must be limited to no more than 20-percent of the total ground area within the driplines. In the case of the Oaks, plants must be drought tolerant. ASSIGNMENT The City of Saratoga's Community Development Department has requested I review. and comment on the revised plans submitted for the proposed development of the Sharma Residence at 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga. This report serves as a revision .from my initial report dated February 4, 2003. My assignment includes reviewing the effects .the proposed project will have on Ordinance-sized trees located on and immediately adjacent to the subject property; identifying each tree's overall condition, species, and size; establishing an appraisal value to each tree; and determining bond values. This report presents my findings as well as recommendations for mitigating possible damage. to trees planned for retention. A summary of my findings is .presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached to this report. Plans reviewed for this report include a revised Site and Topographic Plan (sheet 1) prepared by Dunbar and Craig, dated March 4, 2003; a Grading and Topographic Plan (sheet7) also prepared by Dunbar and Craig, dated January 2003; a Preliminary Landscape Plan (sheet L.8) prepared by Koch & Associates, dated March 3, 2003; and Floor, Elevation, and Framing plans (sheets 2 through 6) prepared by Oakley & Associates, dated January 2003. Each tree's approximate location, number and canopy dimension are shown on an attached copy of the original Site and Topographic Plan dated January 2003. The location of recommended tree protection fencing is also shown on this plan. Sharma Residence Development, 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga t'age t o~ e City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~~~,g David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2003 OBSERVATIONS Twenty-three trees of four various species were inventoried for this report. These include 15 Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia), 5 Monterey Pines (Pinus radiata), 1 Acacia (Acacia sp.), and two Fan Palms (yyashingtonia robusta). The trunks of trees #5 through 8, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20 and 21 are situated on neighboring ..properties. They were included in this report as they aze exposed to development impacts. - Trees #2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 through 15, and 17 through 23 appear in overall good condition, having vigorous health and mostly stable structures. Trees #1, 4, 7, 9 and 16 appeaz in overall fair condition and have some minor health concerns and/or structural defects. All efforts should be taken to protect trees numbered 1 through 21 as they aze assigned a high. suitability for preservation. Trees #22 and 23 aze assigned a .moderate suitability and their removal for development purposes seems appropriate.. ' I-was unable to fully examine and determine the health condition of the Oaks as either soil or grass covers the trunks' bases. Please note trees #2, 5 through 9, and 17 through 21 aze not shown on the plans reviewed. Their locations are estimated and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed or exact. ' REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLANS The proposed Preliminary Landscape Plan, Site and Topographic Plan, and Grading and. Topographic Plan do not contain all inventoried trees. I advise all trees presented in this .report be placed on the plans. Trees #22-and- 23 require removal to accommodate the overflow parking azea. The proposed landscape design presents -the greatest risk to inventoried trees. Modifications must occur to ensure the survival of affected trees, many of which .are situated on neighboring properties. The proposed sport court threatens the health of trees #17 through 20. To ensure their survival and longevity; I suggest the sport .court is designed outside from beneath their canopies. The trees and planting areas proposed beneath canopies of existing trees threatens the existing trees' longevity. Sharma Residence Development, 13095 Paramount Court,. Saratoga Page 2 of 6 City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~~3~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2003 The Grading and Topographic Plan identifies a stone garden wall beneath canopies of trees #3 and 4. The Preliminary Landscape Plan shows the wall is located only beneath tree #4's canopy. The plans should correspond to each other. There are several locations on the landscape plan where both the drystack stone wall and' a seat wall or concrete border are proposed. -This report assumes only a drystack wall will be installed where both are shown. Special care must be taken to avoid excavating more than several feet beyond the proposed basement footprint. Note the scale of the revised Site and Grading. Topographic Plans is smaller than the indicated scale of l inch equals 10 feet. TREE APPRAISAL AND BOND VALUES The appraised tree values aze presented on the attached Tree Inventory Spreadsheet. The values were calculated in accordance to the Guide for .Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, established by the Council of Landscape Appraisers and in accordance with the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. The cumulative appraised amount for all retained trees is $89,920. I suggest a 20-percent bond of $17,984 to ensure their protection. TREE REPLACEMENT The combined value of trees #21 and 22, proposed for removal, is $490. This is roughly equivalent to one tree of 24-inch box size. Acceptable native replacement species include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big Leaf Maple (Ater macrophyllum), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). The tree must not be installed beneath canopies of retained trees and should be situated at least 15-feet from all canopy edges. ~~ L~ Sharma Residence Development, 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga t'age s of b City of Saratoga, Community Development Department :~;~~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are based on plans-reviewed and are established to mitigate damage from development activities. If revisions to plans occur, the recommendations may require modification. Tree Protection Fencing 1. Fencing must be installed prior to commencing development 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 must be established as per the attached plan. Where fencing is required for installation beneath canopies of retained trees, I suggest placing it no fiu~ther than two feet from the future driveway edge and stone walls, and rear staircase, and no further than four feet from the rear staircase. 2. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed .and in .place throughout the construction process until the project receives final approval. 3. All development activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas. These activities include, but are not limited to, storing materials; vehicle parking; and dumping of concrete, soil, or other construction materials. 4. I suggest the protection fencing be inspected by the City of Saratoga before permits are issued. Sport Court 5. The sport court must be redesigned and established outside from beneath canopies of retained trees. Drystack Stone Walls 6. The proposed drystack stone walls should not require any soil excavation or compaction when within five feet from canopy edges. Driveway 7. Where the paver driveway with sand sub-base is proposed beneath tree #3's canopy, do not compact the soil beyond 70 to 80-percent, nor excavate soil deeper than 3 to 4- inches beneath existing grade. The excavated portion must be hand dug. Root Severance Guidelines 8. 