Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-2003 Planning Commission Packet CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE' Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL. Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakam, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter Absent. Commissioner Garakani Staff Planners Livingstone ~ Oosterhous, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Slunn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 9, 2003. (APPROVED 6-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Plamm~g Commission from discussing or taking action on such items However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regardingOral Communications underPlamm~g Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 17, 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 #03-019 (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 231/~ feet Continued from meeting on . jL7Iy 9, 2003 (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 6-0) 2. APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-030) -Appellant CORSON, Site Location - 18325 Swathmore Drive; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. Continued from meeting on July 9, 2003 (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (APPEAL APPROVED 5-1, SCHALLOP OPPOSED) APPLICATION #03-131 (397-07-039) - SHARMA, 15211 Sobey Road; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story residence and attached three-car garage. More than 50% of the existing two-story residence will be demolished, therefore, the project is considered a new two-story residence. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,842 square feet. A stucco exterior siding and a concrete the roof material are proposed. The gross lot size is 60,661 square feet. The property is zoned R 140,000. (CHRISTINE OosTERxous) (APPROVED 6-0) 4. APPLICATION #02-129 (503-28-011) - ABACHIZADEH, 20981 Canyon View Drive; -The applicant Requests Design Review Approval to add 1,422 square feet to the existing house. The addition includes 400 square feet for the conversion of a carport to a garage. The gross lot size is 9,200 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. (JoxN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 6-0) DIRECTORS ITEM Remind Commissioners that the Meeting on August 13, 2003 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on May 21, 2003 and June 4, 2003 ADJOURNMENT AT 10:27 PM TO SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday August 5, 2003, at 9.00 a.m. at the Saratoga Historical Museum 20450 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, CA If you would hke to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga ca us • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE Tuesday, July 22, 2003 -12:00 110011 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 23, 2003 C7 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #03-140 - CORSON Item 2 18372 Swarthmore Drive 2. Application #03-131 - SHARMA Item 3 15211 Sobey Road 3. Application #02-129 - ABACHIZADEH Item 4 20981 Canyon View Drive 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 (S 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 23, 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 July 9, 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 Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 17, 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 #03-019 (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 I/z feet. Continued from meeting on July 9, 2003 (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) 2. APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-030) -Appellant CORSON, Site Location - 18325 Swathmore Drive; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. Continued from meeting onJuly9, 2003 (THOMAS SULLIVAN) 3. APPLICATION #03-131 (397-07-039) - SHARMA, 15211 Sobey Road; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story residence and attached three-car garage. More than 50% of the existing two-story residence will be demolished; therefore, the project is considered a new two-story residence. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,842 square feet. A stucco exterior siding and a concrete the roof material are proposed. The gross lot size is 60,661 square feet. The property is zoned R 140,000. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) 4. APPLICATION #02-129 (503-28-011) - ABACHIZADEH, 20981 Canyon View Drive; -The applicant Requests Design Review Approval to add 1,422 square feet to the existing house. The addition includes 400 square feet for the conversion of a carport to a garage. The gross lot size is 9,200 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM - Remind Commissioners that the Meeting on August 13, 2003 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on May 21, 2003 and June 4, 2003 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would hke to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga ca.us D MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 9, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of June 25, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of June 25, 2003, were adopted with minor corrections to pages 3, 9, 15, 17 and 24. (6-0-0-1; Chair Hunter abstained) 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 July 3, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hunter announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2003 Page 2 *** • PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 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 three-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) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Pointed out a technical error in the staff report regarding the total square feet being 4,515 rather than the 4,514 listed. The living space represents 3,846 square feet and the three-car garage is 669 square feet. • Assured that the data was correct in all public noticing. • Reminded that at its meeting of May 28, 2003, the Planning Commission continued consideration of this item to a date uncertain. Issues included the scale of the front entry feature and the inclusion of a carport. • Advised that the applicant has reduced the scale of the entry and modified the scale of the columns. The proposed carport has been eliminated and instead the garage will be for three cars. • Said that the applicant has worked with the neighbors to accommodate their concerns and has obtained their support. • Pointed out two pieces of correspondence expressing concerns about vehicular visibility and said that the applicant has removed the juniper hedge at the corner to help alleviate this concern. • Stated that a Condition has been added that no construction vehicles are to be located within 50 feet of the corners of Saraview and Sarahills Drive. • Said that staff worked with the applicant to limit the maximum height of the structure to 21 feet. • Recommended approval as conditioned. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the height of the entry. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 18 feet at the apex and 14 feet at the fascia. Commissioner Uhl asked what it was previously. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 20 feet at the apex and 16 feet at the face. Commissioner Barry asked for the height of the rotunda feature. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 19 feet, having also been lowered. Added that the maximum height of the roof will now be 21 feet. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the impervious surfaces are at maximum allowable levels and suggested the possibility that walkways and/or the driveway utilize pervious pavers. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that this has not been discussed with the applicant but that it would be possible to use pervious pavers in some way. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2003 Page 3 i Commissioner Uhl asked why staff has decided upon 21 feet as the maximum height to be allowed. Commissioner Garakani said he could explain. He said that the height limitation at 21 feet would avoid too flat of a roof pitch. Planner Lata Vasudevan added that staff believes that 21 feet is the maximum height that the lot could handle. Commissioner Uhl asked if it also represents the minimum height that the architectural design could handle. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Tran, Applicant & Owner, 13622 Saraview Drive, Saratoga: • Said that they have reduced the front porch and family room as asked by the Planning Commission and expressed his hope that the Commission is happy with these changes. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Tran if he would be willing to incorporate some pervious surfaces on his walkways and/or driveway, explaining that pervious pavers would allow water to percolate into the ground while concrete does not. • Mr. Tran asked where this was suggested. Commissioner Barry replied either on the driveway or the walkways. Mr. Tran said he would be willing to use pervious pavers on his driveway and that this covers a lot of area. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the pool area. Mr. Tran said that he would prefer solid slab around the pool. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that Mr. Tran may want to match the path leading from the driveway to the front door with the same pervious pavers. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Tran to clarify for the Commission that, through conversations with his neighbors, all of his neighbors are now comfortable with the design. Mr. Tran replied yes. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Tran how long a conversation was held with each neighbor. Mr. Tran said he spoke with one neighbor for about 45 minutes, another neighbor for about 30 minutes, one neighbor kept his plans to look over for about three days and another reviewed his plans over two days. One neighbor supported him immediately. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2003 Page 4 Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Garakani said that the design looks okay. The Commission gave the applicant direction and it was followed, including the changes to the entry, removal of the carport and articulation on the columns. Commissioner Zutshi said that with the reduction in height to a maximum of 21 feet and the use of pavers on the driveway, this project looks fine. Commissioner Barry agreed. Commissioner Uhl said that the project is pushing the limit of the Code and appears bulky for the neighborhood. However, this applicant has spoken with his neighbors and if the neighbors are okay, he can support the project as well. Commissioner Nagpal said that Mr. Tran has met the direction given by the Commission and, with the inclusion of pervious pavers, she will support this proposal. Commissioner Schallop said he would support the project as revised. ~_J Chair Hunter thanked Mr. Tran for being so gracious during this process. Said that while she is uncomfortable with this being so big, he has worked to obtain his neighbors' support. Motion: U on motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the P Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new single-story residence on property located at 13622 Saraview Drive with the use of pervious pavers for the driveway, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and 'Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03-019 (503-82-027 and 028) - SHARMA 13095 Paramount Court: Request 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. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that bad data was tied to the City's GIS map and that as a result noticing labels were erroneous with some property owners not being properly notified. • Said that the City Attorney instructed staff to continue this item and renotice this item properly. • Assured that staff has done so. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2003 Page 5 Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a Design Review application (#03- 019) for a new house on property located at 13095 Paramount Court to the next Planning Commission meeting on July 23, 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-140 (APN 403-27-030) - Appellant• CORSON Site Location: 18372 Swarthmore Drive: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal permit at 18372 Swarthmore to removed a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (TOM SULLIVAN) (Appellant has requested this item be continued to July 23, 2003.) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant has requested a continuance as he wanted his own Arborist to prepare a report. • Added that it is standard to offer an appellant one continuance. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission continued consideration of an Appeal (#03-i40) of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit for 18372 Swarthmore Drive to the next Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan advised that a profile on the Planning Commission will be included in the Summer edition of The Saratogan. COMMISSION ITEMS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2003 Page 6 Chair Hunter reminded the Commission of the joint meeting with the Heritage Preservation Commission to be held on August 5, 2003, at 9 a.m. at the Historical Museum. Asked for suggestions for discussion items, offering the following herself: Overlay of Village to assure the preservation of its historic character; increasing the Heritage Lane into the Village; and possible creation of a Heritage Tree Society. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that information be provided that would give the Commission a better understanding as to how the list of Heritage Resources was compiled and how projects are handled as far as evaluating them for historic significance. Chair Hunter said that Helen Halverstad, the Curator of the Museum, would also be in attendance at this meeting. Commissioner Uhl said he would like to understand how the Planning Commission can support the activities of the Heritage Preservation Commission. Chair Hunter said that she hopes this meeting will be worthwhile and that it represents the first such joint meeting of which she is aware. Commissioner Nagpal said there is value in such interaction between the Planning Commission and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Asked how a site's potential historic significance is evaluated during project review. Director Tom Sullivan replied that staff uses the CEQA rule of thumb and analyzes amp building that is 50 years or older. If staff is unsure of historic significance, the applicant hires a Historic Architect to further evaluate both the building itself and any potential significant events that may have occurred on that site. Chair Hunter pointed out that the small house adjacent to the Historic Museum is believed to be the oldest house in Santa Clara County and that wallpaper inside that structure has been dated between 1850 and 1860. She asked how many Commissioners planned to attend the joint session. All Commissioners indicated an ability to attend the joint Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission meeting on August 5`h Commissioner Barry updated the Commission on the Gateway Task Force, saying that they would be meeting throughout the summer months to follow Council's policy direction. Advised that they are making progress on the Design Review Guidelines and that lots of pictures will be incorporated into the final product. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Ordinance amendments would follow. Commissioner Barry said that it is considered counterproductive to have different setback standards from the rest of the City. All Commercial setbacks will be reviewed and made consistent. Said that the Gateway Design Guideline document should only encompass specific design issues such as bulk, mass and architecture. COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2003 Page 7 Written: City Council minutes from Regular Meeting on May 21, 2003. AD.TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Barry, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • L` ITEM ~' 1 • • • 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 ~~ ~c, Design Review for a new single-family house July 9, 2003 /i 503-82-027 and 028 Department HeadLi~'~ \ _ Q 500 F'f from Pararrqunf P L S O ~ O\\O Q Paramount Court ~ O Q Paramount Roperhes w Rhm 500 FT N , n~ W~~E 2 3 - _ ` to 3 0 100 200 300 400 500 ft ~ ~~~ n 13095 Paramount Court ~~~~®~. ~J ~, CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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" r ~~ • • ~~~®®n`~ File No. 03-019;13095Paramount Court/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: Floor Area: Building Footprint Driveway, Patios, Pool; light wells and Walkways Sport Court TOTAL Maximum Allowable 32.5% 35% 6,141 sq. ft. Setbacks: Height: Main Floor Garage Porch (Basement), not counted TOTAL Front Rear Left Side Right Side Residence Detached Garages C \MyDocuments\Des~gn Review 03\Paramount Court 13095 Staff Repo doc 7,148 sq. ft. 2,075 sq. ft. 15,364 sq. ft. 16,550 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 5,181 sq. ft. 840 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. (2,081 sq. ft.) 6,141 sq. ft. 6,160 sq. ft. Min. Requirement 41 ft. 34 ft. 55 ft. 50 ft. 66 ft. 27 ft. 50 ft. 27 ft. Maximum Allowable 23.5ft. 26 ft. N/A 12 ft. ~rr~~~oa~ 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 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 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. • Polity 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. r~ ~J C \MyDocuments~Design Rewew 03~Paramount Court 13095 Staff Repo doc ~ ~ ~ ®v File No. 03-019; 13095Paramount Court/Sharma Property Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within 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 Ciry Arborist has recommended replacement trees. The Ciry 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 PolieYS_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 Re~aew 03\Paramount Coutt 13095 Staff Repo doc ~ ~'lF ®V 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. :7 • C \MyDocuments\Design Review 03\Paramount Court 13095 Staff Repo doc ~ ~ ~ ®~ `~ ~J Attachment 1 • ~'~~~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.03- CITY OF SARATOGA 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 break up 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. ~~°~®~}8 • 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 LIse 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. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of 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. ~~~~Q~ ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall pro~ride a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The final landscape plan 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 incorporated 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 Perrnit 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 S stem throw hout all portions of the structure, y g 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 Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 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. ~~~~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 • f~~~®13 • Attachment 2 • ~~~~~~ ,~.- - _,13`. ARBO RESOURCES ~40 fE6.1L012Q.L ~'LU02LL~U.LfU.2QL C.~012SU.Ltt(.129 ~ J4EE C.:Q2E 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 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 ~~~0~.~ • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE LIST OF TABLES ............................................................. ii SUI\~MARY .......................................... .......................... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................. ......................... 1 1 1.1 Assignment ..................................... .......................... 1 1.2 Setting ........................................... .......................... . 1 1.2 Limits of Assignment .......................... ........................ 2.0 OBSERVATIONS ............................................................ 2 iti 2 2 1 on ..................................... Species Count and Compos . 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 3.3 Tree #3 ............................................. ........................... 3.4 Tree # 16 ........................................ ........................... 4 4.0 TREE APPRAISAL AND BOND VALUES ........................... 4 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ ........................... 4 5.1 Tree Protection Fencing ................................................4 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 Gazden Wall .................................. ........................... 6 5.7 Tree Pruning ................................. ............................ 6 5.8 Root Collaz Cleazance .................................................. 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 i ~~~®~,6 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. My 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®~.`7 • A David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 9, 2003 1.0 INTRODUCTION • 1.1 Assignment This report has been prepazed at the request of Kristin Borel from the City of Sazatoga's Community Development Department in response to the proposed development at 13095 Pazamount 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) prepazed 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 Sazatoga. As trees #5 through 8, 11, 12, 17 and 18 aze located on the adjacent western property, I was unable to measure each trunk diameter or view their entire canopies and trunk azeas. I was unable to examine the Oaks' root collazs2 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 Page 1 of 9 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Q~~'~®~8 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 4, 2003 • 2.0 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 1 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 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department PageZojy ~~~®~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 measures 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 findings 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 0 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. • • • 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page 3 of 9 Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~`~`~~~® • 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``' 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 9 0~ y Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~0~~ • • David L. Babby, 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 Saratoga. 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 ofd 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 garden 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 areas which should be disturbed are 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 5 of 9 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. T'he proposed garden wall beneath tree #16's canopy should be designed on-grade, with no soil cuts deeper than fow-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 and/or 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 Page 6 of y Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~~®~.~ 1 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 imgated plants beneath the trees' canopies. All plant material beneath tree canopies should be drought tolerant and nat 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 rnot 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 lazge 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, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Page 7 of 9 • LJ • ~~~~~~ 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 were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. 2. Unless otherwise stated, the inspection is performed from the ground only, and is limited to visual examination of accessible items without probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. David L. Babby cannot, in any way, assume responsibility for any defects which may have only been discovered by performing the mentioned services in the specific area(s) where a defect was located. 3. The assignment pertains solely to the trees specified in this report. David L. Babby holds no opinion towards other trees on or surrounding the property. 4. David L. Babby cannot provide a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of the trees, plants, or property in question may not arise in the future. 5. No assurance can be offered that if all the provided recommendations and precautionary measures (verbal or in writing) are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be achieved. 6. It is assumed that the property where the inspection or evaluation occurs is not in violation of any applicable ordinances, codes, statutes or other governmental regulations. 7. Unless otherwise stated, no analyses, investigation or testing was performed by another party. 8. All information received from the client and/or reliable sources is assumed to be correct. David L. Babby cannot guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of the information provided by others. 9. David L. Babby assumes no responsibility for the methods and/or techniques used by any person or company implementing the recommendations provided verbally and/or in this report. 10. David L. Babby shall not be required to attend court or give testimony by reason of information provided unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of additional fees for such services. 11. David L. Babby's liability, including indemnification, is hereby limited to the specific conditions, limits, and sublimits of his insurance policies. 12. The information provided by David L. Babby represents his opinion and his fee is in no way contingent upon reporting a specified finding, conclusion or value. 13. This report is proprietary to David L. Babby and may not be copied or reproduced in whole or part without prior written consent. It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the parties to whom submitted for the purpose of contracting services provided by David L. Babby. 14. Information provided in this report assumes the tree(s) are accurately located on the plan(s) provided. 15. All photographs, drawings, maps, graphs, etc. in this report are intended as visual aids and are not necessarily to scale. They shall not be interpreted as engineering surveys or reports. 16. If any part of this report or copy thereof be lost or altered, the entire evaluation appraisal shall be invalid. 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Page 8 of 9 ~i~'~O~S • • 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: ~!-~ Attachments: Tree Inventory Spreadsheet Copy of the Site and Topographic Plan 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Page 9 of 9 ~~~~i~6 • • • RESOURCES ~ ARB " ~40 fE11i0ILQ.L ~'Z~osieuLfU.RCLL C.:OlL4U.t~in9 & ~~ZEE C.~QYE • TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET Coast Live Oak 1 (Quercus agnfolia) 19 18 22 18 55% 85% Fair High 5 - $3,130 - N .~ a~ r.. ~ .~ a~ ~, ~ ° 3 ~ ° 3 .. ~ ~ a ° ' ~ ~ ~ v ~ i~ ° c ,~ ib °\ c d ' o ~ a ~ > ~ ' ~' ~ .r en ...~ on ~ ~ ~' on o °r ~' :d w .r ~n '~ ... '~ ~ 10 A ,n tC A ~ ~..i v~ OU ~I is C4 ~ U ~ ~ d ~ TREE N y ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ .~ b° '~ ~' ° ~ ~\ O ~O ~ b ~ v O ~° p ~ ~ n y •~+ A. '" F O y A ~ Q ~ H ° ~ NO. TREE NAME ~,.., .~ ~.._, .~ x v x C v, C ~ r~ . .., Comments• Cano y color appears abnormal and slightl brown. Coast Live Oak 2 (Quercus agnfolia) 7/6/4 - 22 30 80% 75% Good High 5 - $1,410 - r.,..,..,P.,t~• Coast Live Oak 3 (Quercus agnfolia) 17/l4 - 35 36 80% 75% Good High 3 - $9,000 - r,, o.,t~ Coast Live Oak 1 611 4/1 3/ 4 (Quercus agnfolia) 12/10/9 - 25 40 75% 30% Fair High 4 - $11,400 - r,, o.,t~ Coast Live Oak (Quercus agnfolia) 20 - 20 32 80% 100% Good High 5 - $7,150 ~ •„ ,.,onTC• Monterey Pine 6 (Pinus radiates) 17 - 25 22 80% 65% Good High 5 - $1,000 X r~,. ..,a.,t~• Monterey Pine 7 (Pinus radiates) 17 l6 32 30 55% 80% Fair High 5 - $880 X (`~ iante• Monterey Pine 8 (Pinus radiates) 15 14 32 20 70% 90% Good High 5 - $980 X r„ o.,t~ Coast Live Oak 9 (Quercus agnfolia) 10/9 9/8 26 IS 80% 55% Fau High 5 - $2,180 - ~.viiuua.nw Coast Live Oak 10 (Quercus agnfolia) 27 - 38 40 85% 80% Good High 5 - $11,100 - Comments. Monterey Pine 11 (Pinus radiates) 18 17 36 30 80% l00% Good High 5 - $1,350 X Comments: Monterey Pine 12 (Pinus radiates) 20 - 36 32 80% 90% Good High 5 - $1,410 X II Comments: lob: 13095 Paramonnt Covert, Saratogo Prepared jon (Sty ojSaromgq Planning Dnsaon Prepared by: David L 13abby, RCA Page I of 2 Febr(w'a~ry 4, 2003 ,~•~r~ l~~~O~Ce ARBa~ RESOURCES ~ " J"RO fESSL012QL aT2D04LL~LlLfll'~QL C.:0-2311Lt1.Il9 ~l J'CEE C:Q48 TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET .. .. ~ ~ ~ N .~ ~ .~ ~, o 3 0 3 ~ ~o ~ w @~o Uao ~ Rio fib o ° °' ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd ~ a ° ~ ~ y G a U ~° ~ o '~ ~i ~ ~ ~i ~ .., ~ p c Q ~ A ~ G Y >, U ~~, ~ G ~ ~~, ~ ~ a i o ao ~ ~ Q '$ TREE ~ x ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ o x ~ ° o ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ > x A ~ U > ~ ~ $~ ~ c ~ NO. TREE NAME E...