The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-22-2003 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter ABSENT: Commissioner Barry STAFF: Planners Livingstone, Oosterhous ~ Vasudevan, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 8, 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 Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 16, 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 #03-164 (510-06-013) SIDDIQI,19102 Austin Way; Request for design review approval to construct a 5,476 square foot one story residence. The maximum height of the proposed one story residence is 23 feet. The site is zoned R-1 40,000 and the lot size is 47,045 square feet. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 6-0) 2. APPLICATION #03-221, (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant), MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant), 20305 Seagull Way; Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #03- 151; Aneighbor has filed an appeal of an administrative design review application to substantially remodel and construct additions to an existing two-story residence. The applicant proposes a 1,315 square foot addition on the ground floor and a 93 square foot addition on the second floor. The property is 11,598 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. Appellant Frazier has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a "Notice of Intent to Approve." (LATA VASUDEVAN) (TIED 3-3, HUNTER, NAGPAL &~ SCHALLOP TO DENY APPEAL, VOTE OF 6-0 ON MOTION TO SUBMIT A LANDSCAPE PLAN ) 3. APPLICATION #03-159 (503-27-029) ESTAHBANATY, 14250 Elva Avenue; Request for design review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 24 feet. The property is 7,500 square feet and is zoned R-1- 10,000. (LATA VASUD1=vAN) (APPROVED 6-0) 4. APPLICATION #03-215 (393-26-040) INGLE,19817 Braemar Drive; The applicant has filed an appeal from an administrative decision denying approval of a newly constructed retaining wall located within the front yard of the above noted property. The 55-foot long concrete block wall ranges from 26 inches to 75 inches in height across the front of the property, which is located in the R-1,10,000 District. (ANN WELSH) (UPHOLD DENIAL 6-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on September 17, 2003. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:45 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION M SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 -12:00 ri00ri PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot,13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2003 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #03-215 - INGLE Item 4 19817 Braemar Drive 2. Application #03-221. - MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES Item 2 20305 Seagull Way 3. Application #03-159 - ESTABANATY Item 3 14250 Elva Avenue 4. Application #02-107 - GASIK Study Session Item 14651 Big Basin Way 5. Application #03-164 - SIDDIQI Item 1 19102 Austin Way SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit 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 on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • STUDY SESSION AGENDA. DATE: Wednesday, October 22, 2003, 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room,13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 16, 2003 STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #02-107 (503-25-015) - GASIK,14651 Big Basin Way; - A request for Design Review and a Use Permit application for a conceptual proposal to construct a 22- unit Inn in Downtown Saratoga at 14651 Big Basin Way. The maximum height of the Inn is 26 feet. Proposed buildings are both one and two stories. The property is zoned Commercial Historic (CH-2). The lot size is approximately 32,000 with-100 feet of frontage on Basin Way. The Saratoga Creek borders the property at the rear of the site. The study session is an information meeting for the Planning Commission to get their questions about the project answered and for the Planning Commission to express any issues or concerns that they may have regarding the proposal so that the applicant can revise the plans and address their concerns prior to the hearing. Also, the study session will allow the applicant to have feedback from the Commission prior to finalizing their proposal. No decision will be made at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • ~; STUDY SESSION ITEM I C City of Saratoga MEMORANDUM • `a~, .. < DATE: October 22, 2003 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner ~4 SUBJECT: Study Session for a Proposed Inn on Big Basin Way A study session has been scheduled for a proposal to construct an Inn in Downtown Saratoga at 14651 Big Basin Way. The project is in the conceptual phases. The study session meeting is an informal setting for the commission to express any issues or concerns they may have with the project so that the applicant can address them prior to the public hearing. A site visit is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21. Staff has expressed concerns regarding building and paving intensity to the applicant. The applicant is seeking input from neighbors. At this time the applicant has submitted one neighbor notification template which is included in your packet. Staff has also required that at least two neighborhood meetings be held by the applicant prior to the public hearing. Please see the enclosed attachments: 1. Business plan prepared by the applicant. 2. Correspondence from planning staff to adjacent property owners soliciting comments on the project. 3. Neighbor notification template from one adjacent property owner. 4. Arborist reports dated October 9, 2003 and July 22, 2002. 5. Memorandum dated September 29, 2003 including comments from the economic development coordinator, Danielle Surdin, regarding the proposal for an Inn on Big Basin Way. 6. Comments from Commissioner Barry who is unable to attend the study session. 7. Response from Danielle Surdin dated October 14, 2003 to comments from Commissioner Barry. 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit A ooooo~: r~ Attachment 1 000002 ~1' Saratoga Creekside Inn, Proposal and Business Plan. By Jeff Gasik Property address: 14561 Big Basin Way Owner: Jeff Gasik Architect: Patrick Flanders, Flanders Bay Company Date: September 30, 2003 Proposal• A proposal has been made to the City Planning Commission of Saratoga to build a new 22 unit luxury Inn on the west end of Big Basin Way in Saratoga. The property is zoned CH2 includes .7 acres, 100 feet of frontage on Basin Way and boarders Saratoga Creek on the north side. In addition to generating thousands of dollars each year for the town of Saratoga, this new Inn will greatly enhance the business for restaurant and retail merchants. Saratoga is currently suffering from a lack of business that is affecting many of the restaurant and retail owners. There are currently over 14 vacant properties that are available for lease in the town of Saratoga. Many of the existing, long time restaurant, spa and retail owners are contemplating closing or moving locations. The Saratoga Creekside Inn will be a new attraction for visitors, weddings, corporate conferences, and concert attendees that will greatly benefit the entire town. The Saratoga Creekside in will help the Town of Saratoga become a destination. Maior Benefits: 1) Increase revenue for Saratoga City 2) Increase revenue for all restaurant, spa and retail owners. 3) Provide a new and exciting place to visit for out of town visitors who frequently attend the concerts at Paul Mason and Villa Montavo. 4) Provide increased capacity of hotel rooms. 5) Provide a superior corporate conference and wedding facility. 6) Non-competing to restaurant and retail merchants 7) Increase business for Laundry and Catering companies inside Saratoga Appearance• The Saratoga Creekside Inn will be low impact to the town, as it will be offset from the street by approximately 100 feet. It will have the appearance of a large home and be pleasing to the eye. There will be two waterfalls and two ponds associated in the landscape plan. All the rooms will be large, over 400 sgft on the average. Most of the 000003 rooms will have fireplaces and ketches. There will be five suites, over 800 square feet that will be located creekside. Customer Cliental and attractions. The Saratoga creekside Inn will be designed to attract new business into the town of Saratoga. There are many possibilities that will be marketed and exploited. Some of these are listed below. • Main destination for Out of town Concert attendees. (Paul Mason and Montavo ) • Business travelers who travel with family or want to stay multiple nights and want a sense of home, kitchens, fireplaces, ect. • Honeymoon's and Weddings. • Joint marketing with local Wineries • Combo packages with the local SPAs. Facilities The Saratoga creekside Inn will not have a restaurant or laundry facilities. This service will be contracted out to other merchants in Saratoga. The Saratoga creekside Inn will have a conference room and will have the ability to hold both weddings and corporate conferences. Saratoga does not have a Room Descriptions: • 6 standard rooms approximately 350 square feet • 10 deluxe rooms with either Fireplaces or kitchens • 6 suites at 700-800 square feet with creekside views, private decks, kitchens and fireplaces • 1 conference room • 1 exercise room Revenue estimation: 6 standard rooms at $150 10 deluxe rooms at $175 6 suites at $250 Conference room/events $900/night $1750/night $1500/night $500/weekend, $70/night Total gross revenues: $4220/night Estimated Occupancy: 60% (average vacancy in South Bay) Estimated expenses: 40% Net revenue (estimated): $1519/night, $550,000/year • • ~Qd~~~ • Employees: The Saratoga Creekside Inn will have minimal full time employees, as there is no restaurant or laundry services on site. An estimated two full time employees will be able to run an operate the Inn. One full time desk clerk and one day time maid will be able to handle the traffic of this Inn. The following services will be contract out. 1) Room Service 2) Laundry service 3) All furniture will be rented 4) Handyman services for general maintenance 5) Landscape upkeep Local Competition: There are two existing Inn's in Saratoga, Saratoga Inn and Saratoga Oaks Lodge. These existing locations have been in Saratoga for over 20 years and need updating. These Inns do not market or advertise and rely on drive by and word of mouth marketing. The new Saratoga Creekside Inn will by much more active with the business community, concerts, and local companies. This will greatly increase awareness of Saratoga and increase overflow business for both Saratoga Inn and the Oaks Lodge. Overall business will increase in Saratoga. The real competition will be in Los Gatos. Marketing• The Saratoga Creekside Inn will focus on bringing new business into the town of Saratoga and not compete with existing local hotels. The objective will be to make Saratoga a destination for a variety of people. The goals will be to create packages with the local concerts and high tech companies to attract upside business. Summary Saratoga is in desperate need of increasing awareness and increasing business for the local retail and restaurant owners. The Saratoga Creekside Inn will be low impact on the appearance and greatly increase business for the local retail merchants. • Q~®~oJr • Attachment 2 • oooo®s ' Christy Oosterhous om: Christy Oosterhous nt: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:32 AM o: 'mfitzsimmons@da.co.scl.ca.us'; 'gary@doorjewels.com'; 'ken@protoexpress.com' Subject: proposal for an Inn on big basin way Hello Saratoga Property Owners: As you may know, the city has received a conceptual development proposal for an Inn on Big Basin Way. Staff has preliminarily reviewed the proposal and finds the level of building and paving may be too intense. Staff has scheduled a study session with the applicant and planning commission so that more dialogue regarding necessary project revisions may occur between the applicant and planning commission prior to the public hearing. Attached you will find a city document meant to encourage your participation early in the process so that the applicant may have the opportunity to address your concerns and issues prior to the final proposal and hearing (TBA). Please review the attachment. I would encourage dialogue between yourselves and the applicant (Jeff Gasik) at this time. I would also welcome your comments. In addition, feel free to attend the study session schedule for Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 5pm in the administrative conference room at city hall. At this meeting you will have the opportunity to express any concerns you may have and to get any questions that you may have answered at that time. Again, we encourage your partipation throughout the development review process especially in this early stage. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at all. My direct line is 408 868-1286. Regards, Christy Oosterhous Associate Planner FAX 408 867-8555 ~L_..J neight~or notification.doc • ~0~~®I • Attachment 3 • ~~~~Q~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: .~ ~ - PROJECT ADDRESS: ! ~fC~S( Applicant Name: ~~~/,~,~ ~-t~- Application Number: ~ (~~" The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to .work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may. have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT. have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~t~~E~'(-E ('~~~/3'+'li'~~yt~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~~~~ l~t~-- f~S~-S~~ (~r4 ~~~-`l'C~a/-~ ~` ~~~~Neighbor Phone #: ~j~ `-~~~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Depart®~~ • Attachment 4 • ~~~~~~ ,. s . ;; ARBOR RESOURCES ~:: --= ~/~~J - r~ J ~O fE11L012Q.L 07"~LITO'LLG~1LLt1L2Q.L C.~012SltLELYl9 ~ _.I~LEE C..Q~LE A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SARATOGA CREEKSIDE INN DEVELOPMENT 14651 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: GASIK APN: 503-25-15 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-4001A • October 9, 2003 P.Q. Bax 25295, San 1v'tateo, California 94402 ~ Email: arborresources~earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 ~ Fay: 650.654.3352 ~ Licensed Contractor #796763 O®001 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 9, 2003 c INTRODUCTION • The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I perform a cursory review of the potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to construct the Saratoga Creekside Inn at 14651 Big Basin Way, Saratoga. This report presents my findings; provides recommendations for retaining several valuable trees; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. Much of the information for trees #1, 2 and 4-10 was derived from the previous City Arborist report (dated June 19, 2002) prepared in connection to the proposed site development. Documents reviewed for this report includes the previous City Arborist report dated June 19, 2002, as well as the following plan sheets prepared by Flanders Bay Company (Los Gatos, CA) and issued September 21, 2003: SP1, SP2, C1-C3, Al-A4 and LS1-LS6. Each tree's location, number and canopy perimeters are shown on an attached copy of the proposed Site Plan (sheet SP1). FINDINGS • The proposed project exposes 22 trees of ordinance size to removal or potential impacts. These trees include 9 Coast Live Oaks, 1 California Bay Laurel, 1 California Buckeye, 1 California Sycamore, 4 Coast Redwoods, 1 Japanese Maple and 5 Red Gum Eucalyptus. Tree #8 is identified as tree #7 in the previous City Arborist report, which indicates it should be removed regardless of construction due to its unstable structure and risk to public safety Trees #15, 16, 17, 19 and 21 are in overall poor condition and their removal should be allowed if desired by the property owner. Trees #6, 10 and 15-17 are located on neighboring properties. They are included as their root areas and/or canopies are susceptible to potential damage. Trees #3, 4, 8-10, 13-17 and 22 were not shown on the proposed Site Plan. Their locations have been added and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. By implementing the proposed design, trees #3-5 and 7-9 would require removal. Additionally, trees #1, 2, 6, 10, 13 and 18 would be significantly impacted. Gasik Property; 14651 Big Basin Way, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 1 of 2 00®®~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 9, 2003 I suggest the plan revisions presented in the next section are taken to promote the survival and longevity of trees # 1, 6 and 10. The damage to trees #2, 13 and 18 could be mitigated with replacements trees equivalent to their appraised values whether they are retained or removed. RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are cursory and additional ones are necessary to fully promote the survival and longevity of trees being retained, as well as mitigate trees being significantly damaged or removed. 1. The plans should be revised to show all grading (soil cuts or fill) at least 15 feet from the trunks of trees #1, 6 and 10. Where within this distance, the parking lot must be constructed on top of existing soil grade. The nine-foot wide driveway apron beneath tree #1's canopy could be excavated if necessary. 2. The parking lot or other hardscape should be designed no closer than 10 feet north from tree #1's trunk. This would essentially remove the first parking space closest to the trunk from the design. The driveway apron and parking lot should encroach no further east than currently proposed. • 3. Retaining walls beneath- canopies of retained trees should be designed using a pier and beam design, with the spans placed on or above existing soil grade. No soil excavation between piers should occur. 4. No soil grading, surface scraping or trenching should occur beneath the entire canopies of trees being retained, or within the 15 feet from the trunks of trees #1, 6 and 10. 5. The trench drain beneath tree #6's canopy should be designed outside from beneath its canopy. 6. Any future drainage, utilities or sewer lines must be planned outside canopies. Where this is not possible, I suggest the trenches are tunneled at least four feet beneath existing grade through horizontal boring. 7. Drain downspouts should be situated at least 15 feet to the side and directed away from all trunks. 8. The locations of all inventoried trees should be surveyed and plotted on any future Site Plan (whether or not they are planned for retention). Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of Site Plan Gasik Property; 14651 Big Basin Way, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 2 of 2 ~®~-013 ,e ~~`' ~~ ~~ ~ ARBOR RESOURCES :~:~ ; :;.,_ ~: Q ~J p /~ p p ~j ~.. - ~'LOfE11GOrt[tL OT'LITO'LLG~LLL~LL'LQ.L ~01L1tLL~C12~ ~ J'LEE ~A.4E TREE INVENTORY TABLE .~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~~ °~ ~ ~ ~ .-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o `~ o P. to +' ~.. ~ ~_ ~ ~o v ~ ~ j 0.~ 00.1 U .~~'.,' ~ ~ o a, °' ~ a ~ ~ °~'' v °D ° 0 ° " ° ~ .~ ~ b a~i x V ~ ~ c NOE TREE NAME ~ ,~ ~ ~ x v x ~ ~ ~ O v~ r~ C ~ Q H ~ I Coast Live Oak I I I I I o f o f I ~ I I I _ $8 400 - 2 (Quercus agnfolza) 22 21 40 40 100 /0 100 /o (Mood Hi 3 , Japanese Maple 6, 4, 3, - 3 (Ater palmatum) - 3 15 20 100% 75% Good Mod. X - X $720 Coast Redwood 4 (Sequoia sempervirens) 14 13 60 15 100% 100% Good High X - X $2,579 - i ~I I Coast Live Oak I I I I I o f o I I I I- I X I $18,541 - 8 (Quercus agnfolia) 87 60 24 60 80 50 /0 25 /o Poor Low X Coast Redwood 9 (Sequoiasempervirens) 12 11 45 25 100% 75% ~~ ~~ X - X $1,454 - Coast Live Oak 10 (Quercus agrifolia) 17 15 35 30 100% 75% Good High X 1 - $3,219 X I Coast Live Oak I I I I I o I o l I I I I - I 14 (Quercus agnfolza) 11 10 30 15 100 /0 50 /o Good Mod X 5 $1,200 ~ lob: 14631 BiP Bassri Way, Smaroga A•epzveajor. CTrty oJsmotoga Cozwzwzziry Devdnpzzzazt Dsparane>at October 9000 .~g preparcdby: DevidL. Bobby, BCJ1 O®1.J~.L~ I Coast Li 8 .~ ~) I I I I I ° I ° I I ~ I I I - ~ - 12 (Quercus a n olio 28 27 55 40 100% 100% Good Hi 3 $17,600 ARBOR RESOURCES- . ~ ~aOfE111.012[LL ~atTOaieuCEuaQ~ eOnsu.Cti-zy S '~aEE eaaE i ~ TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ ~ .. .~ N.. ~ ~ .~ ~,.., ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 ~' .. ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ° ~ w ~~ ~~ ~ to a~ . Ip ~~~ ~ o a o ~a ~ v on N ~ ao ~ ~ .-. w :~ 'd ~ ~ H ~ ;ti ~ `' w p ~ y .... ,~, ~ ' ~ Q Q~ A~ ~ U~ ~ ~? ~'~ « ~ a ~a a b ~ ~ '~ T o ~ °\ ~ " °\ ~ ~ . . x ° TREE ~ o,o o o o ~ ~ ~ b .o > a~ u > U ~ ~ a~ v o NO. TREE NAME ~ F, ~ ~ v x ~ O ~ w A C ~ A H ,° C~ Red Gum 15 (Eucalwtus camaludensis 1 13 11 60 30 25% 50% Poor Low X 3 - $280 X Red Gum 16 (Eucalyptus camaludensis) 19 17 40 40 25% 50% Poor Low X 5 - $380 X Red Gum 17 (Eucalyptus camaludensis) 18 16.5 75 30 25% 50% Poor Low X 2 - $370 X Coast Live Oak 18 (Quercus agrifolia) 19 17.5 25 35 100% 50% Good High - 1 - $4,830 - Red Gum 19 (Eucalyptus camaludensis) 19 17 40 20 25% 25% Poor Low - 5 - $230 - California Sycamore 47.5, (Platanus racemosa) - 43 85 110 100% 50% Good High - 4 - $27,600 - Red Gum 4,4,3,2 21 (Eucalyptus camaludensis) - ,2 45 40 75% 25% Fair Low - 2 - $650 - Coast Live Oak 22 (Quercus agrifolia) 11 10 20 30 100% 100% Good High X - - $3,270 - lob: 14651 Prg Bavn Way, Saramga Prepared jor: f5ty ojSaraGOga Conunuxity Devdnpmeat Deparfiment Prepared by: DaridL Babby, RCA Ocmber 9, 2003 OHO®15 ~.. r ~~ ,r~ 6 ...._ _ .. c:. _ . ..:.. N iy' . ~. s/ ~ 2 . ,, 20 Prepared By: 1 ARBOR RESOURCES ~../ ,.•..t df•e••u.ta.•<t e...,.[ety 6 ~ . e.•• 5pleCfv t P.O. Box 23295 • San Mateo, CA • 94402 / ~ ~ ~ ' ~' ~ ~ ~ !'( ~' Phone: (630) 634-3331 • Finai1: arhortesourcesQearthlink.na ~ ~ .. B -. _ _ - _.JQL. ___~ LIDEkµ1X~ '.. Site Address: 14631 Big Basin Wsy, Saratoga ~ j - ~ cueti, Prepared for. Ciry of Saratoga Community Development Department of Msp identifies 22 Ordinance-sized trees. Canopy dimensions are approximate. PJIG-{ ~ ~/" 11~J ~ ~~ Map has been reduced in size and is not to wale. - .. ~ _. __ •II •i f f ~ ' BARRI E D. C~E ~~ - ~, ` ` and ASSOCIATES `' ~ ``° Horticutural Consultants .~~ ~' 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353-1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMII~NDATIONS AT THE GASIK PROPERTY 14b51 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Frtutvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist June 19, 2002 Job # 06-02-114 Plan Received: 6.10.02 Plan Due: 7.10.02 JUL 2 2 2002 Ct1~Y OF SARATOGA '^OMMUNITY DEVEIAPMFr~T ®~~®~~ FREE SURVEY AND PRESERV~N RECOMMENDATIONS ATTHE GASIK PROPER 14651 B1G BASIN WAY SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga; this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing ofFice building and to construct a new commercial building 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 Preliminary Design Plans prepared by the Flanders Bay Company, Los Gatos, Sheets SP1-2, Al-A7, dated 6-4-02. Summery One large oak tree {# 7) is considered hazardous and its removal is recommended regardless of construction activity. This plan proposes to remove 6 trees protected by the city ordinance. One of these trees is an exceptional oak tree {# 2), which I believe must be preserved. I recommend design revisions in order to preserve Tree #2 be required. I have provided basic acceptable tolerances around which redesign may be done. Observations There are 7 trees on this site and 2 trees on the adjacent properties that are located in or near the proposed construction area. In addition to these, there aze several small specimens, which are not large enough to be protected by the city ordinance. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Tree #9 was not shown on the plans provided and has been added by me. Its location on the enclosed plan is approximate. The 9 trees aze classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 7, 4 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees # 3, 4, 6, 8 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree # 5 California bay laurel (Umbellularia cadifornica) 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 - Exiremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 9 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S erimens Fine S imens Fair Specimens Marginal S imens Poor S ecimens 2 1 3-6, 8, 9 ~ PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JiJNE 19, 2002 • ®O®~~7 A TREE SURVEY AND PRESERV~N RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE GASIK PROPER 2 1465] BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here aze intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regazdless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees #5 is located on the adjacent property toward the south, and Tree #9 is located on the adjacent property toward the north. I recommend that these must be treated as Exceptional regazdless of their condition. The Existing Site Plan, Sheet SP 1 shows that there are two trees, with diameters of 20 inches and 22 inches, located on the neighboring property toward the south near Trees #3 and 4. However, there is only one tree, which I have included as Tree #5 at this location. Tree #5 is a duel stem tree with trunk diameters of 20 and 22 inches. Also, I believe that the location of the trunk of Tree #5 is further from the property boundary than shown on the Existing Site Plan. I have estimated the location of Tree #5 on the attached map. There are additional large oak trees toward the west on this site. It appears that these • would not be affected by proposed construction. However, soil must not be allowed to move down slope to cover the root zones or the root collars of any of those trees and no grade changes may be made beneath their canopies. Bear in mind that all trees that are large enough to be protected by the city ordinance aze "protected" trees, whether they are included in this survey or not. The owner and the contractor(s) are responsible to prevelrt the use of equipment or