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 immediately backfill with soil. Grading and Excavation 9. No grading or surface scraping must occur beneath canopies of retained trees. • • • Sharma Residence Development, 13095 Paramount Court, .Saratoga Page 4 of 6 City of Saratoga, Community Development Department (~~Q~O34 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2003 • 10. Excavation for the basement should not exceed more than two to three feet beyond the proposed footprint: Utility Installation 11. Plans for utility installation must be reviewed by the City of Saratoga prior to installation. The design should propose all underground utilities outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where this is not possible, tunneling- (boring) by at least 4'/~-feet below ground may be necessary. Overhead utilities must be .routed without damaging protected trees. Drainage 12. All roof drains must be designed and constructed so water is displaced away from retained trees. 13. Any alterations to the natural grade must ensure water drains away from rather than towards trees' trunks. Tree Pruning 14. The pruning of retained trees must be performed under the supervision of an ISA certified azborist and according to standazds established by the Western Chapter. of the ISA. The pruning should be limited to removing dead or broken branches, and clearing for construction traffic. Fences 15. The proposed perimeter fence planned around the north, west and south perimeters must be installed without imposing damage to protected trees. This includes establishing the posts as far from the trunks as possible and, not driving them into large roots. If at any time large roots, are encountered during installation, relocate the post holes to either side. Do not wrap cyclone around any trunk. 16. The 54-foot long fence proposed between trees #3 and 4 must be installed without excavating or compacting soil. The fence posts should be of standard size and.spaced as far apart as possible. Below Ground Pipes and Utilities 17. Pipes and/or utilities located below ground and beneath protected trees' canopies should be abandoned. If their removal is necessary, the work must be performed by hand. Additional Landscape Considerations 18. Proposed trees must not be installed beneath canopies of retained trees. All plant material beneath canopies of retained trees must not exceed more than 20-percent of the total ground area, and in the case of Oak trees, must be drought tolerant. 19. The stepping stones proposed beneath tree #16's canopy must be installed on-grade, require no soil compaction and be spaced at least several inches apart. Sharma Residence Development, 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page S of 6 City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~~~5 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2003 Irrigation placed beneath canopies must be of either drip or soaker hose. 20. Irrigation trenching must be outside the canopy edge of each tree and irrigation heads for surrounding lawn areas must be directed .away from all trunks. 21. Do not install bender board or perform rototilling beneath tree canopies. 22. Mulch or other materials should not be placed closer than two feet from any trunk and not exceed three to four inches in depth.. Watering 23. Supplemental water must be supplied to all trees affected by construction activities during the-dry summer and fall months (a dry month can be described as receiving less than one inch of rainfall) and continue throughout the construction process. The suggested application rate is 10-gallons per inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. The water should be applied by soaker hoses placed beneath approximate mid-canopy. General Construction Guidelines 24. 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. 25. Concrete pumping equipment must be carefully positioned and operated so damage to trees does not occur. Sharma Residence Development, 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga City of Saratoga, Community Development Department rageooJv ~~~~e]~~ • f ~ - ResmF-~v~ ~5 _ .i cwu•xrc ;cn1L ~ \ _ a 6 ~ 13095`i'ARAMOUNT COURT, SARATOGA - °~".,. ~.~..•„~~~n -~ ~` r. ~ - i ' F-/TYNE $/{itT CautT " i \ ~ ti_v t,.~ w. !h is ~ / \. ~ 10 ~ ~ B b air ~ ".,~" :~ ., ... - TREE PROTECTION FENCING ~ . ~ 11 ~% 12 .~ ~ ~* \ - o~ T~ ~~ ` Po)UtE SWift/N6 ~AW[ ~- 1 1 V \ ~e ~.. ~ 4 13 ', ~~ ARDOR RESOURCES ^~ \ \\\ ~ ~' ~ \ ~~ \ y~ ~- `- \ ` ' ~\ ' r 1 \ _` ~ __- I - - - ~~\ cam". VAUNT LAND ~~ _- \ ~- I •\ ~ - -- _ _ ~ . \ ~ , ~ \'` \ ~. .~7-.,~ T , I ~ ~aniveHuT . I - -- TREE PROTECTION FENCING - ~ - - __. ~ `! \ i ~ `,` /s i- /* c, ~ dsc.I' I . r. 1 ~,~ ~: . .--+-- sm - - - ~ -i.._ /~ 457 - ,~ a 1~ 2.,~ \~~` i _ ' ` :, - - _ - -- -~~ __ 22~ .~ j/;. a. 3 ~~; 4o~ogp~pl~~c~ p0~~ ..~,~~.~w...a..,.~ ---_ -_- - - - .._._. -. _ _ _ _. --- - - PARAMOUNT COURT ''' " `' - , ~ ~ ouRenR a cRUC ' >: p S. • • • •i ~~~®~C7 • AFFIDAVIT OF ,MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, 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 Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 20th day of June, 2003, that I deposited in the mail room at the. City of Saratoga, 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 the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent ec{ualized roll of the Assessor of the Courity of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application 13095 Paramount Court; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ohn F. Livingsto AICP Associate Planner • ~~~~~9 ' City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 9`h day of July 2003, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. ,Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department; Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - S:OO p.m. App. NO. 03-019 (503-82-027. and 028) -Sharma, 13095 Paramount Court; - Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 6,141 square foot house with a 2,081 basement on a vacant lot. The gross lot size is 47,288 square feet- and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 t/2 feet. 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. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the .project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 • • ~~~®~® S • 500 FT f rom Paramunt P.L. Q Paramount Court Q Paramount Roperties w ithin SC N W C~ S I 0 1309.5 Paramount Court • ~~~~4 i SIDNEY D & NANCY SELAN ANDREW L CARTER RALPH J & JOAN. MOROCCO Or Current Owner Or.Current Owner Or Current Owner 13198 PIERCE RD 13 L94 PIERCE RD 13190 PIERCE RD SARAT,OGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 KATHRYN K MATHIS GARLAND CHRIS A & JENNIFER WIRE Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 13180 PIERCE RD 13090 PIERCE RD 13040 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 TERRY L & DEBORAH MATHEW ROBERT P SHEWCHUCK BICKENBACH. Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 13036 HOUSTON CT 13030 HOUSTON CT 13100 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 MARILYN T & A CLAWSON TERESA B OSTLE STEPHEN C & ROBIN ATHERTON Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 13110 PIERCE RD 13044 HOUSTON CT 13050 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 MINTEGUI DON &HSU HSI HANS H & INGE STELLRECHT Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 13144 PIERCE RD 340 13138 PIERCE RD 13200 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN A & .ELIZABETH MERMIS DOUGLAS & SHONNA CARSON SUBRAMANIAM & VAIDYANATH Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 13158 STEWART CT 13169 STEWART CT 131`71 STEWART CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070. SARATOGA CA 95070 YUNGPING & MEIYU HSU YU-CHI & WANG YEH ALLEY Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 13156 PARAMOUNT DR 20651 RICE CT 20673 RICE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 • I ~~~~~~ ~4 ~ ~' Fd Pie • ~fC€1595 #5 ~flLJ~~ k ~ ~ ~ ~~~ - TEaracu ixFORUnnaN ~.. .. . ~ . GRAPHIC SCALE , \ ~ .. gy ; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ assE5mR5 PAai~ ~ ulaca. 1ll0R 3 CF PROJECT E ,m a:-os7 x Gee i ~~ ' ' . p J • . _ ` ~ P ' _ 5 i30a5 CA2 4WNT CWRT .. . naRAr~A GA "'BSDJG , . ~ ~#6 1'3095 PARAMOUNT COURT SARATOGA ~ ~ ~ ~ M ER 1 ~~~l0 2 ~ ' . ' N ~l 4 420 ~~~ 1 - - ONNER S NAME PAfHAl S CEMq SHARMA rRU$IEES & M , .~~-...P~! EpuiP- - - r- ~!~ ~ - ~~ - - ~ in FnM LY UMNGt 1GT N ~ . ; : ~ G #~ ~ E>ys lc usE: ,acAnr..In JINCCI . ... _. ':j:._ _ ' .~` ~. -. 7 ~ ~ ZCNWC DISiR ICi R 19C 000 ^ .~ ? \ .. • - - L 92E OE L0T' q.2C6 SU t[. (GRO6G)Oq NET,_ a ' ...~ ~ g A[lOWA6LE i100R ARFA:.. 6160 50 F7. W, _ SIZF d S1RUCIURE 6,141 50 f i. .-.. -~ } \^ SWME FEET AND PAECENi Oi !$~~ $9,f r: 13$.5 .1- } ~ ,_ ~ ~ IMPERMWS SITE COTERAOE .. ,.._ .._~~..... ~ ".. m - _.. ' ~ .,...., ~ DBL. apAK. ~ : '.. ~ xoae ar RDlEOac vTE ~. z . 5pA ~~ AVERAGE SITE SLORE.. 98% IM ERA ' NCdBTl YAP ~ ~ +~_ ~, ~ ~ I N O~ 'NOT TO SCAEE ", ~'~ ... -p OUS SITE ' . - lP ~ d ~ _-...~~- __ . ___ _ .___ ... •7 V PERM STRUCTURE COY GE 6,141 SO F7 ~ .. _ _~A-._ _ _ _ 4 ~ _ _.._. _ _ ___ __ 234 50 F7 ilcxrwEUs rn __ _~.- ~ ~ 32p~o) o ea4 oFr L '_~ ~~ \ \,~ ~11VEWAY ' ~ ~ 'U - FA710 8 WALNWA75 ' jpp 5 ~~ r-rnD,~. ~ ~ ~\ Z _ SWIMMING PoOl WQ'G0.FT-' - } \ ~,m III -I OZ _. _. -, .~ - '~ a#'/2 At'.~ _ _ Q'' z ' SPoRT COURT .. ZQ755P F.i 1 .: ~_ ~: ~ . __y-:,r S14 + ~~ - _ ° J~~o ~ ., - ~..'~'.... : ,\ ... ,:. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ .f$364.w.Ei. _1325 %t - ~N N _a \ _JNm~- ~ ~ ~., f*t .,:ALEOWABC£.:SrtE-SOVEFA6E~:.16,55036.F7: 135XJ.. ~ ~ y ~ Ocp Z _ ~ , 1It ~ ' '-'' --o ~ _ _ ° NEVIBIpNp BY yy L i yg NN y 6 i i Y { ~ y y i ~. F C j~ [ d f 6 I. y E jj 1 a RIRRZ~~ ,~ZKl: ep. STAN°:~on3 '.. ~ g . 4l0a~o T ~ • ... .._ zz ~ a j 1~_- _ze noble S~ai wiry .. - ~ _ , o 24 N 0',t 3MP Ba0 GAPJGE C409QiT C~p~~~~ ~ ~~~~ao~~ xa!aa~3_~ ,~ ~, _- epi rorni su~san, - - ainwnetc- 6wosa.cr'. - 8 M.*~o~«uw~,~ N~ - -. - ~Id s .s !~ . 795 ~ ' -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :. ~ ~ ~ - GRAPHIC' SCALE TEWNIOK Bi0A11A7101t a " ~ ~ - ' - ~ - - ~ a ~ ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: APN: 50.1-Ht-02I d G28 .. I N \ ~ ~®~g ESA y~ ' 816~~eY V ~R ' ; . AODRESS.OF PROJECT: 17095 PARAMUINT COURT _ `tD ' ~ ~ ':_ _ _ .. .. _. _ .. ~ ~ SARAT061 G 950]0 ~' \ # ~ 13095 PARAMOUNT COURT SARIITOGA ~ ° ~ " owrrEe'S HAMe RACIIAN k SEEMA SHMMA TRUSTEES FAMILY HANG TRUST e a a C~ Poole. N ~~ EI sTNCUS[ vecAxTLANGcN c) _ f-. ~\ 2MING OI$TRIGT A~I.90,OQ0, ~ .~~ sizE~a Lot: nsm sa n.lcaass) ra NEt A ,- __ ~ 0] \ 'Ib$ \ .. ~ ALLONABLE FVWR AREA: 6,160 SOfi '~_,-:. - ~ ~ -- ~~" •..~~... , - - SIZE Cf57RUC1URE: ~' 6,14I SO fT, -_.~ . _- ~~ + ~~ - - IM~PERNOU6 9ft wrERA~Gf: ~, . 'y~ _.. ,~ `--.. ~ ~~ 1_ ~~: ~ ~ - ~ - .. ~ ~ ~ 30PE AT BUIl01NG 97E: ~. 2 ( ~ `~--..~~C. . ....., ___ ~ ._ / J ~ ~9 ~ ~ ~ AVERAGE SiE ELOPE: 48i .. ± __/ - ~. _.\ n - ~MPEWA10U4. SItE .COVERAGE. ;, :~ i `I 1 I r it -:, ~ General Notee W o~ ' ., 7 All land cap d Ig t n II donf m r ih srondard r rn•.cRy wltlo I nd c p rog I tone and gWdoll d all oiho Landecap• I- } bu. j ~olaled Cry nd R gion I to tl rde. ~ Q ..f S. Ali ,plant mof•rlals wll be I•ct•d /r m the following l e ~uS• a ! WULC08 Pialocf W to Ueo~Gla 117coflon of L aacep• 8p•d•e Q , • y~. ° . C'llfarnla D•partma t of Wal• R ourcoe (n ' d8 '-' • "W 1•r-COneorvt g PI Me~and La d peo by, E6MLP (n ~ -. ~. ~ ~ a. Cant t hall heur poeltl df~almg II pavod d In Q .. E~ pl(plaMl g rode: - a dralne eh 11 b nee IIiE h q as nd carrl•a rd rho All r ar uts shell bo n nd e titl ~ x q-- ~'m i ~ - a w a e a p n•a a - Erain g tllsburo•m•N b ne, ~ n -' = px o °e - 4: All pl tng be shall b• Irn'rgaUd th utoniel wat conaerv g U 6 _ ~~&$ ~ B . 'lrryaton y r m- loon g nnwl ro9 ~ Q ~ g ~. 2xlell g k m•ee.a It•' hall hor prat fW f•ncl g una rn•r s•, or tro•'s,.: I Y ~ ' tlrlp lino ro. prwant excroeelvo troffleking undm and arountlihe Iroo tlurMg; ceneWetlon.. 6,-Lantlecapo arose within ih~ canopy, f lhi .axieting oak m•asshall .' hov 0 3" layr'af ehrotltlod fir bark mulch ~ae IM grouhtl covor: ~ ~ ~~ ;~ k iA . ..._ x _. _ _. . _. ....t,.~ ~ _ . __ ~r.~ . ____ __ ~ _ _ ._ r .. _ f February 17, 2003 i~ City of Sazatoga February 4, 2003 City of Saratoga Community Development Department Community Development Department ~' . ~ SHARMA RESIDENCE 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Desigu Review Application Requirement No.10 ii DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION . for I SHARMA RESIDENCE 13095 Paramount Court Saratoga, CA 95070 ~ To Whom It May Concern: ; ~ This letter is to confirm that the following adjacent property owners have reviewed the plans for the proposed project. ,1 ? ~ ~ar~ ~'a~~~ ~~ ~ I ) ~ ~~~-1 ~ ,S G ~'6 0 ort roperty weer A ess ,q J Vin ar ' Sou 1~ Cy~J- WTI ~ C - GHU~ s, CHt9~(~ Undeveloped Land ~~go Q~~~~1~7 ~7, ~~o~~o~l~, ~ 9~ o Address i 13 3 ~~ cep Address Policy No. 1: Minimise Perception of Buck ~, • This project meets this design policy by the way the residence is merged into the gentle slope of the property and achieving a balance of earthwork. • This design also achieves~a lower profile by fallowing the natural contours of the property. The use of stucco with natural stone and clay the roofing in earth tone . colors allows this residence to blend into a natural setting. • Creating a good balance and varying the height of the roofline minimizes the maximum height. • The "Early California"/Santa Barbara" azchitectural style, is very conducive to this azea (,of Saratoga and will compliment this neighborhood greatly. Policy No. 2: Integrate Structure with Environment • As mentioned previously this design has a minimal amount of materials and all are natural, earth tone colors. • This design was purposely created in order to fit into the topography' and background. • All of the existing oak trees will be preserved and treated with the best . of care and the proposed new landscaping will enhance the beauty of this property. • The azchitectural style proposed is unsurpassed and only incorporates " one design theme. i • As previously mentioned, the proposed design consists of materials and colors that blend into the natural surroundings. T'he use of natural stone for the low garden walls will help to maintain the country setting that surrounds this propert __ _ Policy Nor' 3: Avoid Interference with Privac,~ • Irrterference with privacy is not an issue with this property. It is a one-acre property with a single story house located in the middle of the site. To the North there is a ; single story residence with large foliage'sepazating the two properties. Across the street to the East is another residence about one hundred yards away with existing foliage on that property. On the South side is vacant land with established vineyards. To the West uphill and reaz of the subject property is a new home that is separated by large existing oak trees. After the proposed landscaping is mature it will