~ H -~ x w H ~ Coast Live Oak 13 lOuercus aQrifolia 1 20 - 32 32 80% 80% C,ood High 4 - $7,200 - (`nmmPntc' Coast Live Oak 14 (Quercus agnfolia) 15 - 35 32 80% 85% Good High 5 - $3,430 - ('nmmantc• Coast Live Oak 15 (Quercus agrifolia) 20 - 24 35 80% 70% ('food High 4 - $6,000 - Coast Live Oak 16 (Quercus agrifolia) 12/9 - 25 30 60% 60% Fair High 3 - $3,280 - Comments: ak ilia ) C`nmmvnts• Coast Live Oak 18 (Quercus agrijolia) 13 12 23 25 75% 85% Good High 5 - $2,400 - Comments: Job: 13095 Paramount Court Sm~ogo Prcparcd jor: CFty ojSmat+ogq Planting Division Prcparcd by: Dovid L Bobby, RCA page 2 oj2 February 4, 2003ee~~ • 5 ~ iWiLi~N}al,i.l' q~~,V~#fpi lmS pV•®~g,~~~y GRMW: N.A'1 EV!5•-'OLD' ~; l~ ~~,~~'~~Y 81 ~0iiPiL"i Viii'KVMia-Y ___._ uv.u>,a..~., yn.n •." ~\~_6'V _= 6 ~ 13095~ARAMOUNT COURT, SARATOGA m ~""` ,~W weL ' ~ ~ 7~ ZT~ ,a~,M ,,.. ;r .Ra, ..., 1 - ,wrtnee yne vue \ ~ ~ , 8 • ' --- .~. ~' •~ TREE PROTECTION FENCING ~ \ \ \ 10 /e`\ /~ 3i. ..., ~~: \ a_, ARBOR RkSOURCtS \ -_- _.. ~ \ ~ ~ \ `\~ alJ \ \ S•` \ ~ / ~ ~-I \`••^ `. VAUNT LANp ','.,~ _ ' -• _ G ~ -- --- --- % :~ ~ J ~ ~ /! TREE PROTECTION FENCING ~ ~5 L ~_ -----;- --T --~ ~ _ /~ \ ,\ ~ i I ~ i '~\ 4`"' - = =fi=r i _- -=~-- c _ -- -~ ~- ~,,.. ,,..., ~ ~~_ r !r, zzba _w i.-w;- _ _ c = a ~ '~ "- QOB ~O~p~[pl~8c~ p~~Gll n u~ 4YU[a . ,.e uo. a-rr p z. `'^ ~. ~~ y~ ,~ _. \ s - ~___- - _- __ _ ~; - a »~-~,-~•"oz. .. ___ _ - -- _ :_ o \ `,` . ~ S9 w~ s . M aW CRaG WNB PARAMOUNT ,~ COURT ~s6 ~ ~ - _ ._~ "~ L ,~,,, , - _ G _ ~ _ _ _ _.. - _ _- _ - _ ~L ~ ` •'", v - _ ".[^ coax \ y ' ,p \ n ° m„ ~ - ~ r - _ rcr 21'1 /./1 lfa °~ ~ • • • _ ~" ` Y`~~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES ~z0 fE11iOnQ.L P~zITOZiL~LLLtLizQL C~On3U.Ltin9 ~ JzEE C.:QZE AN ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SF[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 • L J • -~~~O~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 rage ~ o~ o City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~,~~~~ 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 (yVashingtonia robusta). The trunks of trees #5 through 8, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20 and 21 aze situated on neighboring properties. They were included in this report as they are 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 are 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 are 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 pazking area. The proposed landscape design presents the greatest risk to inventoried trees. Modifications must occur to ensure the survival of affected trees, many of which aze 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 ~~~~~~ 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 1 inch equals 10 feet. TREE APPRAISAL AND BOND VALUES The appraised tree values are 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. • Sharma Residence Development, 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page 3 of 6 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 further 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 undistwbed 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 fl- 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 /-~, ~+~0©~~ I 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'/i-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 standards 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 lazge roots. If at any time lazge roots aze 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 standazd size and spaced as faz 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 ~~~C~~S David L. Bobby, 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 Page 6 of 6 ~~~~~~ 5 J ~? ResroenrLE ~~ \\ v..L \ ._ { 4k.,F'NIC 'L.iL6 .i x xw w x ww » -u ax, . w r ~~'~~ ~R _ ~ Y ~ '13095 PARAMOUNT COURT, SARATOGA . ~~ '"" ~' ...~~J i ~ ~ u ~x xmwr. ,nxwi a `~ !ry ~2. n ~,.~ x TREE PROTECTION FENCING - 3' ~`~ a ' -, //,\\`x\10" rtzbi• ~', \ 11 °°% 12 ~,,, '~~:: F ~~ c„,,,.,,,.x,.. __ __ __, i__.s__ _ ~ \ `ice;; _ ~ .~; ~~ ~~~~., 14~,. , .`~\ ~, ~ - - ,- `eb ,yp LLa~ika:lvwwnGOxL .hV.su WW'> ~ - o\~ - -`- \~ 15 ~\.-. •" ~ ~ ,~ ARl40R RtS~uKa~..,. ~... \ .- _ _ `~ •i~'~-~ ~~ ~• • n ~ - ~~ `_ -~'` .a\ VAUNT LANG ~~'. ~ ~ -_ ~ -. -~ - ~ \~ ~ ' -_- / ~~~ .~. i ~ - ~~- ,~ ~~~~~ iOR/vE AY ~ ~ \ ~ - ~ • ~ TREE PROTECTION FENCING dsc - i - -~----- ~ ~ ~~~ s A ,~ ~~, / ,K .,iw..a,= ~'~.: „ ?tea;--± _ : _ - - --- - .1. .. ; ~~'oJ,,,, ~'~.~` QO[p30O gP~~pl~~C~ [~1c~1Gll ..~x,.x.a,i,..-„x_. ,.. w,.x. ~`x,`\\~ ~ .,,r'r- _a• - \~`.`,S`:~?~ i•\ :•',.. /.l ~- ra°s"°" PARAMOUNT - COURT -° -'' _ ' _ ~ou~een~rcauc n ~. :" u , •r • • • • Attachment 3 • ~~~®c~8 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 City 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 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 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 r~ ~?~~+~~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. - 5:00 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 • ~~Js~O4® • I I ~ 100 200 300 4 13095 Paramount Court Q 500 FT from Pararrount P L Q Paramount Court Q Paramount RoperNes w dhin 50( ~~~c~4~ SIDNEY D & NANCY SELAN ANDREW L CARTER RALPH J & JOAN MOROCCO Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current owner 13198 PIERCE RD 13194 PIERCE RD 13190 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 KATHRYN K MATHIS Or Current Owner 13'180 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 GARLAND Or Current Owner 13090 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 CHRIS A & JENNIFER WIRE Or Current Owner 13040 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070 TERRY L & DEBORAH MATHEW Or Current Owner 13036 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070 MARILYN T & A CLAWSON Or Current Owner 13110 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 MINTEGUI Or Current Owner 13144 PIERCE RD 340 SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN A & ELIZABETH MERMIS Or Current Owner 13158 STEWART CT SARATOGA CA 95070 YUNGPING & MEIYU HSU Or Current Owner 13156 PARAMOUNT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT P SHEWCHUCK Or Current Owner 13030 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070 TERESA B OSTLE Or Current Owner 13044 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070 DON &HSU HSI Or Current Owner 13138 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DOUGLAS & SHONNA CARSON Or Current Owner 13169 STEWART CT SARATOGA CA 95070 YU-CHI & WANG YEH Or Current Owner 20651 RICE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 BICKENBACH Or Current Owner 13100 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 STEPHEN C & ROBIN ATHERTON Or Current Owner 13050 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 HANS H & INGE STELLRECHT Or Current Owner 13200 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 • SUBRAMANIAM & VAIDYANATH Or Current Owner 13171 STEWART CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ALLEY Or Current Owner 20673 RICE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 • ~~~~~~ ITEM 2 M • 1_EP~~T 1 V THE PLA~T~I1 \~ ~_/MMISSI~N AppIicatian Na.: #Q3-140 Type of Application: Appeal of a Free Removal Permit ~ Lcx-ation: I$325 Swarthmore Applicant/owner: CORSON/DLTVALL Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AIC:P Community Development Director Date: ,July 23, 2003 i APN: 403-27-049 Department Head • • - t ~ ~ - -- ___ _~ _-- . -- E ~ ---------------- - -e-- ,-~- - ,- _ __ , - -- , Ave. --- ~ ~ - -, --- ~ -- -- --- ~ - ,-- - - _-,~_ - ~ ~ ~ _ _~~~. .__. ~_ _ _ - -~- 4, J _~__ ~ - ._ _~ _ ~_~ ~- ~ ---~ --AVe.--`----- ~ -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ --- __ ------ -- -- - --.- -- ~~ '. __ - ~----- ------ ~- - ~ -Awe: __ ------- -, . - -, ~ - -----~ ,-- i __ _.___ _ _- _ ~_ _ ---- --- -- ---- - ~ i ~ . ~ --- , ~ 6 , t06 2170 3U6 f 406 StJd tt__ - -- ~'"- -' - -- -' __... -_----• --- -- ._' _O - - --'--''-- -` ~ - - --! .©90€Jttt*fJtce,4rea _ _----~ . ~' iB325 °r+ar0rrrre p" _ . ~~ _ _, _ _ _ _ -__ _. _ _ __-_- __ . --- -_ _ , _,.-,. 1__._.--,- -- _-- ' 'i y Pacds --- ~ Ones -~_, ~ ~', - _ ~~,~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ' ~ ----- i _ _ -_._--I __ _ - - - . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ -'___'_..-- I832~ Swart~rnore PROD ECT DESCRIPTION The ro'ect before the Commission is the appeal of an administrative decision to aIlow the P J removal of one of the two 1•arge Coast Redwoods shown in the picture below. Pursuant Saratoga Code Section 15-50.090 -APPEALS, any person may appeal the decision of the Planning Director with regard to either granting or denying the issuance of a Tree Removal Permir_. This code section also indicates that the decision of the Planning Commission is final. Section 15-50.080 -DETERMINATION ON PERMITS, sets out criteria for the Department and on appeal the Planning Commission, to use in determine if a Tree Removal Permit shall be issued. Those criteria are: (a) Criteria. Each application for a tree removal permit shall be reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria. (I) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. (2) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon. erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and any established standards of the area. (S) The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. Criteria #I -the tree seems to be healthy. However it is interfering with storm water drainage and destroying the driveway. The location of this tree so close to the driveway and the street curb and gutter is unfortunate. Criteria #2 -Clearly the tree needs to be removed in order to gain economic and/or other enjoyment of the property, such as being able to drive in and aut of the garage. The current condition is a liability and a hazard. Many years ago the tree was planted at the intersection of the road and the driveway. Criteria #3 -- The topography is flat. At the current time the damage cause by the tree is restricting surface flow of storm water. Criteria #~ -The general neighborhood enjoys many trees of several species. The property in question has two large Coast Redwoods; only one had been approved for removal. Criteria #5 -The removal of this one tree, albeit very large, will not negatively impact the remaining trees on the property. There is another Coast Redwood of equal size in the front yard. In section 15-50.080 (c) Decision by Director, it states," the Planning Director shall render his decision within thirty days after the filing of the application for a permit. The Director may grant or deny the application or grant the same with conditions, including, but not limited to, the condition that one or more replacement trees be planted of a species and size and at locations designated by the Director. Any such replacement trees shall be obtained and planted at the expense of the applicant. Because a permit was requested prior to removal and there were no violations or penalties to access, as such IS-50.12Q of the Tree Regulations does not apply. Staff determined the replacement planting was not required at this location because both this parcel and the neighborhood are well treed. Please find a series of photos with captions, which address the above criteria. These photos are included as an attachment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and reinstate the Tree Removal Permit with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution ATTACHMENTS I. Photos 2. City- Arborist Report 3. Resolution 4. Correspondence from Appellant S. Tree Removal Permit 6. Letter and photos from property owner's Arborist • • Attachment 1 • • I ~~ _ : f ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~ f~ Y;y f ~~ -1 ,.-y ~q~[,,~~..~.,~/ ~~' _. ~ 7 { .i,^ :. ~`~~`~` ,.~ ... ~ ~^~w __...___..:... _._..__... .. ~-~ ~ ~: .~ _ ~ - ~ ~ ~, } i ~~ i III i ~ 1 _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i col ~ -_ ._... } i~S a- .~ ~~ ~~ ~s ~_,~' - ~x~`-: ~- s .~ wti :~H ~ ; -~ ~ +~z E.; $ 9-y yYt~ ~; l"1 ~~ 0. One of these t~~vo lame boast Redwoods vas approved for removal. That approval to remove the tree is the subject to this appeal. The photo also demonstrates that the neighborhood has manor trees. damage to the drive~va~=caused h~~ the roots lifting the concrete followed h~= water intrusion. This demonstrates the econorrrie use of the propert~r. Tree roots have raised the c~xrb and gutter to an extent that even landscape ~r~ater is trapped. This could he a source of mosc{uito breeding. • Attachment 2 • A~a~o~a R~souRCEs • ,,,~'3, ~€'k~L~3~~~.ts'3~e~. '~L7i3=&LL°~LL~~L$CLE. 67i~°.adLL~Ls'2 'L~~ L.: GLEE AN APPRAISAL OF ONE COAST REDWOOD LOCATED AT THE DU VALL PROPERTY 18325 SWARTHMORE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001 A Site Inspected: July 9, 2003 Report Submitted: July 10, 2003 • ~'.~. I3csx ?~'?9~. ~~n Tt~t~at~~, ~;~~~i~~es~i~i;b 3£~~0? ~ ~?~ii: arbc~~•~c~~~k~r~,e~{~:=~artla~~r~k.n~t I'It~~rs~: ~i5~.~~.:a z~l I=ax. t~~~l.~3h.33~2 ~ ~_"sce~~:~~t~ ~~t~~r~~t€sr ;=7~f~7t~3 ~OO~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 10, 2003 ASSIGNMENT In connection with the Tree Removal Permit Application #03-085, the City of Saratoga's Community Development Department has requested I determine the monetary value of one Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga. The appraised value and my observations are presented below. APPRAISED VALUE The tree's value is appraised at $18,700. This amount was calculated using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. This method was used in accordance to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, authored by the Council of Landscape Appraisers, 2000. OBSERVATIONS The tree is situated at the southeast corner of the front lawn area, immediately adjacent to the driveway and street sidewalk. It is approximately 90 feet tall, and has a canopy spread of 40 feet. Its trunk diameter measures 45.1 inches at fifty-four inches above grade, and 49.4 inches at two feet above grade. The tree appears in good health condition as its shoot growth, foliage size, and leaf color are normal. Its structure appears stable and is comprised of one trunk. I observed this tree has caused significant damage to the adjacent driveway, sidewalk and gutter. • • • An Appraisal of one Coast Redwood Located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga Page 1 of I City of Saratoga Communit)~ Development Department ~00~0~ • Attachment 3 • APPRtJVAL OF RESOLUTION No. _ DENYING AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO G[ZANT A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AT 18325 SWARTHMORE DRIVE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of on of two Coast Redwood trees located in the front yard of 18325 Swarthmore Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time alt interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the appellant has failed to met the burden of proof required to support said appeal, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The proposed tree to be removed meets the criteria set forth in Section 15-50 the Zoning Ordinance in that the tree in question is denying the property owner the full economic benefit of the property. "The proposed tree to be removed meets the criteria set forth in Section 15-50 the Zoning Ordinance in that the tree in question is one of two Coast Redwoods in the front yard of 18325 Swarthmore and is one of several trees in the general area. ^ The proposed tree to be removed meets the criteria set forth u1 Section 15-SO the Zoning Ordinance in that the tree in question is causing the storm drainage to be blocked. NOW, THEREFORE, the PI<~nning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the criteria set forth in Section IS-50.080 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance the Appeal is DENIED and the Tree Removal Permit is RE-INSTATED subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. That the Driveway be repaired to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 2. That the curb and gutter be removed re-graded and replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. That the "Tree Removal and re-construction must be completed within 24 months or approval M will expire. 4. That the cost of the re-construction of the driveway and curb and gutter be bonded to guarantee the work is accomplished PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, July 9, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • • Secretary to the Planning Commission • Attachment 4 • 7°hoas . ~®~~®~ 18337 Swarthmore ©rive . Saratoga, Caiifomia 95070 (408} 370-6910 June 12, 2003 }-#AN~3 C}~l,#VE~2ED Secretary of the ~#anning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitva#e Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear sir or madam, i'ursuant to Section ~ 5-50.090 of the #t~unicipa# Gode, the undersigned hereby appea#s the granting of a tree remova# pem~it to Gundy Duval, residing at ~ 8372 Swarthmore Dr., far removal of a redwood tree #ocated on the property at '# 8328 Swarthmore Drive. The reasons for this appea# are further described in the attar#~ed correspondence. #~espectfu##y, Thomas Vit. Corson 18337 Swarthmore Dave • 7`hom~s w. Corson 1 13337 9was#hmore Dtiv~e sarooga, cam- sso~7o • ~4os) ~ro~o .tee ~, aoo3 t~s. ann weal, Comm o~oprnerrt Oft ci~~s 13777 Fne Avgnue Sat~oga, ~ 9507D' Comer Ms Ws~Ft: ~ R~no~ral of 1tti,z fines strfonid not bie a~cMeod ~Itout tequl~6ng ~ ~ tf, attar 8 as other apfior>Is, fhe tree moat be nemo~d, then the ler~ord shod be required ko- plar'rt a tree or trees of ~ v This brae is ~ priceless and r+oe. To desboy it v rreq~rino ~ rep1~t wouM be uttiortabla 3) A rerl~ied prd~iorW{ must sfauperviee tanto~-al d s tree d tl~ ~. WF~ asatrrsrtoe do we c~xre-~ly here th~ tl'te rrd a~1! ttins gtu~ied peraomN m ~ this huge it+ee and r~'d~ +t on ane of coot homes? Atao, ths ~r06's root syrstem a th dii+s+ct pnooc- b the s pes rrtabt, P~'eeerding a sib sslbty ire. ~ tree ~ m be remoweQ, the larxbotd should be requb+ed to a) have the tree rerr~otied by a caevti$ed sr'borist, and b) post a bond °M ccvw~r en! r ~ svrrrrpux~np hexrbs anti prq~eAy. A>t~hed, you wiM ~ a cxiptr of a ie~ we + sper~ to the ki~ord/awrser. We ane ~~ tl~- ~ for the -_ . • .~., ~~-~L- ~~. ~ ~~ ~~ } ~~ c~~~--~ .~ 18324 S~rt!'Mttare K+~ri Clentorrs .1839 amore Lkive~ ~~'~ ~' T't~rias W, Cason 1833'T ~ocu~ ~, 20tXi • • .Irate 4, 2~(Ki ~'~Y OtJVBt 18372 3~6rtltrrtor+a Orive Sera~at, Crr~r tlt Deter' Gusay, We are this rt~dmg the s+e~iwpnd tree that y+txt pnapose ~ ~ daeA'ti ~ yam' pr+ope~rty Naoatad at f $~ S'~aasrtttmor+e Or. As vre bes8eve y+ota aa+e awas~e, sr~rty ~ us at+e det~igr aostcerrteod that yam, plan ~ serr~+ne th~ frets. WhBe we gteke ~ l11e fact th8t it hSS the et !~ t~el, we arts the yetu pMn ~ destroy ~, appe~ertly w~ttote having oortstdergd other aptiorts. Adc~t'tg ~ etas concern i$ tlta fact that you asked Ste ~+ th tie a~ow~ad th destroy the other rated ~ it, e+ren though it is in pet~ect heeal't aril hem cawed sxt c#er~ge 1st addkiort io eur cxtrtoe~rrt Doer rite ~ oi` the true itse#, we ere ego cortoerrted about the s~k of darrtege ~ ~ homes' era PAY by ate act Qrooess o~ tterrtovtrtg ~. VVe va# ism t~ Vaasa dr you pleat on hsncing sorrto~s this 1041~OOt tai is+ea? 1!V!'wt is. they ~ and ~ !~ their ~ Barad®d? YVhsrt aro ycu ~ us that the tree w~ 'tot be orate carte of our harts' or our propertyia tttagart~ag the tree its, ~ yore know, it is a magsu~oent old redwood, Y 10p R t~l and oast 4 teat aaoes at the terse ~ is the ~t sag twee on SwrartFmone era we suspect, # ~ +s trot r the t~nee in Sur~rtd I:ark, it'at got to be a tie for s~xara. To lose a~ es beeutikal and meyestic as th~ tr+es wot~d De a . VVhad wee w+ocdd bps ~oct ~ tta ~ fo oosrae up witlt ~ ~rrte~we ~ctt s~epesaw tarrd protec~a tlw wh~e at the same rime presenrtng the tree. Perhaps you wetr~e usaMner~e, but tltene are marry other thwn outtthg ~ down. For eoampte, then g vvss. obi from tits persona ~ the_ cigr ot` Sunnyvale, who is ®-. fior detakrag wiat ttteir'trae issues when 3tey tkarrtege adewa~ Here is wha he wrote: So, what we erne t~ you ~ that some ca+~ve w~ wit the tie of pavears era riot a solid slab), shoed take cans d the problem ~ ~ d ell coraoerned. VYe would a~ppre ~ # you would work witlt us on this. V!~ woua hope you would a8rge that Surt~rtd Pant has beast 9oed m you by vttb~ of the ~ rterat properties you haws had here for so marry year: ti!V~e ask that you give sont~rtg bade Lo- our rtelgttbosttoo0 ty worldrtg wit ue fD sav~a ~ magr>iltoerat tree. Towatc! that ertd, rtae arse wig to work vt~lt you in arty way we csn. Sthaer+ey. .?! , ~ . ~~y~~~I 18337 .~YlNitrtl~rtdr8 t~r111Mt lira 18324 $IMarlhrlOre tJlille ~ ~~ L, ~~ X8336 9wsrtrmoreorive,<~' ~_~ f - ± r. ~ ._,~ • r~ U • r~ ~~ Attachment 5 • ., Date Received: r~ - ' Free Removal Permit Applic n Permit Cost : X25.00 • Permit No: ~ `~~.~ ` Expiration Date: / ~~ '~ `_ Property Owner: ,~I~ ~~~+- ~"i~?~ Phone:(hm ~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~r- u.~tr~~((~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ r '~ Mailing Address: )d~?i 1 ~ ~~ly~y~~~~~tifd~ ~,=L- ~ SCx.~ ~~,~~'=-~=rr..~.- - ~~~ c%'~ J Address where tree(s) to be removed: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~t,~%-v,,~.,U.~~~= '-~`~- . {' A (d ~j ' ~ ~ ~' Nearest cross street: ~~~,~~~ti- Company to remove tree(s) ~t~~~L ~ Ord%~~v~.f'_~ ' " i understand that the-tree(s) maybe removed only if found to be with in the criteria as established by Articlel5-50.080 of the City code and that by signing this form, I am certifying that the tree{s) to be rer.:oved .s/are solely or: my p*^pPrt~1~ ~._/ Tree Removal permits aze required for the removal of trees of the following size or larger (size refers to the circumference of the trunk measured Z feet above the natural grade). Oak Trees: 32 inches or larger ,All other Trees 40 inches or larger. Please list all trees to be rn~rr~n~~ca~ i7'1 ~'}1P fa}1~P t"IP.~l1W.. 1 VL11V . Vva a water ~`.v~- .~ ~~~ - - - SPECIES SIZE REASON FOR REMOVAL ~~~ °~(iy, ~ ~ ~ x ~C:(11.~,t'd/+.wtiL' ,4., ~ f` iii. ' S' ~• ' J°1.~G 1 ~ r ~7 i9 ~ .~~~ i~S. /Vt.~ Y'~~- 1~" ~ ' p ~ ~ 1 i. a ~~ ~ ~~''/(~Y'-~~~'1~fri/~'1/Q/ ~~.~~iC/~"~~~`{'.. /{./`L~:- 4Sidi~i'7 'V-'FG~""'r ~,Rp v Location of Trees ~~c~~~ ~ ti1"""~' "~`~`'~`~'~`"~ ; ~ /~~2f.~i.•~ Prepare a sma11 site plan the area below,showing all trees to be removed from the property; include ~ ~ dimensions from property lines and existing structures. '~` "'•"'' ~~ ~G"-~,~, ,~~G~'t,CL- ~ APR 1 8 ~.~~~ ~.l ll ~1TY OF oAR;t ~i ~~.t~• ~` ~.. ~ ~ ~~ 1 << ~~~ FEES PAID: ~ " RECEIPT NO• _ ~:.-~' :T=-~ ~ ~.,r~.%~ • ~ . - - / • CITY OF SARATOGA ,,,.•- - ~ Tree Removal Permit # Applicant: ~ ~." " t ~~ ~~~~~~ a~. Address Where Tree(s) Are To Be removed To Be Completed By A Field Inspector ~ ~ 3 ~ !J / This tree removal permit is APPROVED in accordance with Article 15-50 of the City Code based on the following findings. _ The Condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to the existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. Removal for economic or other enjoyment of the property. The topography of the land and the effect of the removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. The number, species, size and location of the existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, and any established standards of the area. The number of healthy trees on the property is able to support according to good forest practices. Conditions of Approval: ~%~r'G~G' 1~~'~"'+~'~~'J/ ~Y ', ~~~''~' eplacement tree(s) s 1 be plante within months a approva te. The City will re-inspect to ensure compliance with all conditions of approval. This tree removal permit is DEI\TIED for the following reasons: 1S-S0.090 APPEALS erson ob ectin to a (a)Except otherwise provided in the subsection (b) of this Section, any p j g decision by the Planning Director made pursuant to any of the provisions of this Article, may appeal such decision to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15-90 of this Chapter. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 15-90.020, the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final and no further appeal maybe taken to the City Council. ~ ~ PERMIT EXPIRATION DA' Signature of Inspector, • yl~z7~~ Effective Date of Permit 'Date of Inspection ~f" Community Development Representative • Attachment 6 • MfARI~ BEAUDOIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A.S.L.A. CERTIFIED ARBORIST W.C. 1050 P.O. BOX 2032 SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95109 TELEPHONE (408) 395.2862 TREE REPORT GUNDY DUVALL 18325 SWARTHMORE SARATOGA,CALIFORNIA ON JULY 7, 2003, I INSPECTED THE LARGE 42 INCH DIAMETER COAST REDWOOD (SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS; AT THE 18325 SWARTHMORE ADDRESS IN SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1; THE TREE IS A HEALTHY SPECIMEN PLANTED IN THE WRONG LOCATION. 2; THE TREE IS LOCATED ONLY 2 FEET FROM THE DRIVEWAY INTERSECTION WITH THE STREET AND BLOCKS DRIVER SIGHT LINES AND ALSO HAS DESTROYED A $5000 DOLLAR DRIVEWAY CREATING PEDESTRIAN TRIPPING HAZARDS. 3; THE TREE IS 12 INCHES FROM THE STREET GUTTER AND HAS RAISED THE GUTTER PREVENTING WATER FLOW AND HAS CAUSED UNSANITARY PONDING OF WATER UPSTREAM FROM THE DRIVEWAY AND PROVIDES A BREEDING AREA FOR MOSQUITOS. 4; THE TREE IS PLANTED DIRECTLY OVER A GAS MAIN AND COULD BREAK THE MAIN CREATING ANOTHER POTENTIAL HAZARD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 5; THE TREE IS PLANTED VERY NEAR TO A SEWER LINE AND MAY CAUSE DAMAGE AND BLOCKAGE TO THIS LINE. 6; IF EXISTING DAMAGE IS REPAIRED WITHOUT TREE REMOVAL, THE TREE WILL CONTINUE TO EXPAND IN DIAMETER AND SIZE AND WILL REPEAT DAMAGE ON AN INCREASINGLY FREQUENT CYCLE. BECAUSE THE TREE IS SO CLOSE TO INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE IS NO WAY TO PREVENT THIS REPEATED DAMAGE. THE BEST SOLUTION TO ELIMINATE THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THIS REDWOOD TREE IS TO REMOVE IT AND REPLANT ANOTHER REPLACEMENT TREE IN A BETTER LOCATION. • IF THERE ARE FURTHER QUESTIONS ON TH1S REPORT, PLEASE CALL ME AT 408-395-2862 OR MY CELL PHONE 656-3580. SINCERELY YOURS. f eµss. i I t ' ~~ .t~~ ~ ~ ~. . '{ r'Sr J 1 ~ j ~~ ~~rr.~ r~rl ~~ ~~ ~ ~ t~~ "" d ~-;r' 7 ~~~:: r ~ ., .T. ~t:,. ,~ < .~ ~X~ •~ ~ ~,,~r ;,x i» ,. ~ ~,,,~,~ ,'r h~ 'fix ,1~r ~ y~~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~:Z s:~' ~ , L -~e ~4 T , fl rNFI~~<.-` 1. ~r~ hx x7: ~ < :,. ~`~ ~ `~ ,_ ' r i4 ~ ~ P ,i a ~ s _._'~'_'G i ~ ~~ ~ Y' ~ ., '~. ~ ~ € ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,_ ' r _ f~ ~ _ _ ~, °~«:. - -~ ~ - _ ~ 'Y i • • • r , ~?'- t'~ ~ ~ ~ ~*F~ ,, ~i ~~ JS ~ ~ i ~y G ru z ~' t ` f~ ~~~t t~ - .+~' qs. t _ {+~ r ` ~~ ~ •-- ~ 5 1~ hl ~ s~ ° z az ~ p i t I ~ 1 F~~ ...,.. ~,;~ 4 %t ~ ~1 ~"'' i '` ~ '_ ~.4 -~ t + ~ 1%F t wait-. ,~~;,._' y ' ~ ~ ~r t '> s. ~. ., f ~ ~. 4 ~`, tf,. ~a`1~ 4 ~ +~~ .k ~}' 1 Y~f 1.Y:~.Y MYYY~M :~ '~~ - ~ ~ stet ~~{."~,rr` A ~~~ + `%~ ~' ""~~'~` a .~aa `~~' ~ "~; a ;~. ,~ ~. ~ _. ~~ ._ ~ ~_ y~ ~. _ - , "^~ '4v-.:_ l t, ~~ f s; x h ." ,~°~ ~.,,, z ~, i . _.~ .- .. ~" } __ e} yr; f `` ~"~,w. ~ ;- ~ ~;~-~~ ~m ~.~.: ~~.Jw.lrlu__ ~'..t _ ---..- .,_ x 5f; »t 4r: ,~ a y ,4~_ _ -~ I ,w. r s ,<i..~k - ~ ,r ~~, ~ ~y y l ~~'4 ~~ A { ~~} t r~i ~ Y~ ~ A ~ ~' ~ .. ~ .. }„ F _ y ~ .rirt h (*_rt~ ~ .tip ;I _ i, ~ r ~ ~S T+s ~ .* Z ti f YA' b[ i i; ~w i F' ' ~y - . . Y:~ - :t '~' 4 !~ .r.a -.. _ ~~ ~ ~.+~~, Y ~ j ~ • L.... ~T t :t 7-; -~ ~ T<., x' ~ wry .- 'Y`. ~.yy ~ aT ,~ 1 ~ ~> ~Ar ~ ~ nA~"~l '~. ~ X .y` Y ~ k L .J ~ ~ i .. L ~ i.~ Ste. ~ f ~ w'i w ; r K+a,R ~ .tea. ~ y..r~ ~. .. _ 'SAr i w } V .I~ ,~ ~ y ~~ r~ + ` +y' y ' ~ ~'~& yrVgiii.. - qr - ' ` ~ r -r .. r Y: ~i i - ~.. ,,,.rs,a _S; M~ .. x.;., F _ ,*, ~» i .~ ,~ , r< .- .~/ • I^ 1.e .. ` s N ' Fd IAIP. ~ ~U~~~ 6 I FcE 7595 ~ y~~ ~yyp y!~j, ~ lEtiMCiL INFORYAIION k ~ ~O~"'ElyC'~ CJF~L GRAPHIC SCALE ? ~ $~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o v ~~~p.S pARCEI NUMBER ADDRESS OF PROJECT APN 50.7-82-027 @ 038 13095 PARAMOUNT COURT ~ FBI ~'(~I fF~I I ~ I' J ~' \ ~~ 13095 PARAMOUNT COURT SARATOGA (a YBC) „~x • ~^ G ON 'S SMiATOCA, OA 93070 R M 7RlISR S ! A D u LL u u U Ifll r ~ 420 ~ ~" ~ NEA NAME Y a SEEMA SHA L MLiI feAa<r uwNC (RUST E ls.(A _ o Pan P•- v- '~ ' '#7 E%ISnNG USE WCAN7 LAND (NEC) a zaRND asTRrcT R r 4oaDD ` a . - \ • SIZE OF LOT 17288 SO. FT (GROSS)Rn4 NFT Cn ~ . \ S - ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 6,160 50 FT , J W ., - , ' - SIZE ~ 57RUCNRE 6,141 ~ FS ------- - Z ~ ~ SOVARE FEET ANO PRECENT OF (rJ 361 50 Fi l37 S K) IMPERMW$ SIZE COVERAGE ~ ~ -I + , - -y-4OL\ ~ ~A_ ~ - - _ ~ \ ~ w~ SLOPE Ai BUILDING SIR AVERACI 9R ROPE 27. Bex NtlMTl MAP ~ I + ~ IlY , IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE v NOT IO SCAIF J d r - ~ - 11Y O STRUCNRE 6,141 SOFT 'P ~ II p ~- _ -_(p. L--~--_~J -- - _ 1V LIGHFWELLS ~ SO fT e _ m D \ .\ ~ w 32p ~ o aR~vewar z sD Fr ~ _ \ ~\\`\ \\ ~\ O) ~ friT10 BWnLKWAYS jB+'M1 SO FT + ~ ~ A A II -1 Z ~ \ - ~ ~ ` \ SWIMMING POOL - EBQ 80 FT vv ~ ~~2 #17, ~ ~' SroR7 couRT 2015 sD E7 ' SlV-'_- ~ ~_ O~m~_O ~ ~~\ S ~~ 15,364 SOFT 1325 K1 I A ~ ° ~ ~ ~- -'- \~ - m = ALLOWAEiE SITE GtlVERA6E~ Ib,55a SQ.FT 135x) Nm m - ~~_-tor) ~ ~- _ r ~ ° + ry - -- - ~~ m ~ z ~ ~ S~ ~ ~ m + \ a X47 ~ ~ ____ -~~ J v~ ~ ~ - + ~\~ - a 4 1 \_ _ $fi78AGK GALCUCA7YON5 U~.i V ~~ ~ \ ~\\ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ 4~S ~Oy w - - - - -' -~ ~-\ ZJ Cn ~~ ~, ~ I ., , N V ~ PRTlQ I ~ -' ~ ~ ~ ~ \ v ~ O o ~ \' rs m ~~ ~ - ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ T N8w I ~ RESioE~1cE, \ \ 4j ~ - 0" K Yk2o LT VACANT LAND ° I ~ o I G o _ _ ,,..