to prevent any construction activity inside the dripline of any tree that is lazge enough to be protected by city ordinance. Thus, trees that are not included in this report are not excluded from protection. It is our practice to include only those trees that would appear to be affected by proposed construction. The interior of the canopy of Tree # 1 has been overthinned so that the only leaf bearing branches are seen at the ends of the branching structures. This type of pruning is a very poor pruning practice, because it leaves the tree vulnerable to branch breakage in 3-5 years. It is derisively called "lions tailing" by arborists. This style of pruning reduces the structural integrity of the tree and greatly reduces its monetary value. Trees never regrow normal branches after this has been done. Tree #2 is 21-inch diameter coast live oak that is an exceptional specimen. It has an outstanding branching structure that is very symmetrical. Its canopy is very dense and the leaves have the characteristic deep green color of an extremely healthy coast live oak. In PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUAIE 19, 2002 ~~C1~~9 'TREE SURVEY AND PRESER~N RECObQ~tENDATIONS AT THE GA3IIC PROPER 3 14651 B1G BASIN WAY SARATOGA my opinion, this tree must be preserved but it must not be pnmed by the company that pruned tree # 1. Tree #7 is a very large multi-stem coast live oak that is unfortunately in poor condition. Its canopy is fairly sparse, which is an indication of years of stress. I suspect that this tree started its slow decline when the existing office building was constructed. However, the most significant issue regarding this tree is that it is infected with a serious fungal disease called .Artist's conk (Ganoderma applanatum). This disease does not significantly affect the health of the tree, but instead destroys the interior structural wood ultimately causing a multi-stem specimen, such as this tree, to break apart. The fruiting body of this fungus is observed on the west side of the root collar. There is no treatment for this disease and there is noway of predicting when this tree may break apart or fall. It may occw 20 years from now, or it may occur this year, although the fruiting body is somewhat small which may indicate a fairly juvenile infection. Unfortunately, I must recommend the removal of Tree #7 regardless of construction activity. Risks to Trees by Proposed Constriction The plan proposes to remove Trees #2, 3, 4, b, 7, and 8 for construction of the commercial building. Trees #3, 4, b, and 8 are fine coast redwood trees. Presently Trees #3 and 4 provide an effective screen for a fairly small area between this property and the property toward the south. The plan proposes to construct a driveway from Big Basin Way directly through the area • where Tree #2 exists. Oak Tree #2 is an exceptional specimen, which I recommend must be preserved. Unfortunately Tree #2 is located near the center of the property approximately SS feet from Big Basin Way. In order for Tree #2 to be preserved, it appears that the entire plan would have to be redesigned. In my opinion, it would not be feasible to transplant Tree #2 due to its size. Although trees of the size of Tree #2 have been transplanted, they invariably decline and never regain their vigor, in my experience. There maybe no option but its removal. Recommendations 1. I consider Tree #7 to be hazardous and, therefore, recommend that it be removed regardless of construction. 2. I recommend that the plan be redesigned in order to attempt to retain Tree #2, an exceptional specimen. In this event, it would be essential that: A. No structures may be constructed within a 20-foot radius of the trunk. B. Pruning must be limited to a minimum of 10-1 S% of the canopy. C. Any hardscape features (i.e., paving, pathways, etc.) must be constructed completely on top of the existing grade and must affect no more than 20% of the root zone. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST ltJNE 19, 20D2 A ~.b~~®2® ' TREE SURVEY AND PRESER~ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE GASIK PROPER 4 14651 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA D. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 3. If a revised design were to be done, I recommend that it be reviewed by the city arborist. Even if the redesign meets the basic tolerances required, there would still be several mitigations concerning demolition of the existing hardscape and mitigations concerning construction procedwes that would be required to assure the survival of Tree #2 in its present condition. Respectfully submi o Michael L. Bench, Associate Ba _ oa e,~~fi~i~~~l"' "" ~'' MLBIsI Encloswes: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JI3NE I ~. 2002 ~~~1~21 job Title: Gasik Job Address: 14651 Big Basin Way Job #06-02-114 June 19, 2002 Mess urem eMs Cond itlon Pru ninq/C ablin a Nee ds Pest/D iseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . °? ,2 BARRIE D. COATS a~ ~ ° ~ ~ '~? ~ w w ~ V w v ~ ~ ~ '9 and ASSOCIATES ~ M ~, ~ ~ N ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ (~ _ ~j r U 0 ~ N W ~ (408?3531052 $ LL ~ z z z ~ ~ S o ~ O a ' 23535 SummS Road `0 ~ w H c ~ ~ ~ W D: ~ Z _ ~" Q Q W J ? = U W Q d Z W W ~ ~1 ~ ~, o a U W g J g J W Q ~ W z s J , ~ LosGatos,CA 95030 ~ > w o ~ F O ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ cZn z rte- U ~ Y O O 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q W ~ J U ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O J Z U W W ~ Z F ~ F S O _ ~ m m ~ a O a w ~ U ~ o: O o: p K o! w a ~ ~ ~ w ~ w Z w Z ~ w = m U 2 U U U U ~ U D. ? F- O ~ ~ ~ Key # Plant Name ~ O O O 2 v) 1 Coast Live Oak 16.0 18 30 35 1 3 4 ouercus a rifolia 426 X sp. class 100% _ $5,426 X cond. 75% _ $ 4,069_ X loc. 90°h = $ 3 662 _ $ 5 in in 201 X $27/sq , . . . Total Value 2 Coast Live Oak 21.0 22 40 40 1 1 2 in 346 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 9,347 X sp. class 100°h = 59,347 X cond. 100°h $ 9,347. X loc. 90°h = $ 8 412 . Total Value 3 Coast Redwood 13.0 14 60 15 1 1 2 S uoia sem rvirens . In 133 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. class 90% _ $3,224 X cond. 100% _ $ 3,224 X loc. 80% _ $ 2 579 Total Value 4 Coast Redwood 16.0 17 80 20 1 1 2 . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp. class 90% _ $4,883 X cond. 100% _ $ 4,883 X loc. 80% _ $ 3 907 Total Value 5 Czlifornia Ba Laurel 22.0 x 20.0 23121 40 50 1 3 4 Umbellularia califomica s . in 537 X $27/sq. In. = 5 14,499 X sp. class 50°h = 57,250 X cond. 75% _ $ 5,437 X loc. 70% _ $ 3 806 Total Value 8 Coast Redwood 12.0 13 50 20 1 1 2 s . in 113 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. class 90% _ $2,747 X cond. 100% _ $ 2,747 X loc. 75% _ $ 2,060 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-ga1= $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1=BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box 52"box = $7.000 loft 72"box • Job Ti~asik BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES . X408) 3531052 n 23535SummAAoad to5(alos,CA 95030 ;y # Plant Name 7 Coast Live Oak 8 9 (Coast Live Oak Job Address:l4~ig Basin Way Job # 0114 •~ June 002 Recommend. ,^ "' L _ '( v ~ Z ~? W O ~ ~ J Q ~ d ~ z M O r, a t? ~ ~ ~ ~ O ai '4 1i~W1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL `~ Q ~ Q Z O Z Wo ~ ~ ~. r Q U o: ~ o: W N F ~ ¢ c8~ -~.~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ Z a W z ~ w a d W w a ~ ~ °O w gg a w = ~ ~ 0: ~ O 0 ~ ~ a' ~ Z Z es p ~ ~ u" ~ Q ~ ~ W _ J ~ O QQ: ~ ~ ~ ~ > O J Z F - O U W 5 ~ Y Z O IQ- C !Q- ~ ~ Q ~+ ~ m m Q d W es Z 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ W Q ~ ~ ~ W ~ V CJ W W W m W F - cg Q x v v v v ~ v a ? r- o ~ ~ ~ z z ~ o ~ o o a x ~ x ~n 60.0 x 24.0 87 60 120 3 4 7 in 3052 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 82,404 X sp. class 100% _ $82,404 X cond. 30% _ $ 24,721 X loc. 75°h = $ 18,541 Total Value 11 0 12 45 1 2 3 in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp. class 90°h = $2,308 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,077 X loc. 70% _ $ 1 Total ~ 15.0 17 35 30 1 2 3 in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100°~ _ $4,769 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,292 X loc. 75% _ $ 3,219 Total Value ~_J REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-ga1= $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST W 48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 Page 2 of 2 Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the BARRIE D. COATE ` dlld ASSOCIATES Gasik Property, 14651 Big Basin Way ~aoe) s53io52 23939 Su11nd Rotd 'prepared for: La G~ta,CA 99000 City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: June 19, 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 06-02-114 i ~ - ~ ~ ~ i / ~ ~ /' , ~~~~ ~ ~'y i .ate i .~~ -_ ~ ` ~' -.. _-. - ,• _. , . . _ ., .. - ~ ,-..~ Iz ~ -~•I _ .,' / . L, ~ ... Vic-- y~' _, tc ,.;...... _.. . __. _'' i --- ~ --- k,,, ~; - - ''~~. ~ 'i -~ '?:• -•~ ~ M {C ~PQST ~.^ e,<n~•; !'l `CR,C':Ck iu:,TiNG dAC ~ l~! 1 5 '// ~. 1 ~%' '%151• `\ ~( ~'~~/% . 1 1rr_.. r.-fCUNDA i+~ -_ _ _._-- ~r AA ~ I U C/N/Y ' .... 1. .-, _.!~ ....._•__ _... ,_. Mr.xc ~', 4Ejb..Yi•. -"63r ~ PARCEL AREA irJ~J"I ... .. - ; ~ e : " _~~_ I .. ~,._ ; 719T8 26 sq ft (Ii~ ilY%° rtl€.I:~` Tl'~ ' ' ~.~ `` ~ ~• c'X(S71NG OFFICE BUfLGiNG ~Ijj i i j • '~~'= ~ ~ MAIN FLOOR AREA 4`Il.•i_i ' .~'P•r?'` r 2a30sgR+!•. 1';j 4 ~ix... ~eew,nnN ~ .tiL,T n11~1 . _.._...- ~ 1.~.,.,' .. ~ ~~,~t.__ i ~~ ill ~; I - <- - r ~ 1 --~ ^' t , CQ t, L S.; F~tlt~ t.i I' m _ j 11 l ' y l~ J i - ' t9E Un.: ~f ~ li , •' ;: ~ ° ' ' Cis:e,. f % T _ is n]' 4Y .t.. 1 i ..1•Jl'~ ~ , - _ ICMMiNI:Y' i', 1 1 .. ~' .... .%~~ ,. I 1 1 ~ 11 I~ ` p'q.cp 1 I . ~ i ~ i ~. !! •, ~ t ~ ~ / ~ ~ I ~_ _ ~ E, 5,943 ~~ ~~ -~ 1~1--- ~: - `\ L__] ._._-'-__ -~~- - .__ _'. r, -_ -. ._. _.. . - ~ is ,kia_ \ i Y:Al1eN EC?)F,S\/ _ (li F CIiCF ~ I\ .rl lttEl d'pH! ku? ~ !_-L,^I.?.. ~ ..: _._... .. .. .._ _~ ~'F .L KJ sl i;t•~T uci mr:c pcx ~C'~~ C7 • • Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. r~'~~~~r'~ All dimensions and tree locations are annroximate. II • •wl y ,. _~ ~ ~~~ .~ .,a; ~ I ~~ oE,,K i ~'. i o~~ cu ~ / ~C~ rl `,i ~ ~~Ir'G it s0 I K ~ /, .(. '` ~ O i . ~ \ / 6. I ~~ ~ g ,~ ~~'~ -~I j' UNIt b ~~'~ >bp lJ~ir PJ I I Ii ' t---- o - -^-- ---' - - -- : - I •4. 9 5v? ?¢% • :a ~• ~ ~N~ ~ ~ - ~ ~-....... uNlf A •. 0 w 5 :. ~~~ .F o • ~ ` ---"L .: ~ ~ Sii.p Yerv~ i ~f ~Aj1__ ... .-_....._. ~ ~ ~ ~ j t .- 1^ L .. , ~I ~ ~ 1 I ._ _ _ ~. - ' ~ .. j ~~ ~-- - - ~ ~ ~_' I'7 ' ~ ~ - ~ _ .: ~ i ~` s ti< I _ ' I _~ _~: _ -. ~ ~~ ; • ~~ ~= ~N., ~ r I I ~~. ; tQ~,. j r , rp~lx i i I ~ L I / .'OILEi j F--,-_ a. ~ , 4 - J - r I .lL~ ,_~ ~I I ~ I I . -7 _.... _ ._..._ I 'I I __ I~ ,,, o, - a __ Z,•.~-- -- . ~ =pI i .. ... _. .... _... _.~.__.- .__.._ ' , I ~ ~ ~a I[ 2 tlu I i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i' ~ a r (Z~tAIL ~~ e.~t~.i~ ~~ I T Z ~ I'I 2 I._ .. uNir ~ I .F 5?O.o f~ _ ~ r+ yv.o ~ n ~' 'i "~1-_ is II ~ _ i -- - j ~ i ~ Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the BARRIE D. COA~E l ASSOCIATES ~ Gasik Property, 14651 Big Basin Way dnt (408) 3531052 d Prepared for: 23535 Suawit Roa la Gatos, CA 950(10 City of Saratoga, Planning Department TICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: June 19, 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 06-02-114 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations ~~®0~ are approximate. Attachment 5 • ~~~J~26 • Memorandum To: Christy Oosterhous; Community Development From: Danielle Surdin, EDC/City Manager's Office Date: 9-29-03 Re: Saratoga Creekside Inn Proposal Economic Analysis: The addition of a high-end Inn with conferencing capabilities in the City of Saratoga would greatly increase the overall business traffic in the downtown Village commercial district. Though we currently have two facilities Saratoga Oaks Lodge and the Inn at Saratoga, the potential conferencing capabilities Creekside Inn would have, exceed our current facilities. The layout of this potential site also opens the possibilities of more weddings in the downtown. These two uses in particular will have substantial economic benefits to the downtown. Economic Development Benefits: • Networking Opportunities -with local restaurants for catering, and/or direct room service sales, or referrals & packages Destination Development Packaging -spas, boutiques, restaurants, and summer concert packages with Villa Montalvo and the Mountain Winery • Corporate and Wedding Packages - draws a yearly steady stream of foot traffic, plus additional sales to downtown vendors to the lower utilized CH-2 zone of the Village. • Increase the overall Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) Tax -the perception may be that an additional Inn will delude the TOT tax. In professional opinion, and through researching other cities, is that the overall TOT Tax will eventually be raised. New business drawn in from corporate clients and weddings will trickle to the other existing hotel facilities, restaurants, boutiques, etc. • More exposure - An additional destination development business and their marketing and promotional efforts Recommendation After reviewing the applicant's business proposal, reviewing the City's current TOT Tax and sales tax generation numbers for all Village merchants, I recommend supporting this project. The Saratoga Creekside Inn proposal will offer may benefits to our local merchants by means of increased sales and foot traffic, adding to the City's destination development goals with the addition of a conference and wedding center, and lastly increase the City's TOT Tax revenue and overall sales tax numbers for the downtown commercial district. ~~~~I~r • Attachment 6 r~ ~®®®28 Christy Oosterhous om: Drcbarry@aol.com ~nt: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:24 AM o: Christy Oosterhous; Danielle Surdin Subject: Proposed Village Inn Dear Christy and Danielle, Christy, thank you for sending me the material early as I will be out of town next week. Danielle, most of my concern has to do with viability of the business plan. I hope this is not out of the scope of our inquiry at the study session. My justification for asking is that failure of the proposed Inn would be a land use issue. So here are some questions that the applicant-might be asked. 