also lend additional privacy to its' owners and adjacent neighbors. Policy No. 4: Preserve View and Access to Views This property speaks for itself. There are no issues pertaining to views. • The proposed design does not interfere with any of the neighbors' views, nor' does it impose on them Policy No. 5: Design for Energ~E~ciencv • The structure is tucked into the grade to reduce wall exposure and provide ,wind protection. i . ' • Covered porches will provide shade and family enjoyment all year round. • .The existing mature trees provide a buffer from the wind. ' • The proposed house may have a hydronic lieating system, which will provide . . - - `amore efficient heat source. ,. „ .. .. .' .. ~ .: ,. ,. ~: , __~- MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MAY 21, 2003 The City Council met in Open Session at 4:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. to conduct interviews for the Youth Commission. . Mayor Streit adjourned the interviews at 5:30 p.m. and announced the City Council would meet in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 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 -Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) Conference With Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation Name of case: Parker Ranch Homeowners Association, et al. v. Tsung-Ching Wu, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number CV797015) Conference With Legal Counsel-Threatened Litigation (1 item). 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 Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk John Cherbone, Public Works Director Cary Bloomquist, administrative Analyst Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Christine Oosterhous, Associate Planner REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MAY 21, 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954:2, the agenda for the meeting of May 21, 2003 was properly posted on May 16, 2003. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Jonathan Judelson, 13785 Lexington Court, noted that he has been a resident in Saratoga for the past 18 years and now he is a junior majoring in Cinema Production at the University of Southern California. Mr. Judelson noted that this summer is producing a film to build his resume and to gain film experience. Mr. Judelson explained that plot of the film and noted that the total cost is approximately $15,000. Mr. Judelson noted that he would like to use Saratoga as a backdrop for this film. Mr. Judelson noted that he was present tonight to ask the City Council to waive the $500 charge for a permit to shoot the film in Saratoga and fund the cost of having a Sheriff available on site. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember King requested that Council agendize Mr. Judelson's request for the next meeting. Councilmember Kline noted that he supported Councilmember King's request. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING THE MONTH OF JUNE "SCLERRODERMA MONTH" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Read proclamation. 2 Mayor Streit read the proclamation and directed staff t mail it to the appropriate person. 1B. COMMENDATION -PETER WOHLMUT - SARATOGA COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. Wohlmut. Mr. Wohlmut expressed his appreciation for being able to live in Saratoga for over 20 years. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 16, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL l6, 2003. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2C. PLANNING ACTION MINUTES -APRIL 14, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 2003. MOTION PASSED 4-1 .WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT • 3 2D. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION -CONTAINING FINDINGS AND DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DENIAL OF APPEAL BY WILLIAM F. BRECK OF VARIANCE GRANTED. BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO MITCHELL AND TRACY CUTLER FOR 25-FOOT LONG, SIX FOOT HIGH WALL AT 14480 OAK PLACE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-027 CONTAINING FINDINGS AND DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DENIAL OF APPEAL BY WILLIAM F. BRECK OF VARIANCE GRANTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO MITCHELL AND TRACY CUTLER FOR 25-FOOT LONG, SIX FOOT HIGH WALL AT 14480 OAK PLACE WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT REOSLUTION. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT 2E. APPROVAL OF CONSULTANTAGREEMENT FOR TRAIL EASEMENT RESEARCH STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve proposal and authorize City Manager to execute agreement. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSAL FROM TERRI BARON FOR CONSUTLING SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT 2F. CALIFORNIA HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize representative to sign protest letter from the Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Council. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE REPRESENTTAIVE TO SIGN LETTER OF PROTEST. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT 2G. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE =PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ITS BOUNDARIES TO THE SAN MATED COAST STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-028 r-'~ L~ 4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SUPPORTING AND ENDORSING THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT'S PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ITS BOUNDARIES TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY COAST TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT 2H. ON-LINE REGISTRATION AND TRANSACTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize purchase of software. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT 2I. CIVIC THEATER UPPER LEVEL RE-ROOF PROJECT -NOTICE OF COMPLETION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept project as complete and direct staff to record the Notice of Completion. U WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF OCMPELTION. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT 2J. CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR MUNICIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve contract and authorize City Manager to execute the same. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CONTRACT WITH FEHR & PEERS FOR TRAFFIC CONSULTING SERVICES ANDAUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO CONSTRUCT NEW FACILITIES FOR ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL LOCATED AT 13601 SARATOGA AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; uphold the Planning Commission approval; adopt resolution. • TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-029 5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS .LOCATED AT 13601 SARATOGA AVENUE TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-030 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN CONNECTION WITH: ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND CHURCH, 13601 SARATOGA AVENUE Due to a conflict of interest, Councilmember Kline recused himself from this item and stepped down from the dais. Christine Oosterhous, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Oosterhous explained that On march 12, 2003 the Planning Commission approved by resolution Design Review and Use permit to construct new facilities for St. Andrew's Parish and School. The proposed project includes demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of six new