~~~pp I i- ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ `-~ *~` FIRE DEPARTMENT Y~rFF °~~ \ ~ ~ ~~ (- ~ _-- -J - /~ _~~ + yVawM.y sexTA cuRn couxn ~ ~ I -P I ~- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS ~ \ + \ ~ ., ~~P ~~ePYN"HAaxryk4mllymMxun~6x .\, -- v ~ p7 r ` ~ ~ ~ ~, `s " ~ - z acv. 9~ ~7A "~ - - - DRlYE AY" - I - - `~ m ~ - , aw7k>rgx,xap„P,w.~mw M..qu MWemmE 65& ~ - - ,~~'` - ..mn,pyhue.rp~mmmen~,..+wmmaw~.n~nmk - - .wu.e.,A.m,xdpNxx.x.e,a.w~o,.R~...Mu~ m N - .obaxmr~M wanx LoMMWlw4 a - -- m A ,,p~.x,.x~. Te.x:gx+axa.e 92Wrymumpp m7uJ ~.. I u, _ Q. - ti Cv ~ Ciannw; ~ ,m,n . ~r~,.x...x.~.,,wsx Zr _ --- --- Z \ . _ ~J ~M1ixxYlNmtllwr lo>, m.x~ ~ ~ + + ~~a.----_ _+¢--- t0 n cn m ~ .n • - _ ~ / es< \ ~ ~~ \• C7 ~ , '~x~~q~mon ~ '~aa eYUme~o.w"rv:~ > o o A + °'- _ _ P ,~ -- Nz 405~~ m -- \\` / ~' ~ IC_.. ee,WcFu~e mPivxrys~xm~A*x~evm~m..nx(~NRaAIS~+dadn3Dad~bN d~..`an A ~ ~ „ N , ~ _' _~Cy - _~~ - _ ~.J bbuxiAgacmm,YwNl~+~6~. ~ ~ rb ~ ~ / O _ _ \ ° - - - 1C`PI Z ~ d; r,~ T CN ~x g%A~,.e .w.x.~.. .. Po,mrvr1&ewxmml4.n M m s ~ _ - - - - - ~ ~ !6 MK w~ p.. w~~w ANMxwmm>«haax.n.esun<mdxwaw.y - - ' -- d- h - -- O _ ~` ~~~ N i~ ~0.7P~3kfin AlA~x'x~AVrWemgF"~CGrtFM1^kNrMx'm ~ , . - - ~ m ~~ _ --.... ~~~~M~ ~ m ?' ~- ~ ~ , - -- ~~~„ 'FW~RWn.. A~._SMem~.aA VAw,.,wwwwE,.ryw,°~e ~tl '--- --- - ---~ -_ - `~ ~. ~- I '_, FN.u.n,a.,,,P,,,,,,uw,,,,.ma.m~..„DlwPxc,ga ~' ~ rn- RETRM {BITER AMU-DR~1lNAGf + Q / ~~ - iV - - - exll'iod _ -_ - - - ~ `WSJ o~ eA5rN . Y V° O -- _ __ _-.. STaRtt WAt9tRW raGunASe M ____. 0" . W 1 .0T} - -- - - ~ x=30' P ~ - //~~ ueI ~T~vrionlDavN_ N 2204' - - - ~ - - .v ~' - 4~~~~p~1~~~c~ ~~~~ Y 9pa~,AWaxYM.gmtlv doP.dppexrNxW Pn AxmhanSiudutl117Dxtl - "~ + _ m 43"p mN D MF.rcn,4+RkpmaWNMExpnp. Teaewn P^V^M'xL'a ~2 ~ , R:entin 8epepSel.rcx~mm4u dt}aumhlmW,b ? L p/ ~~~- ~' ~ _ _ NoTeio+" ~ OLLE CURB `y ~ - ~ -~ r mx ' ca - _ _ _ _ _ v ~~ , ~,LU~~~ Sp nx eouNOAar As sROVM oN Mls MAa wes ~ o ~ ~ +~ --r ~ ~ GUTTER L1P °i ~ ' ~ - 10 \ ~' ~ a ~~ ~ c' ~ ' COMPILED FROM RECORD NFORMARON AND J , ~ ~ C ,n~ - _~ C Z j A ;A,7 A) SIJRVEeFD FROM FOUND MONUMENTS O N N ? ~ < ~ IJ n ~ N ~ .D O' ~ c0 ~ 2 ~,~, wnx an , BANS OF D.EVAilONS 1 ~ O U ~ O Z ~ N A \!,~r n ss ,w p` _ 1NE RA515 C9 ELEVAnONS Fat 7X15 MAP IS A In ~ ', ~ \ ~ O A ~ m ~ \ GF cA\`F E%ISi1NG SANITARY SEWER MANXCtE Z' N _ _,_~ m m LW `,A O Z A V7 ELEV .37839 < ~ ~+ __ _ - /~ - __ ~-- } fA a f3*I D ~ ~ 3 ~ ~. BA515 0i BFARRRS O O 2~ ~ u ~ / z ~ C~ `~'~~ ` ~ m m ~ I~ = APN 303-82-027 8 028 ' J A r ~ N u: A A 7aowAPnrc uw a eE.wmcs ARE BASED GPOU ME CENRRUNE ~ ~ ~ A ' P A R A M O U~N T ~ C 0 U R T r56' Raw) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o ~ ~'~a~'~W °"a~c~,~1"'c Lp7tA . PARAMCLNi Cg1Ri AS SHOwI ON MAT 1RACT J ~ t" ~ m m ~ - - - C~ ~ iRAU NO 708] - SARAi00A RANQ1 MAP N0 3082 FRED IN V0.UME IN OF MAPS Z m ~ ~. \ N Y eas G NSA W~IrW~Ni xs5ow® ,~ AT PARE 7A, SANTA CURA came RECORDS GUTTER LIP ~-i ' m 90. 0 ,-09t9 siwod m AND Esu9uslrto REtraN uoxuuENrs fauxD -, ~ - - ~ _r..t -- - - ---- = ---- _ - - -- -- - -_ m ~ _ W ~ OO . \ 7.4 o-7 sARAracA - AS SYCRM ~ _ -_ _ _ -- U) O u xn fnyzow w,.ny n Sam am, Sole of Cdxemq L = NORM b75B~20' EAST A -~ O P ROLLED CURE U \ ' \ ~'' \ ttuc N xw - io Fe ~ mAxu P9 ,w x0 ouYA P ^ p ~ tD ~ ~ \ ~ /~ OAR JW 9W! GECALP RS, 41144. 9AYlA MRA CO ~ ,p tO ~ 0 YcvV FWFot uw xo w.nb a¢ un - REYlSFA A4TE~ A9f S,TOO3-: - ,- _ OF 8 ei X WL[10230010h06 Cwo Thu Aug 29 10 26 I2 200[ _ _ IY - _ _ _ - - ~ , • • 39''0" n! pn ~i_Ox B~On B~Oa ~rOr ,U,O,r --- ~ I 6 ~ A 6 ~ f T-,-~--r j ~ -+- ' ~l i ~ ~-~-~ __ +~ ~ .a 0 rr ~ ~ - a--;-a--j ~-f ~ I ~ ~ I - C ;- -L- - _ -~ ; - ;-- -~1 I ,~~I ~ 11_} ~~ ~ f ~. t- ~ .~ ~ ~~ 4 L ~ ,~I _~~-1. .- .--}~ ~ --f--1 .~ -- -- .. ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ 1- I Oaun -- - .o m H ~ i o ' -}-- -~_~ -r-I- ~ --~---fi--~ ' + ~ ~ - ~ -i - = - --it --f-~--~--~-~- ~ ~_ ~ ~r ~'/ ' ~ -~L k z r- --- ~`~ G i~eu ~' ~ ~ ~i ' ~ - - - - 4-.#-~ ~-r- i- ~ i I ~ .._--__ -.- - ~ - - I I I I 1 ~~ ~ ~ -N -~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I I _ _ ' __ _ ~ _7_ ~ _ _ j ~-~ ~ a o .i " a~t _ ~ _ ' ~ ~"~t 7Cifchert _ I I r~ I -- f T~ ~ ~ ~ _ . FQ?t1~ JQQAn - - ~ I I I - Desk I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I _~ *_ StZI!!1 -- ~ - I - --~- - ~~ jl ~r I I ~~ F•~ w~. L- l{~&rH? lf I ~ ~ __ ~ ---------- -~ _ , ~ ~ ~~ ~ I I I LIYItl i RO I ~~ fP~ ~----- I ~ i i ~ , ~ ,_, _ -r ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~1 II - I j-~-II- O,I - a .-Pu A ~-1 ~ ~I ~ u ~ j i '~ I ~POwaek ~ i { n 1 d ~ ' ~ _ ~_~ 1 ~ rv _ - --- ~ - ~' ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ coa Mos7 e e+ -~ -- I I j-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ' _ - -- ~ ' B - ~ ~ ~~ / ~~ ~ ~ I ' .~~__ --- -- I I I --t ~ " ~ _ ~~~~-~~~ e~fler ~ ~ !; ;; ~ ~ ~--~-_ -- ~~ - ~ -I --- ~~ ~ _-- _ ~--- ~4-~~ Q ~ ~ -~ ti ~ o I . S de fn~ - _ - ~ - _ ~- -- - ___ _ _ ~ _ ~, ~~; -- ~'~' ~ h ~ ~ o I r I ll 1 I I j ~~ j l desFibu/g ne G j l II ~I 6a e ~ i I o - ~ 1W~:~ I I I i I I I _ I A ~ LrdeN ~ ~= W~ P i - ~_~ ~ I I I - ~ I ----~ \~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~~--~ n I ~ ~ ~ - -= °~`~F ~~ cos r- ~ ~ N I - - - -- - - ~- _~ __- __ ~ I I I ~ I ~ ~ - (Jinih _ I ~ Po ~ Gfi , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , I ~ tb+pr I I - I i i l =~_ - _ - ~ -- - ' ~~ I ~ ~ 2"~ oa - - ~Lau~~ ' I~I M I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ i ~ -- r---- --- '~~ o w -- ~' ~ ~ 7firee Cap Gorage ° 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~~ ll j , II II I- ~ - _Sedrodn 2 cl a s ~ o N I ~ cg~fr~~ ~ ---------- ~, L--~ ~--- ' ~---1 ~ ~' m I ~ Deck ~ _ _ -- ~ ~. ~ -- U I I ~ =o , ~_ 8edroan_ 3 &i._3- g m 6 - - 1 , n 4-0 - , n 24'0 8-i 0a /6f 4 a I l6i ~a _ - / O, oe .. lLn~ 0~~ -- -$~ Oa - l3~ 0° I, i 190° . , i -~ ,- a 13~-0 - r ~1~~~ d~d~~ f~~o®a .pQ~~ =,. iIENBgNf1 8Y { r i i s i 4 h ~- -.~~~.. ~ 7R! •~• t 'TAN' 2a~3 i ¢70' OS ~ .~... i r a • • • it2MTY TRI w.~.e, ,1?1N 2~3 If4`°`i~°o° 4fA,a~,.o 8 ...' t ' - ~ ,,,1 , p. _ . _ __ , • • • E~lS7A'C, FIHfSH ~N 6RRPE 404 _~_ 900 ~EX/SIIA6M9LUFAC GRADE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION -SOUTH tMA EPJALS , 9ulA Vox ~ !! ~ Ox ~ 1W0 PIELE LLAY TILf~RQDF ~,5lULLO E7CIERIOR x ~ IX(LTUA,EA 9IfiNE YENEER~ • WOOD $HlfflERf> • 6ELRO7NE WRDU6Hf PiUARUP.AQIHG ' •,ME7M Oll17ERS d OOWNSPOU75~ ~' x • WOOD fRAfAE WWMWS ~! • WOOD ~ 8ARh6E MGRS h, ~~V~ ~~ '~ ~~ <~ .,8 r `- F6'd6H90E . 409 ~' k' ^ ~ r ` , ~ '~i) t` FRONT ELEVATION -EAST ~-- VIEW ~ ,a/ ~` rf~cC~ ~ A H / l /, .f- GJ(yF < pax ~ 1'~I~c ~F~ ~~ , ~~ ~~. ~~ 1 ~' h ~ IS\~ ~ {~`"•'' E a e A I~f , `•c0, ., 1 .. ~ ~~ s i, 4 ` i 1'ai ~ ~~~o " x7>,N 2009 Y/y'~ai. ox a 410~~~,~ `i.t P 8 l i i • • F[N+SN GRADE fll+Sf7N6 NATI GR40F ~~ `~ ~- RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION -NORTH aw,rc~ Va' ~ P-n° r ~ t-' . E7/STlNG' BADE REAR ELEVATION -WEST scau , Ya <+ - o~ ,,, . ~,. ~, .~ ~~new--r ® k ,i ? ,nEw ~ t~ h Ii I1 I ~5 U Q NA7LS~AC_6RSOE _ TRADE 90q n~, io _~ _ aa„ a".er:AT ~ " fgl~~H ~G~L10E, } C~~~~rr~~o~ C~O~a~~~o~g aeveiw~m sv i iF~ ~ fi{ARTY SAN 2A73 Vo'•. ~~ o -tFto: in' 8 • • • ROOF PLAN scsxle V6" n i~. o^ BASEMENT MAIN FLOOR ~' ~ 409lSH`GRADE ~ s I E7UfillX /JA/URAC mo,' GkaoE . ~- - a ~ C1 ~k~lll 6 6.~r5oxn fJ r ~ f a CROSS SECTION B 3Li~C ~Is ~I. Ox _ I I b ; - o t 4-m x tz-s so x e'-o'x v-v se's- _ 6 ' e-6'A 9'-6' • -'90 , -~ s6•-ox2r-rr Iwe 6 ?A-0'x S'•C' •' '..II6 a a•vx s_a 'ao ~ ' NJ. , m-0' k 1'5.6' 'YSO ~ 1 is ' a-a•x p•-0' , . ,~ ~t a7, _ C.6• x - 9-b' - 'b0 -685T'{N6- GRALL~ _~ qU~ •9 '¢D'-d'~N 16.0' ~ S20 ' 18 * ~'-6:)t 16kf3'•b\ : a 212 ' tl ;~-PJI'T•P', i ',; 42 +~ ~-v k ~-p ~ ~ ' -CROSS -SECTION =A; ?1J 6Y-PR 6-® ~6 24 i6'-O X 9tP.-. l5'S - - e 9Ga1f. o I/q w ~~-Ot" ~ L9,"0'~ ,2,. tl'i7--~-~ 1Nll19E' S16i96fT ,. ~a~ . ~~,- _~,• • ~~ 61H' , Twu . 6~4,sa~T ~' - uGrnvns~ fiseo6a~r q5 ~~ 1Ja I i i r1~ fch2n - f7NlSIl FGLOR 4/1 , ~ - u „ ~; lallulwp - ~ r Ewsrnv6 r~rzwA GRaoE ; I ~ ~ 9 s 6PA0E ~ 4• ~ e ~ ~' l+fweN ; ~ -' ~~~ Ut a oJN ", ~- i9 s~?,YF ~f 399 5 . s . ° :.s " ~,e" mr,::'a4 u~t?'.~~ ' M`~~$" aa~~t°t;~."~_ `7~:;1: `. ~'^;3'N~wAi~ ^4~;-~,rv-' ,x= A4D6RA0E cmuefe Slob , ~I ` G 5 4 Auto- ~ Li~m~. rctim F/NKH FcOOR 4rf .AaO GRADE 4C8 ~ EXlSTYN6 NATVRAI GRO 4~ " :F.tN]Si!-GRADE 4~4 C~p~~~r~g ~~c~~~o~~ BASEME NT F~AREA CALGUlATI0N5 2 M-6'x S'•6' •, 38 9 '3T-7 % n-6' -, t01D 4 ~q-0'% if-4' K] 6 9.7 x 4.6' - 41 6. 7 - 1Z-6' %24.6' M-6'x 4'-6' . Sfi6~ x'50 6 1A'-(1'x R-6' . 420 T6fIL• , ;'ADI 34FJ a - t r. i a ~, 7 pa•vm Y~+ H s ~TY~ STRN 20.73 P tlo: 6o + -41D'02 s~, V 9 B F. E 1 • • • Y%YR11'MAP NO7 TO SCAIE D z ~ Z ~ z ~~ ~ N ~ I 0 O YACAIvT LAND NOTE ME BQUNDARr As naxN ox >Hls MAD wns COAIPRED FROM AEC INFCRNADON hN0 suRVEtFQ maM farm MaNUMENrs EA95 OF EIEVAOONS ANE BA515 Of EEEVAEONS FO4 h115 MAP R CpSONO 6ANITN2Y RALR MANHOLE EtEV . 37e 39 BAAS of AEAawcs BEAPINCS IRE BASER UPON 1HE CENTEAUNE OF PARAMWNi 90URT AS SHOwN ON 7HAT IRAC7 MAP NO 30E2 fIlEO IN VOLUME 1N ~ MAPS AT PACE a SANTA CUflA CDJN7Y AECOAS ANO ESUBUSHEO BEi'MEN MONUMEN75 FOUND AS SHONN NORTH 67'30'20• EAE7 !d l~lP. 7595 ~~ ~, 6y+~rlp ~g !l~~~~9 $! ~ TEdRMtA1 Ri01MRTON GRAPHIC SCALE ' ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUYBEA } APN 5Q7-82-027 k 02E N p ~~ ~ IDORE55 0~ PRO~[Ci 73095 PRRAW)MIi MNMti RATOCA 6 Q 96O7Q V ~ ' ' A , ~ ~~~ 13095 PARAMOUNT COURT, SARATOGA , ;~° ~ „ ONCEP'S NAME AAGIIAY k SEn7R SNAANA iRUS1EE5 k a 420' FuRLr uwx0 iRUSr ~ t~- o _~ Pool F~o N •~ I EnsnNC usE vACU+r LAND (NECJ Q + \ ~~ 20NINC DIS7RICr R•I./0,000 92E 6 LOi 17,20E 50 FT. (CROSS) NA MET A W ~ ~ x(48 ALLOMABLE FLOOR AAEA 6.160 SOFT U," - 512E W STAUCNRE. E,III SOFT ~ ~_ ~ ~ + SuPWFAN0U59TUECOKRACE70F r5?~6}SO FT {j2rJ%J ' I ~ S~ ~ ' ~ ~~ W^ ,,,p ~ AOPE AT BURIYNG 91E 2 7. + -`. _ Pte[ _ . - . ~~ AW7tA0E SiE AOPE I 98R p .+ ~ ~ _ (M IMPERVIOUS SITE COVEflAGE I rn I _ -- - - - -- ---- -- _ - -- - _. -- - Q2. \ 0 O I STRlIC1URE 6,NI 50 iT _ _ - DJ ~ N j, LJONfwE115 23< ~ FT p ~ ~-- 4~a~ _ ~~ ~8' W DRIVEWAY 2200 SD FT c~ _ -- ~' - - \ r Q~'J ~ I ronD B wAIxwAYS 3834 sQ Fr m Z m 1{1D --_ .___ __.. ___ ~; \ ~ Z SWIMMING PoOL 8@0 SOFT + ~\\ ~ T P 1 O _ __ ~ \:-., ~ ~n ~~ ' ~C = SPORT COURT ,364 SO FT 1325 X) __ ?~ SLV * ~\ ~Jm N.,~ -- ~~ - R ' SGT ~ ~ XV-ry .. /0 OOk A = Au0WA9l.E SRE GOVtFi16E • IESS4 30 FS (35Z) ~ ~ m -\ \ \ m F CPADING QUANTITY (R p A N O - \\\\ m O CUT 6T4 CUBIC YAFOS d DEEP MA% ~ ~ ~' p ~ -Zi \ \~ ~ ~~, ~ , ~ I ~ 00 FlLL 37B CUBIC YAFm$ S DEEP MAX m= ~ ~ -- -- - .- -~ \ __ _ - _ p \ \ \, m BASEMEN7 E%PORT 600 CUBIC YARDS AG Zp O _ _ ~ ~ O e `- ~ - ~ ~ _ __ ~ t--~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Z Il '' '- 9d ~ \ ~ u, \ a \ ~ - o J A ~ __ ~ Si/7N ~ R471Q -'.~ ~ FYk GRP 404 O~. 92 V ,O~~~X WgLC`'2YP_ ~ 00 I, ~ ~ ~ d ~~ a ~ \ l 411 \~ 1a , I rD EE #19 ~ -~. _ _ \ _ \ ~ I _, ~ PAD 408 O =ME4f GBroE, Fru FLOOk 4!I + \4j ,- I ro" +~10 0 _ + N I + HvGRn q°q ~ v - ~ o ~, m 91 ~7~ \ -- - ORIYE SAY= ~ HAD 408 ~, fdl GRO 409 ~ ~," `I ~ _ ~ mN ESL I - _ / - - ~. ><~ rn ~ 'ro Trvsh ~ I ~ ~. ~ D FilclnsnC ~-- " daB _ _ - a ~C?+ ~ -~ ~ + + ~-v__ __ ~ a n rn m a __ ~ BS ~.: ~i ~ ~ z v o ~ ~ --- ~ ° w ° ~ A ~ ' ~ ~ ~ O n o o A ~ a z 06 ~• m \+ ~ O~ ~ ON ~ m ~ o ~ ', 905-_ _ - ~ ~'ti ~ a -- -- - _ _ ~ ~ ~ ism r m ' -` -~ ~ - O m #21 D IA Z - ~ ~ m ~ _ -- - _- ~ 407 ~ - ~___ - _ w I/OICAK ~ '~'`' m O 1 ~tl ~ __ _ .OTOR9E 1 ..J ~ __ - - - STORM A+ro _ 40! ; O - RETfNZION' - 'N----~- N U ~~LI IIU~ WlJll~ ~ iav_&ufrr-= 04' 0"- W' 1 .0~`7 _~ __.. - __ -= `_._ x=30' \ ° A~sx( _ 43'0 _ ~ '~ c 0 p A ~ i U~ ~ ~~R \ rnN o , o ~~ ~ - 4 --3 ~~) > ~' N OLL~' CURB o/ ~ ~ ~4` \ ~N ~ opyces,.mr~~o 5 wxoSMq -~ _ ,~ \ ~ ~.- -_ ~ ~ ~\ Z ~ ,'~ ~t u\ ;+o~ar A ~~y Ago ~o ~ o GUTTER LIP ~ ~ u~~ ,\ ~ n ~D a - P r~ m m ~ o ~ o z a2wl ~ . ~ sllE ~ . p N \ N \ ~ ~ pj C~ , N 2 I A' °aau wR N ~ ~ p.U < ~ ~ O _ O li s roM.>Ia wvlm ?e m ~ ?0 ~ a ~mzi~ ~ ~ ' ~"for tiuFd4~ ~r~ar cAUVOa Z %O~ ~ m m m W ~,~ ~ ZAN I ~ ~ o ° / z a ~ ` ~ AAA ~ w ~ ~N pUN8AR7 aIC CRAIG naowwNC MAP aF P A R A M O U ~N T ~ ~ COURT (S6' R/W) m m d ~ ' \ UI p UCENSEO GNO S1RM:YptS mACi ~ ~ ISARAwOA RANtd - _ _ GUTTER LIP -_ ~ _~-m+ -~ ~~~ 1 -ISZS 91ua"" _ _ - _ -_ _- -. t ` -~ ~ \' \ U W N , R Rp0/:w GnV d 5°nW LMra SM" °I GMlvni, a ~ ROLLED CURB ~ ~' \ w• ~ Oti sNE I wa • rR rut avAMx re xa Ma 'RZwI LE O ~ ~ CO ~ ~ ~ ~ 9AR. dR ANR) ntam Rc RwOI suRA O.MA m A ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Nuz PA/a Ava x9 mwR NIE Na on.,.cn rum• Aoe a eM+. OF 8 B ~, g e~ ~1 PROJECT DATA MN•aN• Path xansa, 000.01.011 ProMct Aetrwu tONO Paramaw tact, Banrogo OwnN~ Rognev aM Homo ebmaa m1+ Rlag. u.r c•vn, c.padm, w soots !%xnnB Zanhg R4.4a000 G%I•nlg u.a vaR LN Ixec PropN•a br, 8e,yl• PamnY bW Ww• dro•• sla Arw n,1ee WW h Righna/•WOy Area 1,101 •qf, x•1 N• Mq 41,iN pfl Avrag• •kP• a Pr•pxb, sax Bbp• mlLw Bkuawa U ANawbl• lloar Ar•a 0,110 •4h Prapo•M Pleor Ana 6,N1 ph eWltlkB Covaagn 0,141 •qtt Llyhl WNb 114 •qfl fOx Ot Myniow CovwB• e,OB1 •qh U% (•.• rise eNON 'sne•mp• arq Nalura Opm epw:• ON14 w h o% nose qn ioox Naa I ~^rNpw oevng• •onNN• of erN•woY~ pathu, Pmlow IMey, •peW •a47 one PoN General Notes ' 1 All lanaeeap• ana Irclgallen shall conform to Iho •tantlard• of m. ay wltl• lantleeap• ragWanene and guld•IIM• end ell omor Landecapo related Ciy antl Regional slontlarde n An plan marginal. vein b...i.aa from m• raoBWmg • WULCOS P 'M' t r•U ClaeslflaoR f L a• Bp•d•ee ;~ ~~; O 4 ads Colxornla D•pattm•nt of water RNaume ~ ~ (n a ~5'k~ + ^Wot•r•COne•rvmg Plants arM Lanaecapw° by CeMUO ('n o~ X 3 5 Conmoeror ehvll Inem• po•Iliv drainage on all powd ur•ae and In Q cw E~ all planting Dress 4^ area drams shall b• Inetoll•tl when roqulrtl pjf p~ ~m '~ All aroa tlrairo mtl down spouts shall'bo cennwt•tl ono earrbtl to mo ap armnege mebare•mom baelro, I ° e 00 4 Ail planting moos shall b• Imgahtl with an ouromana water uneuving Q °5m$ aNgatlon eystom • 100% guaronlNtl covorog• ~j 5 GI•ting eak m•o• on •It• shall hw• proUaN. M1nrnng arauntl Rw Ir•y or m••'•, Y f RCon tlrip Ilm to prsvnt •%wesiv traffleking under and mound the rrN during canewetlen 6 Lantleoap• m•oe wlmin iM conopy of tM •mexng oak magi shall haw ° 5^ layer a/ shroddotl fir bmk mulch a• fho grountl cover I fi~~~.,~; +28° R,B,B, w/ Spillways _ _ ~--o~ ~ ~~' \ salt finish ~ ~ 41N~' a (p,DI 4fe ~ \ ~ ftaflt`~' Pool ~ - , ~-, Back Yard Fencing . ~ OWlLheroAK J ~ f Pool Eq~p Pad - / 4' woad screen ~Propoaed Trees Seat Walls ~ ~ -stucco flnlah to match residence _ ~ -concrete cap - -height 18°- 1° Planting Areas ~ \\ ~ _ . ~ ~ ~/ _ ~ \' ~~- I ~ ~ \ Mow band ~ ~ -colored concrete w/ +Bia --~:' __ "` _ _ _ \ ~ -black vinyl clad e _ ~ ~ ~ ddd cyclone fencln ll -- Pool eck a,ez ~ ~ 9 a Dryatack Stone Wa f _- , { - _ =c lore c tie to ~ ~ ,y '~~ -height 6' ~~ ~.. -no foohn 9 'sat fy ~ Ibh ' ~- - , Doane a4roAx , --LGwI>_ _ ~ ~ ~ -~ l • ' ; ~ ---- No ,(slanting or Irrigatiolr-_ . ~' - •lwtxe Drip Line ~, -•""~ Mow band ,,, , ~ beneath~ak Treea' ~ ~"°"x F ice ~ ., 1 '°"~ -colored concrete w/ __ ,e ~•~ ~\_ '"D'* - - ~ ' Retaining Walla halt finish .4U 1B -~ --~ - -- - - ~ •„A1 ---- -- '~ - -_ _ • 10.OAR ~ ~ - _ I ` -stucco flnlah to match residence _ _ - _ fawn Dryafack-Slarse~Wolle ~~ ~ I ~ -concrete cap P ~o - •nc footing ~. ~ 4 ` \ -height 21°-24° -: , -~- Ior d_c ncr~te- I ~-"-- - - - -- -- ~ ~ ~ •4 \ ~ % Dryatack Stone Walla -4 e k i isn' \ ~ `~, °W°" "°"% `4tl _ ~ I •no foohn 9 ~ } i ' I •40•A - \ ~ _ - 411 \ ~~fr1 - -woo ~ °~ ~- 11 v Side Yard Fencing -black wnyl clad - ° ~ - ~ ~- _ ~ ~ ~'~ ~--I _ "- - ~ I ~ 47 ~--------- --___I, 5 '--~ - - •41i c clone fencin a1 - I,--_•4 ~ y g -hei ht 6' ~ -- I ~ ` B I ~B~ I y ~ ~ ~ ~ ort'6cLurt S I g _ ~ xuu,PLCe,1roA% - L~ _ -- ~- p _. ~_ ~ -. I •N>1 =meets requirem~~Tor~ ~ ` Seot Walla ~ •e• , = __ ~~ \ ~ _ Sectiori'}5.80030ic) of the City of 1 -stucco flnlsh to match residence Side yard 1 Setback---~ 9pping Stonee\ _ l 4oec ~ I`- e 40 o 1 ~.$arotoga Burtding Codes_---, -concrete cap -height 1e"-21" ~ ``, l 1 % ~~ Patio ~~ ~ ~ ~ I >` •11 i~ -- ~ ~ ~- Side Yard Fenci -black vin l clad ~6 Nv.IJ Fence i ~ ~,\ ~ a•o _, ~-"~ y ' ~ ,_-___- -colored concrete w! ~.~ -- -- ~ _- ~ --, A% cyclone fencing l I salt~fmish ~ ~ \ \ •4ua . -height; 6 ~~ o~>e ' R~s~dence ~ ~~' --~- ~~ ~ Ccwn \ \ i0'VA% Drip Line No Plantin or Irri anon 9 9 , ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~o°uuFn4roA%' »na'r Columns ~ - ~ , rata Plantln AreaB ___---_ -stone veneer, to mafclr~ceaidence 9- - - - _ - '~conarete sap ' ~~ .Walkway w°-- - `~- -, --I r-geBnlm{nn w..ua 4oa - ~ ~•~, ~ ~ \ _ - ~ 'T--` ~ -_ Planflng Areas beneath Oak Trees -cowrea concrete wf - - - -- ~ / ~ salt finish _ __ _ - 4a -atdtle-veneer to e , - _- ~ % , i ~'~ GAt'd e g ~ match r sfdence__ _ Planting Areas - - - j ~ ~- h Li B -- _ rus ne i' - - ~_ i~ Trash Enclosure ~ - - ~ 6' W.I. Fence -stucco walls to match - -~ -- - ~ -- - -- ' residence -, `~-- - -- ------- - -- - ~_ _ _-- - - -concrete floor i i ~'" - -_~-___ oun~girr-`-; \ - wall height. 6' i ,~~ °Wn ~-,--- _ ~--Proposed Trees ~ - _.- - =~.. wn ---- -- =_ - 2' 20' A 1 x nchor i ~ /~ _ Easement I i /~ i ~ --- ._ --- ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~- - i._ - No Planting or Irrvgatlon I ,~~ ~ -_ _ ~~ ---- ~ beneath Oak Trees ,~ ri G• - ----~ //- ~ - - - _ _ _ ."~.• _ ~~ \ ' ~ 2.5'x201 Anchor , ~ Easement s, a ~~~ •~-,~ ~ g ~•~: ';~~ ~ Guy Poles ~ /~. ~ t .' <a"h ~S• i q , ~ _ ~~ from .na or PiW - r~ ~ rTl1- € g _ ~ ~` 5hc20' Anchor _ -~~ - 1 - ~I - `' - - ~ - - - Gutter Li - - - - Roiled Curb - ~ ~ ` ~ Easement =11 .gip ° ~ ' Plt~nting Areas \ Entry ,Walk `~ ~ ~ 1=1 -I -II'~ ~ DrIV6VJa -colored concrete ,w/ ~ \ ~~ -lid{ 4'dralnlm• Drainage' Dlepursement Basin 1 y 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11-111 B § salt flnlsh „ a -cobble~Pavers are sand ~ Retalnln Walls Guy Poles \ ,~\ c U ~~_- ~ N u a~a ---- - - -1 -GOlar-r-oa e-of-cobbles-to ba--- -~----- - = - --- - 9- ----- - - - - it ~ ~ ~ = o g -)-- - ---- - --~---- --- ~ \ ~ 1 I -atone veneer fa match residence ~, ~ d coordma_fed w! hayae color I ~/ \ ~ ~ ~i ii~~~ 4 ~ ~~~'~ ~ ~ Draino e Dls ursement Baam ~ Jami`Power Pole PAR'AMOI.IhlT ~©U,RT / Mow band 9 P ~, 711 14"•Bn da River CobM• / ~ / ~ -colored concrete w/ - ~ I Tit steel i _ ~=7i.iTi_1T~Ti-1ll~111~ / ~•' i ~ salt finish ~- - -~ - -~'-_ - - - --- _ _,.i.. ~'-~'~~~'- - - - - - - - - _- - _~- - - - - - ~ ~` ~ Retention Basin Detail x L" S ~ ~ ~ ~ Scae t/pB=1'~a" ~ - \ , ~ n of $ eheBts I ~I u ,~ February 4, 2003 City of Saratoga Community Development Deparkment DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION for 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. .i '1 ~~ ~ 1 ~~ •G~t~. ort roperty weer Vin ar Sou ~ - C~z)~. WTI ~ C ~ HU~1 .,~" ~, ~~r ~•~~ I .~ar' C~~~'b 0 Arc dress ~Jndeveloned Land I ~~0 41~ ~~~7 G7~ ~~~~o~~, ~ ~~~~ Address 13 3~ ~ cep ~ ~~`~~~ Address February 17, 2003 ~,) City of Saratoga ' Community Development Department SHARMA RES,~DENCE 13095 Paramount Court, Saratoga Design Review Application Requirement No.10 Policy No. l: ~nimiae Perception of Bulk • 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 following 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" architectural style, is very conducive to this area of Saratoga and will compliment this neighborhood greatly. ~~ J Policy No. 2; Integrate Structure with Environment • As mentioned previously this design has a minimal amount of materials and all are natural, iearth 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 architectural style proposed is unsurpassed and only incorporates ' one design theme. ~~ • As previously mentioned, the proposed design consists of materials and colors that blend into tli'e nahual surroundings. • The use of natural stone for;~the low garden walls will help to maintain the country setting that surrounds this propert Policy No: 3: Avoid Interference with Privack • Interference 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 separating the two properties. Across the street to the East is another residence about one hundred yazds 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 aze 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. ' • Covered porches will provide shade and family enjoyme~ all year round. • The existing mature trees provide a buffer from the wind. • The proposed house may Dave a hydtonic heating system, which will provide a ire efficient heat source, • ' ~ ~ ~ ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I Application No./Location: 03-131;15211 Sobey Road Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Shinku &r Ramesh Sharma, Property Owner ner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate PlannerL~ Staff Plan Date: July 23, 2003 APN: 397-07-039 Department • • ~~(-®~~. 15111 5obey Koaa Application No. 03-131; 15211 SobeyRoad EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 6/05/03 Application complete: 6/27/03 Public hearing conducted: 7/23/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 5,842 square foot two-story residence and attached three-car garage. More than 50% of the existing two-stork residence will be demolished; therefore, the project is considered a new two-story residence. New two- story residences require Planning Commission Design Review Approval. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet. Tlie gross lot size is 60,661 square feet. The average slope of the property is 19% which reduces the net lot size to 43,676 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 03-131 by adopting the attached Resolution with the special condition that the "picture" window to the right of the entry be revised to a "casement" window to provide consistency and symmetry along the front elevation (see attachment 6). ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Documentation of neighbor notification. 3. Arborist Report, dated June 20, 2003. 4. Applicant statement regarding proposed design, dated June 27, 2003. 5. Applicant statement regarding landscaping, dated June 20, 2003. 6. Clarity of condition of approval requiring window consistency. 7. Mailing labels for project notification and affidavit. 8. Materials Board 9. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". • 000002 Application No. 03-131; 15211 Sobey Road • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1 40,000 GENERAL PLAN: Residential Very Low Density Maximum Dwelling Unit Per Acre 1.09 MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 60,661 square feet gross 43,676 square feet net (28% reduction in gross lot size for 19% slope) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 19% • GRADING REQUIRED: 136 cubic yards cut, 0 cubic yards fill ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction of additions to asingle-family residence is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 2 exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the original one and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the original. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: A beige stucco exterior siding and a grey concrete the roof material are proposed (see attachment 8). • ~~~~o~ Application No. 03-131; 15211 Sobey Road Proposed Code Requirements . Maximum Allowable Lot 25 % 35% ~ Coverage: Residence 4,421 sq. ft. ~~ Driveway, patios, & walkways. 6,299 sq. ft. TOTAL 10,720 sq. ft. (Impervious Surface) Maximum Allowable Floor Area: Residence First Floor 2,542 sq. ft. Second Floor 3,300 sq. ft. TOTAL 5,842 sq. ft. 6,080 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement Setbacks: 36 ft 30 ft. Front . Rear First Floor 300+ ft. 50 ft. Second Floor 300+ ft. 60 ft. 12.5 ft. Side* 15 ft 17.5 ft. First Floor . Second Floor 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 25 ft. Height: *Lot width is nonconforming. Side yard setbacks are 10% lot width. Second floor setbacks are an additional 5 ft. ~~~~U4 Application No. 03-131; 15211 Sobey Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 5,842 square foot two-story residence and attached three-car garage. A beige stucco exterior siding and a grey concrete the roof material are proposed. More than 50% of the existing two-story residence will be demolished; therefore, the project is considered a new two-story residence. New two-story residences require planning commission design review approval. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet. The gross lot size is 60,661 square feet. The average slope of the property is 19% which reduces the net lot size to 43,676 square feet. As viewed from the front lot line, the property slopes down from left to right. The main level of the residence is located on the "upper floor." The garage is tucked below the residence on the right side to take advantage of the slope and additional living space is located behind the garage; these areas comprise the "lower floor." Existing residences in the project vicinity are a variety of architectural styles. Lot sizes in area are typically one acre plus. There is a mixture of one and two story residences in the project vicinity. Initially, staff had several reservations regarding the design of the proposed residence. Specific areas of concern included: 1) massive attic and roof areas, 2) lack of consistency in window size, shape, and type, 3) massive columns, and 4) the absence of architectural style and detail. The following staff report will detail how staffs concerns have been addressed with revisions to the project which are reflected in "Exhibit A" (with the exception of one window to be revised as a condition of approval, see attachment 6). The proposed roofline is not to exceed the existing with the exception of a segment two feet in length (see "Exhibit A," sheet A7 & A8). Field observations indicate the roofline of the existing residence (with the exception of the existing entry which is to be modified) is not massive. The front lot line is not parallel with the right of way thus the property is setback back from Sobey Road. The property is separated from the public right-of--way by another parcel. A 19% slope and existing concrete retaining walls further reduce the visibility of the existing and proposed structure. The location, slope, and the orientation of the residence to the public right-of--way minimize the visual impacts of the existing and proposed rooflines. Additionally, the existing orange color roof tiles will be grey color concrete-slate tiles, which will further mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed roof. The elevations in "Exhibit A" were revised from the original submittal. The lack of architectural interest and detail initially concerned staff. The proposed stucco residence is of no particular common architectural style that is to say it is neither Spanish Eclectic nor ~~~~~~ Application No. 03-131; 15211 Sobey Road Mediterranean. In rebuttal to staff s comments, the architect emphasized the property owner's desire to maintain a contemporary style and the property owner's dislike of the Spanish Eclectic and Mediterranean styles. At staff s request, the existing contemporary style home was revised to include several more distinctive architectural features including more pronounced eaves, crown moldinl;, gutters, and soffits. The added detailing emphasizes horizontal lines and gives the proposed residence more architectural interest and detail. The original submittal also included much larger columns as seen throughout the elevations. The original columns were too bulky and massive. At staffs request the applicant has significantly reduced the size of the columns. In addition, the windows have been revised so that the majority are casement giving the elevations more consistency and symmetry. Previously the windows were a mix of double hung, casement, and picture windows. Still outstanding is one revision requested by staff that the two large windows on either side of the entry be consistent in type (see attachment 6). The large "picture" window to the right of the entry shall be revised to be a "casement" window to provide consistency and symmetry along the front elevation. As seen in "Exhibit A" a "picture" window is to the right of the entry and a "casement" window is to the left of the entry. The conditions of approval require one remaining revision to "Exhibit A." Arborist Report The Arborist Report, dated June 20, 2003 details the project's impacts on the existing trees. Tree #5, a Coast Redwood, is not in direct conflict with the building footprint of the proposed residence; however, due to its close proximity (8 feet) the arborist has concluded that the proposed project will significantly impact tree #5. Tree #5 is not proposed for removal; however, mitigations which include replacements equivalent to its appraised value ($3,740) are required irregardless of whether it is retained or removed because its health is expected to decline. The Arborist Report provides many detailed mitigations which are conditions of approval intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels so that the retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline (see attachment 3). Design Review Findings Staff finds the proposed project, as modified in "Exhibit A" and as conditioned, supports the findings for design review; therefore, staff recommends the planning commission approve of the proposed project. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: • Roof soffits, crown molding, gutters, and eaves emphasize horizontal lines and contribute to the architectural interest of the proposed residence. ®~~~~~ - Application No. 03-131; 15211 Sobey Road • A covered front entry, bay windows, balcony, and covered patio are architectural features, which break up building lines and reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • Proportionally scaled columns provide architectural interest. • The building line of the proposed second story addition is recessed from the building line of the first-story. • With the exception of the right elevation, the residence is predominately viewed as a one-story residence (see attachment 9, "Exhibit A", sheets A7 & A8,). • Materials and colors are earth tone and will blend well with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include beige stucco and a grey slate roofing material. • No trees are proposed for removal. Replacement trees equal to the value of tree #5 are required. Existing vegetation is preserved and integrated into the proposed project (see attachment 5). • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate neighbors support the project (see attachment 2). Conclusion The proposed residence conforms to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. The residence does not interfere with viewsheds or privacy, it preserves the natural landscape, and minimizes the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed project supports the findings required for design review approval as detailed in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 03-131 by adopting the attached resolution with the special condition that the large "picture" window to the right of the entry be revised to a "casement" window to provide consistency and symmetry along the front elevation (see attachment 6). • ~~~~~"~ Attachment 1 • ~'~~~'®~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 03-131 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ramesh and Shinku Sharma; 15211 Sobey Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a new two-story residence and attched three car garage; 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 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: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: • Roof soffits, crown molding, gutters, and eaves emphasize horizontal lines and contribute to the architectural interest of the proposed residence. • A covered front entry, bay windows, balcony, and covered patio are architectural features, which break up building lines and reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • Proportionally scaled columns provide architectural interest. • The building line of the second story additions is recessed from the building line of the first-story. • With the exception of the right elevation, the residence is predominately viewed as a one-story residence (see attachment 9, "Exhibit A", sheets A7 & A8,). ~®~(~~9 • Materials and colors are earth tone and will blend well with the sun•ounding environment. Materials and colors include beige stucco and a grey slate: roofing material. No trees are proposed for removal. Replacement trees equal to the value of tree #5 are required. Existing vegetation is preserved and integrated into the proposed project (see attachment 5). The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate neighbors support the project (see attachment 2). NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga doe's 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 number (J3-116 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. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted iri 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 and may require review by the Planning Commission. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated June 20, 2000 as a separate plan page shall be suk~mitted to the Building Division. 3. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans:' 5. The maximum height of the house shall not exceed 25' 1", as shown on Exhibit A. 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. 7. The applicant or his designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. 8. All proposed landscaping shall be installed prior to final building inspection. ~~~~~~ CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report dated June 20, 2003 shall be followed. 10. Prior to Final Building Inspection, the Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, the planting of any required replacement trees, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 11. Portions of the structure(s) are greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. Provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. 12. An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. 13. Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. 14. All conditions of the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be met. Fire Department Plan review number 03-1221. CITY ATTORNEY 15. 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 Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must commence within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of • California, the 23rd 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, acid 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 t]he 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 r~ L J ~~~®1.~ • • Attachment 2 ~~~~~~ ~~ ORIGIN DESIGNS NEIGHBORING PARCEL DATA SHARMA, SHINKU & RAMESH APN 397-07-039 15211 SOBEY ROAD TEL 394 2139 COE, THOMAS & NORMA APN 397-07-060 15217 SOBEY ROAD TEL 395 5525 BOEHM, ROBERT & MARY APN 397-07-059 15215 SOBEY ROAD TEL NONE LISTED SRIDHAR, ANJALI & MADHU APN 397-07-038 15201 SOBEY ROAD TEL 354 3587 ~~ • 329 B R O O K W O O D AVE. SAN JOSE, C A 95116 TEL. 408. 298.6410 FAX. 408. 286.46882 ~~~~1~ June 16, 2003 Bob and Mary Kay Boehm 15215 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga Planning Department: Our Property is located directly south of the Sharma's residence. The Sharma's have approached us about their intention to remodel their existing residence. We are aware that they intend to increase their current house size from 3561 square feet to approximately 5842 square feet. The Sharma's described to use the scope (in documented plans) and the eventual form (documented elevations & model views) of the project. We've reviewed the documents which were submitted to the Saratoga City Planning Department dated 6-06-03. We are in support of their project and will vote in favor of their proposed addition in a public hearing. Res ectfull , p Y 7 ~~ eob Boehm Mary Kay Boehm GU • O~Ct~15 June 16, 2003 Matt and Anjali Sridhar 15201 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga Planning Department: Our Property (APN 387-07-038) is located directly North of the Sh~arma's residence. The Sharma's have approached us about their intention to remodel their existing residence. We are aware that they intend t~o increase their current house size from 3561 square feet to approximately 5842 square feet. They have informed us that the majority of this addition will be expanded towards our mutual property line yet back from their legal setback line by a couple of feet. The Sharma's described to use i:he scope (in documented plans) and the eventual form (documented elevations & model views) of the project. We've reviewed the documents which were submitted to the Saratoga City Planning Department dated 6-06-03. We are in support of their project and will vote in favor of their proposed addition in a public hearing. Respectfully, ~~ .. - - An'ali Sridhar '' f~ ~~ ~ -~' ~~-- r ~ . . , y, -` _ . - ` ,, J Madhu Sridhar ~r,~~ 1 • ~~~~~.~ June 26, 2003 Tom and Norma Coe 15217 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga Planning Department: Our Property is located south of the Sharma's residence. The Sharma's have approached us about their intention to remodel their existing residence. We are aware that they intend to increase their current house size from 3561 square feet to approxirriateiy 5842 square feet. The Sharma's described to use the scope (in documented plans) and the eventual form (documented elevations & model views) of the project. We've reviewed the documents which were submitted to the Saratoga City Planning Department dated 6-06-03. We are in support of their project and will vote in favor of their proposed addition in a public hearing. Res ectfull P Y~ Tom Coe ~''`-- Norma Coe • d~~CD1'7 Attachment 3 • ~~~~~~ l~ u '~~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES _. ^u p p p p n /~ J ~(7 fEb4lOrLQL ~'LITOZ6G'iLLtU.2RL C~OIZSiA.C~in9 ~i FLEE C.~0.2E AN ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE SI:[ARMA RESIDENCE 15211 SOBEY ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: SHARMA APPLICATION #: 03-131 APN: 397-07-039 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: June 10, 2003 Report Submitted: June 20, 2003 r~ P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.331 • Fax: 650.654.332 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~0~~~.9 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2003 SUMMARY • Seven Ordinance-sized trees were inventoried and evaluated for this report. I believe the proposed home location will significantly impact tree #5. Reconunended mitigation includes installing replacement trees equivalent to the tree's appraised value. If this tree is expected to survive with a reasonable assurance, building revisions aze necessary. Tree protection fencing is recommended for trees #3, 4, 6 and 7, and is shown on the attached plan. Due to the existing hazdscape and deck, fencing is not necessary for trees #1 and 2. To ensure protection of trees planned for retention, I recommend a bond of $5,484. When available, the utility, grading, drainage and/or landscaping plans should be reviewed for tree impacts. ASSIGNMENT This report has been prepared at the request of the City of Sazatoga's Cc-mmunity Development Department to review the proposed addition to asingle-family residence located at 15211 Sobey Road, Saratoga. This report includes information regarding the effects the proposed project will have on Ordinance-sized trees anticipated to be affected by construction activities; identifies each tree's condition, species, and size; establishes an appraisal value for each tree; provides recommended bond values; and presents recommendations for mitigating trees being impacted. A summary of my findings is presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached to this report. Each tree's approximate location, number and redrawn canopy dimensions, ass well as recommended tree protection fencing locations, are shown on an attached copy of the Site Plan (sheet A2) prepared by Origin Designs, dated June 6, 2003. Note trees #4 and 7 were not shown on the Site Plan. Their approximate locations were plotted by me and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. OBSERVATIONS AND REVIEW OF PLANS The seven trees inventoried for this report include 2 Coast Redwoods, 1 Atla:> Cedar, 1 Fruitless Mulberry, 1 Coast Live Oak, 1 Monterey Pine, and 1 River She-Oak. All other trees located in close proximity to the proposed addition are smaller than Ordinance size. Sharma Residence, 15211 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page I of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~3~`OOi~.® David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2003 The proposed roof addition will require removing an estimated 20-percent from tree #1's canopy. As this tree has been repeatedly pollarded in the past, the removal of branches will be insignificant. Tree #2's trunk is situated within a circular brick planter. The root collar is not visible, and is possibly located significantly below original grade. To minimize the risk of damage caused by soil fill, I suggest clearing soil away to expose the root collar. Any abnormal coloring, staining, or growth along the trunk's buried area should be further examined to adequately determine this tree's health. Tree #3 is the most outstanding tree on site. I believe protection fencing is only necessary along on the east side of the playground's existing wooden retaining wall. Tree #5 is at risk from the first floor footprint proposed seven feet from its trunk. I expect an estimated 15- to 20-percent of the canopy will require removal, and the same percentage of dama~e to thel root area. In addition, the home will become at risk of future structural damage, and as a result, will eventually result in the tree being removed. I believe tree #5 is a valuable asset to the property, and cannot be readily replaced. However, I also believe its loss would not significantly impact the overall tree landscape. Mitigation for this tree (whether it is removed or retained) must include replacements equivalent to its appraised value. If this tree is expected to survive with a reasonable assurance, the home's first and second floor must be designed no closer than a minimum of 12 feet from the trunk. Additional protection measures would also be necessary, and can be provided upon review of any revised plans. TREE PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are based on plans reviewed and are intended to mitigate foreseeable damage. If additional revisions to plans occur, recommendations will require modification. Protection Fencing 1. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to demolition and arrival of heavy equipment. It shall be located as shown on the attached plan, and placed no further than two feet from the accessory structure planned for removal, and four feet from the home's first floor footprint. 2. The protection 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 . 1 Coast Redwoods have a growth near the base of their trunks named lignotubers, which are typically twice the size of the trunk diameter, and have the capacity to move foundations. My on-site measurements place the lignotuber at approximately 4-''/s feet from the proposed footprint of the first floor. Sharma Residence, 15211 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~ ~~'002~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2003 than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and in place • throughout the construction process and until the project receives fmal approval. All development activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas. These activities include, but are not limited to, the storage of materials and equipment, vehicle parking, and dumping of concrete or other construction materials. 3. Protection fencing for trees #4, 6 and 7 must be established in two separate phases, one for demolition and the other construction. The fencing must be installed before commencing either phases, and placed as shown on the attached plan. 4. For tree #3, place protection fencing along on the east side of the playground':c existing wooden retaining wall. Demolition 5. The removal of the accessory structure's foundation must be performed by first breaking the hardscape into manageable pieces, then hand loading the piecf~s onto a loader. 6. After the concrete is removed, immediately (same day) cover the newly exposed area with four to six inches of landscape soil mix or coarse wood chips, and keep moist for a period of two weeks. 7. Special care must be taken to avoid damaging branches of trees being retained. Root Zone Protection 8. A root zone buffer must be installed, as shown on the attached plan, between fencing for trees #4, 6 and 7, and the first floor's footprint. This must occur after modifying the fencing location and before construction commences. 9. Motorized wheeled equipment shall not operate on unpaved soil beneath canopies. Utilities and Grading 10. Underground pipes, utilities and old irrigation lines beneath canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut at existing soil grade. 11. Plans for installing utilities and drainage should be reviewed by me before i?rtstallation occurs. I advise the features be installed outside from beneath tree canopies. 12. No grading or surface scraping shall occur within fenced areas, or outside fencing and beneath canopies of retained trees (except as designated on plans near trees #~l thru 7). 13. Soil must not be dumped or piled (even temporarily) on unpaved surface;s beneath canopies. Sharma Residence, 15211 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~~~~a2 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 20, 2003 . Tree Pruning and Removals 14. All pruning must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by calling the Western Chapter ISA at 530/892-1118. 15. The removal of any trees must be performed in a manner that does not cause damage to trees planned for preservation. Stumps must also be ground, as opposed to being pulled or uprooted from the ground. Tree Replacements 16. New trees must be installed to replace the appraised value of tree #5 at $3,740. This is equivalent to two trees of 36-inch box size, two of 24-inch box size, and two of 15- gallon size. Other combinations can be used, and their combined values must be equivalent to $3,740. The applicable replacement sizes and values are as follows: $120 fora 15-gallon tree; $420 for 24-inch box tree; and $1,320 fora 36-inch box tree. 17. Acceptable tree replacements include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big Leaf Maple (Ater macrophyllum), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). TREE PROTECTION BOND The appraised tree values are presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached at the end of this report. The values were calculated in accordance to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9'h Edition, using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. The total appraised value of trees #1 thru 4, 6 and 7 is $18,280. I suggest a 30-percent bond or $5,484 to ensure their protection. • Sharma Residence, 15211 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division Q~~O~3 - ARBOR RESOURCES ~tOf8S110YlQL ~jt/TOt~CLLLtt1tQL C:.OIZSLLttin9 & ~tEE C:.RZE TREE IIWENTORY SPREADSHEET .. ~r~. N~ ~~~' ~,~ r. ° 3 O 3 y N ~ 3 N ~ ~ •~o ~ ^ ; oo ~ ;~ ~ ~ b ~ v oo ~ Y ° ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~~~ .~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ °' ~ b ¢ a ~ A ~ ~ q m ~ oa U i c~ - ~ o 'm ~, ~ o ~ TREE ~ ~'~ q ~'~ ~ •~° >, ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~°o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ > oo i ~x o ~ U ~ ¢ ~ i ° o NO. TREE NAME F, .~ F., .~ °' U x ~ ~ ~ O A ~ ei H Fruitless Mulberry t (Mores a 'Fruitless'1 13 - 17 27 75% 25% Fair 4 - $830 - ~ -- - - Blue Atlas Cedar 2 (Cedrus a. 'Glauca) 13 13 44 28 100% 50% Good 3 - $1,920 - Coast Live Oak 3 (Quercus agrifolia) 24 - 30 48 l00% 50% Good 5 - $11,700 - Monterey Pine 4 (Pines radiates) 22 20 50 35 50% 75% Fair 4 - $1,270 X Coast Redwood 5 (Sequoia sempervirens) 19 16 44 20 75% 100% Good 2 - $3,740 - Coast Redwood 8, 7, 6, 6 (Sequoia sempervirens) - 4 22 20 75% 50% Fair 3 - $1,610 - River She-Oak 7 (Casuarina cumm~ghamiana) 8, 8 - 45 16 100% 25% Fair 4 - $950 - Site: ]5211 Sobty Road Sar~oga Aep~ed jot: GYry ojSasatoga Comnwniry Devrlopmart Dcpt Prepased by: David L Bobby, RCA .htne 2B, 2BO3 d000~4 • i~ s ~/3 1 WOOD RETAINING WALL s ^- ,\ VI" W" ~ 1) ~~ 2 ~ ... i V ~ i i I ~, 1 1 I /// 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~°~ a I r~+ ~ ~ ,;.,~~ •i ~.~, rr ~d '7 ~ parM1 ,T, • ~R TREE PROTECTION FENCING • I (All Phases) j °"°°" ~ ~~-- -~ I TREE PROTECTION FENCING 5 4 I I ,~ RE51Di (Construction Phase) O ~ ° ,- ~ i ~ i ;~ ~ : . r- ~ a,P~auR _ ----""-- ~' TREE PROTECTION FENCING ~' , . j _ (Demolition Phase) ~ i j _.._ ~ ; . ~, ~, { ~ ,.`' actresxrstE # 6~0 i ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ c~1 ,~ ~ , ' ROOT ZONE BUFFER ' 7 i _ ~,, tV I ~ ~ I ~ . ® I ~ aexrnw ' e~ ~ °r~rm~.uiwn~o~r.~nurr I I i Sue Address• 15211 Sotxy Aoad, Saratoga Prepared By: Preoaredfor Qty of SaratogaCommunuyDevelopmentDepartment ARBOR RESOURCES rP..~.ao..[dl.i..~..k...[C'o...ko~b'7...C'... j Notes Map edent~fies seven Ordinance-sized trees Canopy dimensions and tree locations are approximate. P o Na xs:ss . Son hfatm. G 9NUi ~ e N Map ~s reduced Bom rts ongmal size and ~s not to scale Phone (670)651.7751 F.m~ .~mea~nwwcm I I 00 Z~~ W ~Z~J.Qa • Attachment 4 ~~~~~6 Jun 28 2003 11:54RM ORIGIN DESIGNS 4982864682 p.l ORIGIN DESIGNS 6-27-03 Saratoga City Planning Christine Oosterhous RE: 15211 Sobey Road, Sharma Project Christine: Per our most recent discussion, this letter is to briefly review our statement of purpose and to further delineate the reasons for all of the proposed changes. When I was first approached by Ramesh & Shinku Sharma to remodel their house, they asked for a very pragmatic addition to their existing residence, as their children are growing into adolescent hood this house did not meet their physical or social space needs. The existing family, dining, kitchen and living rooms are well below their minimum needs. From the existing garage to the main residence this ranch style home of 1950's vintage is comprised of Spanish Mission tiled gabled roofs with exposed eaves, chocolate colored wood trim and a very deep stucco texture reminiscent of some inexpensive eatery of that period. Although this existing appearance isn't completely heartfelt it's objections were of minor concern over the shear need for additional square footage. In the course of our design development one of our highest concerns was creating minimum impact upon the immediate northern neighbor. Thereby we lowered the existing gabled end roof from approximately 24 feet by introducing a hip roof that would create no more than approximately a 17 high side yard wall. This side yard wall is broken up into approximately two 8-foot increments, which aze staggered horiaontally by 5 feet thereby minimizing their impact. One thing Ied to another and we decided to upgrade the existing gabled entry. At this time we decided that consistency was of prime importance for everyone concerned so we decided to replace all of the high gable roofs with a hip roof of the same plate height. ~~ L_.J 329 B R O O K W O O D AVE. SAN JOSE, C A 95116 TEL. 408. 298.6410 FAX 408. 286.4682 ` . --- ~~V~IGr I Jun 28 2003 11:54RM ORIGIfV DESIGNS 4982864682 p•2 The current gabled entry has little distinction other than its roof style. This roof' actually encompasses part of one of the bedrooms and the actual entry is little more than a negative space within this gable. Sy changing all of the roofs to hip we also decided to extend out the hipped entry roof and support it on lazge round columns. Beside,> signaling "entry" we also felt this new roof would minimize it's relationship to ithe adjacent bedroom which is not an optimum arrangement as regarding privacy. 'T'hen most recently the client came asked if we couldn't change the entire roofing material, as they wanted something more subtle than the current bright red Spanish Mission tiles. They chose a lightweight concrete the somewhat reminiscent of old country slate tiles of a neutral gray tone. The walls will be painted a soft earth tone color as depicted on the material board and the stucco finish will be much finer than the brash existing. The current eaves have absolutely no detail so we introduced Ogee gutters. Because all of the pedestrian views of the house are from below looking up we felt that it would contribute to the overall appearance to enclose the new eaves by creating horizontal stucco soffits. Lastly we're proposing a large crown molding around the entire soffit-wall connection to create interest and additional texture. Although the body of the house cannot been seen from Sobey Road the roof comes into view for approxirn.ately 50 yards for drivers heading Nolhwest from the Quito Road junction. This was another reason the Sharma's wanted to change the bright red Mission tiles to the more subdued concrete gray slate tiles. The Shazma's do not want a house that is necessarily pigeon holed into the Spanish Mediterranean or "Silver Creek" genre that is so currently popular but rather a ]less detailed and simpler "modem" look. For this reason we've introduced some cwrving forms (on the north and west elevations) that help break with this standard tradiitional look. We've introduced curved bay windows to incorporate the view on the north side as well as a curving deck on the northwest elevation that curves around the existing Spruce tree. The Sharma's feel that they have come a long way from the very beginning of just merely adding squaze footage. We would like to remind the stafl'that from the Shartna's point of view this is a "remodel" and legally qualifies as such. There is no current orduiance on the books that places us in the category of a "new home status" subject to public review other than the discretion of the Planning Staff. Yes we are over the 50% "new wall" ordinance currently being reviewed but not yet adopted by the City Council, however we fall short of any other ordinance that would throw us into mandatory public review. Short of tearing down the existing structure we feel that we've gone far beyond the call of duty to provide a home that has a completely new and different appearance in every way and is a upgrade well beyond any measure of what is existing. Some window openings are to remain however the windows themselves will be up graded to double glazed t>:~roughout. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency of the single double hung windov~~ among the sliders on the lower floor North facing wall. For purposes of expediting this project you have my assurance that this will be changed for the final submittal package hopefully without us having to resubmit another preliminary package to you. Any other double hung windows will be changed to casements. ~~®~iZiB Jun 28 2003 11:54RM ORIGIN DESIGNS 4982864682 p.3 As a quick reference, the following items we feel best recap the salient features of this proposed remodel. 1. New gabled roofs throughout. 2. New ogee guttered eaves. 3. New enclosed roof soffits. 4. New crown trim at juncture of roof soffit and walls adding additional texture and interesrt from below. 5. New stucco texture 6. New midtone concrete tiled roofs that downplay the current bright red Spanish Mission file roof. 7. New earth tone wall color to help connect it too the earth versus the current bright white color. 8. New upgraded entry roof and columns. 9. Relocation of the pool equipment located under the attached shed at the rear of the Master Bedroom and the incorporation of a new covered patio hip roof with columns consistent with the proposed entry roof. 10. Lowered the current existing height of the northern gabled end wall from nearly 24 feet as depicted on view " 3" of sheet A6 to two staggered walls totaling approximately 1? feet. 11. Removal of deteriorating decks and brick patios at the rear of the existing house 12. New lawn and walk area at northern side yard. 13. We've married the existing detached garage to the main house yielding a single unified whole versus two separate forms connected only by a wooden deck. 14. We've maintained almost the exact same roof profile as the existing roofbut added an additional 2,000 square feet without the huge impact of additional roof volume. 15. General appearance upgz-ad.es such that the entire structure will feel like a "new" home when it's completed which is a great contribution and improvement to the neighborhood in general fi-om the existing house of nearly forty years ago. Hopefully the preceding has been helpful in offering clarity and understanding about what it is we're proposing and the reasons for doing such. In closing w•e wish to mention that the most immediate neighbors have thoroughly reviewed our proposal and are in complete support of this project as evidenced by their letters of support. We certainly appreciate your efforts and are very grateful for your expeditious manner of handling our project. appreciatively, Rori Heikes Architect E~~~~~9 • Attachment 5 • ~~`~~~~ ORIGIN DESIGNS 6-20-03 Saratoga City Planning Department: Attention: Christine Oosterhous Christy: As part of our submittal we want to submit this letter to assist in clarify any issues regarding landscaping. Unless otherwise noted, it is our intention to see that all existing • hardscape and planting remain. The greatest part of the remodel is along the North side of the existing house where the land is very flat. This area currently supports a redwood and a fir tree and other then this it has not been maintained. A shed currently housed in this side yard will be removed along with any weeds and all trees (as noted on the plan) will remain. Anew 3' sidewalk along this side of the proposed addition will be constructed and the remaining side yard will be planted in lawn. Under the 14" Spruce tree off the back deck of the proposed addition are series of decaying brick landing steps, which will be removed and replaced with lawn to tie in with the lawn of the northern side yard. Other than this all existing landscaping is to remain. This side yard along with the northern portion of the paved driveway will serve as a staging area for materials during construction. For further information or clarification please refer to the combined Site/Landscaping plan Sheet AZ Respectfully, Ron Heikes Architect • 329 B R O O K W O O D AVE. SAN JOSE, C A 95116 TEL. 408. 298.6410 FAX. 408. 