1. Do you know of any successful examples of Inns where all of the services are provided by off-site contractors. Could we ask the applicant to provide some exmples? 2. Similar concern regarding wedding parties. It seems to me that this is a very small space for a wedding/reception. Again, I'd like to see more detail as to viability of that proposal, I think about Villa Montalvo as a nearby competitor. I'd like to see what spaces on the site plan would be used for weddings. 3. Parking. With respect to weddings and conferences. What would be the arrangement for guests/participants who are not staying at the Inn? Similar uestion for all the off-site service providers. Where would they all park? ~uld it be convenient? Are parking fees levied as park and rec fees are levied? Danielle, what would be the predicted revenue to the city based on their earnings estimate. I don't know the TOT rate. Christy, this question is for you and Tom. If we allowed this Inn to be built and it failed, what would be the allowable uses? It seems that it could be converted to housing or to offices and how would that fit into our Village Plan? Thank you both, Cynthia Barry • 1 0®®®29 Attachment 7 • ~`~®~® Christy Oosterhous ~m: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Cynthia, Danielle Surdin Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:52 PM 'Drcbarry@aol.com' Christy Oosterhous RE: Proposed Village Inn Thank you for your email, and I will try my best to answer your questions. 1. Off-site Contractors: I am not sure if all services will be provided off-site. The business plan that Mr. Gasik presented to me discussed laundry and restaurant services being provided off-site. I know of several Inns that do not have restaurant facilities on- site and address the issues of room service by contracting out with local vendors for delivery. The Hotel Pacific in Monterey, CA is a good example of this program. Laundry however, not sure will do some research and see if I can find any. The size of Mr. Gasik's proposed Inn is small in comparison with most Inns, so I suppose he could have laundry done off-site for a minimal cost. Many large scale dry cleaners throughout the bay area have a majority of their processing done in South San Francisco - very inexpensive...and then have it transported back...I will encourage Mr. Gasik to get some cost figures for this. If there is any additional off-site contractors I am missing please let me know. 2. Mr. Gasik proposed booking weddings in the back area of the Inn by the Creek. He wanted to have a gazebo/ alter facing the creek. Weddings at this proposed Inn would have to be smaller scale then Montalvo for issues of available space and parking. The cost ould be relatively lower I imagine. Montalvo's cost are significantly more expensive to ~nt space with catering. 3. Parking...the conference center proposed is relatively small, thus limiting the scale of the conferences the Inn could provide. I have encouraged Mr. Gasik to explore networking with our other local Inns to address additional lodging, shuttle buses, etc. and coordinate conferences between the three parties. Otherwise small conferences and retreats would park in their guest parking. The off-site contractors, either food deliveries, or laundry I would imagine would come and go throughout the day, hopefully not causing too big of an inconvenience to the downtown. However, if there are other off-site contractors I am missing, then I agree this could be an issue. 4. The City's TOT tax rate is quite substantial to the City of Saratoga our TOT Tax figures for this year are $218,837, they are down 15.1% from last year. This revenue is generated from our two local inns. I would assume we could see an additional 70,000 - 100,000K in TOT revenue from the proposed Inn. 5. Potential Land Uses - if the Inn was not successful, I could see this space being converted to office space or medical suites. I have met with Mr. Gasik, and encouraged him to go under some business plan development. I have referred him to the entrepreneurial center in San Jose, as well as met with him on several occasion to help develop a more comprehensive business plan, and seek out possible funding mechanisms. Please feel free to call me directly Cynthia at 868-1294, should you have any questions. Sincerely, anielle Surdin ~conomic Development Coordinator City of Saratoga 408-868-1294 -----Original Message----- 1 0®C1~31 • • L •', MMAR I . . ' ~ Y PRQJECT SU +s PrORe14{' address , _ d ia~.F 14561 atga~nway ~ Saralogfl;-G 95070 - APN 503-25.15 + I - . ,. ~ .. Procerty owner , 3eft f;adt zlo7a f>o~r way Samtoga,G95070 ~leaerlRhUR I ~Propwed mo-scary Im wiThCl~rc, I.ob6y, Exercise Rapm, atd Confaencc Rona WJA22 gucsf+mits. ~ ~~ Calculafiaas ~¢ j of-z Lotaixe -Frontage IOOft .~ys prea 31,918.00 sf. -Nape- i -29,b39.00 s.f. i Corenge •A4sx Atlowsbk 60.00% ~ 17,563.40 s.f. - ~' -propose! 26.77 Y, 7,880.00 sS Pedes6iaa Open Spe -txaxw~ired~ 20°r.Ofau sas7.saxt. -Proposed -Front I 1115.00 s.f. -ikcks 525000 s.f. -gror _ 4500.00 s.f. F~ 'I~ _ .__..- }1,465.00 s.f. ,. . parking 1 -Srmidard (s) l6 -Han~dicapped(hc) 2 -Compsct ( c)(25%0[24) 6 Trail - ~ ... Parldog kl ,ptca 11,743.00 e.[ ' -Rcquircd l,an dsraping(15°h) 1101.45 s5 • proposed [andscapiog (2120%) ?404.50 s.f. Budding ddgkt 2 stales lb' msx Areas;<9lope afLoli 8.9°h 0.0023(facmrjx2(coNaur intervsl)x7b59(total coatourlea,~tFO I 0.734(ares in acres) $eapcks - Front l5' -Silo ~ 0' _ (fir j 0' ~~ (~' Q~ Y ~Cs~ u OL' . ?-va ~~`},~,nn itl . ~ ~ li+"57 • ~~. ^^~f ~o.~v 1~L ~' i ~~ ~~p~3 aN,~ ~' ` - ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ;t ~ ~~ ~~ ~+~~ 4 F F • , ~~ 7 r a ~ ~~ - - - ~ ` 6 ~ ~ ~. `7 7~ .r ~ 0 V ~+ ~ --_ VI~IN11 'f h~a~ QoQ~m~9 J ~ ~ I .., -}"'. ~.,. v _._ ,. ,_ _. ~ ~~ _, ~.. s ~' ' _ - -_ ,,, -- - =:,. ~. ~~, i ._._ ~'~~#._. ~' ~~ sz. r a ~ ~ '~ ~ SARAT¢GA CREED ~ ~'' ___ , y~ 1 O /l, _- _-_~ ~ "tee- I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ '~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ,. ~: ` j ~ i ~ ,~ 1 ,, ~ , ~ ,~ , ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ; ~ / ~ eW ~ ~ ~ l h _ ~ i ~~1 ~dp~ I N~~ ~ ~ s ~, Q L ~~~ ~ '~ Z ~ 1~-mv ' ~ 1cd~~v ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~Jt ~ ~j~' 3 .~;1 N -~ Y ~. ~ i, ~ - ~ -~ ~ .- ~ ~ 3 . ~ ~ QO I~I ~~~. Q~~~ ~ ~~ i, ~ ~I ~~ ~ ~ d ~ ` ~ ~ ~I w ~~ ~~ .. ur ~ d ~ fl ~ ~~o. -~ ~~~~, s. ~. ~:; :~ «:_ l G J • 6L0 ._ _ ._. __- _ . _.~ i ,, _ ._ . __~._ NEW ~5 2~CI loT ~ N P ~.KI' 641' q'~.~ __ _ ' ~- ~ A t 1 ~ ~. _..- _ __- .Gkkla ~ JR~ ~ -- ~ _. ~ ~- _ , ..._ - yb,a _ ..~ :::. ~ v - - - -- ,_~ ... ,~ x. . ..,, _. .,. / ... .. 1 i i AWa ~ ~ _ . A ~------~ I .. _ X09 i •: .. -`~ ~ i. i ~_ ._. ~_...~ .'wAtc.e-.,. Pf+t?Uee• ~ ~~- EzieT•4a~tiEGi~P) ~ .. I . ' .~-~-. ' 4K ... ' .:~-- ~' -, is ~ ,.,.._._._.._. .... _.._..__.. .. .~-'--~.. ___. --_.__. . ---. ...._.:__.____~_... -='- `IPO ~ ~ ~ Da4pl~o Ih' 1{oLDM(~t ~ .. foR 5pm+1 WB~R.RtlIJOrF '~RaM q ~oN~T04Cfi5.~ kiw ~~lES irm°Priuc .. ~ ~ .. ftvc~.m oa~wE, ' idLns2 LFYFL tA.3Y5fiJA?a _ ~ - _..:__.-.i__..R._. ; '_:.~-t~irr6f~'DY'Y ~ ~' ~ ~ I , b ~~ ~~a '~ _:_. ----~~= . 0 ~~~ `" ;I _ a~~4 y ~~ .; y~ .. ____ _ :] '' ` . '~ ~~ ~- ,. r 3 .~ ~ a _... ~o e i ~ ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ~ , , \ _ ~ _ ~ , / o ~{~~J' ~ rl u~: I1~1.. 15~ rl" `'~Lr I III ~I 4~ j i r i r, I~ y~ - ~~~ ra 11 iil I Ilr~ill ~ I ~rr+ ~~ r~ ~~ lr ~ _ r I r ~ { - ~° ~ ~ . ~ i I~ \ rr iii 1 - ~ ~ I r ~IJr Illt ., Ir ,~ ,fit . ~~ t f" r ~I - ~ ~_ z ~ _~.____""~ I ..I ~ ~A~~ ~~~~i~c~==~a~r_: ., _~. .. c~c, .... .:~. _..... :wm .H.~ .. r~ ~~~ ~~ ,, ;~ :; ~~ n -- - - - SOIL PREPARATION IRRIGATION PLANTING .C{NFRAL GENERAL OENQtAI ~ NNNTENANCf I I Desaptbn: Wbrk m this sm6on ncludm the nstdlat'en of topsail w0 soN ammdmmU, rtnsh Oesa'yniiw. Work in Nis mcibn ndudes nstdlatlan of a complete migol on system, induding electrical amponmts mantanance and nadmtds related rwh equi ment o P n Desaipllon: Work in Nis section ncludes dl seeding, pbntng, stoking, and related ncidmtal.waM ' Plat maintenance. dlan consist err applying water, weed nrN <aesq for pants; taNizng; f l grading, plant pit hackfll ontl all oNa madmtals related Nereb. , , to 9. p , r P a t theala. ina plant establishment roans antral rq pests and dissaser and the Q Roviewx Cwtractor shall epec'fcolly request 'al.imst two days in odwnm the following reviawe . .. plot to prayessn aIN Ne wdrk:~ t rou h rad'n 2 vaificabon of n oratim de Ns and 9 () 9 9 9 () ea Revied: Cmhacta ehrel spmirtadly request the following renews prior to progressing xith the Revers: The canhactw 'shall spmificdly request Me fdlowng ulcpecj'om prior to Drogresd^9 vent the want: (I) Plant notelet aPPmvd and.la t. 2 subslanU¢I coin .et err. and 3 foal Y°u () P () The entire protect shall be manta nod fa a pttiod of 60 days commmcng from the time all italic of walk have Ueen completed ta~the satisfadion of the Landscape Architect qnd My - N p p , , 3 fns h () grade. ~ work (1) layout of system, (2) fine Wne adjustments of heads and emitters, wlxw box Inspection, review and acceptance, ~ - Ownu of the Anal revkv. ~ ~ ~ -a and anirolls operollan. Submittds/plant matald WiNin five days a1t<r avard of the cantract, contractor shell submit ~ ~ Certilallm: Yhittm cantifcotes stating qualify, type , camDOSitbn, wet ht and or1 In for all 9 9 PRODUCTS - natiro to the Landes Mch'tmt cerl'f Na anlN and e I f sal matedol adored, P¢ N^9 W Y W °~ ° P ~ Plmts and planted areas shall be kept wen watered and tread-frea I - N b1~' . amwdmmta, chamlWls,. and any import mWs shah be delivered to the landcape Architml ' b f /a - the nursery supdrng the matttial and any pint malaid unawdabk d the time, arse - upmenl t0 suHcent number of wwNers arse ade uate e l t ld h ll Ft Th a ae Ne riiaterbl ®u9ed xa ilia. OualitY AN motttbis shoo be new and Ne bast xrydity aw%able unless oMenise specl%ed NI k d b O h t i f fuu proposed suDeli liens Wire aDProvm by ins Landscape Architect q q e cm roc r s a ma o n a pertbnn the vofk herein spec Rm. j ,( Tpt edmplea Contractor shell rovide a one wart ram Ie of r p q p oposed amendment aril Import ass to th S i wn. e y b monu ura upon n~ac matarah fa Mspmtlan shall be clearly mar c pRODUCTS - Damagc t° any planted sea shdlDe repaired iinmed'wlely. e o l o d Plant Laboratory of Smta Clara (4176) 737-0330 far their testng fa conf ' Plant a ppe and fittings: Pdyinyl cfilonde schedule 46 (x207-60) doss 200 and ilea 375 ' s ' onnence to th s spedfiation. No material shell be delivered to ins site until the L ondscape Ntl111ed approves Me natant. TCSImg Lasts fa the nltld aamples'shdl ib pdd by Ne ownw. (<s256-83) PVC UNeas othervise noted all PW; pine shall De dine 200, solvent and weld fittings and Nrmdm fitifiys dine be sMedde 40 henry xall. PolyeM)tene fltfings ahaa be achmNe 40 bbels Plant botankal names shall canionn to Standardized P.lanl Name Nanmdatue and second editbn. NI plants of each dose. 5pmie9, and cdllva 9ha% be ddivaetl io Na .site. labeled A^Y love arc q nand rover, a dope areas that do net show a Drompt catch f y or 70) d b d d t t e Costa for taco rant eanplm necessary due to non-complwnce shall b< paid by the wntracta. , shell ba black atandatl qudify. Sdrml for ppng droll be as recommended by manuloctwer. riN tnek fell Dokmlad name. Every plant specie ahaa ba loaded wkh nor less than one label for e 4 Bed en ( ay ed, re-s_odtl d err replante a establiahmml of plant materiel Shall Arcn'tect ' mtavds until accepted by Ne~LaMsiape PRODUCTS Control wre: Type UF, 600v iswlalim, minimum size ~ 14 apps, cannon grand white, U.t. every tin pants of ° spades ~ ) ' ~ - approved }a frrigatlan cantrd use. Splices shall be swish-tole seal pack s equal with whenuls ' pzdit . 