structures.. Proposed buildings include: a performing arts/gymnasium; administrative offices, classrooms, a parish center, a clergy building and a bell tower. The new building construction will total approximately 72,705 square feet. Planner Oosterhous explained that the planning Commission approved the project with several added conditions. Planner Oosterhous explained the conditions as follows: • The proposed bell tower shall be eliminated from the project. • Clerestory windows shall be installed in the parish center • The height of the administration/classroom building shall not exceed 32.5 feet as viewed from Saratoga Avenue • The height of the clergy building shall not exceed 30 feet in height as viewed from Saratoga Avenue • St. Andrew's shall be required to install fencing and landscaping screening as requested by the adjacent neighbors • Planning commission approval shall be required to increase student enrollment beyond 450 students. Enrollment figures shall be submitted to the planning department each fall • Outdoor concerts, amplified voices and music shall not be permitted in any outdoor location • Interior building lights shall not be illuminated in the evenings when not in use Planner Oosterhous noted that the grounds for the appeal as detailed by the appellant, march King, in his appeal are in part "failure to provide due process and due diligence". Planner Oosterhous noted that the Planning Commission and St. Andrew's held several neighborhood meetings. Staff notified the appellant by telephone and he never attended. Documents on file in the Community Development Department indicate the appellant was notified of all of the meetings. 6 Jill Hunter, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that they met with St. Andrew's e many times. Although the Commission had many different views on the project, in the end the consensus was after 40 years of use most schools should be • remodeled. Vice Mayor Waltonsmtih asked how many public hearings did the Planning Commission have. Chair Hunter responded they held 4 public hearings. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing. Mayor Streit noted the appellant was not present and moved on to .the applicant. Scott Sheldon, Project Representative for St. Andrews, stated that they held at least 7 public hearings and workshops in regards to their project. Mr. Sheldon noted that this project started in 1999. This was when the parish and the school made the commitment to go forward and upgrade the school facilities. In 2001 they brought a proposal to the Planning Commission and the proposal wasn't the right solution. They went back worked with staff, the parish and the neighbors to try and meet everyone's needs. Mr. Sheldon noted that the recent approval includes a series of 38 conditions imposed by the Planning commission in which St. Andrew's is amenable and agreeable to fulfilling. Mr. Sheldon noted that they have tried and will continue to be a good neighbor. In terms of the appeal, which was filed by Mr. King, is based on his claim of "lack of due process". Mr. Sheldon stated that the lack of due process is not accurately represented and noted all of the notices were mailed out properly and as information was provided to the parish, school, and neighbors. Mr. Sheldon stated that they feel they have completed due process. Mr. Sheldon urged the Council to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation. Stephanie Palmer, 18806 Harleigh Drive, noted that she has lived in Saratoga since 1996 and has been a member of St.' Andrew's Parish and School for 11 years. Ms. Palmer noted that she fully supports the project. Mayor Streit noted that Mr. King, the appellant, was present and informed Mr. King he had 10 minutes. Marc King, Bremore Drive, noted that he objects to the project. Mr. King referred to Planning Commission minutes from March 12, 2003. Mr. King stated that in those minutes 19 neighbors objected to the project, 15 of those objections were due to growth of the site. Mr. King stated that also in those minutes it shows that the only advocates for the project did not live physically close to the project.. Mr. King stated that nowhere in the minutes did it discuss the ongoing traffic problems on Saratoga Avenue, nor was the projected growth of the school discussed. Mr. King stated that the minutes do note mention the president the decision will make on the rest of the City. Mr. King stated that this is not a remodeled but an expansion project. Mr. King stated that the Planning Commission's decision on March 12, 2003 was not responsible. 7 Mr. King requested that the. Council reverse the decision. of the Planning Commission until such time the Planning Commission showed proof of due diligence on this project. Councilmember Kin stated that she thou ht the nei hbors left to St. Andrew's g g g supported the project. Mr. King responded that he did not read that in the minutes Jim Sparks, 19562 Via Monte, noted that he has been a member of St. Andrew's. for 14 years and lives two blocks away from the school. Mr. Sparks noted that the classrooms, cafeteria and gymnasium were all too small. Mr. Sparks stated that he fully supports the project. Hugh Wright, 12243 Goelta Avenue, has been a member of St. Andrew's since 1974. Mr. Wright stated that he fully supports the project. Jerry Bruce, Saratoga Federated Church, stated that the faith communities in Saratoga provide numerous services to the community. Mr. Bruce stated that he fully supports the project. David Moyles, Hill Avenue, stated that he fully supports the project. Jim Hughes, 1443 Melinda Circle, stated .that he feels the proposed improvements are necessary. Don Carr, 19803 Merribrook Court, stated that he fully supports the project. Penny Carr, 19803 Merribrook Court, stated that she fully supports the project. Fran Crepea, 12137 Kristy Lane, stated that she fully supports the project. Joe Durham, 19561 Scotland Drive, noted that he lives one house down from St. Andrew's and noted that he fully supports the project. Ruth Tsai, 1.36602 Old Tree Way, stated that she fully supports the project Dan Gochnauer, 12892 Cumberland Drive, stated that he has been a member of St. Andres for 17 years and his children attended school there. He feels the improvements are necessary. Frances Banakas, 14669 Fieldstone Drive, stated that she fully supports the project J.P. Puette, 12342 Crayside Lane, stated that she is the Risk Manager for St. Andrew's and the improvements are necessary to provide a safe school for the children. Ms. Puette stated that she fully supports the project Lilly Shoemaker, 18799 Westview Drive, stated that she fully supports the project Harry Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, noted that he shares a common fence with St: Andrew's Church. Mr. Luoh stated that he feels that St. Andrew's has not followed the City's building code. Mr. Luoh noted that St. Andrew's should not . be allowed to build athree-story building. Mr. Luoh noted that he opposes the project. Mr. Luoh stated that he feels the noise will be a problem. Diana Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, stated that she opposes the project although she is not against the function or purpose of St. Andrew's. Mrs. Luoh agrees the school needs improvements, but the design is wrong. Mrs. Luoh noted that the Parish Center building, that is the closest to their house, would be disruptive. Jim Stallman, 19740 Braemore Drive, stated that he fully supports the project Jill Zuleeg, 19605 Glen Una Drive, stated that she fully supports the project