286.4682 ®~~~~ Attachment 6 • ~~~~32 Ct~,S~ mgt W~~nw r~~ t~~ rcd0 l5 ion d~ ~~ ors a f ~~ prrv a 1 fe M,} ch ~+1nd nw on 1tF~' • ~~3~~33 • Attachment 7 ~®E~034 ®0915 aase~ ~ ~ Zl ~ ~G~ slagal ssaaPPb' ®A2J3A~d ~'(/ GRELLAS 196 _THE ALAMEDA 200 S SE CA 95126 MIKE MASOUMI 15141 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 MATO & MARE MILOGLAV 15161 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 MENG LEE 10601 GLENVIEW AVE CUPERTINO CA 95014 BERRY 15225 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT A & MARY BOEHM 15215 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JIN D & KYUNG KIM 15277 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 FARR 15146 SPERRY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID & NATASHA PROPACH 15200 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JESSE J & WANPYNG CHEN 18975 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 GORDON T & JEANNE CASE 15300 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070 ~GMAR M HORVATH 15209 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ..n4r c aoa aie~duaaa asn ANJALI & MADHU SRIDHAR 15201 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 BERLINER 15237 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 COE 15217 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 CYNTHIA WRIGHT 15142 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 LONEN C CURTIS 15127 SPERRY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 RONALD M & LIl~DA TATE 22 S SANTA CRUZ AVE FL2 LOS GATOS CA 95030 JEFFREY B & ELIZABETH BRYANT 19001 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 DANIEL T & CAROLYN DOLES 15280 EL CAMINO GRANDEE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAGMAR M HORVATH 15209 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 RAMESH & SHINKU SHARMA 15211 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 BARBARA A STOCK 15249 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 KENNETH E FOLLMAR 15261 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 PETER G STYLIANOS 15134 SPERRY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 AKI FU7IMURA 15220 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID N & AILEEN WANG 15230 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070 W L PELIO 14573 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 RAMP & SAROJ GUPTA 15000 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 DEAN V & JAIMIE BOBROWSKI 15225 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ~;©~~35 ®0915 aas~e, DEAN V & JAIMIE BOBROWSKI 10802 MONTEREY SOTPMENT 15225 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA 95070 MORGAN HILL CA 95037 - --- - -- -- - - PATRICK J & SILVIA OHAREN 18935 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIAM A & ROBERTA JOHNSON 18955 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 s~age~ ssaapPt~ o~a~nn ~y/ - MICHAEL E & JAMES FOLEY 18927 MON"CE VISTA DR SARATOGA. CA 95070 GOEL 18533 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 • ~~~~i6 I • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, L • ~ ` y y~S ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ day of ~ ~ 2003, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See hst 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 ~~~~~~ ~~ Attachment 8 ®~~~~8 MATERIALS • R®®~~NG CONCRETE TILES-SLATE PATTERN 5~~1~~;0 ~~~~NG IN LIGHT IN SHADOW • ~. l ~{ PROPOSED-RIGHT FRONT PERSPECTIVE PROPOSED-PERSPECTIVE LEFT FRONT ~°'" i~ PROPOSED-PERSPECTIVE RIGHT FROPIT PROPOSED-PERSPECTIVE RIGHT REAR REYISIORB BY _~~ 0 W 50 G W LL W 0~ Na W_ ~ ~ d Q o ~o Q °' N~ I~ yo oSW~ J ` ~ W ~ p~ 0 ~ ~ Q~w Y aZ° ~ ~ N ~~~ ~~ i4FU9 scuF ild" =1'-0" wuwn RR Joe SNEEi Al r ~;1'I® ~ ' ~~ ' • +\+~ +\+ $ \~~-~ .\ I •~~ ( a\ i ~~ 1 `~ 1 ~ ~l I t ( I I 1 t i I t I I 1 I I t I 1 i I I I 1 1 I I 1 i ~ 1 ~~ I~ ~i I 1 t WI ! W ~i , I~ ~i \ i~ t t t I i 1 1 I I I 1 it I I i ~ - I i ' ~ I ~ ' i ~ r~l IF 't I L..~ ~ / I ~ i I I I ! I t L NOO 9' W 115.00' •~~-~ SITE PLAN 30~=,~.~ -muwu.ormwl ~,_. _~~ CaPENtoeFwu FDi F6aoA85.00. tE! CE ,n ~~ W V i 0 ~ I I I N 1 z~ I t «a« - .J ~~ A~ i mPAY®PARYJYa1IX+VHIWT // t SITE PLAN „8+~,~-0• N 00 2C Ul 115.00' \\~~ 1 IV I J Vr ,iz i I I ( I 1 J PROJECT DATA PRWECTAOORESB t56n 90BEYR0AD sNNweruNESKSxARm, PROJECT OWNPR turf 80BEYRUO &AATOGq U60010 PMl HEXtEB PROTECT Al6CNRECT J66BRGOKHDOO AYE 9/N JOSE U60116 ZONWG RNO FRONT YARD BET SACK M4 91DEYARD SET BACK trd REAR YARD GET BACK wa' APN NUMBER Fnma CUT IMOVBIOYAR08 RLL 0 EXMIRIG LOT COYERAGE M118aFf EXISTING LOT CDYEMGfiiWSEU ~~~ EIIMiWG LOTCOYERAGE• ~~ TOTAL f709TiNG LDTCOVERAGE• 630680,F7 %LOTCOYERAGE IE~ 330184FTJ13,WS SO FT )WI SLOPE FINAL LOT COVERAGENARDSCAPE InTSaFi FBW.LOTCOYBIAGIJWSC-0 OECNWG ~~ FINAL LOTCOVFRADERESIDENCE 1MI84Fl TOTAI SOS)E)LOTCOYERAOE• PAYING DECNINO IDEN E 107W b0.FT r0T5094FTJq,03 SQF6 )WI SLOPE %LOT COVERAGE FlNAL RETw •: BUILDING AREA F1O817NGTOTAI M118RYAREFE¢r ROaRAGFJ BUILDING AREA E%ISTING UPPER N903WMEFEET BUBDINGAREAf:XISTING LOWER t071sWMEFF.EF{WIGNGAGE6 BUILDING AREA NEWTOTAL ptlBGUAREfEBT GARAGE BUILDING AREA NEW UPPER 1M08WAPEFEET BUILDINGAREANEWLOWEA LNSeOUARE FEEiOYtcaF.laEf PARCELSDE t9XAC1E8•MAn OF x a ler RTE ARU G®ucTEO • MY, AYHIAGE SLOPE (,VXISFLOOR MM/aPX SB•tAM6SF M,Mt3f ~tAMO•YA1FaF AREA REDUCTION 13,07$ (LI)T AREA) • IA00 aF ~ M e FP FLOORAREA ALLOWABLE IWMBF ALLOwA6B+01n 8r PAGPGBEG+ W B.F YARGM VICINITY MAP ~ 4~ . , 1. ' .~ F6 k I e n ug V~N ~ g y~~"'~~ 13., ? i '1 ~ ,` A p ~, '~ A ~, I o ~ a , fiI n~ % - dtr. A ~ 6 C, 6 _ L t~ ~ ~ •y ' ~~ ~ 1 ,~t'r ~ i~ ~ ~4 ~ ~~~ ~~ .~n~ B ~ 6I~ ^~; Y TABLE OF CONTENTS Al PROP03ED MODEL VIEWS A2 917E PLAN,PROJECT DATA A3 (NI UPPER FLOORPLAN A4 MILOwERFLOORPI,w A5 (N)El(TERIOR ELEVATIONS A$ (N)EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A7 SECTIONS A$ (S)UPPER FLOOR PLAN A9 (F)LOWER FLOOR PLAN A10 (E)AS BU0.T ELEVATIONS A11 (E)AS BUILTELEVATIONS Ail suNSTUm A13 MODEL VIEWB T1 TOPOPGRAPHIC MAP 85LOPE CALCS TZ TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PLOT MAP ^ i ~ Wf .'ICE 197Ac,6A Q9 Ac NFT h •Z N uv., 61~ ~° ~ Q t e 104k 6It lMA. 71ST IN g `-~' r ~ ~ ~ f ~.>:. 13SE.' III 1 } ~ . 1 . w ~rrD F~ocR ananorJ % , sw~eorst ~ ~~~ ~i~~ BAgipCK f . ,°; !~~ a ~ ! 1 ~,\ a~~~~"`+I I I 3~ 0 ®IarrRTOPauF+ 3~ I$ 9 ~~ ~~I -r-w~RfLOaex~Ku -R650p$M7eWdLK 1 I LQIERftOLR BEIpACKIl@ t -9FROPH1TYDtE r ~ 1 1 ~lYililllilfp~~~~~~ I 1~ I ~ II ~ II {WD'IOvE®NPI I L--- ~ „` ~~ ~. 1 1 P REVISIONS BY 7-02-03 0 ~ Q Q Z W VN Q N~i O Y. ~ Q ~ TN U rya oW~q w ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ Q ~ W Y Q ~ ~ ~ 'n~ N _/ Y- ogre 7-T-09 SUIE as NOTED olwwn ~ JOB SNEEf A02 of • I1 L~ • itEYISIONS BY ~~ O ~ C li W a a ~z ca ya 0~ ap ~0 aLL a ~~ ~~ a °' = U No °W~ ~~~ w ~ p~ 0 ~ ~ a ~ w o ? `~ N =~ N ~ V + ~ onTE 7.7-03 SG4LE onnvrH RH we SHEET A03 OF • • pEVi510NS BY P. O , W O JZ G~ Na 0~ Op ~J a~ Q g° ~~ Q °' N U No oWq ~~~ w 0 ~~~ a ~ w w Z u~i o~~ N=~ 'A N ~ V + ~ oA~ 7d-0J SINE 111" m T-0" rnuwx RN ace sHeEr A04 • • ~, • ~5 • n U • ,~ REVISIONS C7 ~ ~ ~ O ~ t SECTION AA N Z 0 H U W N Z_ D J m Q ~° r o a~ y U aU' (/~ 0 oW~ J ~ ~ W O ~ Q ~ "_ ~ Q ~ W Y oZ° ~, _ /^ N ~ N ~ • f: SECTION BE A-06-09 SCgIE 114"=1'-0" ow,xm ~ A7 • r--__-c==- _-__:__ i li tE> MASTER CL I' Imo--. -- lf-- MAST. BATH !E) DECK ReoPOSEp rau ar+v Fl.ooR aoort~ tFJ DECK C VIEW OF NEIGHBOR FROM DECK $y , , .~ .. 1' ~. ,~~_ ~ti ~f~:~," . 'id . e r s +~' ~ ~ ~ 9 k ~~„' j~S~~~ 2~ FRONT VIEW OF HOUSE ~ MASTER EtEDR00M 0 tp LMNG ROOM (EJ pINMG ROOM/ tFJ FAMU.Y ROOM $EDROOM !F) ~ .~ ~ ~.~L ~ ~ emROOM -._ e-- - i ~ tFJ ENTRY i ~- ~ ,Q ~ o s i i -ti. i i L----------------------------------J (p HALL ^~ ~ ~ lFJ FOYER (D BREAKFAST LAUN~ ~ ¢~ KITGF~N fpDECK tF.~ GARAGE BELOW ^ 4 JOB '• ~ r- 2 L___J L________J ~~. ', ~3 SIDEYARD VIEW OF NEIGHBOR '"V C FRONT VIEW OF ENTRY WALK EXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN a A8 a • • ~i 1 EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN i 1 ~ ~ I 1 f ~ ~ i i ~~ ~ ~-~fMLKUB ICI`// I 1 1 1 ~y~~yn~ I'N~~pV~F~~//~~ p~~~p~~I 91 tVIV I41~G ~, ~, i ~, ~~ i 1 JI k ~1hy ', .f .M1 ~~_~~T g h..2+'L C REAR VIEW OF SIDEYARD Q SIDEYARD VIEW OF NEIGHBOR O FRONT VIEW OF SIDEYARD • • • • • • AS BUILT REAR (WEST ELEVATION) AS BUILT RIGHT (WEST ELEVATION) REVISIONS BY ~_~ 0 r J_ m NN Qz ZO ~~ yW X .~ WW Q ~o n ~o Q ~ N U Na °W~ ~~~ w ~~~ Q~w Y a?N ~ /~/~/~ N ~V/ ~ cure 7.7-03 oaewn ~ A11 a • • ._ . .. ,~ ~ ..~ ,,.ww_ . ,~s ,~,% . ,~- T.ti~ A~ ,,~, +- - - ~p~` I ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~.....," . ' ~~ ~ ~ j 'M ~ '~~ f~~~: 4 ~ ` a ; ~ , ~~, 9 ~~~" .. ~'~: F ~w ' J ~ ~ 72~, ~,~. ~, ~ ~ ,, ~.- ~' I SEPTEMBER 21ST,12 PM _, _ a --~ FEBUARY 21ST, 12 PM ~~ - ~ 0 '~ 0 1/"/"~ V/ I N N Q • h JUNE 21ST,12 PM i~,~ ~ ~ ~~, ~,..~,.,.., n ~. ,; ~:~' . i ,~,~~ ~ ~r~f':~ r r,. r y'i~~ ,',~ / y~: ,_~ r u _~~ ~._.. _ ._...~~ L a I ~~i~h~ r ..'__. _. "' ~ qJ{ 1 ~r . ~ ~~` . i mod-. _ .. 9~_ _,.. APRIL 21ST, 12 PM ~° n Q ~ N U = Cg yo °W~ ~~~ w ~ Q ~~ ~ Q ~ W Y o ? `~ ~ ~ r ''AA N ~ V J Dah 6-05-03 scue HO SCALE DRAWN RH A12 ~ 'u P • ~ _ I .~ ~~~~ _ ~k~l SY ~ ~~~ ~` _ ~ i ~ ~v r, i , z _ ---, - '~~y '~ -. fi '~ -----"f ~ ~ '' .~ _----~-- -~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~f. . x ~ ~' y , PROPOSED-PERSPECTIVE LEFT FRONT ,~. ~~~~ ~~ ~r _- ~~ ~~.,, ~~ "h .. P. EXISTING LEFT FRONT VIEW ~* ~ , ~ ~1' 1~ ~~ E ~, ,.~ ~ ,c; ~m~ ~ ~~ PROPOSED-PERSPECTIVE RIGHT FRONT ~,.,~, . ~ ~+ ,~~ ;~ y, l . '~A`' A .~+ ' ~ EXISTING,RIGHT „~~° :.` „ . , , ., , , .:;:;-; °; VIA, , ; NOTES 1 CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT U SA AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR + TO E%CAVATING IN ANY AREA WHERE UNDERGROUND FACIL171ES ARE LOCATED PHONE (800)642-2444 2 THE EXISTENCE, LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF ANY UNDERCROUNO UIILVTIES ARE SHOWN IN A GENERAL WAY ONLY IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY Of THE CONTRACTOR TO MANE F1NAL DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE EXISTENCE, LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF ALL UTILITIES 3 DATE OF SURVEY MAY 2003 4 BASIS OF BEARINGS SUFFlCIENT MONUMENTATION AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 17 OF MAPS, PAGE 29, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS WAS FOUND TO RETRACE THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON 5 ELEVATIONS ~ ELEVATIONS ASSUMED AT FINISH FLOOR PER PLAN 1 OF 2, NOV 1975 OY I H ERBIL/CINL ENGNEER 6 SLOPE DESITY PER GTY OF SARATOGA ARTICLE 15-06 OEFlNITIONS AVERAGE SLOPE= 00229 IL A WHERE I=SFT L=2,361LF A=13926 ACRES AVERAGE SLOPE= 00229x5x2,3fi1 =1941X 1 3926 .1 • APN 397-OS- 5~ 40. / r b / r ~ 6 3y/ ~ x' y ~a ~~ 6 ~ a o~ ®us az APN 397-07-060 • ~D ~ JY + Dp ~? da TSM13 3 V~OF CLUf~~ KENNETH ANDERSON, LS 7523-EXPIRE812-31-03 SCOTT HOFFMAN, R C E C58998-EBPIRES 6-30-03 P~~~~~LYYA((~~N~~~NIN(\(G~~~~((•~ LAND SMMRVEYING MMCIWL ENMMINEERING C((\\O~~~~NSTRUCTI~MON~%(ST~_AKING IJVLI~GCI~~IJU ~UV~~MV~~~CJ9 ~11VA7o RfSPONSlVE, RELlA81f RfSULTS SINCE 1953 355 Reed Sl Santo Clora, Cobfornla 95050 Ph (4061 727-8262 FAA (4081 727-8285 E-mad missloneng®eartMmkraet SCALE 1°=20' APN 397-07-038 w ,~ Eu~ ® aer T 18" ,,.,, ~ Tu usx rms~ S 89 GO W 10' N60/ / ~ ~O.mn / (~ nFlr n`0 ^0 / e rarer Is->;r i at cE a t'~ rases p00 10 / / JaY// 1' Wq=_ f ~ '~~~ m ~ ~ e, r .rase ne rum sr a / ~ a ~„ ^~v a0, '}~~v~¢,re ~~ z / as n 10 ~./ eo N 89'28' E 532 OB' ' __nu ~ ' IOTA '-~"~r, me+ , , > o~m v of n r~~H PLAT YAftO ne a xMu ,,. 0.+l ,) 6 7831 .~ 1 ~ rule rm b neuron O'7REf rmw i'} /a0~ l~Ef ~ f1'iR i ~ ~u+9e r1 z ° "o / 3~p Qy n SD S~q~~~ I,~/~~ ~~F ~0 P" 9 ~~ ~ n \ n ~ ~ \A ~~ ,ae+ .sen ~w uN \ ureT~y e~ N TNC i t0' Po r~ nn Q30'STWIP naw rn urm ~ ~~ u. rw.rz arx ° u, )wlr ~ epee rv~.m u ~ ~, ®ue o v \ ux~ uiu °v ~ ne naz ~u b 4ME ,z ~'AU aA \ W,66 \ ~ nxas Q 4'iREf W ~ 1 PA OPII Y raa-",~ ~ uei~o \ \ VILI AF ~ \ ~!) N ~''~~ WALL ~ dV r~ ~".~ uru ae+v ,/ (~Op ~ nv l n '' ,r~n 4 ; \ / n u - re+a o / j2~W r ~' rn ~ z \ .m PD~L ~ ra (b ~ ,7 n+en ~ x r W WA(L a ,e ,ter, ~ ~ ~ror o an r ~ n, are.:, ~ , ~, ~ 3 ram„ ~ re, ° ~ xe n„e rsso~~ re as no ~~ s auNaE 30' ~ ~~, , ~~~~~ JO E ~ R HT OF AY uxe~ rw.n / u+e, ae KaL w a<e 1°~ nano «,n rw lJ \ zo ~, - - - ~, W ~ APN 397-07-053 1'hri2 "Teem WALL rm w Oe RCS, u e~ e Vd ~o ss a r .rn+x % ~E~~~~ X~_ ~ NCf ~ n,i rnu APN 397-07-059 TOPOGRAPHIC/BOUNDARY SURVEY OF 1,39AC PARCEL ROS 17 M 29 APN 397-07-039 15211 SOBEY ROAD IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA REVISIONS scAL>: 1°=20' DATE BY DESCRIP110N CH'KD PERT NA DATE 05-21-03 DvdJ SSME7 CHKO JOB NO 03058 DWG NO L729a1 SHEET T1 OF 1 SHEET • • • • ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Apphcation No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Apphcation: Date: APN: App # 02-129/ 20981 Canyon View Drive Bijan Abachizadeh John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner~`~ Design Review for asingle-family house addition July 23, 2003 503-28-011 Department Head: Q 500' Buffer zone around Canyon View 20981 [,_'1 Canyon View 20981 Q 500' Canyon View 20981 N e• W E ~ S 0 150 300 450 600 750 ft 20981 Canyon View Drive • ~~®oo~. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 06/28/02 07/02/03 07/09/03 07/07/03 07/03/03 The Applicant Requests Design Review Approval to add 1,422 square feet to the existing house. The addition includes 400 square feet for the conversion of a carport to a garage. The gross lot size is 9,200 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for Design Review with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City Arborist Report 3. City of Saratoga Noticing Labels, Noticing Affidavit, and Notice 4. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • ~~~~~2 File No. 02-129; 20981 Canyon ViewDrive/Abachizadeh Property STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10 (Medium Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 9,200 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 34% GRADING REQUIRED: No grading will be required. 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 37.5% 60% Building Footprint Driveway, decks and walkway TOTAL 3,450 sq. ft. 5,520 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Main Floor 1,433 sq. ft. Garage 400 sq. ft. Lower Floor 1,229sq. ft. Storage 200sq.ft. TOTAL 3,262 sq. ft. Subject to PC Approval Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 50 ft. 35 ft. Rear (Existing is 15 feet) 22.5 ft. 22.5 ft. Left Side 8 ft. 8 ft. Right Side 8 ft. 8 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence Highest Existing Point 27ft. 26 ft. Detached Garages N/A 12 ft. C \MyDocuments\Design Review 03\Canyon Vtew 20981 Staff Repo doc ~ ~ ~ ~ O File No. 02-129; 20981 Canyon View Drive/Abachizadeh Property PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The Applicant Requests Design Review Approval to add 1,422 square feet to the existing house. The addition includes 400 square feet for the conversion of a carport to a garage. The gross lot size is 9,200 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. The applicant's lot size is 9,200 square feet with a slope in excess of 30%. The slope reduces the lot size by 60% to 3,680 square feet. Ciry Code requires the floor area to be determined by the Planning Commission for any lot with a net size less than 5,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting a total floor area of 3,262 square feet including the conversion of the existing carport to a garage. Both of the neighboring lots on the sides have 9,200 square foot parcels. The yellow house on the right is approximately 2,980 square feet in size not including the garage and the house on the left is approximately 3,880 square feet not including the garage. The proposed floor area requested for the applicant's property would be less than that of the adjacent neighbors with the same size lot. The applicant has completed 90% of a building permit to remodel the existing decks and add a roof structure to the patio. The applicant is now requesting to enclose the new patio structures with walls and enclose an existing area currently covered by a breezeway and deck. To add any new square footage to the existing house Planning Commission review is required. The homes in the area vary in age and design with no consistent design pattern. The home to left of the applicant's house is a one-story ranch style home with a stucco exterior and some wood siding. The home on the right side is a contemporary multi story building with wood shingle exterior. The applicant's house is a very unique home with a hexagon building pattern and a circular staircase centered in the middle of the house. The applicant is proposing to make the floor plan of the house more usable. The proposed remodeled front entrance to the house will be unique as is the existing hexagon design. The front entrance faces the hillside with the neighboring home located high above the existing house. The proposed exterior finish for the applicant's home will be stucco with a stone veneer. The stucco will be a light brown earth tone. The roof will be a brown composition shingle. 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 enclosing the existing carport, breezeway and patios will have a negligible impact on the existing bulk of the structure. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the exterior stucco and roof will be brown in color to help blend the proposed house into the hillside. C \MyIbcuments\Design Review 03\Canyon View 20981 Staff Repo doc j~ ('~ V~~~IJ~ File No. 02-129; 20981 Canyon View Drive/Abachizadeh Property • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The proposed project will protect the privacy of adjacent properties in that enclosing the existing areas will have minimal impact to the adjacent neighbors who have reviewed the proposed plans. The applicant will also maintain the existing trees on property line in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan for the hillside. • 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 existing mature trees on the site will also be maintained. • Polity 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the addition to the proposed house will not alter 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. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing carport into a garage. Trees The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees. The City Arborist report (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The Arborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project approval. 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 Ciry 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 addition is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that filling in the existing covered areas will have a negligible impact to its adjacent surroundings. C \MyDocuments\Des~gn Re~ncw 03\Canyon Vtew 20981 Staff Repo doc cc ~~~~~J File No. OZ 12~?• 20981 Canyon View Drive/Abachizadeh Property CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL For the final pans reviewed by the Planning Commission the applicant was going to pull back the lower floor addition that intrudes less than two feet into the required setback. The applicant's designer made several of the other requested changes but accidentally omitted this change. As a condition of project approval staff is requiring that the applicant modify the design to meet the required setback as determined by the Licensed Land Surveyor subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. A second condition of approval will be that the applicant submits a landscape plan prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect for approval by the Community Development Director. The plans, which are suppose to represent the existing site conditions, are not accurate due to the recent changes made as part of the existing construction process. Staff will require the hillside to be revegetated with native trees and plants. 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 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. r~ C \MyDocuments\Destgn Review 03\Canyon View 20981 Staff Repo doc ~~~~®~ • Attachment 1 • ~~~~ 0~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.03- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Abachizadeh; 20981 Canyon View Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to add 1,422 square feet to the existing house. The addition includes 400 square feet for the conversion of a carport to a garage. The gross lot size is 9,200 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. ;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 an addition to an existing 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 enclosing the existing carport, breezeway and patios will have a negligible impact on the existing bulk of the structure. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the exterior stucco and roof will be brown in color 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 enclosing the existing areas will have minimal impact to the adjacent neighbors who have reviewed the proposed plans. The applicant will also maintain the existing trees on property line in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan for the hillside. • 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 existing mature trees on the site will also be maintained. • ®~~~®8 • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the addition to the proposed house will not alter 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 o f Saratoga by caref ally considering the visual impact o f new development. Land I.Ise 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 addition is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that filling in the existing covered areas will have a negligible impact to its adjacent surroundings. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: . Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Bijan Abachizadeh 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 June I0, 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. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. r~ ~~~~Q9 iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The final landscape plan prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect 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 and provide native plants and trees for the hillside subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 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 incorporated 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 applicant shall provide a revised plan with all proposed improvements located out of the required setbacks as certified by a Licensed Land Surveyor. ~~~~~® PUBLIC WORKS 14. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall re~~iew and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and excavation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. In addition, the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall ensure slabs-on-grade will not receive structural loads. 15. 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 building permits. 16. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and excavation, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. On-site materials shall be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to use as fill material. In addition, the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall ensure the removal of colluvial material where encountered in excavations. 17. 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 Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to final project approval. 18. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 19. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the Ciry of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ARBORIST 20. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated August 1, 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. CITY ATTORNEY 21. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 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, this 23`d 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 • ®~~~~.~ Attachment 2 • ®~~413 ~rE • y,ta BARRI E D. COA `~~:~~~: and ASSOCIATES ~' ~~ Honc~utural Consultants ;, 23535 Summit Road +~ ,,n r ~ Los Gatos, CA 95033 -~- 4081353-1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIlVIENDATIONS AT THE ABDACHIZADEH PROPERTY, 20981 CANYON VIEW DRIVE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist August 1, 2002 Job # 07-02-148 Plan Received: 7.25.02 Plan Due: 8.27.02 ID) ~~~~~[~ ~l AUG 2 2 2002 ~Ul CITY OF SARATOGA "'IMMUNITY DEVELOPMFrrT • r~ L_J ~~~~~.~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE ABDACHIZADEH PKOPERTY, 20981 CANYON VIEW DRIVE, SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to remodel an existing residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by Glush Design Associates, San Jose, California, Sheets Al - A 12, dated June 2002. Summary This proposal may expose 12 trees to some level of risk by construction. No trees are to be removed by this proposed construction. However, construction procedures may be highly damaging to the existing trees, so mitigation recommendations are provided to address the risks that can be foreseen based on the plans provided. A bond equal to 30% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are 9 trees on this site and 3 trees on the adjacent property toward the south that may suffer some damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. There are additional trees on site, primarily in the backyard, but they are small fruit trees that are not large enough to be protected by the city ordinance. Trees #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12 are not shown on the plans provided and have been added. Their locations are approximate. The 12 trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1 valley oak (Quercus lobata) Trees # 2, 3, 4, 5 Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) Trees # 6, 10, 1 1, 12 Monterey pine (Pirrus radiata) Trees # 7, 8, 9 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) • The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 12 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S ecimens Fine S ecimens Fair S ecimens Marginal S ecimens Poor S ecimens 9 1,2,3,4,5 6,8 7 10,11,12 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST AUGUST 1, 2002 ~~~~~5 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA• RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE ABDACHIZADEH~ PERTY, 20981 CANYON VIEW DRIVE, SARATOGA The plan does not indicate that the existing concrete pathway on the south side of the residence would be changed or replaced. However, should this pathway be demolished and replaced, this construction could be damaging to the root systems of the exlsting trees. If a pathway is to be constructed on the northeast side of the house either during or after house construction, the pathway adjacent to Trees #7, 8 and 9 also must be installed on top of existing grade without excavation. In the event that excavation were done, the damage may range from minor to severe. In the best case scenario, these trees may experience minor (perhaps unnoticeable) decline. In the worst case scenario, one or more of these trees may be rendered unstable and later fall over. We have seen this following sidewalk repairs adjacent to street trees. Recommendations 1. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. It appears that only Tree #1 would require protective fencing. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of S feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. The contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 2. A root buffer is required on the entire south side of the residence to protect the root zones of Trees #6-12. A root buffer consists of 6 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. I recommend that the buffer be 8 foot wide (the length of plywood sheets) adjacent to the foundation. This allows for an 8 foot work space on top of the root buffer. Protective fencing must be in contact with the root buffer on the side opposite the foundation. This buffer is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This buffer must cover the entire east side of the new residence between the footing and the protective fencing. This buffer must be installed in conjunction with the protective fencing and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. At the time of the construction of the drain adjacent to the foundation, two feet of the root buffer nearest the foundation may be removed, but the remainder of the buffer must remain until given final approval. 3. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to all of the trees on this site during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST AUGUST 1, 2002 lJ'~~®~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE ABDACHIZADEH PROPERTY, 4 20981 CANYON VIEW DRIVE, SARATOGA 4. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 5. There must be no trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) or for any other purpose on the south side of this residence. 6. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 8. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. 9. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. 10. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. It appears that no trees would be removed by the proposed construction. The combined value of the trees is $35,365. I recommend a bond equal to 30% (_ $10,610) of the total value of the trees to assure their protection during construction. Respectfully submit~t Michael L. Bench, Associat~e~ ~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl.. Enclosures: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST AUGUST 1, 2002 ~~~®~~ ~~~r ?~ x ~~. .{ k~ r .