11iNinum aft of dl pr g pu sp Y qu y plant material sfidl conform to ewilln bushed edfiatioss epr p p t lereded and re anted 0 esdons roused b vehicles a foot traffic snail be filled whh td sal, d Natiro%msite topsoN: Shall be the existing sat on site It shall De stripped, stocky%m, and envd encWaed m resin hiled °Pce' of the Califama AssOi atwn of Numaymm and the Amerian AssaciatMan of Nurserymen, unless ' e pair age d moles~ans re dam Elimnale h rs a ~~ reinstalled ' - Valve boxes: Plastic of type and size indicated free of all sacks, clips, a etmcturd gefmts. t n t d l otherwise hdcated Atldltanal spec Rat ms shall ba mdlcate0 w the drove cgs. ~ ~ ' . p an g I f f 5 t i ' SDN amendment NnmM Dtt 1000 sqquuae feat ~ e and ave henry du y s e coves, Boxes subject to uehkulw traffic shall De wncre Ouomlties: the quantities shown on the pbnt I'sst and b labels are for the Landscape kchitecf s oe ( ) pounds h rty (30) day ntenals by the appliwtim o zed at NI plante0 ~aeas shall be fat% f '60 d 6 - 8 abic'Sards Nit en Stabt'aed Organic Uatta - e ~ ~ hngatlon equipment Aefer'ta hrlgdiw legend m drawlrrga. Any desired abautut ohs repute use and are eat to be construed os the amplete and accurate limits of Ne cottract. Contractor ahd! (1 a day 00) square feet (I.e. three opp0atias of ammonium wifole ptt oIw Nvusan ma ntenancs alod) _ ~ w p. nds 6-30-2 w equal canmadd fatNiztt - Ill pounds hors Sulfate (205 hors) ' - 50 pounds Agriwllad Gypsum wbm'ttds in dupl cote for spmifc written approwl by the Landsaapa Architect Nmish and instill dl loots shdwn atlwmaticdl m Ne dradm p y ~ Rml systems, NI cmtama grown stork ehaN be grown in its cmtalnu for al least six ninths prior p - I Paved areas should be coshed. A nmi ant dean candt'on roil be presented at all tines t° the ~: ~- `i { E%EW1)CN to iU plantng Conlracta shall dlaw one percent of the quontdy d plants for rttnowl and napectsw. ' sat stators oY the OvmB' and Landsape,ioral tact stl , X ~ ~~ Organic amendmentx Nitrogen stabilized redwood sawdust derixd flan world w redwood ' meeting the follow ngspecifaligns: - Phpicd Properties: 952 - 1008 passing, sbro sue 6.35 mm (1/4'J. SOR - 1005 LayWt and benching: NI teaWres of the Mgadw system shall he slaked and' pipe dlgnments naked prior to Vending tar approval by Ma Londwapa Archltmt. Any plant moterioi Ifhn 90 goys fdlawbg the foal acceptance of ffse pmpct. aetamned by der Landscape NchiteM to be defmtno, restrteted, decln'ag or otherwua defic ant due to aMOrmal root growth, shall be replaced by Ne antrocta, to the equal and'tim of the adjacent plants, at no - FlNAL ACCEPTANCE 1i chit t the C t A O m rit h d ' ~ ~ n` K1 passing, sieve size 278 mm (no B:b mesh) and OS -d05 pmsng, sieve size 500 Cwadn ~ ConUactor sMll be ona~le fa installin all ird tiro features to Ne'r finished de ~ aaditond aat to the owner. ec w wner rawr scape r wn to w ing by t e Lan Final aceptance ahd! be g ce volkthrough. Th'IS generally ocars at 80 days after Contractor shall snit ate the lnal accepla d ~} ~' ~ k miaon (no 35, 32 mesh). and agd Ns indwtee n the htais. NI rou h rcdln andw In sh d"n sha% be ep 9 9 9 / 9r° 9 leted and/or acmmmodoted before trershfng h¢gns c n - Trees: All trees ahd! have stra'ghl Trunks of uniform tape, large at bottom. Trunks shill be free of ' the find'revlew punch list items have be completed. ' .' ~ ,~,_~ ~ _ Chttnkal propertres Nitrogen coolant (drq'weight) -k4 - 0.651rm cantmt minimum . w p n tissue. Surfer basil north and dame eE bark Nth dl minor aDrasana and ass shown hed 9 g 9 gr rowN shell be remawd and (rated to d innate res rauUn Normal Iowa side wcktt lotual hf PLANT g1AAAN7EE ~ U ~.. , 0.065 dilute acid sduble Fe m dry weight basis, sdude salts: maximum 3.5 m111unhos/ b n Backflling No mdnl ne fonts shall be wooed unt1l system has bean approved by the Landscape g. g p baxhng shell tenon. Trees unable to stood upright withal support shall ba rejected ~ ~ : cm meta @25 degrees C as detum es by saWratian extract method: ash - 0-85 To dr n 3' d ~ Architect. 8ackfll with damaging rocks and debris shell not be pamitled. Compact all backfiil to eliminate settlement Previady prepared sd 's to be replaced 'into Ne tap layer of bacNtill. HedN: Fol'pge, roots sad stems of dl plants shall be of agaous healN and normal habit d etia of mainimance or date of Final acceptance Dy the the guarantee period !loll begin at can Landscape Architect I , ~ Q' V' ~ p ess g: shred ed redwood bark. Maximum length to be 6 . BadtNl rolls TM bmkfll cal"w is 1%3 amended soil and 2/3 unamended sail Pobrlwtfbn: Spoke I e from aide to side when Umch exceeds th'rt fcet n kn th. Ao manlfdtls PD Y 9 n ' 9rowfh~ br 1b spades. AN dents shall be free of dieemes, inset stages, buns, a disfigrcmg charader'stla ( AlPShmbs pod groundaaver shell be guaranteed oy the caipaetar os t° growth ahd nealin fora ' s ' ,[,~ ~ - Y 3~ 111...__111 ~ ~ 9 t I~ F1 ' " , }rids to ms. GonaWCt ma shbll be neat, orderly, and wnstruc[ed for ease n maintenance apaat ell orbs and buddio d t d' r t lNS a h lh t wd and/or acceptonca by t nor per period d ninety days after completion oft h sp fed ma reem¢nt wth tea lf d i e the t a A th Z,. 117 tl r Backfli and loot ~ its: Surface. s°%xh(ch has ben amended in the above manner mould be b l g a an pa i w s, wa , . o eac o o a allow wive baxea to be pardlel. and minimum in quantity. NI pipe abaro grade anoaN e of buns ints sholl'be fr Cuts and ' UntNe species: NI plant mate d, wthin 917 days Idlowing the foal acceptance of Ne prdjmt, i ifi d h th l n t aw s pac 1n mam en°ncs. y rchht«t uNae¢~a the. Landsapa guarantaea by Me contractor to I've and g'ow n an NI Trees vp to 60" box size shalt b' Owner ~ ~ (~ ~ Zj ' 'used as the adefl l mix around the sdes of Na rootball of Vaes'and shrubs. Only unamendm sell should he used be eath Ne laat's rodtba% Dut the hottom of all lonlb s should be dtiwfe0 , , e p moll be PVC unless oNerwhe noted. e, a wr e y spec e , determned by Me Lmdsape Arc itect to De untrue to e spec es, c o shell be replaced by tfrc conUacta, to Iha squat coed lion of adjacent plants of the time of , . acaptaEle, uDrlght position for a period ~f one ydor.' _ ~: ~/ ~ n ~ , g p p c ' qnd tbmped by toot to the maximum depN fmdde to help improve the sad s porosity. -one gallm plant six inches~af Dackfih all around Pipdfies~ NI piplines shown pwdld on the draxing may be hsidled Ina common trench. Nay shall be installed arallel or adjacent W shrubs a grwndcover Wlsere p d'nm ors shown replacement dl no addliand cost to the owner. _ iole sidle aced M mN Umled with a pro S d Io : Sod lawn shell be rown ham hi h ualit a' - NI plants showing sdgna of fading grawW of any tine dunng th Ida bf the pontract, induding. 'renda:them unsullable f Wa mantenonce Daiod ac Nose plants; m uljlred a dam g d~ as ta ~ ~ x r4.~`` 3k-A 3 ~ - 6ro gdim plant eight rides o/ backflll all aradnd , g p rsus pavvnent they'dIail De acmt to Wwn wens w rallel or ad n WD N p p g g q y o l , Me d h bidd d l l ns ected b d f d l d ddd f l W . laced n k'M and size of the expense of Ne cmhacl u esiat l re ose lntendN shell b im the ur ~ j'~ - N@ea gdlon plant- ten inches of BadefNl all arouM . l ere a own pa 1n ese areas, ipe sha% be acam~shed us'ng 45 degree es in de th of NI chan ll l b M ' agency approve es an regu ar y p y an e era pes e; ung c m, an a ll have a f Calif I N I i Sod sh il N 'Stbl d R ldi i d e m y p p p , ,3 4-L '~(~ ' -boxed spedmen ~twdve napes of packnl °% around p p g etl awn ems. ns[a e Attinge. ursery nspec on. a st e n accor ance w1 < o ar a egu ore ca well derslaped root structure suffw enby maNrt so that twill held togeNa when held by one end The contractor, within fifteen (15) days t nolifieptlw by the Londsdape~ Archltmt, shall rembce ' ~ "~ A~ ~ v Import b I:'id soil should-be a loose, hioble sand Imm, freeaf harmful insect. dl wen p nctbnc before backMing Test mains undo pressure fa of tarot ti T l % In fo malt T of Ne volt. Ydbw ng, browning iliac aed; dr eel err pest infwcted sad shell be rejected Shc rowth shell rowth and thatch To Nidmaes of Ne sad shalt be 1/4' to 5/e' Nek exdud n M n fall to meat Ne raquiremmta which,iw any a 5 .and replace all guaanteed plant mderia uarantee Replacement shall De'made with pint m I I ndlatec or sped%ed for Me of the Uy nl '~. "+rl t\I ' owN, d ~ ova 4 cubic Inches and/or Gods Not may not be pulverhed during operations, and ' fray f k l hill b i 2 H es r u es ng: ee a Nres hours. . pg , g pg be unilarmly moved to 1-12/' to Y, err os dream by the sod diatr buts, wN'excess Uppinge and g or glnol planing and autla replwamem rnataials shall Da guaranteed as-ipedfied for 4ha ~ , o roc s ova abc Notice The w ues s e between six and se T p van. cpso l shah be '~ h i satiate dmrle removed $'te of rolls a Slabs Shell be condstal to the Suppl'ers standard ten th 9 I wgna quaanteetl matttids. h ~ ~ . ee.a any substance hamful to plant groxM and shill conform to the follow ng X Conrd w're: Instill cantrd wirt in lrenUes wherever actical. Ta a to Ppe every ten hat. pipe pr p and wbth an0 is not to vary by more than '151n tither d'r«tion. I I gassl%wtion -USDA sandy tam, wiM BO of Iha same component in the mad um fine Condu'ts w slmws, where required, shoo be sized based w X14 tyres AN splices shah be epoxy to very fee range ' Solin%y-sotwatw exited (ECe} lass than 4.0 oot¢i. NI care aholl be nstalled below w lead with the bottwn of adlarent pipes. NI wiMg aDOra E%ECUTON ~ Sodom (SAE) Tess than 8.6 Apish grade sho% bn inclosed m PVC conduit h ll D P t bl d B f l tk ll l t t iel i ~ _ Boras-saturation ~gxtrat cancmtratbn less Nan 1.0-ppm. Conbdler Contractor ahd! deMy label and sequence etatlans fa ease in mantmance er e lant ma tt approv e ore p ns commence, a p an ma s a s an ng opmo approves by the Landscape Nch'tect Defective plats Installed wthvut wch apprawl sha0 be I Peat mass: Carwdwn wGerman'sphagnum type peat muss, fnely ground and veil graded. gieratlons. Cmtrodw shall complete all farms and lahtls shipped wN Me catroller, attach address and phase number td Us wntrdler do a Dermanmt label, arM ahd! hls/h name emoved from the sits uDOn request of the Latlscz~e Architmt and an acceptable pant substituted mIta place ~' ' Poon4a sot mix: Composed of 405 Colmo sad, 25S Canadian pool moss, 155 organic ~ ~ , propedY'exeata and Be with Ne owner the conbdlltt s~arantm. . . ~ ~ Layout Only those pants to be planted in any single day sna% be laid al Locations of all picots - ._ anepdmant,.arn1 10R existing site topail. Use as badAll for acrd loving Dlalts. a IRRIGATION pJPf2AN1EE shall beapproved. pr or to Dlantbg Plants fnstdled wiMmt this approvd shell be Uanipknted as f ~ ~. tl'rmted by Me Landscape Wcnitect. - j ' FY~CDH6N ' Th'e mt're epr'nka cyetem shell be uncandiNOnally giaenlead by the cenlroclw a9 tc mvtaid, rade far a f mekfllad areas below alod of me (ij Soar h sn ttl' ' d w n tln riat ib f l t ll l ' he lth P t t C l h t n ll l t t i : ' g p workmans n g se n9 o u p,. folowing Me date bt Ne foal oaceptana of work mp n o g rac er a n a y gre g con ra m an r on a s a mo a a an ma a n p to and during'plont ng opaatbns. Contractor shall be responslbis for vatdolism. !haft and damage C tlm ts 'md~grades Prior to coiemening sail prepwatlon operations, gracing contracts shall ' to plant material unt'I commencement of the maintenace palod. _ request o revew by the Landscape-Anti tact to vasty spec fied Iunits and grades of work II wihin one yew from the date of completion, settlement occurs, and adNstmente in pipes, ampleted la date and m1 prepaobm work, to canmenca Contractor 9hali complete the rough ' ' Mives, and apankler heads a pavhq is necessary to br ng the paving to props level a( Iha pruning. Cwtracta shell do n° p7rning wthoul Me speci& approwl of the Landscape Architect: ' ana tap of dopes, provrd ng naturali:eo contaurNg to grad ng as necssssy to rounJ the tce ' .permanent grades, Iha contracts, as part of the work ands the contract, .shall make ah Plants pruned wtthout approval shell be replaced by the conhagor rf required i ' integrate nerdy peeled areas wN the natural tapagraphq. adystmmts without extra mss to the owner, lncludng the restwaliw of all dmnaged planting, ' Rough grad ng: NI ragh grading and apprdximale finish grad ng is to De camplNed undo ' - ' pmnng; w ante Improvements of ay kind Bases CmsWd bas'ns as necessary to water plants d edge o! raotbdl Rem w b sins from dl pinta under a permanent in gates system prw to final acceptance and finish 9 de ilia , ~ ; j g der the aect on shall be completed Dy the ladsmpa the ardiwak ere t a f sh grad SFRNCE BY THE CONTRACTOR pining wee. Barns for plants to be hand watered shall tenon. 'n place Basin.