Gayle Bate,-10422 San Fernando Avenue, stated that she fully supports the project Barb Setriado, 19521 Tweed Court, noted that her house faces the school and she here's all the noise from recess daily. Mrs. Setriado noted that she oppose the project. Linda Sherburne, 12443 De Sanka Avenue, stated that he fully supports the project David Baum, 19105 Dagmar Drive, stated that he fully supports the project • Mr. King noted that this was not a contest to see not about how long a person has lived in the community or how long a person may have been a member of the church. The City's 500-foot notification does not compare to the large number of members of the church that was well orchestrated this evening. Mr. King noted that he is not asking the Council to approve or disapprove the St. Andrew's project, but to approve or disapprove whether the Planning Commission did due diligence. Mr. King requested that the Council return the project back to the Planning Commission reconsider the project. Mr. Sheldon stated that "due diligence" was followed throughout the process. Mr. Sheldon noted -that the Planning Commission did put a cap on enrollment based on the history of past enrollment over the years and have tried to mitigated the noise impact on the neighbors. Mr. Sheldon requested that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she visited the site yesterday and read all the material that staff provided. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports the Planning-Commission's decision. Councilmember King noted that she also supports the Planning Commission's decision. 9 Mayor Streit stated that he cannot make the findings to overrule the Planning Commission's decision. Mayor Streit noted that he supports the added conditions that the Commission applied to the approval of the project. Mayor Streit noted that he supports the Planning Commission's decision. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS LOCATED AT 13601 SARATOGA AVENUE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-1-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT AND KLINE ABSTAINING.. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN CONNECTION WITH: ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND CHURCH. 13601 SARATOGA AVENUE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-1-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT AND KLINE ABSTAINING. Consensus of the Council to direct staff to work with St. Andrew's to address the concerns with the lights in the Sunday School area. Mayor Streit declared afive-minute break at 8:40 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 16 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING SITES AND EXPIRATION OF BUILDING PERMITS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; introduce ordinance; waive first reading; and direct staff to place the matter on the Consent Calendar for the next council meeting. Richard Taylor City Attorney, Presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that one of the areas that continue to create complaints from all Saratoga's neighborhoods is the unsightliness of construction sites. The proposed ordinance addresses this issue by 10 requiring construction sites to be fenced with opaque material and 2) all equipment, material, portable toilets and trash dumpsters be maintained within the confines of the project. City Attorney Taylor explained that another area of concern is construction projects that continue for unreasonable length of time, sometimes five to six years or more. This subjects the neighbors to unfinished construction sites, which are unsightly, attractive to for shelter by animals and humans, and unsafe. The proposed ordinance id intended to give incentive for the completion of 10 construction projects within a reasonable amount of time. It is designed to render the City Code more understandable and to enable builders to know the procedures ' applicable to reinstatement of a building permit and to know the limit of the number of reinstatements. Discretion is more clearly vested in the building official to reinstate permits and nom ore than two permit reinstatements are allowed in order to encourage completion of construction projects in a timely manner. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak on this item. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing. KLINE/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO WAIVE FIRST READING AND DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE THE MATTER ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve expenditures of up to $2500; approve additional funds for Gilbane; Provide direction on acoustical panels; announce date of Grand Opening Celebration. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manger Tinfow stated that the temporary library closed Monday, May 19, 2003. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that following: • Budget Status - $14,692,0931- (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 requested that Council authorize staff to purchase and install track lighting along the art wall to highlight exhibited work and approve additional funds for Gilbane Building co. services for the period of May 16 through May 21, 2003. Mayor Streit asked if the City would recover any funds due to GenCon's bankruptcy. Assistant City Manager Tinfow responded that he City should get approximately $30,000, which is not included in the budget. • 11 In regards to the art wall, Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that because the Arts Commission has decided to postpone the initial art exhibit of Dr. Head, staff needs direction on how to proceed: Assistant City Manager Tinfow rioted that staff is requesting direction on whether or not to install the acoustic panels now or wait until a later date. Councilmember King asked if the panels are not installed now would there be a charge to install them at a later date. Assistant City Manager Tinfow responded yes that there would be a charge. Consensus of the City Council to direct the contractor to install the acoustical panels in the library. Assistant City Manager Tinfow announced that the official grand opening celebration is scheduled for June 21, 2003. WALTONSMITH/KL1NE MOVED TO APPROVE EXPENDITURES OF UP TO $2500; APPROVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR GILBANE. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 6. INTRODUCTION OF 2003-2004 PRELIMINARY BUDGET STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca stated that he would be going through the recommended changes to the 2003-04 Budget and introduce the draft annual fee schedule. Director Baloca-noted that the on May 7, 2003, the Preliminary Budget was ,presented as a balanced operating budget. In consideration of the Governor's December 2002 proposed cuts that proposed a revenue reduction of approximately $1.3 million in FY 2003-04 VLF backfill and booking fees, the budget continued to leave intact the City's $2.3 million operating contingency and $1.5 million economic uncertainty reserves. Director Baloca stated that since the introduction of the FY 2003-04 budget, refinements have bee made as part of ongoing review process that includes a reassessment of end of year expenditure levels. The end of year budget has been adjusted top account for additional legal services in the amount of $118k and $3k for additional litigation services. Director Baloca stated that the Governor's May 4, 2003 revision to the States FY 2003-04 budget restored the VLF funding contingent upon the "VLF Trigger". being pulled