~f BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root co>Qar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. DeSnition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf -The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. • • F°'a Job T~Abachizadeh Job Address: 20981~yon View Drive Job #0148 8.1.02 Measurements Condition PruninalCablinq Needs Pest/D isease Problems Recommend . 1 ; ~ I { ~ ; { i ; i ~ { ~ ~ { } I f I ~ 1 I I BARRIE D. COATS m '; ~ ~ ~ ; o 1 ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ; W ! and ASSOCIATES ~ i ~; i ~ iW i ~ ~ fV i ; ~~;~ ~ 1 i Z~ ; ~F I~ 1 I , ; ('~ , W 1 ~~ 1 i~ i~ ; ;~1N = Q ~';~(~ '~ (408?3531D52 > ~ I .81 ' ' ~ ; ; I~ I ~ ~? 1 F 1 ' c7 z ~ _ z 1 z } qa ~ O IZIO z _ ~ = ~ I O ~ W. ~ `~ ~ Imo ~,' ; ~ I o } i 1 N { CI =o 0 235355umsdRoad f0 I ~ >;i I ' ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ w ; ~ i ~ }~ z t F ~ ~ i z I rp ; v> i I I ~ ~ w ~ , d i w ~ ! Z~ I w I w ~ a , ~l I ~ ' r i 0 O ~ a i ~ ; ~ U I~ w I -+ ~ F ~ { ~} Q t w ~ d Las Gatos, G 95030 ~I} ~ 1 1 Iwo ' ~ I 1 ~_ I~tot ~ ' F 1 O C~f~l~} I 1 Iµ1'y~ > ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ IO1Pitc°~ I Y i 3=u_i N aA ~ ~ > I ~ F = I C _ ~ I W I=}_{~ ~ ~ I C7 ~ ~ ~~ ; ~ I 1 z t ~ ~ S ~ S { i I O I O I O I O W ~ O i ce; ~ I Q i z ~ O~ w ~ 1 W 9 u~ . 'z ; Fp- ~p ~~~ g g I ~ O 1 O W o w ' ~ Key # Plant Name ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ o _ = y x ; U ( U ; U 1 U ; U ; ~ i U I a ? I ~ O ~ ; ~ { ~ 2 , Z ; 1 Vall Oak 9.0 ~ _ } I 10 ~ 25 = 30 1 } 1 = 2 I } } I I ' Quercus lobate I I i i i ; I ' I ~ I I I ~ I s in 63.6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. class 1004'0 = $1,717 X cond. 1009'0 $ 1,717 X loc 80% _ $ 1 373 Total Value 2 Ralian ress 9.01 ~ 110 ; 50 ; 6 ; I 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ; 2 ~ ~ I ~ I ; I I I 1 } } ~ ~~ } I ~ I ~ I ~ I i = I Cu ressus sem rvirens = I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ~ I I ~ I ' ' in 63 6 X $27/sq in = $ 1,717 X sp. class = $0 X cond. _ $ X loc. _ $ 5000 e ual to one 48" boxed s imen Total Value 3 Italian ress 9.0 ; ~ ~ ~ 1 10 150 1 6 ~ ~ 1~ 1 I 2 1 ~ ~ ~ ; ; j I i i 1 ; I ; 1 ; 1 1~ 1 1 1 11 1 ;; 1 i 1~ 1~ 1 1 1 . in 63 6 X $27/sq. in = $ 1.717 X sp class - _ $0 X cond. _ $ X loc $ 5000 ual to one 48" boxed s imen Total Value 4 lialien ress 9.0 1 = ~ } 10 150 1 6 1} 1 ~ 2 ~ ~ 1 = _ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 I I I I i t I I = I 1 ' s in 63.6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. class $0 X cond. _ $ X loc. $ 5000 e ual to one 48" boxed s imen Total Value 5 ttalian ress 7.0 1 1 8 1 50 ~ 5 1 1 1; 2 { 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 I ~ ~ ; ' { . in 38.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,039 X sp. class $0 X cond. _ $ X loc $ 5000 ual to one 48" boxed s imen Total Value 6 Monter Pme 17.OI ~ ~ 1 18 } 65 i 35 1 i 4 1 5 ~ i ~ } ~ ; 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 ' 1 Pinus radiate I I I { I I I I ~ i i I 1 I I I I i I I . in 227 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 6,125 X sp. class 30% _ $1,838 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,378 X loc 50% _ $ 689 Total Value 7 Coast Redwood ~ 17.0 ; 1 18 1 65 1 15 3 I 2 I 5 { I 1 ~ i ! 1 , S ua~a sem rvirens = ~ ~ ~ } _ ~ } I I ; i ~ I 1 1 i { { s . in 227 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,125 X sp class 90% _ $5,513 X cond. 60% - $ 3,308 X loc. 65% _ $ 2 150 • Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1=BEST, 5 =WORST Page 1 of 2 1~1 u • Job Title: Abachizadeh Job Address: 20981 Canyon View Drive Job #07-02-148 8.1.02 Meas urements Condition Prunino/Cabllnq Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend . i ~ ~ ' : i ~ { 1 ; i 9 I 1 I i i I 1 I ~ i } i I I I i ~~ i I I ~ i 1 1~ I ' ! ! i 1 - BARRIE D. COATS I ~ } ~ I , .s ! ; ; , , ~ I ' I o ! ~ , ' J and ASSOCIATES ~; ~ ! ~ ~ ~~ ~ W ! = ! ;~,; °' ~ ~ i ;F. i ~ '~_; ~ 1- ;~. ~ ' ;~;~ i~ I { y ~ ;' ~( ~ W ~~ (4013) 3531052 m ' i ~ ~ ! } = Z i I~ i F I ~ ~ C7 z I7 i z I~ 1 O 0~ Z ~ ~ i ~ o f ~ i y I p i~ ' i ~i t o I} i ~ ., I N I Q' i J F-• a 23535 Sanad Road ~ I~ ~ I 6v 1 1 i ., !~ I 2 F ~ u 7 Z i z I N rn } = 10 i d w ; ~ ~ i ~ G1 i p ~ = I ! ~ ~ `~ = 0 I F ~ Z ~ ~ a CA 95030 LosCata ~ I ! R' ~~ ~ z ~ ~ J _ I w } ~ } ~ W I w I i z a ~ 1 I I 1 i I~ = ~ ~ d J , ~ ; ~ i I i i ~ O U } ~ I i O } ~ } o i O i ~ ` _ i J i ~ = i = ~ (7 ~ i a. J l 7 ~ ~ ~ ; z o i I = o ~ o ; o ~ I J I ~ ~ ~ ; Z ~ ~ W I y ~ W ; ~ , Z ~ ~ ; ~ = g I g 0 ~ ~ C• w ; W = U o~~ ~ i 0 II ~ i 2 ~ o }~? i U ~ U V i V i i~ i a ? i tx i o i tx a: }~ z i z i~ Key # Plant Neme i i O i U _ U 8 Coast Redwood 15.0 ~ ~ 1 1 16 75 20 3} 1 i 4 = i ` i i i i ! } I I ~ } } 1 I ~ i 1 ~ I i , ! I ~ I ~ I I I I I ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ } . In 177 X $27lsq. In. _ $ 4,769 X sp class 90% _ $4,292 X cond. 759'0 $ 3,219 X loc. 70% _ $ 2 253 Total Value 9 Coast Redwood 24.0 = 1 = 26 i 80 i 35 1 1 1= 2 = I I ; ~ i i ; I = t i i i }! s l i I l~ ~ l i i l i}} i s . in 452 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 12,208 X sp class 903'0 = $10,987 X cond 100% _ $ 10,987 X loc. 75% _ $ 8 241 Total Value 10 Monter Pine 12.0 i i i i 13 } 20 } 15 3 } 4 i 7 i I I I i } i I 1 } ~ } i ~ ~ I ' 1 I I 1 ~ ~ i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 1 ~ ~ I { ~ = 1 ~ I I . m 113 X S27/sq In = $ 3,052 X sp. class 30% _ $916 X cond. 30% _ $ 275 X loc. 50% $ 137 Total Value 11 tVbnter Pine 13.0 = } } 14 45 115 2 I 4 i 6 " ' I i i I i I I ~ i ~ I i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ _ . in 133 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp class 30% _ $1,075 X cond. 45% _ $ 484 X loc. 50% _ $ 242 ~ Total Value 12 Monter Pme 14.0 ! ~ = 16 = 20 25 2 } 4 = 6 } + I ~ ! } ~ ~ I I 1 i ! } 1 I I I I I 1 1 . in 154 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 30% _ $1,246 X cond. 45% _ $ 561 X loc. 509'0 $ 280 Total Value r REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box ~0 52"box = $7,000 72"box 00 2 of 2„ • • • HARRIS D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit R~. l.~s Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irngation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later • by the arbonst. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or pnme so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 '/2') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the driplme, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer m all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic maybe used AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting imgation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that v~nll destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies ~~4®23 31 I3ARRII' CUATI, U Tree I'reservat~ on s . AND ASSOCIATES Protective Fencing 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Iiort~cultutal Consultants Consulung Arbonsts Construction period protection for trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed on the property. <F.~ ~2 ~ 'r``~ < _ \ - - `~' _ ~ ~ _~ ~ k :: _~~l, ~, h~ - Top of fence hung with fluorescent flapgine tape every 10 feet. 1 ~- 6' chain link or welded wire - mesh ~ 8' fence cost of 2" diameter i~ ~ ~ GI pipe or T-ankle post I t t ~ ~ ____ Foadway Fence, s~tino Fence placed at drip line or 50% greater tan the tree canopy radius wt-ere possib7_e t I`P7/ 1 n construction is to take place beneath a tree canopy on one side, the fence should be sited 2-3 teet be and that construction but I~~~Iw_t~ri ~„i~inn ~n~i Ilr~ trot' bunk ~~ ~ / .~ If construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage Three layers of wire ~ and lath snow fencing\ to 8' above ground on ~1 ~~~ ~ ~ trees where construction t'~ _ r~ will take place beneath the canopy "' '` ~~- --- .~~t-rid • ~J A 1-inch P1 ~ood and Wood Chi s Platfo~ Buffer ~'~' P ° for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy which Must Be Used for Foot Traffic Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate ~r Associates Horticultural Consultants _ {4~8) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road -~ t.os Gatos, CA 95033 (~~~~~5 \ INS 80.00' __ ___--------_---- - -' i ---- ~ ,,~.. ~o'`~ IN S6; `5~ :-' 4 - (I .~ Fa~° ~ I ECTNE FENCING Q~ R ,e. ^ PROT ,~~,.,,.r•, .~~~ ~~• • / • ~ ~ p~l~'IIONT dig ~o e'1..:,. $2 ~+ . -' + / E~.oAa~>r ' '~ ° •• I~$`Q~ ~ ~~ 14f "' - - ~~. >' _ ROOT BU_ FFER ~.~'' _ ~ _ - ~A o G v - . '•~~; . ~' ~ V ~~ ~ iop' :~ 142 EX.RE ID~NCE ~<< ' ,• ~. ~V ~V ~V .v -',~-,ate-,~,' ~ E~t.EL .14~'-1 D 1/a" F . ~+ ` ~~ ~V ~~. o°~^a,°~ o.~ .- R tR G ~ ° X~ _12 ~-•~' - ?% ~ ~~~ ~, . , .'~,;,•• • ~~ ~-yV~ X~ ~~~- t'om' ~- ° ' , o _ -- .'~, ~ ~ Vim" ~V j. ~ ~~ ~V ~~ ~~V~ V~ '~a` , q ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~I?FI ~ r~. - °}- ct-~ ti~~V:3h`'. I '~• ~~.o, ~ ~"~/ ~•!~ 1 ~ , f2 Q, ~ R R x>T~i~ rl1=F~ ~I Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Abachizadeh Property, 20981 Canyon view Road paet3s3t052 p535 Swsi Rod prepared for. ' la Gya,G 95030 City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 07-02-148 R - Tree mrmbers correspond to evaluation charts. __ All drmensions and tree locations ~ -~ •: - ~ are approximate i ~ ~=' ,.~ p~ ,... - o d• . . 1 ~ ;,,., I ~ >° ~..4 ux>~ r,-~Q ~~ I ~ 1 .112 ~ / I~ / R I / 120 ~-~~ ~ ®0006 • Attachment 3 • ~~~'®Kr AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) SS. 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 City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 7th day of July, 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 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 20981 Canyon View Drive; that on said day there was regular communicat' by United ~ ~ ~~ F. Livingstone ~iate Planner Mail to the addresses shown above. • • ~~~~~8 • • . 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 23rd 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. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #02-129 (503-28-O11) -BIJAN ABACHIZADEH; 20981 Canyon View Drive -The Applicant Requests Design Review Approval to add 1,422 square feet to the existing house. The addition includes 400 square feet for the conversion of a carport to a garage. The gross lot size is 9,200 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. 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 ~~~~~y • • 20981 Canyon View Drive • • ~~~~~® PHILLIP D JACKLIN WILSON E ~ KAYE HOLBROOK DORIS I BRONZICH Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 14STERLEE AVE 20980 CANYON VIEW DR 20896 4TH ST S OGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 PATRICK K Est WONG LAM Or Current Owner 20880 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 KASS Or Current Owner 20870 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 MASOUD JAFARI Or Current Owner 20860 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 ERIC O ~ APPLE-KRAULE KRAULE M C ~ CHAETH TREHARNE Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 20850 4TH ST 20840 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ERNEST O KRAULE Or Current Owner 14433 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ERNEST O KRAULE Or Current Owner 14445 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TODD A ~St LISA BEATTY Or Current Owner 14461 SPRINGER AVE S~TOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL T ~ SHEILA COUCH Or Current Owner 14440 ESTERLEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MARJORIE U FOOTS Or Current Owner 20910 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 HAMID SARRAMI Or Current Owner 14361 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 WILBERT ~ RIEKO VAN DEN HOEK Or Current Owner 15470 BOHLMAN RD TOGA CA 95070 PH J ~ ET BOURDET Or Current Owner 1151 COTSWALD CT SUNNYVALE CA 94087 BARBER Or Current Owner 14455 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 KENNETH P Est CAROL SCHULZ Or Current Owner 15001 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PATRICK S &r SUSAN KWOK Or Current Owner 10222 CARMEN RD CUPERTINO CA 95014 KAI ~ XIN ZHANG Or Current Owner 14371 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL G ~ SHEILA PENUEN Or Current Owner 14380 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SAMUEL U 6~ SUSAN KIM Or Current Owner 14370 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SAINT-GOBIAN CERAMICS &t PLASTC Or Current Owner 20520 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 ERNEST O KRAULE Or Current Owner 14445 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SHISHIDO Or Current Owner 128 WORCESTER LOOP LOS GATOS CA 95030 SHAG-HUNG G &t TAI-HUA LIU Or Current Owner 14491 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROSALEER SPEARS Or Current Owner 14351 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MARIA E GARCIA Or Current Owner 20845 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID A Est YVONNE FORCIER Or Current Owner 14401 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 POUTRE Or Current Owner 14360 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~®~3~. t'OUSSEF CSC MALIHEH AMIRKIAI KUANG N HSIAO WILLIAM M &r JOCELYN MERZ Jr Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner ' 14399 PAUL AVE PO BOX 610544 14391 ELVA AVE 3ARATOGA CA 95070 SAN JOSE CA 95161 SARATOGA CA 95070 • KENNETH S &r SWARAN BAHL LOC TRAN M ~ VARZA MEHRANY '' Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 20915 SULLIVAN WAY 20931 CANYON VIEW DR 105 DOVER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 LOS GATOS CA 95032 N LA TAM EUGENE E Esc DORIS HELLAR BRAN Est MILAV ABACHIAZADEH Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner PO BOX 2174 20971 CANYON VIEW DR 20981 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JAY S &r NLENA SHARMA MINECK FRED &t RENATE FENSTER ~ Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 20995 CANYON VIEW DR 21011 CANYON VIEW DR 21027 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 AMY &'r OSWALD SWENSON SHU-YU &r CATHERINE SUN KAUFMANN Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 21043 CANYON VIEW DR 21053 CANYON VIEW DR 21081 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 RAMESH &t RITU LOUDEN BENJAMIN S &r DORA TING RADHAKRISHNAN Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 21110 SULLIVAN WAY 21120 SULLIVAN WAY 21100 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 NIKO ~ YASNA GLUMAC I BRIAN H BERKELEY JAMES D ~ ELENA SOLOMON I Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner I 21130 SULLIVAN WAY 21140 SULLIVAN WAY 21142 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 CICHANOWICZ Or Current Owner 21131 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 GLENNA J ~ JOHN COLISTRA Or Current Owner 1565 THE ALAMEDA SAN JOSE CA 95126 LANDIS C MAHAFFEY Or Current Owner 14644 STONERIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ABBOTT Or Current Owner 20103 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 LORETTA J ~ RONALD MILLER Or Current Owner 15000 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES N ~ LOUISE WHOLEY Or Current Owner 21020 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 RICHARD A WOTIZ Or Current Owner 21170 SULLIVAN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC Or Current Owner 727 UNIVERSITY AVE LOS GATOS CA 95032 • ®~~~32 JJLJERFLEIN ROBERT D AND SUE L MILLER CHERIE B KIBORT BERNARD R AND ANN M Jr Current Owner Or Current Owner TRUSTEE l4~ONERIDGE DR 14666 STONERIDGE DR Or Current Owner ~A GA CA 95070-5743 SARATOGA CA 95070-5743 14664 STONERIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5743 LARCEN MARDELL Or Current Owner 14662 STONERIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5743 ROTHMULLER M. JANE Or Current Owner 14660 STONERIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5743 JENKEL THEODORE A JR AND EILEEN F TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14650 STONERIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5742 BRENCHLEY WILLIAM M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner P O BOX 338 SARATOGA CA 95071-0338 MACMORRAN JAMES R AND NANCY M ET AL Or Current Owner 1155 CHANNING AV PALO ALTO CA 94301 FLEMING EDWIN T AND GERALDINE T TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14 FIELDSTONE DR S~OGA CA 95070-5734 SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC Or Current Owner 1935 DRY CREEK RD STE 203 CAMPBELL CA 95008-3631 RAPPORT JACK TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14638 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5732 KEIRNAN MELINDA AND MCGEE KEVIN Or Current Owner 14644 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5732 ANDERSON NORMAN R AND MARY D Or Current Owner 14650 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5733 MAN CHARLES E AND MAUREEN S Or Current Owner 14658 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5733 SCHRAGA BURTON L AND KAREN L Or Current Owner 14646 STONERIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5742 ISHERWOOD CHARLES S AND PATRICIA M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14665 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5760 LOPRESTO ROBERT L TRUSTEE &r ET AL Or Current Owner 14659 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5734 MOUTAFIAN DORA Or Current Owner 14634 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5732 PAULSEN ELKS M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14640 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5732 REEDY ROGER F AND MARY C Or Current Owner 14646 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5732 O'MALLEY THOMAS J AND BARBARA A Or Current Owner 14654 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5733 MORRISON DAVID AND JANET L Or Current Owner 14660 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5761 MELLEN-BANAKAS FRANCES TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14669 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5760 TJADEN DARRYL L AND ANNE F Or Current Owner 14663 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5760 BRIGHT NICHOLAS J TRUSTEE ~ ET AL Or Current Owner 14657 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5734 BULJAN GEORGE T AND HELEN J TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14636 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5732 CROSS JUDSON S TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14642 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5732 ANDERSON NORMAN R AND MARY D TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14650 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5733 JORDAN JEFF K AND MARY A TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14656 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5733 BOOKER JOE T AND CAROLYN E TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14662 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5761 ~~QU33 PANELLI EDWARD A AND LORNA C TRUSTEE Or Current Owner ' 14656 STONERIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5743 ALDRIDGE BARBARA Or Current Owner 14655 FIELDSTONE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5734 MAHAFFEY LANDIS C JR Or Current Owner 14644 STONERIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5727 SUMMERS JIM A AND CYNTHIA BATTS JOACHIM PETER M AND GERALDINE A SHIPPEE RICHARD R AND JULIE A TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 14642 STONERIDGE DR 14644 STONERIDGE DR 14630 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5727 SARATOGA CA 95070-5727 SARATOGA CA 95070-5726 DOYLE ELKS S Or Current Owner PO BOX 422 OLD LYME CT 06371 SHANENDOAH COMPANY THE Or Current Owner 3490 SOUTHAMPTON DR RENO NV 89509 COMISKY HANNAH S Or Current Owner 19324 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6220 DEVINE ANDREW M ET AL Or Current Owner 14638 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5726 IWANAGA ADRIENNE R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14644 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5726 HLAVA JOYCE A TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14662 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5748 GREY LEE S TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14668 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5748 IRETON DONNA S Or Current Owner 14654 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5720 RUSHING JACK R AND LYNN W Or Current Owner 14640 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5726 GIANNETTO MARJORIE E AND S T TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 15195 BECKY LN MONTE SERENO CA 95030-2105 COAKLEY RUBY TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14664 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5748 THOMPSON KAREN AND JAMES Or Current Owner 14670 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5748 COMBS ROY E AND ANN TRUSTEE Or Current Owner PO BOX 308 SARATOGA CA 95071-0308 KLEINMAN PHYLLIS AND KLEINMAN FLORSHEIM MARY F FAMILY 1977 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 14638 PLACIDA CT 14636 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5739 SARATOGA CA 95070-5739 REMMELL JAMES E JR TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14642 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5739 FRANCIS HELEN G FBO FRANCIS BYPASS TR ET AL Or Current Owner 14644 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5739 FONNER CHARLES AND BARBARA Or Current Owner 14642 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5726 BAGNATO PATRICIA L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 235 NOB HILL AV LOS GATOS CA 95032 SYVERTSON CLARENCE A TRUSTEE ET AL Or Current Owner 14666 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5748 WOODRUFF HERBERT AND ROSEMARIE Or Current Owner 14656 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5720 HARTLEY YASUKO F Or Current Owner 14650 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5720 GUILMETTE VICTOR M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14640 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5739 HARPER ERNEST T AND ROSEMAR~ Or Current Owner 14646 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5739 ~~~~34 CLEINM~N SIMON AND PHYLLIS CRLJSTEE Jr Current Owner 146CIDA CT 3A GA CA 95070-5739 NORTHWOOD MICHAEL A Or Current Owner 14654 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5740 GEMBERLING RONALD M AND ADRIENNE M Or Current Owner 14660 WILD BERRY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5747 BALLARD MICHAEL AND KELLIE Or Current Owner PO BOX 59664 POTOMAC MD 20859 SANDER THOMAS B AND GERDA M Or Current Owner 14652 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5740 COLEMAN MICHAEL P AND MAUREEN MORIARTY JOSEPH AND LISA C Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 14658 PLACIDA CT 14656 PLACIDA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5740 SARATOGA CA 95070-5740 BRUBAKER ADA M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 14662 WILD BERRY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5747 KIM YOUNG I Or Current Owner 14664 WILD BERRY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5747 TAYLOR RAYMOND M JR WOODWORTH LOIS D TRUSTEE ~St ET GATEHOUSE CONDOMINUM Or Current Owner AL HOMEOWNERS ASSN THE 14666 WILD BERRY LN Or Current Owner Or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070-5747 14668 WILD BERRY LN 20810 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5747 SARATOGA CA 95070-5844 TRAVIS WARD C Or Current Owner 20810 4TH ST UNIT 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-5844 POKRESS WAYNE R AND SUSAN K Or Current Owner 20812 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5845 MURPHY CAMERON AND TINA Or Current Owner 20812 4TH ST UNIT 4 SARATOGA CA 95070-5845 GRISWOLD LAURA J Or Current Owner 20812 4TH ST UNIT 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-5846 TIGHE BRIAN R AND ANITALYNN M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 6374 CANDLEWOOD CT CUPERTINO CA 95014-4610 O Or Current Owner 20812 4TH ST UNIT 14 20812 4TH ST UNIT 15 SARATOGA CA 95070-5847 SARATOGA CA 95070-5847 MCGRATH ANN F TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 20810 4TH ST UNIT 3 SARATOGA CA 95070-5844 WARREN KATHRYN B ET AL Or Current Owner 501 CLIFFSIDE CT PT RICHMOND CA 94801 COCHRANE ELSIE M Or Current Owner 800 BLOSSOM HILL RD UNIT 72 LOS GATOS CA 95032 ROGERS WILLIAM AND DIANA Or Current Owner 20812 4TH ST UNIT 8 SARATOGA CA 95070-5846 JENG CHYI RONG AND ZEUU CHYI Or Current Owner 15214 BELLE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ~TZ WILLIAM J AND JENNIFER C SHON CHANG SUN AND SANG S r Current Owner KAMIAK SANDRA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 20810 4TH ST UNIT 4 SARATOGA CA 95070-5844 SCHWENDINGER RICHARD L AND PATRICIA A Or Current Owner P O. BOX 266 SARATOGA CA 95071 DEMARTINIS STANLEY A AND MIRIAM L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 21315 SARATOGA HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5376 JAKOB ROBERT M Or Current Owner PO BOX 6214 SAN JOSE CA 95150-6214 TIGHE BRIAN B TRUSTEE &z ET AL Or Current Owner 337 JUNIPERO PLAZA SANTA BARBARA CA 93105 SANFORD PETER L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 109 LIMESTONE LN SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 ~~®~35 I OORSA DANIEL A JR TRUSTEE ~ ET AL ZARECKY GARY L AND DIANE Jr Current Owner Or Current Owner X0812 4TH ST UNIT 16 20812 4TH ST UNIT 19 3ARATOGA CA 95070-5847 SARATOGA CA 95070-5847 BODEN MIKE J AND LINDA L Or Current Owner 20812 4TH ST UNIT 21 SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 WHEELER LORRAINE A Or Current Owner 20812 4TH ST UNIT 20 SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 BARRIE-SODERSTROM KATHLEEN C Or Current Owner 12908 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3714 BRENNOCK THOMAS M AND PAULA A Or Current Owner 20812 4TH ST UNIT 23 SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 THANAWALA ASHISH A AND SINHA CARNEY JAMES AND NORMA YEN KIRK K AND PI-CHENG C SHEFALI TRUSTEE Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 20812 4TH ST UNIT 22 20812 4TH ST UNIT 25 13959 TRINITY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 SARATOGA CA 95070-5343 EAKLE STEPHEN S HERMAN THEODORE C TRUSTEE BRASH LAURA Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 20760 4TH ST UNIT 9 20760 4TH ST UNIT 11 20760 4TH ST UNIT 12 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 SCHRANZ VIKTOR AND KRISTALY ANDERSON RONALD A NG FLORA ERIKA G Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 21285 SARATOGA HILLS RD Or Current Owner 20760 4TH ST UNIT 8 SARATOGA CA 95070-5375 20760 4TH ST UNIT 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 EGGLESTON ROGER B AND ROSALEE WOOTTEN LAURA L CRUZ VERONICA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 20760 4TH ST UNIT 3 12487 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO ~ 20760 4TH ST UNIT 6 SARATOGA CA 95070-5850 SARATOGA CA 95070-5850 SARATOGA CA 95070-3010 SILBERSTEIN J H AND LILLIAN RUSIN ANNE S ET AL CZWORNIAK KENNETH J TRUSTEE Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 20760 4TH ST UNIT 2 20760 4TH ST UNIT 4 20760 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5850 SARATOGA CA 95070-5850 SARATOGA CA 95070-5850 LYU CHUNG-NAN AND LU MAY BOBORICKEN STEPHEN AND ANNE ne HIA A R O Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Ow Cunent Or 20740 4TH ST UNIT 9 19782 BRAEMAR DR 1140 W LATIMER CAMPBELL CA 95008-1700 SARATOGA CA 95070-5853 SARATOGA CA 95070-5001 BINDER LESLIE A Or Current Owner 20740 4TH ST UNIT 10 SARATOGA CA 95070-5853 STEARNS JAY M Or Current Owner 20740 4TH ST UNIT 5 SARATOGA CA 95070-5852 FALCONS VIRGINIA M TRUSTEE Est ET FRADIN DAVID M AL Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 20740 4TH ST UNIT 8 520 VISTA DEL MAR SARATOGA CA 95070-5853 APTOS CA 95003 KOOT ROSE S Or Current Owner 20700 4TH ST UNIT 6 SARATOGA CA 95070-5843 • LAWSON RONALD G AND LINDA E~ Or Current Owner 20740 4TH ST UNIT 3 SARATOGA CA 95070-5852 ~~~~~.7~ VELTON VICTOR AND REGINA TRUSTEE Or C Trent Owner 46 UERIDGE DR SA SE CA 95129 MAURER FREDERICK J Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT 17 SARATOGA CA 95070-5895 BARRIE KATHLEEN C Or Current Owner 12908 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3714 PETAN FLORENCE Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-5855 KIRK GEORGE E AND NANCY G TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 20270 LA PALOMA AV S~OGA CA 95070-5960 JACKSON DEBRA D Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT 3 SARATOGA CA 95070-5854 FORTE KATHERINE A Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-5854 KELLY NOVELLE V TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 20700 4TH ST UNIT 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-5803 ARCHER MICHAEL E AND GAYLE L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner P O BOX 7367 INCLINE VILLAGE NV 89452-7367 ~ANE SYLVAN E Or Current Owner 15890 SHANNON RD LOS GATOS CA 95032-5729 CINGOLANI GEORGE AND BEVERLY Or Current Owner 20740 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5852 BLACK JOHN P AND CHRISTINA D Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT 16 SARATOGA CA 95070-5895 PARK JIN W AND MIN K Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT 11 SARATOGA CA 95070-5855 TAI HSUEH H ET AL Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT IO SARATOGA CA 95070-5855 FALCONS MARK C AND CYNTHIA A TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 1388 POE LN SAN JOSE CA 95130-1342 STRAW RICHARD E AND BARBARA L Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT 4 SARATOGA CA 95070-5854 STAATS EILEEN A Or Current