in the near future. Since the VLF backfill was included in May 2003 revised budget, the City's VLF losses under this scenario will be limited to the lag time inherent between noticing and payment of increased VLF fees, approximately 2 months. After passing the State budget, the City will address the impacts as a separate budget amendment to the City''s FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget. 12 In regards to the FY 2003-04 Fee Schedule, Director Baloca stated it primarily reflect s new park user fees. developed and reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, revised building rental fees that reflect a comparative study, the removal of animal control-fees charged by the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA), and an increase in the annexation deposit that is exempt from LAFCO from $2,500 to $5,000. Jim Hughes, Chair/ Finance Commission. noted that the Finance Commission fully supports the proposed Fee Schedule and voted to pass the budget unanimously. Chair Hughes thanked Director Baloca for a great job. Director Baloca noted that he would bring this item back on June 4, 2003 for a public hearing and final adoption: Council thanked Director Baloca for a job well done. NEW BUSINESS. 7. APPROVAL OF DESIGN PLANS FOR PLAYGROUND AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS AT BROOKGLEN, EL QUITO, WILDWOOD PARKS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve design plans. Cary Bloomquist, administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist reported that in direct response to the Federally Mandated Playground Equipment Safety Standards, the City, through the Parks and Recreation Commission, formed task forces and held kickoff meetings this past July 2002 at Brookglen and Wildwood parks to replace existing play equipment that does not met federal safety standards. The El Quito Park Task Force was formed over year ago and has met on a regular basis, focusing on issues such as field usage/drainage/irrigation improvements, placement of a pedestrian/jogging path with a par course around the perimeter of the park, play equipment, and other small infrastructure improvements. Analyst Bloomquist reported that at the December 2002 Council meeting, Council awarded design contracts for the park improvement projects as follows: the Beals Group for El Quito and Design Focus for Brookglen and Wildwood Park. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the drawings before Council represent the final designs. for each park. The Parks and Recreation Commission and the. task. forces groups fully support the designs. If approved, staff will go out to bid fro construction of these projects in late summer. Analyst Bloomquist reported that Derek McKee from the Beals Group and Rebecca Dye from Design Focus were present this evening to answer any questions Council may have. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith asked if the price included installation fees. 13 Analyst Bloomquist responded yes. Mayor Streit noted that staff is asking Council to approve equipment tonight that until this evening was the first time the Council has seen the equipment and designs. Analyst Bloomquist responded that the drawings have been on display in the Public Works department. Mayor Streit asked to postpone the approval until the next meeting and requested that staff provide reduced size design plans and arrange site visit to the parks. Councilmember Kline concurred with Mayor Streit. Analyst Bloomquist responded that he would be happy to arrange site visits and bring this item back to Council at a future date but requested the two design groups be allowed to give their presentations since that were preset this. evening. Derek McKee, Beals Group, noted that he would provide the Council with the playground designs. Rebecca Dye, Design Focus, stated that she designed Brookglen and Wildwood Parks. Ms. Dye described Brookglen Park as a small neighborhood "pocket park" serving ages 3-12 years. The play equipment is clustered according to age. The predominate color is green with red and blue accents: Brookglen Park will have a basketball court with a painted maze on it. Plum trees will be planted to set off the park from the street. There will also be ADA accessible play equipment, picnic tables and a few giant animals to climb on. Ms. Dye continued to describe the design for Wildwood Park. Ms. Dye noted that this park they kept the colors subdued using mostly green. Ms Dye noted that new play equipment including a huge climbing structure, swings, slides, and a water play table would be installed. One of the options is a climbing structure shaped as a dinosaur. Councilmember Kline asked how tall the climbing structure was. Ms. Dye responded 10 feet. Councilmember King asked how many benches is the City buying for $22,000. Ms. Dye responded 8 benches would be purchased Mr. McKeeBeals Group stated that the playground at El Quito Park not only included new play equipment but also new irrigation and a perimeter pathway. Sandra Dodge, Chair /PRC, Karlina Oh, 21.750 Vintage Lane, noted that she served on the Wildwood Task Force. Ms. Oh noted that the Task Force tried to design the park with play equipment that kids don't normally get to use. The climbing structure that was shaped. as like a dinosaur was a big hit, but they understand the budget constraints. 14 Mayor Streit asked if the play equipment for the parks come from. a single manufacture or from several different ones. Mayor Streit asked if several different manufactures would that create problems concerning maintained and warranty.. • Director Cherbone res onded that the e ui ment comes from several different p q p manufactures but he does not foresee any problems with the maintenance or warranty. Karen Murphy, 12540 Paseo Ceroo, noted that she served on the El Quito Park Task Force. Ms Murphy noted that the Task Force tried to maintain the character of the park while keeping in mind that the park is heavily used. Ms: Murphy noted that the Task Force is very excited about the design. Mayor Streit asked about the play equipment warranties. Mr. McKee stated that most manufactures offer a 15-20 year warranty. Consensus of the City Council to postponed-the approval of the park designs and direct staff to schedule site visits and bring the item back to Council at a future date. 8. REDBERRY ANNEXATION DISCUSSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the annexation process. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that Wanda Kownacki of Bainter Way has requested that the City place this issue of potential annexation of properties on the Council agenda. Attached is a LAFCO presentation on City conducted annexation process. Planner Livingstone stated that one of the reason for annexation is to be able apply the City's more stringent design review standards for new homes that are new by that are now subject to County design review standards. The County design review regulations allow homes up to 35 feet in height and have no floor area limitations. Our General Plan allows for annexations as long as there is no add Tonal cost over the long term of the annexation. Planner Livingstone explained that for every million dollars in property tax the City would receive $350.00. Planner Livingstone noted that staff feels that if Council would like to .proceed with the annexation of these properties, you should be aware the county application pending on neighboring property would more thank likely be completed with County prior to the start with any annexation process from the City. Wanda Kownacki, 19280 Bainter Avenue, noted hat she is extremely frustrated with the County's review proves and requests that the City speed the annexation along. Mrs. Kownacki noted that they have tried to discuss the matter with the property owner- and he is not willing to address their concerns. Mrs. Kownacki 15 stated that the property violates all county hillside standards and threatens 12 mature oak trees. Kim Fennell, 19418 Redberry Drive, thanked the City Council for showing an .interest in the possibility of annexing their property- into the City limits. Mr. • Fennel stated that he opposes the proposed project because of the structures height, brightness and the threat to the oak trees. If the City decides to proceed with the annexation process, City Attorney Taylor stated that Council should provide direction to staff if the annexation should be a City funded annexation or whether the applicants should fund it. City Attorney Taylor stated that under the proposed fee schedule, which is on the agenda later this evening and would will take effect July 1, 2003 if approved, the applicant must pay a deposit and the cost in processing the application. is billed against that deposit when if falls below a certain level it is reimbursed. City Attorney Taylor stated that a policy question should to be made by the Council on whether the fee scheduled should be applied to this proposed annexation. City Attorney Taylor stated that if not the City would be responsible for the survey costs, geotechnical surveys, etc. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith asked approximately how much would this .process would cost. City Attorney Taylor responded that he did not know the costs. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that this annexation is important to the City and perhaps the city and the applicants could share the costs. Mayor Streit noted that he .supports the annexation Councilmember Kline noted that the. City should fund the annexation due to the fact that this property should Have been annexed years ago. City Attorney Taylor requested clear direction on how staff should proceed: 1) look at just the three properties that have been proposed, 2) look at one or two additional properties to make a uniform block, or 3) look at a broader area up to a quarter mile on either side of the property. Councilmember King stated that she would like staff to move forward with the three properties that want to be annexed and- the one that is causing difficulty trying to get them in our sphere of influence. Also she requested that staff provide a timeline of the annexation process and noted that this process should be expedited. Councilmember King also suggested that the City talk to the County Executives again and let them know that the City is serious about this annexation and the project in questions should not be approved. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith concurred. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to investigate annexation of the four pieces of the property on Rederry Drive. 16 9. KSAR 15 EQUIPMENT UPGRADES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. • Joan Pisani recreation Director resented staff re ort. ,P p Director Pisani explained that in Apri12002 the City Council directed KSAR staff to evaluate the current broadcast system in the Council Chamber and come back with a recommended equipment upgrade list. Director Pisani explained that in 2000 KSAR received a settlement from AT&T totaling $95,000. To date KSAR has a balance of$88,688. Carolyn cie los Santos, Saratoga Community Access Director, has come up with a recommendation for new equipment to improve their service delivery totaling $45,013. Councilmember King asked Carolyn if she felt that the recommendations were the best way to spend the $45,000. Carolyn de los Santos, Saratoga Community Access Director, responded that she fully supports this recommendation. KL1NE/KING MOVED TO RECOMMEND EQUIPMENT PURCHASE TO KSAR BOARD. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 10. FUTURE USE OF MCWILLIAMS HOUSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Joan Pisani, recreation Director, presented staff report. Director Pisani explained that in January of this year the Chamber of Commerce moved out of the city-owned McWilliams House after 25 years. The City Council has requested that the future of the House be discussed tonight. Director Pisani noted that after the Chamber of Commerce relocated their office, city staff completed a few repair projects. Staff removed and replaced the dilapidated fence in front of the building, took down the gazebo in the back, installed a drainage system around the property, and removed the termite infested storage shed attached to the house. Director Pisani explained that in February a .list of McWilliams House improvements was presented to the Council. After discussion Council decided not to move forward with the minor upgrades but instead designated $25,000 to hire an architect that specializes in preservation and restoration of historic houses. 17 Director Pisani explained future options for the future use of the McWilliams House as follows: • Lease building to Historical Foundation . • Lease building to smaller business • Use the building for City purposes • Do nothing right now Director Pisani noted that Bob Lowden, President/Saratoga Historical Foundation, was present this evening to answer any questions the Council may have. Bob Lowden, President/Saratoga Historical Foundation, noted that he has lived in Saratoga for over 40 years and is the current President of the Saratoga Historical Foundation. Mr. Lowden requested that the City allow the Foundation to use the McWilliams House. Councilmember Kline asked if the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Saratoga Historical Foundation ever have meetings together. Mr. Lowden responded that the two groups do occasionally meet together. Planner Livingstone added that one member from the HPC is on the Foundation's Board and the Chair of the HPC usually attends the Foundation meetings. Mayor Streit noted that he supports allowing the Foundation to use the McWilliams house but is concerned about the long-term maintenance of the • building. Mayor Streit noted that a maintenance agreement should be executed from the beginning for any use of the building. Councilmember Kline noted that he also supports allowing the Foundation to use the McWilliams House. Councilmember Kline noted that all City owned property should be looked. Vice Mayor Waltonsmtih suggested looking at all city faculties and have a strategic plan everything. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Vice Mayor Waltonsmith reported the following information: County Cities Association Legislative Task Force -reported back to the Task Force with the Council's consensus on the bills, whether to support, not to support or monitor. Mayor Streit reported the following information: Hakone Foundation -elected anew president. • 18 t r Councilmember King reported the following information: Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board -recently attended the meeting and felt that she lacked information compared to the other representatives. Councilmember King stated that she thinks this is due to the fact that Saratoga changes representative yearly whereas other cities don't. Councilmember Kline had nothing to report. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Streit adjourned Closed Session at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • 19