Owner 14510 A BIG BASIN WY UNIT 228 SARATOGA CA 95070-6012 WEISKAL NATALIE J Or Current Owner 20700 4TH ST UNIT 10 SARATOGA CA 95070-5803 LEUNG DENNIS C AND GRACE Or Current Owner 20700 4TH ST UNIT 5 SARATOGA CA 95070-5843 GOLDMAN JOAN C Or Current Owner 1624 LYLE DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-4810 ANTABLIAN AREVIG Or Current Owner 20740 4TH ST UNIT 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-5852 BARRERA DAVID R Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT 15 SARATOGA CA 95070-5855 BORJA SALVADOR Or Current Owner 230 LILLE LN UNIT 214 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663-2665 WILLIAMS SHELLIE S JR TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 11951 BROOK RIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 98070 WALSH T F TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 12759 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3936 BANG HUNG SUK AND EUN JA Or Current Owner 20720 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5854 DAVIS LESLIE Or Current Owner 20700 4TH ST UNIT 12 SARATOGA CA 95070-5803 CHANG WAYNE C AND SU-TI L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 419 GALLERIA DR UNIT 6 SAN JOSE CA 95134-2434 LIANIDES MARK C TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 20700 4TH ST UNIT 6 SARATOGA CA 95070-5843 CHIAVETTA GARY G AND MADELINE S TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 19548 CHARDONNAY UNIT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 V'~Q®3 I TASIK KATHRYN TRUSTEE )r Current Owner 59 OLD ADOBE RD .OS GATOS CA 95032 ~ AWSON LINDA AND RONALD ~ )r Current Owner 4090 ELVIRA ST >ARATOGA CA 95070-5815 ~UNCANSON ROBERT A AND YVONNE TRUSTEE Jr Current Owner ?0800 4TH ST UNIT 8 3ARATOGA CA 95070-5861 LONG JOSEPH P JR AND SUSAN D Or Current Owner P O BOX 2095 SARATOGA CA 95070-0095 FLENNIKEN MATHEW T AND MILLER VALARY A Or Current Owner 20800 4TH ST UNIT 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-5897 DUMONT DENNIS Or Current Owner 20790 4TH ST UNIT 5 ~ SARATOGA CA 95070-5802 GANZHORN HARRY E AND ELSBETH R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 15943 VIEWFIELD RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030-3148 TU MIKE M AND SHANLI HU Or Current Owner 20780 4TH ST UNIT 11 SARATOGA CA 95070-5801 MEDEIROS ANNA K TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 20780 4TH ST UNIT 10 SARATOGA CA 95070 ZANGER CARL F AND BETTY J TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 10229 ADRIANA AV CUPERTINO CA 95014-1125 GILLEN LAWRENCE S AND LAURA N Or Current Owner 6025 FOOTHILL GLEN DR SAN JOSE CA 95123-4508 KAO MABEL TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 20800 4TH ST UNIT 12 SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 MCCURDY HELEN C TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 617 RIVERVIEW DR CAPITOLA CA 95010 TSAY CHEN-HUI AND LI MEI-CHUNG PLICKA JOSEPH A AND MILDRED I Or Current Owner TRUSTEE 3821 THOMPSON CREEK CT Or Current Owner SAN JOSE CA 95135-1000 20800 4TH ST UNIT 6 SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 HU MIN HUEI Or Current Owner 20800 4TH ST UNIT 4 SARATOGA CA 95070-5897 ALVORD FRED L AND DORINE Or Current Owner 13782 CALLS TACUBA SARATOGA CA 95070-4921 DIERKES CARL L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner PO BOX 495 SARATOGA CA 95071-0495 ARCHER MICHAEL E AND GAYLE L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner P O BOX 7367 INCLINE VILLAGE NV 89452-7367 TING SAI LUEN AND YE SHAG YING Or Current Owner 20790 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5896 SUNDERLAND MICHAEL J TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 380 BRANHAM LN UNIT 206 SAN JOSE CA 95136 ZAK CHRISTINE M Or Current Owner 20780 4TH ST UNIT 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-5849 ARCHER MICHAEL E AND GAYLE L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner P O BOX 7367 INCLINE VILLAGE NV 89452-7367 PAOLI JENNIFER L ET AL Or Current Owner 16280 LOS SERENOS ROBLES MONTE SERENO CA 95030 MANZAGOL DONALD S AND KATHLEEN M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 23362 WAYFARER CT AUBURN CA 95602 LINDBERG VERDA M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 20780 4TH ST UNIT 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-5801 RHEE PETER H Or Current Owner 1150 SCOTT BL STE D2 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 r~ • GALE KATHLEEN M TRUSTEE CARATOZZOLO JAMES R AND GAIL L BADER RICHARD F AND PATRICIA~ Or Current Owner ET AL Or Current Owner 3720 CAPITOLA RD Or Current Owner 27720 MICHAELS DR SANTA CRUZ CA 95062 20435 CHALET LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-4926 ~~~"~ ~~ IIv~E~1EZ NATALIA Jr Current Owner ?078 4TH ST UNIT 4 3A~GA CA 95070-5849 • • BURGER BERT AND VIVIAN D TRUSTEE Or Current Owner 20780 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5849 WARREN KATHRYN B ET AL Or Current Owner 501 CLIFFSIDE CT PT RICHMOND CA 94801 ~~®Qc~~ i ' I i I a. INO~x ARCHITECTURAL ~'A,1- CO~~R SHEET L~~ A.2-NEW SITE PLAN ~A.3- NElnl FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~A.4-NEW LOWER FLOOR PLAN ' .A.5-NEW ROOF PLAN E & ADD R MTDELING ITI(JN ;A.S- NEVd ELEVATION ~A.7NEWELEVATION ' ;A.ti-NEV,~ELEVATIONj ' A,9-NEW ELEVATION i " A.10-SECTIONS T T RE IDE S N CE i i I 1 +~WN~~.: ~~t. ~ MRS. ~I~TA~ ~.~~.~HI~ADEH 1 i ~i~IaI~ES ~; Zp~B~. C~.I~V~QN VIEW ~~IVE S~.~AT'~G~., ~~.LI~'C~~NI~ ,, PROJECT BATA L, I ASSESSORIS PARCEL NUMBER . (50328-011) i LOT SDE ~ ~ ... .. 9,20D SOF NET SQE AREA (40°k) .. , ,,.. .3,680 SOF AVARAGE'SI,OPE ... ..., .. ...,... ,OVER30% ALLOWABIF, FLOOR AREA' ... , .... 2,4~ SOF I" EXISTING _ ILDING ~ FIRST FLCgR (UVING AREA) .... .1,000 SOF LOWER Fl< OOR(LIVINGAREA) .. .. 1,000 SQF EX.COWE•3EDAREAUNDERBREE2EWAY 50 SOF 1,840SOF EXISTING~STORAGE. .. 200 SOF BASEMENT SECTION OF ALL THESE • (410) SOF EXISTING BALCONIES . , .. 794 SOF ° CARPORT!, 400 SOF TOTAL EX~ LOOR AREA 1 0 SOF 8 VICINITY MAC' ~QN~ULTANTS ABBI~~VIATIQN~a S SYM~QI ., .. . , ... . F , 4 oP~gnogmoN - --- ~ - . I u~H ~ e ~ ^ .,~,~~ o ~'~ ~r '~~ "~ `~" ;~ ~ f r -'" v ,Ms ~ ?~ 1 ~TRUCTUf~AL ENGINEER : ~ ~ RwL RAINWarFR),EaDER RTS RUBBER TOP $ET6ASE SlQO SINK WI Gp~RttAdED19ROSAL ~ ~ O DOOR SYMSpLS~ SEE DpOA SCHEDULE ~ " WM40W 5VMBDL-SEE WINDpW SCHEDULE FIRSTF ~OR . .. .......... .. . .. 433 SOF (75 SQt pf 1hiS a%. COVefed bfee2eWay i 120 sgfl° ithis existing covered patio )~ 4 I~ , LOWERF ODR(alladdNOnundere d d ~ 833SOF ;,~r,,_,r;~y ,~;,., . ~~ „,rry ~ ,~ E L LOSURE ~ ~J 1NTERIORELEVATi0N3YMBOl L x e s). ... . 589 t2 ' -. f h 1 ~ ,~. , .„" _. ,' ,,. yti,~..~- ~.~.~a - : " W M `~ TO IM9GlgGK N D ON UN E6 pTHERWISE OTR ~,, ~: SMOKE DETECTOR q t is exlsrng red patio W ~ ' COVe ~ F .ate, y, r ~ , .~ ~, r ,~,,,m„ ~` ~ z ~, ex. cOV ~ deck under breezewa 50 s ~ TA ' '~.~b'~ ~'- v ~~ '~ _ ~3, ;°, f ( , ~:, .~.~, ~t LL` ~ YGhF VERTIpAI GRAIN COUGLAS FIR M WMR WP7EIN°ROOFM6 gWANE Tvl T4 DUTL~T ~--~ ~ BALCONYA~DITION .. 210SOF A ~ ~ " ' ~" r-~ ~ , • Woty WIN OW ~ PHONEOUTLET ~ CARPOflTTOBECONVERTEDTOAGARAGE , 400SOF ~. _I. ~ _} of _..~; ,, y, , t.w R^f~/J a ' " ~ RM RCOM I~ INT~RCO(dSTATION ~ TOTALFI;QpRAREAADDITION indudin ) ( gcagwd wlrverbon. 1,422 SGF ~ r .r , ) ~ ~ , Ir / f ) ~°^ / ~• I( ~ L ~ ° ENERGY GAI.CULATIQN$ (TITLE 24 ~ W.W,F WOVJ:N 1yIRE FABRIC QYP, SD pYPSUM aDARD HB HQS(:816 NJC M$tlIGALQABIN~T • P H®UTTpN - Q ~ ~ GRIMES ^ i NEW TOTAL BUILDING RRBT FL"~@1"0~R LIVING AREA 1 433 SOF _ ~` : „ I I Nm ~T .., , , ' R ~ I ~ - ~o Itti ~' ~~ l ~ z ' z ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GALV,ANIPG N G NGTIN~ NfRpd7 GE OF STUD C S ON C~ M ~ MOTOR ~^ J FAN LOWER F R LIVING AREA ... .. 1,639 SOF TOTALU INGAREA .... .... .... .. .. 3,072SOF LOWER ORAGE . . ZOO SOF ~ , ~ q N(I . . ... .. .. ~ ~ 1 ~ A~ lS ~ I C V _ ~ ~ GL GENTBR LINE ~ ^"~i OURLEXOUTGET GARAGE , ,._ . .... ... .. .. .. .400 SOF BASEM PART OF ALL THESE ~(41 D) 30F . ~~•,I1"t ~-` `` ( •d l ~ 1 'I FAR PA. PAIR ~ i', r SWITCH . , . i \ / - ~ 1 ~°' ' wA RETURN AIR REFliltl REFRIQENATOR -(~+ SURRAOE MpUNTED UDHi TOTAL P~OPOSED FLOOR AREA (Induding garage & srorpe) 3,282 SOFT , RIO RANGElOYEN TOT E FL 0 I _ ^~~ ' + } CIVILENC~INEER' F F FINISH FLOOR ('` HANtlINGUSHT S~ ALP p ~OPOS 0 RAREA(exdudirpgarage6sicrege) 2,662 SOFT ~~ ~ „~' > ~ c ,+ J ~ i Ex EXISTING CL'G CE4IN(d SLD`tl SUaDIND ~ REGESS¢DUGH7 I ~ NEW FOOT PRIM (no change is proposed) . , 3,45030F(exfs9nA) carpori porch (Coveted under dedc butldllg) > ~, ~ 0 . . ~~°^ OW 'S bPAWINGS 4 HT U , , , , ~~ ,' ~~ ~. . ~ ~ ~8, ~ BM 6 aM D FL ORESCENT IiG LOTCOV~RAGE,... .... , .. .. , , ,..%375 ' ~ ~ "~ '~"' ~~~ • ` HRO H~4SR ~j CQMPUTER JACk i , { ' q~ °m ,~"` ~ } ¢+~~ ~ - - _ _ - -_ _ _ ._ -_ INSUL INSULATION . - - "- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ TYPEOF NTRUCTXNJ V~N CCqq OCCUPANd SRWP R 7 ~ ` / , Y ZONING D~ICT ` ,~' . ( } d? ~' ~ o ,~ s APPLICASI~CODE 7997 U8C, UMC,UPC,1998C6C, 7996 NEC, lIIIO CRY ORDINANCES ~~ s ' E (t ~~~ LL ~q~ ~$ ~~ W~~~~ ~~~~~ s ?3 ~~ ~~'~ s~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ il~ i i_. 1 ~ Op1kq GNEGXEq, dD ' ~ NQ~ sGw.E ~~ ~9 " SHIN'- --- ~~ OE ¢HEk7S ~ II; ~ i w ~ - -- - ~---- --- -, ---` ~---~--- - ~f ~~n,~; i t i /~ !~ ,A / Q~ / • ~ \ ~ ~" ~ J ^ I ~~; ~~ '~~i~ ~~, ~ `. ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ t ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, % , ~ \ ~ ~~ I ,~ ~ I / \ \ i p ~~ A ~ ~__-__-__-__ / \ ~ i ~ \~ I ~ ~~\ ~~~ PR~PG"?~TY LINc_ X00_- -- -- ~p-_ _- __-~ \ I _ T~ISRENIFEAIN E,I'1~' ~_'~~ ' _- ~'0 gq~ ~ lc -~~~"' ~ ~ ~b. ~ 1 l~.~h o~.{F~ ~ 4°~ L.--{IE54 _ ~ _ ..z.p,q~_. r-: - '- - ER15TIN6 14fi -~ ~ , NE161~OR I ~'~ ~\ NOME 1 reltt RECORD) _ - 'e%'''°• . SET NEWYWJDER DECY1 q'4 +" e ~ EXSIOENCE IOWFp F100R ADDITION AT ~=' ~ j E4EY 142 _ 6n LOWER FLOOR ',' \ '10,"x"-._ \*`C// ~ \\ /~~ ~Ln.• Y~v~ ~-w -.... , ~~i'';a ~~~~4 u.,~k r lt7 K I~,~ FjY? `i~ ci~y0,., 3'~''r ~ti'~, z . Ir r ~,~ ~_, ~ ~:, ,,~ , ~ C I~GCUATtON Of AYERAOE SLOPF I PROPERTY OWNERS NAME CALCULATED BY T K SINGH, P E DATE May 5, 2002 ~,' j.~, 268 - zG zz- 9. c ~ [ ~9Y ~Y~.M~~ A CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN TNF AREA 3 ~__-____ i , I I __~_ J N I LAW 70E EI A N O REM I I FLOOR EX 6ARRC,E ESp 155'-0" .., - ------.~i EkERaISf BOON ~ ~ I YY ~ O ~~~~,~' ~ 't ~ o Nc.-.r ~tl. ,' 3 ~~ ~~.~ 157 E%15TIN6 ' NEIGHBOR FAME (3p„80 5GF J WI iHOJT bARAbE (SALE RECORD) AREA=9/WRF OR02107 ACHFS CONTOUR M1E0.yAl• 5' B AVERAGE SLOPF, W7TNINTHEAREA M%d oo mt iR1 9g0007H)MIQtiIL) !AREA =000279 R S w 67v/ 7107. 7179 % ppOfE7tIp„_ ~ '( +~ iE7 RBmG'H ~s W ~Reu I 5111°x- '~.a~ I NOTE: PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE RCE OR LLS OF R~CORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION TNAT ALL BUILDING SETBACK ASE PER THE APPROVAL PLANS. ~, ~ „ -. y, _°W ~ I ~ 130 p , - ~ ' Q~p ~ f3A '-OJ EX LAYM ARE (gam ~/ ~ 'ate' ~; I~°,: •,I°-~'l~~ ~~ P R OJ E I T DATA ~` ' ~~ " ~ • , ~ ~~ `~ ' - - ~~ ` ~ ~" ' ~ ,17s LOT SIZE: ~ 9200 SQF. _ ~ a`-°~ - k;"' ~a-Q9ti5T ICE F9 _ ~ ® ~~: _' To WAIN AVERAGE SLOPE OVER 3~ o NET SITE AREA MINIMUM OF 2400 S F. ~ O.n~..J~-f ~~ ~'d iowte ear w,~S e _ ~- "" ~ Q 1 `~'~ LEGEND: _ -~ ~ '°~' )~ z I i _ } I ,,7a _ _~ _' ~ ~Y ~, 5~r ~~~_~_ RETAININb WALLS J ~ ~ -- = ~ ~~~ -- . -'"~ ~ _ ` ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ExISTIN6ENLDIN6 ,9p CxiS~~N ' ~ ja~~ Torn«~Nrc'd2. Syara>J I ~ ~ 115 ~ i _ ~ 1 -~~~ -~~,' ~ ~Cp/L€t tNrTrl ~ii~ v~F~~TioN~slnj2V~Y. IHD' ,I.,~.:_..~ ._.._.._.._.._.._ . ~._..J i PQGJ~~-r coyPu~ ~nr`ft 5~~, rs-r2-o6~ ~ ~ ~-,r~.r NEW LOY,rcR FLDOR ADDITION ~ E~(~ST~NC~ 6ULDING ~" I f "'~{~- ~. N _ w (K~ PfLoP~i "IijJlh~Sio,Us B-f~,~~ G~ITN l ~~r N9~,.- ©m,Q '~3u/2//~ tdtvEtZ i.'~.~;'N~ r+>:wFIRSrFLO~wDInaN MQ-`/ K o a ~ DD ~ ^ i /VOT ~~~ l.r(~19/ ~ N6~.~ ^'~S r~~ ~~~~ 9 IN LIGHTING J R I T __ DI EOT n I NEW FIRST FLOOR ADDITION Ffss~N~,~ ~ 1 M~5leNS QppFES51,w. 1 (~ ~ep SD',G"hl~ I•NO GRADING WILL f3E DONE ON PRPPERtt // `I y I \ / I ~ / QO~~ 31NO`Y Y ~ OI`F Y ~ ~~Y D~I Y E y I 2-NO TREE. WILL BE REMOVED EXOEP7 TWO (7) FRUIT TREES AS V ~I `I m sHOVCa a+ srTE RL AN ~ ~,B m ~~ 1~~ ~ ecsae+e ~ d • . IXR fllg~0 * ! # DY fTl~i(0 \IML $p slq ~` 0Q~! ~ - __- - \~I At1FOP ~OF CAL1f _ ~ C SITE PLAN ~ ~ y _ - _ I N w' , , M I . g ~g~ ~~0 ~~ z~~~' ~ ~~~~ ~~ waw ~~ o~~~ . w~ ~~~~~~~ ~"~oo ON~ W~~j~~0~ ~~~NNNNNN~~~g° ~e~~D~~~ a~~a~~~e ~~~~~~~ DRAylN _ G,D CHECA(ED GD DATE JI!NE S2 SCPd.~ -_ i'.90'-0' _ ~~ _ --.SHEET -_ ._ Aa~2 ~ SHE.~'ES ~I . , i ~~ ~~' ~~iT~a^4 iy'-3' y ~ ww G~ l'~~- -~----- e>trot. opc ~ I • ', ~~ur~ ~~~\~ •~,, ~%~~ GUEbT -8Typ7 RCC7~1 rr NeW wa~~ -~_o~- ,, '' o, ~ __ r ~ aall i ~ IF ~ '~ ' 2LA"~ GO e° f~, ., l I II .a 1 ~$ SECtlor~ ~' V ~// r) ~ E~ \yy,, A9ol, %.s~'~ /AR~~ ~~\ ao 0 ~~, , f; JI t--t,p I opn -- - ~~ , ~ e \ ~ S'~ ~/ ~ / /'vim/ ~ ~ ~~%/ _ _ ~ ~,, ,- ~~ i // //~ ' /< "y°,~,'.,T,~°•-^,•^_'J~ ~2'J> ~' 1DItd cola ^I ~/ / ~/ /~ i LIVING MIG ~AMIL7 B ~1 1 yen ¢, f} -~~' 7`p' ~ ~'` " 8''ff" rt" a° ~x6 bl ~' _ ,~`~ exT~n wx~yl, wood DELL iN THIS AQEA 3_ A~ ~~T~aW }IEy.i SupING ppOQ. AID WAL/ 6xi71WL pATlp 5rzucruze I~lTd LL NFAJ NLINCOW S s~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ r~~€ ~ I ~ ~ Q >~ ~~„~ ~ U ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ 2 ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ 1 ! ~ 1 ~ III r~ ~ ~~ a~ i DATff ~ JUMff A2 ~ ~ ~ ~*' ~yyw~ t /'~~} ~'1 /~ lu~~o• I ' ~ EX,ETMC Uu!. .O dE RE;'A~N6G I ~I~~I ~~~1~I'~ I .~T1N ~ JOQ ND EY,1571VG- WALL TO BE D'cMOLlS4ED ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW ADDITi01J Ak6dS i OF $H€~jS y I i I NEW WL! L -~,,-,-..~ EYi3T~VG WN_: i0 8E REM?IN --- --~ EYiST~n(j Wf41 10 6E ~EMCLi5N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i NEW 4Dp~TiQN AREAS r, .~~ ~,m' i iP user=~~o~o,u ~ Y / ,~ im i i i i i a \ / ry ~ 4b„ s ,~ ~~ ~ . ~, ~ z ~ y ,, ~\ ,.~ ~.. ,, ~, ~_ ,_ REVISIONS ~ SY li I ~~i e ~~ ~~gg ~i~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~$ g~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~+ ~w ~~~ ~~~~ z ~~~~~~ 5 ~~o ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ i ~' ~o ~ ~ '_ ~_ rt ~ 4 aR OHEO~Ce:9' ~, PQ DATE JUNE 02 scµE Ir4"w 1'-0' it JpeND II //AA'SHEET - - { l ~~ OF SHEETS ~no~ Dp E a<am,r~C, ?4-n o ~jiRJL7u¢~ T~ htiL~ ^~b' i i ~ ~ ~ )~/ ~, 6~ ~,' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~ ;a ~F .r-~-;~- ~; ,~ ~~ \~ %~ ~~ ~ ,i, ~~~ ---- --- -~, 4 ,~~ -- ~, ,, \, ~~ ;r ft'S`~~~~ ~~Y r irraroi ~G, ~~ sinra2 PD -'~- l - - E r i I ~ffi~ ~~ E~~ ~~a ~~ ~~~;;~ :~~ 3~' ~~mw .o~° q~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~„~ ~~m ~~~~~~a~ ~~; ~~~z~~~~ ~~~~°~~~ D®~a~ GD Gk9C!(ED GD ii DniE ~~ J!l~iE d2 I ECeSF V4". 9'8` ~ ~NdO ~EFi A i • •" DF SHEEFS it - i------------ - --- ---- - -- ------- ~ ---- -----~ •i ICI •i T I ~~ f s+~~ \ ~i ~ I III ~ ~ ,~ - ~ I --- - - -1- NEW ~`{UF.~ H'r pEPlacF FjNST~ WOm SII4C-~ PmFG W(NEI~ ~pMl'~S~INAI& FGCG~1 N S ~nr-~- - _ _ __ _ I i i ~i I ~ +~ ~ i ~ I~: ~ i + ~ 01-0~~ I ~. ~~ uN~ ' ~~ - r ~ ~~I~ _^~~ ` Fl ¢.ST FI-- L _~- __ ~ - / ~i I ~I ~/ ~ ~iQ~~ f ' ` ~ -~ ~~. ._IT ~ ,., ~ i~ r _-a. -- - ~, - ~ i Q! o° . ~~`~ 1 /d U • ~ 1,/' +4~ ~ ~f ^l ~ ~~/ ~,~ii / M1 ~ ~; ~,~ ~ ,~ ~ ~/ ~ / ~ 9~ ~ - ~ -~ ~ __ f ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 0 7 / ~ ~"~ .~' ~ is i ~ i ~ F 1\ d, ~ ~ ~_ P f 1 ~ - a - ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ E ~ ~ I o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ P~RT~~~ ~JQ~~ FLOQ~ ~~,~,~ -__---=____ i i PART~~I, UPPER FLOQR ~~~N ~`\ //F ~~~. covrii~~. STONE U ~~ ~~ ~~ s z: ^ W YZW ~~~WN ~~®p~~~ ~~~~~~~° ~2~~ ~a ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~a o0 ~~~- ~ e ~~~ to q ~~ ©o DR+E Jq~NE 02 ,4CAL~ 114`= I'-0' Job No SkEET -_ ~o~~ So~r~l ~~sva~-or~ ~ r E~Yp,TIf7Pl ~{EY ROOF P~~l~ CEW'fE% f~flEN15Al. COMP yJ~N6l.F + Q REataCE CfJ NMV .. _ _ L6EATNEfZED WOOD t~,' _. _...__. ......,.._..~OP ~~ ~ I.G~VF~-+-/ ! tST~O ( Sd4eE RaoF~G ~~,~.-~._..._.,_..._. ... i ~ ~ ~ W~NEW COMP --. _- __ _ _ ! ~4~ . _...~ w.- _,. __ _.. _ . w., . _ . T_ ,~-.____....._....~M---°..-_.._ __..,-, __r,_.__..,. -- .~ { ~ ~ .__~ ~ c CELL ~ :... _~ { ~(~~ ~~ (~ NB N k.M'L34 L~Uw PAZ10 ~,~ -~ . ~ ~~! 1! I~i~ Il~~i ~ ~ W~N ~ w~ w v~ _4 , I _ Ql i ~ i i`~'~,'i~"f'7 T! ~I' I''~~ I ~''ll~'~Ilil,t I i. (1 III [I~~; I - --~ ~ -- `,,~l~ ~~~ ~ f• © III ~;jil!I`~ ~~ li;~ii''"~i ~ 'iilji i'iI~1Ii~Ij~Ill~ il; 'ii ~It~i~'j `I j =__ _.:pz` _ ;-~.~.-_ _ ~~„ ~.~' ~~__.. _r ~~ -' , ! '.:.tom.! L.~Jm~~,!s1.~lh:~i~.:.~~~.~.~i~~'! .~ ~.L.~.,i..~..1'_!~s., ~~ ~._~. ~ I~ ~~~ ~4 , " ~ ~ ". ~',.____, r____._ i~ ~,.~.1,.,. ~I ~ .. _ ~ i ~ I L ~l.~vAT10N KEY ROQF PLAN _ _ _ _ __ __ 1~~ ` ~ t'I ~I h ti ~~{~~I ~fl III -- tPh ~ ,i~. I i _. .~.. i Il i __ \ ' _ ~ w r' R~AfZ E~EVATtON n~,~,l~~.~~ I ~~~ ,~ ', ~ / II ~~ ~ , . ~f ~ 9ax~sry. / ~ kge ~~c ~G '~1'<<~ ~ il~ - L1 1 I .,i.--- I 4 eee~~~ Ln I~ f'~4y,~{~ C,~ ! Vq,~~ ~` ~/ p~ ~ 'BOA ~.N~\'a ~% ~ Y i P` ~ ~ \ •7~"I h' /mil "~, ~ ,~ I~ ~~ ~ i I ~~, I ~- ~ I "Q ~ lr~. 1 ~ few __,.,/ °~4! `AJ~~G ' ~~ I PA~''IAL ~FPER ~'LpQN ~' a ~ ~ I I _ I __JI ~~ w ~ 1~ ~ F ~ ~ '~ ~V ~~I ~ I l ~'~ I I I Q I I I ~"~kr (~`~ I I i I ~w~ ~..1 Ii I I o ~~ o ~%~, ~ 0 0 ~ I ~~ I ~ i i ~ ~ l ~ r ~ ~, ~* P s, ~' ~ '~A „d -- ~~ ' ~~~,QWER EL'OOR PLAN New w~~u,{ SUDMG DcpQ } ~~ t f i PEUISlONS ~ BY P ~~ ~~ @~.. ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ N 4p~0 ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ - - ~ ~ _ - _ ~ F ' T~ yI T W ~ _1AA ha-.u °, ~ sx~yl~+~G PA710 G(RUL'rV2Ls New ~~NnowS N f~ e~'~i ~~~ ~~~~~~~s - ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ - ' ~-~'~ ~J ~`\ k r ~~®~ ,!~ ~ ~~ co P~S~M6 ~ V ~ ~ pp ~ ~, E~~-JU ~ ~ PaES+DE~1 pcpFl6• ~ _ {9 d'.) ~ iii=' ~r, j y ~ f, CEfDTEYy ~ C CJr kFArrle¢eD W~ ~ ' ~ ~~~ ~~ - = L-. - '~~ d KEU.Y-MOORE ! ~~ '~' ~{ ~ ~ Kwi637 ~ F Y , ,~ v i~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ d- ~~, ~ ~ _ _ ~ i - ~i ~ ;~~ i ~ $p ~~'G4220 WOOD (p6UMN5~ - ~ .~/..nawu ~. ~. ~~- ffi~ i ~O~1T ~I.EVA'1'I01~ 2sa~a~ ~~(~~ v{c.W ~~. _ II j D ~ lii' I - -- - ~~~-- ---- - --r~ ',~?~ ~~~ ~°~~~~; I~I i~ ~ ~t, , i~~~ j ~ / \\ ~~! D, ~ 1 i~a 1 A691}Q-!iR r I • I1 I 11 I ~~"$ ~~/ MdFI~}f .I ~ ~~i ! I I ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ r ; ~' ~~;,-'~ ; ~,, ~ 'PARTIAL LOVER ~'LQ4R PLAN KEY R~Q~' PLAN ~~ I ~ I ~ I I ~~ ~ ~ k _„ I 111! I gr. o ~~i ~S~ ~__~ /fl.~~-- °'t r\~~v~~~~~_ ~'a_iq., I' ~r__ h~ i i' Q 'y~#p•t~a ~~~~s ~a ~,6\~ ~~.-..,- ,T T A ~ __~ ~ ---.-~ ~- / NQ I ~ ~ l / z~ ,' ~' ~ i f ~~ _ ~ ~ o ~~~ ~ ~ , q,~TW 4~" ~ i 'I~ h ~ ~ ~ °° ~ NEw ~~~~ ~ ~`~ ((''~~ ROOM ~ ~V ~ 1J ~ ~~ ~ ~ P ~ ~~. 1 Q ~ ~~~ ~ _~~ ~~~~ ~ Q I ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~I I T M~GFL Q ~ 8 i ~' ~ ~~ -- t~ I ... ~-!-- _ ..~~''~ ~~i r _. i ~ r • 1-IEwY Wlµmbl na¢W YJ4W N2~ (tl I1~~ New WIµr~Ws Aup We~it usw ~o,~ b~ ~ R Pl q ~E E,pp3T ~ B r/'-3ev~iG ~- _ ^ ' ~ I~OOF1(y _u fN~LI ,I I , y CotiIP. SrJn~l6' ^ pt,, LINE ~ I I ~ i 1 ~ J ~ I v WoD CGhA}A ~ ..- _. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ I K6 llY-MO~R2 i I f KM 639-+- Ct76PF~ i~7URAl. ~t ~ ~R~E ~~~ , ~_ _t, -, ~ / +~ ~' pDIB: N ~ ~ / I ~/ ( I ~/ ~//~ / h y r N ~ ~y~ / ~~~, ~ --~-- ~", ~ t KITC{~N I ~~,~ ~; I I i~ ~ ~. kL ~ ---.---_ ~ ~ ~ __~~ 1 '' ~y ,~ ~~ ~ - , ~ _- ~i i ~ ~C~i~ . ~~ ,~ ~I ~f~~ ,, ,, ~, ,~ P~F~TIAL ~~P~R FLa~R PLAN ~;..I ~ ~~~. l fl: °vP510h~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ -~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~>~~ o~Q~. ~~ ~~~~~ z ~~~~~~o ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~rt o~~~~~ Q~~ ~~~ ~~g~ ~r^ ~IA+ ~ ~ ` ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ a~ ~ oQ q ~ 04 ~ a ~~/ r ~ cP (;j~j~ ~ CHEGKEP A4EW EkEPGNE $X~DRAGF~ G® I ~ MTE I RLGN JtklS 02 ~ ~ ~ ~~ FI RVATIpN _ _ _ _ sHEeT ~ KEY ROQF PLAN PARTIAL ~©WER ~'LQ4R FLAN ~F ~~~~ ~. I _ _. __. -_-__-._-- -_... ~' OF SHEETS ~ Y F ~j i g' ~~ ~~~ ~~~ €~ ~f w~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~mg ~sw _~~~~~~ ~~~o~~~~ ~~~s~m ~~s~~g ~a °~~o ~~~~ ~o~~ t W ~g i = oz ~ a ~¢ ,~~ 5LL ~~~ o~ g'm ~ iW r~ i ,~ o~ 0 NW ~ ,~ Y F.U~'n~ CI~CKEC i P, _` CAtE SCALE ~o®No ~ -- ,~ - ENEEr ~~ ~ _ A '~ 10~ E~E~ m~~.~~.E.~~E 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, 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. 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 Leal Counsel -Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) Conference With Leal 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. r~ U SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 16, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 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 • 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 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT 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 MATEO COAST STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-028 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 MATED 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. • 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 3. 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 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 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 Kmg stated that she thought the neighbors left to St. Andrew's 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. 19803 Merribrook Court stated that he fully supports the project. Don Carr, , 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, 136602 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 KL1NE 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 aaive-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 5. 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. n 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 noted 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/KLINE 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, resented staff report. p 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. Karlina Oh, 21750 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 responded that the equipment comes from several different 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. 15 Mrs. Kownacki 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, presented staff report. 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~588,688. Carolyn de 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. KLINE/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 a new president. • 18 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 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2003 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session, Administrative Conference Room. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:45 p.m. to discuss Youth Commission appointments and at 6: 00 p.m. adjourned to Closed Session. 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 Liti atg ion_ Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) Initiation of litigation pursuant to section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case) Conference With Real Propert~Negotiators: Property: 13650 Saratoga Avenue • Agency negotiator: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Negotiating parties: City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner John Cherbone, Public Works Director Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst " Morgan Kessler, Civil Engineer REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JUNE 4 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of June 4, 2003 was properly posted on May 30, 2003. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting: COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None • CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. COMMENDATION FOR OUTGOING PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSIONER JIM SCHINDLER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Streit announced the commendation and noted that Mr. Schindler was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Mayor Streit directed staff to mail the commendation to Mr. Schindler. 1B. COMMENDATION FOR OUTGOING YOUTH COMMISSIONER ROSS LEVINE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Streit announced the commendation and noted that Mr. Levine was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Mayor Streit directed staff to mail the commendation to Mr. Levine. 2 1C. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE FOR THE YOUTH COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLTTION: 03-031 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING SIX MEMBERS TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION WALTONSMTIH/ KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING PHILLIP BAKER, MICHAEL BYRNE, TONYA GUPTA, ELLI REZAII, ELISE SCHARTZ AND JACKIE LUSKEY TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to the newly appointed Youth Commissioners. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 7, 2003 • RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that item 2A be removed from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that one page 16 Councilmember Bogosian's statement was incomplete. Councilmember Bogosian stated that during his agency assignment report on the Emergency Planning Council he requested that staff write a letter to the State asking that funds be distributed properly. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2003 AS AMEND_E_D. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3 2C. PLANNING ACTION MINUTES -MAY 28, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0 2D. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 16 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING SITES AND EXPIRATION OF BUILDING PERMITS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDIANCE: 219 ORDINACE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODR CONCERNING EXPIARION OF BUILDING PERMITS WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE CONCERNING EXPIRATION OF BUILDING PERMITS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E. RESOLUTION DECLARING BRUSH GROWING ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLTTION: 03-032 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING BRUSH GROWING ON CERTIAN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DECLARING BRUSH A NUISANCE AND SETTING APUBLIC HEARING. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4 2F. HERITAGE ORCHARD WELL AND IRRIGATION PUMPING SYSTEM - AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Declare Maggiora Brothers Drilling, Inc. to be the responsible bidder on the project; award a construction contract for constructing Heritage Orchard well and irrigation pumping system to Maggiora Brothers Drilling, Inc. in the amount of $95,475.00; authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to$9,500. WALTONSMTIH/KING MOVED TO DECALRE MAGGIORA BROTHERS DRILLING, INC. TO BE THE LOWEST BIDDER; AWARD CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,475; AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGER ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO $9,500. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. ORTHORECTIFIED AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS APPROVAL OF PURCHASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the purchase of ortho-rectified digital aerial photographs and operating hardware; authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE PURCAHSE OF ORTHO- RECTIFIED DIGITAL ARIERAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND OPERATING HARDWARE AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS SARATOGA SPEED ZONE STUDY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing and adopt ordinance. Morgan Kessler, City Engineer, presented staff report. Engineer Kessler stated that during the May 7, 2003 City Council meeting, staff presented Council with the results of the Saratoga Speed Zone Study, which was performed by Higgins Associates in 2002. Council directed staff to return with a Motor Vehicle Ordinance that would implement the recommended changes as presented in the Speed Zone Survey. Engineer Kessler reported that the recommendations of the Speed Zone Survey were presented to the Public Safety Commission early in 2002 for review, on which the recommendations were individually voted. All recommendations were • accepted with the exception of the speed zones that resulted in an increase in speed. Engineer Kessler explained that because of concern Council local residents and the Public Safety Commission the City traffic Engineer was asked to visit the neighborhoods where speed limit increases were recommended. Engineer Kessler pointed out that since last week's distribution of the staff report the Traffic Engineers has determined mitigating circumstances that provide justification to reject the recommendations of an increase in speed limit along the speed sections Allendale, Beaumont and Cox Avenue. Engineer Kessler stated that if Council chooses to approve the additional findings from the City's Traffic Engineer the Council could adopt them as an addendum. Engineer Kessler noted that Item #14 listed in the May 4th Council, which established a speed limit along Saratoga Avenue at 40 mph, already exist in the City's Ordinance. Therefore, no change is needed to implement item #14. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the Council accepts the City's Traffic Engineer's findings could the Sheriff's office still write tickets with the current posted speed limits. Engineer Kessler responded yes, as long as the City accepts the Traffic Engineer's report. Councilmember King stated that along Saratoga Avenue and Prospect there is Saratoga High School and Foothill Elementary and asked what the speed limit along that segment was. Engineer Kessler responded that the speed limit is 40 mph except when children are present; a couple of spots are actually 45 mph. City Attorney Taylor stated that his office wasn't aware of the schools on this segment of street when they drafted the ordinance, he advises that Council adopt the findings of the Traffic Engineer with an amendment stating the exception are school zones. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith asked Mr. Rashid to explain the mitigations he found. Sorab Rashid, Fehr & Peers/City Traffic Engineer, explained that on Beaumont and Allendale the residential density supports not increasing the speed limit and on Cox Avenue it is not recommend for an increase due to pedestrian safety and crosswalk. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing. William Rollinson, 13650 Beaumont Avenue, stated that his family pet was killed on Beaumont. Mr. Rollinson stated that he is against raising the speed limit on Beaumont Avenue. Mr. Rollinson noted that in the past he went to the Public Safety Commission to express his concern, but nothing ever happened. Mr. Rollinson noted that he has four children that walk to school and requested that bike lanes and a stop sign be added on Beaumont Avenue. Mr. Rollinson noted that his neighborhood would support anything that would increase safety. 6 Councilmember King asked if he has seen higher traffic in his neighborhood since the re-opening of Congress Springs Park. • Mr. Rollinson responded yes and also noted that the morning school traffic is also a problem. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he supports the amended report and for the record stated that the key is enforcement and the City should make sure that we maintain the Sheriff's presence in Saratoga. Councilmember Bogosian stated that due to budget cuts one motorcycle deputy has been cut. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVE TO WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE; DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE THE SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF THE ORDICNE ON THE CONSENT CALEDAT FOR THE NEXT REGULAR COUNIL MEETING; STRIKE A, B, C FROM THE ORDINANCE AND THE EXCEPTION TO SPE_ ED INCREASE ARE SCHOOL ZONES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 PUBLIC HEARING -APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT AND CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FY 2003-04 • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03- 033 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FISCAL YEAR 2003- 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone stated that the resolution before Council this evening was the final resolution, which requires adoption in order to complete the renewal of the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 for FY 03-04. Director Cherbone stated that once adopted, the resolution approves the Engineer's Report and confirms the assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. Director Cherbone noted that all of the costs associated with the administration and operation of the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District were recovered via the assessments levied against the benefiting properties. Per City Council • direction, indirect costs have been adjusted to reflect full cost recovery in the amount of $26,690. 7 Mayor Streit opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak on this item. • Mayor Streit closed the public hearing. BOGOSINA/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING. MOTION PASSED 5-0. FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolutions that Establishes the FY 2003-04 Appropriation Limit, Establishes Expenditure Appropriations, Approving the Operating Budget and Establishes the FY 2003-04 Schedule of Fees. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03- 034 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03- 035 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FEES TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03- 036 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA Jesse Baloca, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Baloca stated that staff was requesting that Council adopt three resolutions this evening: • Establish the City's Appropriation Limit for FY 03-04 • Adopt the budget for FY 03-04 • Establish a schedule of fees Councilmember King asked where the funds were for business development. Director Baloca stated that the budget was $123,000. Mayor Streit asked if it was part of the Economic Development budget. • Director Baloca responded yes. Councilmember Kline asked if the $123,000 included salary. • Director Baloca responded yes approximately $58,000 was for salary. Mayor Streit stated that he used Director Baloca's power point presentation of the budget at a recent Rotary meeting and they were very impressed with his budgeting process. Mayor Streit commended Director Baloca. Director Baloca thanked the City's Directors and the Finance Commission for their help. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak on this item. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing. Councilmember Bogosian sated that he supports the proposed budget and noted hat it has not been an easy process. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the City has had to reduce law enforcement services by eliminating one motorcycle deputy and freezing one community service officer position. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he wanted the public to understand that these are the costs associated with the economic times we are in. Councilmember Bogosian asked how much a cost saving s was this to the City. Director Baloca stated the reduction is about $180,000 and in addition to the elimination of one deputy, the Sheriffs Department opted for zero merit increase for next fiscal year. Mayor Streit noted that prior to 1998 the City only had two motorcycle deputies. In 1998 two were added, so the City is going down to three. Councilmember Kline noted that he supports the proposed budget stating that it is very conservative. Councilmember Kline noted that the City could reestablish the eliminated motorcycle deputy at any time. WALTONSMITH/K1NG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLTUIONS IN REGARDS TO THE FY 03-04 BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit reopened Oral Communications. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, provided a brief history of the problems he has been facing with his neighbors and all of the code violations they have filed against him. Mr. Cutler stated that he felt Director Tom Sullivan has been harassing him and has failed to his job. Mr. Cutler requested that Director Sullivan should be removed from his position immediately. Councilmember Bogosian asked what the City's procedure is in response to complaints. 9 City Attorney Taylor explained that the City responds to the urgency of the complaint, investigates it _ Consensus of the City Council to direct the Mayor and City Manager to write a letter in response to Mr. Cutler's remarks. • OLD BUSINESS 6. BLUE HILLS TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Traffic Improvement Plan; Authorize expenditure of $2,700 for signs. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that at the December 4, 2002 City Council meeting staff presented the Blue Hills Traffic Improvement Plan for the first time. At that time many neighbors and parents appeared and most spoke against at least part of the plan and complained of having no opportunity for input to the plan. At that meeting Council did approve construction of a bike path along Goleta and funded a crossing guard at Knollwood for immediate implementation. The Council directed staff to hold an additional community input meeting to gain feedback from those affected and to have the Public Safety Commission review the input and revisit their initial recommendation. Once those actions were complete, staff was directed to bring back the plan to Council for further consideration. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated explained that the bike path has been completed and staff has been unable to arrange for a crossing guard for a number of reasons and seek additional direction. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that two community input meetings were held and all comments from those two meetings were forwarded to the Public Safety Commission for discussion at their March 13, 2003 meeting. The Public Safety Commission concluded their review and agreed to recommend a package that includes a memo, a revised hardscape map and a comparison table, a softscape narrative, an enforcement plan, and steps to measure success. Assistant City Manger Tinfow noted that the revised recommendations were developed using all information and has the support of school officials and most neighborhood residents and parents who attended the meetings. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith asked why staff could not find a crossing guard. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that staff discovered that the City pays half, $3,500, towards crossing guards at the other schools and the schools provide the guards. Neither Blue Hills School nor the City has a way to provide a crossing guard. Staff is recommending Council approve $10,000 to contact with All City Management Services for crossing guard service for Blue Hills for school years 2003-04. 10 Councilmember King referred to the proposed "No Stopping Sign" on DeSanka, • there is no stopping between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m." and asked if the Public Safety Commission is saying that it's unsafe during those hours then in the afternoon. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that everyone agreed that it was a safety concern and stated that the behavior of the parents is different in the afternoon, the traffic is less and there is less confusion. Mitch Kane, Chair/ Public Safety Commission, stated that he concurred with Assistant City Manger Tinfow that the behavior of the parents is different in the morning, there is a much higher density of traffic, traffic is going both north and south, and parents park on either side of the street that have no sidewalks. Mayor Streit stated that most of the schools that have addressed traffic problems in the past have implemented many mitigating procedures. Mayor Streit stated that he thinks the school site is too small and he does not see the school district coming up with a plan to reroute the traffic through their property and less on the streets of Saratoga. Mayor Streit stated that the solutions are not on the streets implementing red curbs, signs and restricting movements on the streets. Mayor Streit stated that the solutions are on the properties of the schools. Mayor Streit stated that most of the other districts have worked well with the City in joint ventures to solve traffic problems. Mayor Streit stated that he only sees a few • softscape items, not any improvements to their facility to solve the problems. Mayor Streit stated that the problems have not been solved and when this issues comes back before Council in December he would side with the neighborhood. Mayor Streit stated that the Council's goal is to protect the character of the neighborhood and if the school district isn't willing to make substantial improvements to their facility the City will solve the issues with the neighborhood. Mayor Streit stated that this is a bad plan. Chair Kane stated that the Public Safety Commission would agree with Mayor Streit that the other schools traffic improvements have worked well. Chair Kane stated that in this plan they attempted to really minimize the impact of the neighborhood. Unfortunately Blue Hills does not have onsite drop-off and pick-up areas. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that Council received a letter from Jeanne Carter requesting signage on the pavement at DeSanka and at the end of Goleta and Seagull and suggested that a florescent green school sign be installed in the at area. Chair Kane stated that during the discussions of this plan, the existing infrastructure was discussed and staff was going to work with the Public Works Department to update the pavement and install the new signs. • 11 Sorab Rashid, Fehr & Peers/City Traffic Engineer, stated that this plan is a ' compromised and noted that the softscape/hardscape can be adjusted in the future if patterns change. Engineer Rashid stated that he feels comfortable starting out with this plan. Jeanne Carter, 12688 Kinman Court, stated that she is a parent with 4t'' and 6`h grader at Blue Hills School. Ms. Carter stated that the new plan is much more logical, but disagrees with the red zone on Goleta. Marcia Kerns, 20846 Meadow Oak Road, noted that she supports the current plan except for the red zone on Goleta Avenue. Marty Goldberg, 12325 Scully Avenue, noted that he has two boys at Blue Hills School. Mr. Goldberg noted that he objects to the "private" red zone on Goleta. Tom Soukup, 12340 Goleta Avenue, noted that he is the property owner that has the red zone in front of the house. Mr. Soukup noted that he supports the plan. In regards to the red zone, Mr. Soukup noted that he personally believes it is necessary because it is directly across from the one entrance into the schoolyard. The foot traffic and cars congregate in this area and present dangerous situations. Katie Alexander, 12340 Goleta Avenue, stated that the school district really doesn't care about the neighborhood and the parents only complain about the parking and the inconvenience of having to walk a little bit further. The residents are the only ones concerned about the quality of life and safety of the neighborhood. Ms. Alexander stated that this school has the worst parking of all the schools in Saratoga. Mrs. Alexander stated that she agrees with Mayor Streit that the real solution is another parking lot at the school. Joan Greene, 12350 Goleta Avenue, noted that the School District has not taken the responsibility in regards to the impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Greene stated that the parents, neighbors and the City Council should pressure the School Board to make adequate changes. John Klimek, 12235 Titus Avenue, noted that he supports the proposed traffic plan. Mr. Klimek stated he objects to the red zone on Goleta Avenue. Greg Burrows, 20802 Noranda Court, stated that he has two sons at Blue Hills School. Mr. Burrows thanked the Pubic Safety Commission's work. Mr. Burrows object to the red zone on Goleta Avenue. Lori Stafford, 19850 Kane Court, noted that she has two children at Blue Hills School. Ms. Stafford thanked everyone involved in this process. Ms. Stafford noted that she supports the plan. Ms Stafford noted that she agrees that another parking lot would help but with current State budget cuts she doesn't think it will happen in the near future. :7 12 Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she knows that parking at Blue Hills is limited so the proposed plan is limited but it is the best we could do. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she supports the plan as is. . Councilmember Kline noted that he would vote to support the plan. He will not be surprised if this issue is back in December of January. Councilmember Kline noted that the school is a bad design and it defiantly needs more parking. Councilmember Kline noted that although he will support the $10,000 to pay for the crossing guard he doesn't think that the City should have to pay for it with the current budget situation. Councilmember Kline noted that the City has to continue these discussions in the future with the school district to come up with solutions to solve some of the issues. Councilmember Bogosian noted that if the City had one school district instead of seven, we would not have these problems. Councilmember Bogosian noted he reluctantly would be supporting this plan. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the City should work to bring a unified school district to Saratoga. Councilmember King noted that she supports the plan and supports the limited no parking in the morning on DeSanka but feels it should have been limited all day. In regards to the red zone on Goleta, Councilmember King noted that she supports It. Mayor Streit noted that the only time this plan is going to work is when a sheriff deputy is there. Mayor Streit stated that this plan isn't going to work and it will come back next year. The parents need to get together wit the school district to come up with solution to the school sit itself. WALTONSMITH/MOVED TO ACCEPT TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF $2,700 FOR SIGNS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. WALTONSMITH/ KLINE APPROVE $10,000 TO CONTRACT WITH ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR CROSSING GUARD SERVICE FOR BLUE HILLS FOR SCHOOL YEARS 2003-04 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SENT A FORMAL LETTER TO THE BLUE HILLS SCHOOL BOARD EXPRESSING THE CITY'S DESIRE TO WORK WITH THE SCHOOL TO EXPLORE ADDITOANL PARKING ALTERNATIVES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7. REDBERRY ANNEXATION DISCUSSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the annexation process John Livingston, Associate Planner, presented staff report. 13 Planner Livingstone explained that at the may 21, 2003 City Council meeting the City Council directed staff to take steps necessary top proceed with annexation of four parcels of land on Redberry Drive adjoining the City limits. Planner Livingstone stated that the staff report describes the process and timeline for the • annexation. Planner Livingstone described the process stating that the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 provides that cities in Santa Clara County may proceed independently of LAFCO in processing annexation applications within the City's urban service area. The Act requires, however, that the City follow the procedures used by LAFCO to the extent practicable. The Act establishes athree-part process for annexations: 1) Initiation of Annexation 2) Protest Proceeding 3) Approval of Annexation. Planner Livingstone went on to explained each of the three steps. Planner Livingstone stated that the estimated costs are approximately $21,000. Staff time is charged at a cost of $55.00 an hour to an applicant based on a deposit account. Wanda Kownacki, 19280 Bainter Avenue, noted that they received a continuance from the county during the design review level for a month and also learned that at the design review hearing that the house they thought was about 7,000 square feet in size is actually over 8,300 square feet in size. Mrs. Kownacki noted that Mr. Kim Fennel has authorized removal of his property from the annexation process if it would help to facilitate process. Mrs. Kownacki stated that the neighbors would pay to hire a licensed surveyor. . Consensuses of the City Council to drop the Fennel property and move ahead quickly with the other three properties on Redberry Drive; Director Sullivan to work with the neighbors to be fiscally responsible on both sides. 8. APPROVAL OF DESIGN PLANS FOR PLAYGROUND AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS AT EL QUITO PARK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve design plans. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist stated that at the May 21, 2003 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to arrange a site visit at El Quito Park and requested staff to place reduced drawings in their Council packet for review. The site visit was arranged for Friday May 30, 2003. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the drawings in the packet represent the final design for El Quito park. The parks and Recreation Commission, the task force and the attending members of the community, fully support this design. • 14 _ Analyst Bloomquist stated that if approved, staff would go to bid for construction of this project in late summer. Demolition and replacement of the play equipment at this park will be delayed until September 2003 because of summer camps. • WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ACCEPT DESIGN PLAN FOR EL QUITO PARK. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that following: • Budget Status - $14,731,151 - (total costs both committed and change requests) • Construction Schedule -Thompson Pacific continues to finish work. No new information at this time. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that there are still some odds and ins that have to be completed. We have not met all the commitments for substantial completion hoping it will happen by Friday. The project hasn't passed the Fire Inspection, which is holding up the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the Library Expansion Commission • unanimously passed a motion to request that if the library hasn't receive the Occupancy Permit by Friday, the Mayor Should write a letter to Thompson Pacific. Councilmember Bogosian added that the computer cabling still hasn't been hooked up. Councilmember King asked if the library would open on June 9, 2003. Assistant City Manager Tinfow responded that she expects it to open a few days after June 9, 2003, but she would know more on Friday. Mayor Streit asked what Gilbane thinks of the situation. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that Dustin (the Project Manager) has stated that he is doing everything within his power to make Thompson perform to keep with the dates of completion. Councilmember Bogosian stated that Dustin is doing an admirable job. Consensus of the City Council to direct the Mayor to make an casual, informal phone call to Mr. Peter Thompson of Thompson Pacific and then, if the occupancy • permit is not issued by Friday, to direct the Mayor to send a letter to Mr. Thompson Mayor Streit thanked Assistant City Manager Tinfow for her update. 15 10. SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY JPA LEASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review lease; provide direction; authorize City Manger to execute agreement. • Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that in March 2003, staff asked Council for direction on a number of remaining lease terms. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained the issues and final direction in regards to the lease as follows: Alterations, additions and maintenance -remains the same with the exclusion of the carpet. The Library may replace the carpet without City approval. Termination -this section is now consistent with Language in the Library JPA agreement. Term Length -the lease now expires in 30 years. City Council use of Community Room -any reference to City use of this room has been removed from the lease. Art Wall Surface -Installation of acoustic panels on the "art wall" is proceeding. Art Policy -The Library will not be required to comply with the City's art policy. The Saratoga Librarian and the Art Commission will informally manage use of the art wall under a separate agreement. Exhibits will comply with the Library's Exhibit Policy. Arbitration instead of Direct Litigation -The Library counsel has requested that • binding arbitration be implemented to resolve any differences between the City and the JPA. City Attorney and staff agree. WALTONSMITH/ KLINE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE LEASE AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANGER TO EXECUTE LEASE. MOTION POASSED 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 11. REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR STUDENT FILM PRODUCTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Consider providing financial or in-kind support. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that at the May 21, 2003 City Council meeting Jonathan Judelson, who is a University of Southern California student and Saratoga resident, spoke under Oral Communications explaining that he would like to shoot two scenes of his student film in the Village. Mr. Judelson requested that the Council waive the $500 motion film fee, financial contribution of $2000 or • waive the Deputy's fee which is $67.00 per hour 16 Jonathan Judelson, 13785 Lexington Court, reiterated his initial request and explained that the two scenes would only be approximately 45 seconds of total screen time of the finished film. The two scenes would be outside of Blue Rock • and the other is taking place in front of the Corinthian Florist. Councilmember Kline asked if this film was a school project. Mr. Judelson responded no it was not a school project, but it would go in his portfolio. Adam Judelson, 13785 Lexington Court, stated that he was Jonathan's brother and the film's publicist. Mr. Judelson went on to explain the positive experience this would have on his brother's future and how the Council could support the "Arts" by supporting his brother's film. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that due to major budget problems the City has had to cut out one sheriff's position. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she has a problem giving money, but on the other side she has been trying to promote the arts. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that if the Saratoga Community Foundation was up and running this would be a place where the City could advice Mr. Judelson to go for funds. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she has mixed feelings with getting involved in the arts because of the free expression. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she does not support making a contribution. Councilmember Bogosian stated that prefers not to set a president on waiving City fees or making contributions. Councilmember Kline noted that the City already waives fees so this should not be an issue. Councilmember Kline stated that he doesn't support making a contribution but is willing to waive the film permit. . Councilmember King stated that she supports waiving the fee but agrees with Councilmember Kline and doesn't support making a contribution. Vie Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she could support waiving the fee. Mayor Streit stated that he supports waiving the $500 fee. KLINE/KING MOVED TO WAIVE THE $500 FILM PERMIT FEE. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OPPOSED. 12. WILDLIFE CENTER OF SILICON VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Additional $352.52 to the wildlife center Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that starting in 2002, funding for the Wildlife Center was added to the scope of the Silicon Valley Animal Control authority. In 2003, the Wildlife Center requested an increase in the contribution 17 made by the JPA. Because o budget issues each City faced, the JPA Board chose not to fund the requested increase. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that in March, each City received a letter requesting additional funds directly. The Wildlife Center is requesting that the City Council allocate an additional $352.52. BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL $352.52 TO THE WILDLIFE CENTER OF SILICON VALLEY. MOTION PASSED 3-2 WITH WALTONSMITH AND STREIT OPPOSED. 13. CITY-WIDE SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT (FEDERAL PROJECT ID CML-5332 (005)) -AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Declare Republic Electric the lowest bidder; award construction contract in the amount of $441,000; authorize City Manager to execute contract; authorize staff to execute change orders up to $44,000. Morgan Kessler, City Engineer, presented staff report. Engineer Kessler explained that sealed bids for the City-wide Signal Upgrade project were opened on may 23, 2003. Republic electric of Novato submitted that sole bid of $441,000.00, which was 2% below the Engineer's Estimate of $450,000.00. Staff has carefully checked the bid along with the listed references and has determined that the bid is responsive to the Notice of Inviting Bids. Engineer Kessler stated that the majority of funding for this project would be provided through a Federal Highway Administrative award, with a matching State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) award, and City funding. Engineer Kessler noted that the scope of work includes all materials, equipment, and labor to upgrade the traffic signal controllers throughout the City to NTCIP compliance to prepare them for future "smart corridor" coordination with the County. In addition, the traffic controllers will receive new software, and will be interconnected via wireless technology where current interconnection is made via underground. Engineer Kessler stated that staff recommends that Council declare Republic Eclectic to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project, and award a construction contract to this firm in the amount of their bid. It is also recommend that Council authorize staff to execute change orders up to an amount of $44,000. WALTONSMITH/ BOGOSIANMOVED TO DECLARE REPUBLIC ELECTRIC THE LOWEST BIDDER• AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $441 000• AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT• AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS UP TO $44,000. MOTION PASSED 5-0. r ~ ~J 18 COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS None • CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • 19