% Ids g dde , I .stint gciw F accordance w th the voiles mdkated on the stmt en ineerin - drawN s and os q q q ~ shat allow far drohage away from plant stem. (he landscape draw ngs. _ ' generally shown nth Ne contoum TheconUactw shall service Me system at the owners request dzr ng the guarantee period. Ttva Amendment placement Alter the t has been rough graded W w'th'n Y of the Onish grades, anlra<t°r sh°N' be paid iw work performed which snot snorted 'n the guwantee Slaking: NI tracts and! be staked as drawn, wdh stakes wren eeaardy'nto exi tog sail pn the t h ll b ~ _ ' o two Nen layer of organ's amendment shall Um he un'famly dstrbutm r the entire planting ' Should any spuatlonal dlf%aultles In canmt'on wltn the sprinkler system develop withn [he ies s a e windward u de d the tree. A m ninon of two fgure eight wore and rubber tree required mess otherwise noted m deta'IS sea and Noraughly incorpwa4d t obtain a Domogmaus blend of soN eight nanas in depth. speciled guarantee patod, vhich n the opnron of the olmer may be due to Infer or mbter al ' ' and/a warkmansnp sp'd dif(Iwltes shall be lmmadotely corrected by the canlractar to the - Cleanup After aampletwn of dl opaot ohs, cantroctrir shay remove trash, excess s 1 and sh grading. Landscape contractor shall finish. grade dt planting areas unless athereise Fin mtisfactm of Ne ovine at no additlond toss to the owns nduding any and a% other damages All walNs wells and pavement shall be swept and washed dean, leaving the o tha debr noted and dealt remove all rocks and dads over one and one -half cube inches NI arms Mall be ' ~ ausW by such defects. m a o t're 9 te, a pmt deny condt'on. smsth and uniformly gradad'L°ndscape: wntrdctor shall guarantee pout ve drdnage or nett/y the Landscsge Ai hie 1 fThfi is not possible. Atl xos on damage du ng [he'crostmction period'end( lee rep'auatl by the contractor Unbss aNerwse noted, all soil .finish grades NNNTENPNCE (ilea see'montelance under planting s«h'on) SUBSTANTIAL GCNPLETION ~ -. h , shall be one inch blow finish grade of walks, pavement, and sortie Irc gat m maintenance shill cans st of dI¢cking, adystirg, and repairing ulf wrigebon equ'pmml, ' Subdant'ol ampfalm shall be deemed at the lima when all major plotting ndutl'ng seed and _ ~ - ~. ;. ~ g egwpmenf shall be done with g y pa rmettn the a lamahc cairdler os nmessar Re r of m at on ' grqur,daver the wn9aVOn system and all abler wok s satisfactorily completes w'M Ne exception - gat'w program with monthly the wiginany sp afm maleylDl a thdr equivalents.. An annual sr of m nor terns to 6e completed as noted in o punch I'st comp%W Dy the Landscape Arch'tmt - ' ~ ~ imgation ached I shdl'be }equued'fw x)ie'plrnt mtadishmmt per ad, Ica the estobl shin ' ~ J Q ~ ' ~ ~ s end De posted n Ue Irrigators landscape and fa a y tempaarNy irrigated areas. A copy of ih suggeatad hedda shall ndutle run limn (a minutes per cycle) dbn e tral ta : Th i FINAL RENEW - _ Q ' ~ , g an x e rr g numbs of cycles pa day hilgateq and frequency of irtyat'm far each station. Thor mgat'an program Catrada shill fequesl o final renew of the prajmt vlNb five (5) dap in atlwnce ofthe proposed ' ' ~ ~. p ' n whatever adling unaa s feet, gdlms or shall provide Ne amount of applied water (n hundred cub date. FDdure to request this notice shall automatically postpone the Gate of camDlelion and Me local water suppiitt uses) rocommmdetl on o mmNly and annud basis. postpone the beginnn9 of the maintenance period uni% f dreview is ampetetl. ' ~ WNeneva posable, landscape 'rtiga6on shall be schmuled between 200 am. and 10:00 am. to ~ - - q ~ 6- ' ' aw'd h'gh wed a hgh tanperotura - _ I~ a v a ~ t1 ~I ~ : ~ u J ', r ~ d ~ `~ Q r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~1 -S ~~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ j , -.. _ .. ~ - -= ~__- - ~> ~ -__ ~.; -. :, - ~ OOUBU: CHECK _ `1: VALVE FROM CURB Oft'HFAOER MALE AIIAPIEA - - ~ ~~ / INSTALL 0 TEMP HEIGHT I ~ ~ a r--_~--~i i"~UNION~~ XNI1ROLlER y SET 50 MAT TW OF SOIL IS ~I of 1) ~ ~ ~ WAIL NOUM. OISfALL I/2" ABOVE FlNSH CR40E 7D - ~ , ~ ~ .DEAL CODES AND ALLOW TOR SOD ROOT ZONE. PURER INSiRUC110N5. COMPAQ{ FILL N SANE OEHSRY 9U ELL ~ mod-, J'' AS SURROUNpINO SOIL I (i a 4) ~FlNISN GRME/TOP Of MULCH ~ I I . COPPER OR CALYANi2E0 L_ _ _ _MiN. f2' J STEEL. PIPES.. IYP. ~', POP-UP SPRAY SPRINKLER: ~' 80% ////` _I _ / ' PVC SCN EO NIPPCE ~-FlNI$H GRADE ~ ~ . '1C SCH w CONDUR ~(IENGM 0.5 REQUIRED) r'-"-~fEMAlEA6APIER- NGS TD POWER SUPPLY PVC SCH w ELL - ' PVC SCH w STREET Eu IRRIGATION WdNLINE PIPE FVC BCN w CONODU /~/ - ' NGS r/ PvO SCH 80 NIPPEf - ' I ~(IFNCI'H AS REWIRED) ~ SERNICE UNE FROM POIM-OF-CONNECRON ~pyC M4lF ADPPTER ' we scw w 6TREET aL ~~. I. INSTALLACCORDRIG TO NANUFACNRERS SPEGFlGATION5" ~~~~ C~j'~ I ~ 2. INSTALL BACKFLOW PREVENIER AS REWIRED Br LOCAL, ODES AND HFAllH. DEPARTMEM.' Q PVC SCH w TEE OR-ELL 3. VERIFY lOC7L REQUIREMFNnPRIOR TO WSTALIARON. ~ ~ YYY"' PYC LITERAL PIPE 4. CONRRACTOR TO PRICE COMPLETE INSfP11ARON. UNLESS, 7HER+riSE INFORMED. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' POP-UP SPRAY SPRINKLER BAGKr:LOW PREVENTfR ~ ~ •- ?-~u c ~ f LINEAR LENGTH OG WIRE. - ~ ,.~ -~ ``n,~ L ' ~ ROOF CONNECTION LATERAL PIPES ~ " ' ~ 1X WRN CO'vIIt: `1 F ~ 512E ~ ROUND ADJUSTABLE VALVE m O m ~ '^ ~ _, ~ ~ RADE/rDP Of MULCH BOX OR EQUAL ~ WJN O { ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 O CONTROL VALVE: . ~ ~ FlNSH GRADE SUPPLY ~ I ~ ~ t '~ •[+T' N ,~ -', BD NIPPLE (CLOSE) I .. I 2 i V WIRING-TAPE -0~]O" ~ - w ELL _ ~ P LNG _ GATE VALVE. PIPEE VALVE 80 HIPPIE .0 MVN DEP111 ' 0" ' . AS AEOUIRED) ENCHES UNOflt PAYING OF 4) ~ 'T 0 BE BPCKFlLLED WRH cur sLDn w Box P R ss U ,wwa. OOMPACT IN 4• ~. NIPPLE (z RICH LENGTH AND SCH w ELL' p MMNUNE CIFAR4VCE. ~ ~ CLAS6 315 SLEEVE // ~ 7 DMES Si;E - 10~, rws ro soz coMP. . -. i DF MA,N b.. 80 PVC SLEEVE FOR INNE PIPE It N ~ P4C MPINUNE - Wj TRENCHING DETAIL RE w TEE oR Eu ~P/C MALE ADAPTOR t0 MALE ApAPTER I F. I " ~ - PAL PIPE I ,~ 4 LAYER OF PEA GRAVEL -m.~ MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/h GATE VAL E b ; P R T ~ ~ W w N ' ~ ~p8 INCH WISHED GRAVEL YV ( f UDE. ,NSTPLL'BUG h - .. _ h O % ` ~ G 1 OA 5 GALLON $NRiIB ^ p n` ~ - C t V ~ S' ¢ BERM ROIMO &SE SET ROOIBALL 1' ABOVE FINISH ~W. ~ D 0 J' HIGH (REMOVE IN 30 04Y5) . GRADE ~ W Al VINISH GRADE - OCR, ~Q ~i o0/ " ' TOPSOIL 6AC (F - „ , I 1 I I j ~ ~ ~ I ~ • ' ` ' ~ I 1 ILL (SEE SPECS) '11 (1 . \ 1 «:. - I iI rooT TAMP uNAMENOED saa SEE SPECS I SHRUB PLANTING o CM A7 EDGE OF ROOTBPLL f PEPCO P-pe TV&NG W/ -0 '10'a b BUG CAP //~~ ~ j USE (2) PER SHRUD ~ / ~~ (4) PER TREE , - _' ~~ C 1 pEPC0-0VADRA-~ a ~ Q /' / ~ _ BUBBLER r ~ ~ ,~ r ~„ a 9 ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ 0 a D 2 r 2 w 70 REDNOOD TRFE STANK ~ i '~'' `` ~ ry (2 PER TREE): I f Q,' ~ \ ~ ~ ev It A-J Q ~ ~ AC ~ I RUBBER TIES - 18` MIN, -MIST & LOOP ----SCHE-UIE 80- ~ `~ ~_ { ~ ANTI NAIL TO STAI(ES. -MARLEX SWING . 1T _ ~ ~ \1/ ~ ~ SET R00T&YL i' ABOVE GRADE ~ ~ ~- - 'Q j ~1 N ~ \ ~ , 1L 1 ( ~ ~~--MA% LENGIY ( T m BERM PROUND BASE - 3' HIGH 2 SHRUB ~ j I o'=D', rm. ' ', ,~ ' ~ _ /• -'~+- 31 7- F ,`~ ° v ~ 0 U a l {REMOVE m 3o DAYS). 1 ice/ ~. (t) OUTLETS PER I GAL SHRUB-' ~ __ - (~~ r~ .~ FlNISH CRAOE~ ~ (2J WTLEn OVQt 5 CAL SHRUB (4)OUi E OROOTBALL-0O 0 R f5 PEF 15 CAL TREE _ i A 1~. --_- `~ `- ~ f ---- B LL-QB }(~0) ~ d U \ 'J TOPSOIL BACI(fILL ~ ~ (8)'~U' I ' I ~~ PER 2,•. BMX TRF,E (1 'O~ d IooP oR sTRN„HT LSL-t2. ~ ~ wLV V 0 ~ ~ '.' SPACED, MAX 15' APATR (. Ij ~- SCRAPE SIDES OF HOLE I - ~ . -~ MAXLENGTH:pB#.5637-LSL t W/ SHOVEL. . ~ .. - ' 'LSL fi ' 2 0 12 - 0 6 ~ ~ , (~ ~ \7 pe ~ 963J-LSl~t LOOSEN BOTTOM 1' OF SOIL I~ 'LSl 6 1 0 20" 0 10 . ~ ~ {- _ Facts AoHND AND Fool TaMP. ae ~ t6B3J-L~- 12 ®~o " VI ~ ~ _ _ _ LS LLL,6 ' 0 IS' ~ i 2 w 0 NOTE: ON SLOPE COjtl0I7lON5 PEACE OULETS ad' I ' OF ROOTftAII - UPHILL SIDE OF ROOTBW. -. .. ' TREE PLANT{NG QUARDRA BUBBLER ~ p~ `~ c~ c~ VALVES HYBRID CONTROLLER REMOTE C0NTR01: VALVE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 22, 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 October 8, 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 underPlanning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 16, 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 #03-164 (510-06-013) SIDDIQI,19102 Austin Way; Request for design review approval to construct a 5,476 square foot one story residence. The maximum height of the proposed one story residence is 23 feet. The site is zoned R-1 40,000 and the lot size is 47,045 square feet. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) • 2. APPLICATION #03-221, (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant), MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant), 20305 Seagull Way; Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #03- 151; Aneighbor has filed an appeal of an administrative design review application to substantially remodel and construct additions to an existing two-story residence. The applicant proposes a 1,315 square foot addition on the ground floor and a 93 square foot addition on the second floor. The property is 11,598 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. Appellant Frazier has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a "Notice of Intent to Approve." (LATA VASUDEVAN) APPLICATION #03-159 (503-27-029) ESTAHBANATY, 14250 Elva Avenue; Request for design review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 24 feet. The property is 7,500 square feet and is zoned R=1- 10,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) 4. APPLICATION #03-215 (393-26-040) INGLE,19817 Braemar Drive; The applicant has filed an appeal from an administrative decision denying approval of a newly constructed retaining wall located within the front yard of the above noted property. The 55-foot long concrete block wall ranges from 26 inches to 75 inches in height across the front of the property, which is located in the R-1,10,000 District. (ANN WELSH) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - Ciry Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on September 17, 2003. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato ag ca.us • O ~I MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Associate Planner John Livingstone PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 24, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 24, 2003, were. adopted as submitted. (6-0-1; Commissioner Uhl was absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. David Mighdoll, 13664 Ronnie Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its time and said that he wished to follow up from the last meeting. • Stated he had a correction to the minutes on page two, wherein when Commissioner Zutshi asked "if it could be clearly seen that there is a difference in natural grade between this house and its neighboring properties," he replied yes. (Chair Hunter advised Mr. Mighdoll that this clarij~cation would be noted in the current minutes rather than representing. a correction to the already adopted minutes.) • Distributed photographs that he states depicts the grade differences and reminded that the pre- existing grade is in question. • Disagreed with Director Sullivan's contention that this issue is not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. • Declared that anything above the approved 16.5 feet height should not be approved and/or allowed. • Pointed out that the grade depicted on the plans is not correct. • Implored the Commission to take action and that independent review by a third party occurs. Chair Hunter informed Mr. David Mighdoll that the Commission has been provided an update report by staff. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 2 Director Sullivan advised that a copy has also been mailed out to Mr. David Mighdoll in today's mail Chair Hunter added that Mr. David Mighdoll's comments would be included within the minutes. Director Tom Sullivan said that he would also contact the City Attorney to ascertain jurisdiction. Mr. David Mighdoll said that that he was surprised that this issue-was not on the agenda. Chair Hunter said that it was not asked to be placed on the agenda. Mr. David Mighdoll said that he thought it was justified to be agendized. Chair Hunter said that staff will look into this further. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 2, 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). Director Sullivan advised that there is one exception to the appeals regulations on tonight's agenda. The Planning Commission's action on the appeal of the Tree Removal Permit will be final. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. ~*~: PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-195 (510-01-003) OUICKE, 19892 Mendelsohn Lane: Request for design modification to a previously approved project. Specifically, the modification is to the tower element, which is at the rotation point of the structure. The plans approved by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2000, had smooth exterior walls with no window glazing. The height of the tower element has increased and there are now windows. (Continued from Meeting on September 24, 2003) (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that a change to an architectural feature on a tower element is significantly different than the building plans, which is also significantly different from what actually got built. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 3 • Said that the Commission approved this project in November 2000 and that building permits were approved in June 2001. • Stated that the neighbors to the rear, the Bakers, complained about the project. • Added that staff tried to work out this issue between the applicant and the Bakers but was not successful. • Stated that staff had advised Mr. Quicke that he had a few options including the option to seek a change in the Design Review Approval or making the feature look like the approved plans. Mr. Quicke is here to request a change in the Design Review Approval: • Described the policy for any changes to an approval. The initial approving authority must approve any changes. If the Director approves the initial plans, the Director can consider amendments to that approval. For any approval granted by the Planning Commission, any substantive changes must be brought back to the Planning Commission. • Stated that this change is sufficiently significant to warrant being brought back to the Planning Commission for any amendment to the approved plans. Commissioner Schallop asked if the Commission's action this evening is appealable. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. This item could be appeal to Council. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is any other means to deal with this situation. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that Code is pretty hard nosed. For instance, there can be no final occupancy issued if any of the approved architectural details are not installed. • Pointed out that there are two items on this evening's agenda that reflect changes to approved plans, this item and a driveway. • Stated that if changes are minor, there are handled administratively. However, this is not a minor change. Deciding what is minor requires a judgement call by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether this issue would come back to the Planning Commission -were it not a tower element. Director Tom Sullivan said it would due to the height. It requires Design Review and notification to the neighbors. Commissioner Barry: • Stated out that a communication from the applicant's attorney was distributed along with the minutes from the original Planning Commission meeting in November 2000. • Pointed out that she was absent from that meeting. • Read a portion from page 3 into the minutes, wherein Commissioner Jackman asked about the height. Mr. Gould's response was that per Code, the height is two feet above the height of the roofing. Commissioner Schallop asked staff if the Commission should be reviewing this element as if it were a new element. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 4 Chair Hunter asked if it should be treated as if it were not already there. Director Tom Sullivan re lied technical) es. P YY Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bob Quicke, Property Owner and Applicant, 19892 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga: • Stated he would like to discuss the process and his neighbors' reaction. • Advised that the first -key event was in November, when they presented plans to the Planning Commission for approval. • Added that since that time they have had many meetings with the Planning Department and submitted revisions to their plans. • Assured that there is an audit trail with the history of the plan changes. • Informed that the Building plans were approved and they began to build their house. • Said that one change occurred with the glazing system, where they went to a lighter construction as opposed to glass block. • Advised that the project was completed in July 2003. • Said that they were. surprised, shocked and distressed when this issue came up. • Stated that they went to considerable expense to do the right thing and have tried to resolve this matter through several discussions with the Bakers. • Said that they have proposed to plant additional screening trees to fill the gap in the existing screening landscaping. However, no agreement could be reached with the Bakers. • Said he spoke with other neighbors and they are fine with the house and tower as built. • Added that as people stop by, they often say this is a fine looking house. • Stated that it is pretty self evident that they tried to follow City processes. • Asked the Commission to accept this resolution. Commissioner Barry pointed out that per the original minutes the flue was to be two feet above the roofing materials but is now six feet taller than that. Commissioner Schallop said that all could agree that this represents a significant change. Commissioner Barry clarified that this does not simply represent a glazing element change as mentioned by Mr. Quicke. Mr. Bob Quicke said that they moved from a vertical skylight to a horizontal skylight structure. Said that if they had been advised by the City that this was a material change, they would have come back before the Commission prior to implementing that change. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Quicke. what alternatives there .are today short of matching the original plans. Mr. Bob Quicke said that the options they are proposing range from additional landscape screening to changing the color scheme so windows on this feature are not so prevalent. They are proposing screening trees as the best option being the most pragmatic with the minimum impact. Mr. Bill Gould, Project Architect: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 5 • Clarified that the flue is situated two feet above the roof per Code requirements. • Added that the skylight is four feet higher than the ridge as approved. • Said that while a material change was made, they are not trying to deceive anybody by going with a horizontal versus vertical skylight feature. Commissioner Garakani asked for a clarification on the differences between the approved and installed skylight. Mr. Bill Gould: • Said that the horizontal slopes while a vertical or clearstory skylight is the same as a window. • Added that they had to determine best how to build this skylight so it would not leak. • Reminded that the change was reviewed by Building when they went from glass block. to pane glass. Chair Hunter asked Director Tom Sullivan if he was on staff when this project initially went through the review process. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Mr. Bill Gould: • Stated that they never thought that they were doing something that was not open book. • Said that this change was reviewed in an open way and that they worked with the City. • Added that this was not slipped through but rather was a major aspect of the plan review. Ms. Jolie Houston, Attorney for Mr. Bob Quicke: • Stated her desire to clarify for the record that the Commission can make the necessary findings to grant this change. • Stated that this ,skylight feature does not interfere with the privacy and/or views of the Bakers. There is no impact on natural landscaping. • Added that the Quickes have offered to plant additional landscaping. • Stated that this change has no impact on the height or bulk and is compatible with the structure. The skylight is no more bulky than a chimney. • Informed that the original skylight approved as four feet tall while the revised skylight is only slightly taller at five feet, ten inches. Again, not taller than a chimney. • Said that this home is compatible with other two-story homes in the neighborhood and is consistent with the Design policies. • Advised that they have relied in good faith on the City's processes and that it is unfair and unreasonable to deny the Quickes' request. Mr. Jay Ross, Attorney for the Bakers (the rear neighbors to the Quicke residence).: • Said that they provided a letter and photos taken from the second story window of the Bakers' home. • Stated that this change represents a very significant impact on the Bakers' views. • Added that something has been constructed without neighbors having the opportunity to comment • prior to said construction. • Read from the minutes of the original meeting (November 2000) wherein it is clear that additional screening landscaping was already conditioned as part of the original hearing and motion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 6 • Pointed out that some of the previous screening is no longer there and now more of the Quicke house is visible from the Baker residence. (Showed, photos from 2002 and some taken recently for comparison. ) • Stated that prior Planning Commission proceedings need to be honor and that this element was discussed originally. • Said that they are now stuck with an element that is not consistent with the original plans. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Ross from where on the second floor at the Baker home these photographs were taken. Mr. Jay Ross said that they were taken from a second floor bedroom. Commissioner Barry asked about the contention from the Baker side that the feature is eight to twelve feet high with opposing counsel says it is six feet high. Mr. Jay Ross said that their measurements offered are an approximation. Commissioner Schallop said that Mr. Jay Ross and his clients, the Bakers, have expressed concern over the process that allowed this element change. Asked if they are comfortable with the process now that this change is before the Commission for consideration and where it will be considered as a new element. Mr. Jay Ross said that it could not be ignored that this element already exists. He added that it is only fair to consider equities for the Bakers also. He added that there is an indication that the Planning Commission may have gone a different direction if it were not already in place. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this item has received public notice with the neighbors being advised of this hearing. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. This matter was noticed to property owners within 500 feet. Mr. Jay Ross pointed out .that the Baker home is located. directly behind the Quicke home. Other neighbors don't have as direct an impact. Commissioner Nagpal reiterated that the Commission will consider this as if it were a new element: Mrs. Sandy Baker, 15069 Park Drive, Saratoga: • Declared that Saratoga is the most beautiful town, a restful peaceful place. • Added that the Quickes are lovely people and they are happy to have them as neighbors. • Pointed out that their home is the only home directly impacted by this skylight tower, which is located dead center as viewed from their master bedroom window. • Said that when she first noticed this element, she called the City and found out this was a material change from the approved plans. • Stated that she trusted the City. • Added that while this is not consistent with the original plans, an interim person approved this change. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 7 • Said that this is her reality and she is emotional since her voice was not represented and did not matter. • Said that this is a si nificant intrusive structure that is visible from her bedroom and looks like a g lighthouse. • Stated that they don't see what we see. This feature is right in the middle and one's eye. focuses upon it, like it would focus upon a piece of art centered on a wall. • Stated that this intrudes on her view and she should have had a right to express an opinion. • Said that she was let down, that she trusted the process and that this is a huge concern for her. • Added that this might impact the future sale of her home and that it would take ten years for pine trees to grow sufficiently tall to obscure this skylight from view from her home. • Said that she feels violated and that this is a huge issue for both she and her husband. • Said that she had thanked Mr: Quicke for his efforts to correct but that she wants to see the skylight taken back to what was approved. Commissioner Garakani asked what was approved and whether the Bakers had seen the original plans. Mrs. Sandy Baker replied a skylight but what has been constructed is a turret. She added that her husband has seen the original plans. Mr. Jerry Baker agreed that he had seen the original plans from 2000. Commissioner Schallop said that this is really off point. The Commission must review this element tonight and make a decision. i Commissioner Garakani said he simply wants to understand both sides, the Quickes and the Bakers. He asked Mr. Baker if he had reviewed the original plans. Mr. Jerry Baker said that while he is not an architect, what is there now is not what he originally saw. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Commissioners have both the original approved plans and the revised construction plans in their packets. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Mrs. Baker for speaking from her heart. Added that she thought the site was well screened except for one spot. She asked Mrs. Baker how she would feel if mature trees could be installed that would create an instant green wall. Mrs. Sandy Baker said she would feel as if she were being boxed in and added that the leaves would. also fall off, eliminating their screening effect. Mr. Michael Barry, 19935 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga: • Advised that he lives across the street from the Quickes. • .Said that while he cannot see this from the same perspective as from the Bakers' bedroom, while approaching this home from either direction, he finds this home to be a pleasant change from a range house mentality. • Added that this home is not some monstrosity but rather is a refreshing change from monotonous "MacMansions," offering an interesting change in architecture. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 8 ~ Said that this issue is simply a tempest in a teapot with just a couple of degrees of view impacted, a narrow window in that view. • Said that this blends in well. ~ Reminded that mature trees are not cheap and the leaf issue is a moot point as conifers do not shed .their needles all at once. ~ Said that this is simply one person's angst and that this skylight feature will not impact anyone's quality of life. Mr. Bob Quicke said that he has engaged a landscape gardener that will investigate possible screening trees. He assured that he is very serious about this screening. Chair Hunter asked why the tree canopy appears smaller than before. Mr. Bob Quicke said that the silk tree had a number of dead branches, which were pruned out. These will grow back in even better. Said that it is his intention to get the right landscaping in place to have an immediate screening impact. Mr. Bill Gould said he wanted to clarify that the skylight is significantly shorter than a chimney and that Code dictates a chimney height. He added that it appears to him that the two photographs taken from the Baker residence were taken from different vantagepoints. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Gould if they are willing to change the color of the windows. Mr. Bill Gould said that there is a high contrast between the window trim and the paint behind it. They . are willing to paint the vinyl trim of the window although it would have to be repainted regularly for maintenance. Commissioner Barry asked if the trim is intrical to the glass and if they could replace it. Mr. Bill Gould replied yes, the trim is intrical to the glass. He replied no, they could not replace the trim from between the dual panes of glass. Commissioner Garakani asked the reason for the skylight feature. Mr. Bill Gould replied to bring in light to an interior area of the house. Mr. Bob Quicke said that while other options were considered, they were not accepted and landscape screening was settled upon as the best option: Mr. Jerry Baker said he wanted to clarify that he took both pictures from the balcony off their master bedroom. Added that this is not simply a skylight but rather a tower. When it is lit up at night, planes will try to land. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Schallop asked when considering bulk if they should look at individual elements or the . house as a whole. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 9 Director Tom Sullivan replied the whole house. • Commissioner Nagpal asked if they should use the design criteria. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Barry: • Advised that in the past, the Commission has looked at view and privacy impact issues very carefully and took a strong stand. If something looks directly into someone's living space, it is either mitigated or not allowed. However, a view issue is looked at differently. It is fair to say that more attention is paid to front elevation view (bulk and mass) issues and that an element that stands out from the front elevation would not be looked upon favorably. • Said that this element looks nice from the front but stands out from the rear of the house. Commissioner Garakani asked Commissioner Barry what she thinks now. Commissioner Barry said that she would wait to hear from everyone else before commenting further. Chair Hunter suggested to staff that it would not be a bad idea to establish a specific definition of the term "view." Commissioner Garakani stated that privacy and view are two separate issues. • Commissioner Schallop: • Agreed with Commissioner Barry about review of front versus rear elevations. • Said that he is looking at this element tonight as a new element with a-focus on Design Review findings. • Added that it does not help to look at what occurred in the past but rather is worthwhile to look at objective findings. • Said that avoiding unreasonable interference with views and privacy are important but that there are no privacy impacts here since one cannot see out from inside this home. through the skylight. • Stated that he would not want to look at this element from his own home but that the role of the Planning Commission is to determine if this is unreasonable. • Said that he is leaning to the idea that screening landscaping is the reasonable solution that would best resolve this issue. • Added that he can make the necessary findings to leave the element as it is with mitigation measures. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated her agreement with Commissioner Schallop for the most part. • Agreed that there is no privacy impact issue as no one will look out toward the Baker home from this tower. • Supported the provision of screening landscaping and changing the color of the white vinyl trim on the windows of the skylight. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that there are two key issues, privacy and obstruction of views. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 10 • Agreed that the skylight does not result in privacy impacts. • Added that view impacts can be mitigated with landscape screening. • • Advised that the color scheme recommendations could soften the impact of the skylight structure itself. • Said that the impact is larger from the back than from the front elevation. Chair Hunter: • Said that this is very difficult. • Said that the turret stands out with six windows around it and that the windows have to be painted out. • Suggested the planting of a big redwood on either the Baker or Quicke property as this is a rapid growing tree. • Advised that were this coming before the Commission brand new, she would not like for this element to be this tall. Commissioner Barry said that she is comfortable with the general direction the Commission is taking and suggested a Condition of Approval that would either specify the specific screening tree or require the neighbors to agree to one together. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Condition require a Redwood tree or tree of similar characteristics. Commissioner Garakani: • • Stated that if this were before him tonight, he would not accept it. • Said that if the Commission is supposed to look at this as a new design, he would suggest that several windows facing toward the rear neighbors be blocked or darkened so they will not be visible at night. • Added that as much as the Quickes want daylight in their home during the day from this skylight, the Bakers want no extra light to be visible at night from-this skylight. • Suggested having the designer look into these suggestions. Chair Hunter reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bob Quicke said that they could remove the lights from the tower but hoped that-with the screening landscaping, they would be allowed to leave the color of the tower as is. Mr. Jay Ross asked that the Commission give specific direction. Commissioner Barry said that-she was interested in the Bakers' preference. Mrs. Sandy Baker said that she would like the vinyl replaced as having a single color could help obscure the skylight tower. She added that the metal on top is large. Chair Hunter reminded that the flue is required by law. Mrs. Sandy Baker expressed a preference for landscaping that grows quickly. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 11 _ Mr. Jay Ross said that he would defer to staff expertise to decide on which tree .specimen could achieve . that objective. Mr. Bill Gould asked that mitigation be worked through with staff. Chair Hunter said that if necessary any action can be appealed. Director Tom Sullivan suggested an evergreen with dense foliage large enough to fill the gap in the existing screening landscaping. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether it might be possible to make the roof at a higher pitch to screen the flue. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He said that the two feet of height separation is required under the Building Code. Mr. Bill Gould said that-both the Building and Fire Codes have this specific requirement. Commissioner Garakani had suggested amending one of the proposed Conditions to allow no emission of light at night. This proposed amendment died for lack of a second. Another amendment was proposed to remove all contrast (including interior grid) from the windows but did not pass. (Two voted for, four voted against and one absence). • Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved a design modification to a previously approved project (Application #03-195) to revise the tower element height -and allow the addition of windows to the tower, on property located at 19892 Mendelsohn Lane, with the following Conditions of Approval: • The flood light fixtures are to be permanently removed from the skylight tower; • The white vinyl exterior trim of the windows is to be painted to match the base color of the house and said painted trim is to be property maintained; and. • Evergreen screening is to be maintained to sufficiently screen the entire back property line, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None Chair Hunter reminded that there is a 15 day. appeal period for this action. ~~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 • APPLICATION #03-211 (503-69-030) Appellant CURRY Site Location - 21851 Via Regina: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal- Permit to remove two Eucalyptus trees. The two Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 12 Eucalyptus trees are approximately three feet and eleven feet in circumference. They are located at the periphery of the property. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that a neighbor has appealed an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit due to erosion concerns. • Stated that the Arborist's report described the two Eucalyptus trees as being non-native, non- ornamental with weak structure, poor maintenance and messy. The report contains replacement recommendations. Commissioner Nagpal asked if all five findings are required. Director Tom Sullivan replied a preponderance should be met. Commissioner Schallop asked if it was a totality or a balancing of the required findings. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission should not look at just one finding, it should be more inclusive. Commissioner Schallop asked if the Commission should consider the easement issue raised or if that issue represents a civil matter. Commissioner Barry asked about the status of the easement and the contention that the appellant is the holder of the controlling interest for this easement. • Director Tom Sullivan replied that there is a fine line between a civil easement issue and a City action for a Tree Removal Permit. Commissioner Schallop asked about the relevance of the reasons given for the tree removal. Director Tom Sullivan said that the reasons should be taken into consideration. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Robert Kahn, attorney for the appellant: • Identified his clients as Mr. Lawrence and Mrs. Curry, a married couple. • Said they had provided the Commission with a letter. • Described the easement that recorded land rights and stated that the Lawrence/Currys have control of the area where these trees are located: • Said that the stated reasons for removal included allergies and concerns about danger to the neighbor's residence. • Pointed out that the trees are not located anywhere near any structure, being at least 125 feet away or more. • Added that these two trees, which represent an oasis, are actually located closer to the Lawrence/Curry residence and there is nothing in danger from these trees. These trees are located off to one side of the property and that they are not even sure why removal is even being sought. • Said that there are also two large-heritage Eucalyptus trees located at the entrance of Via Regina. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 13 • Stated that the two properties have rights to control this area. This area represents a slope control area for the Lawrence/Curry property. The Lawrence/Curry driveway is contiguous to the area where these trees are situated. These trees are the only plantings in this area. • Informed that at one time, one person owned these two properties. • Stated that the criteria within the Code requires five findings of support. • Said that these trees serve a purpose and are attractive and there is no real reason for their removal. • Pointed out that the purpose of a Tree Ordinance is to save trees, including these more than 30-year- old trees. Commissioner Schallop asked if as a holder of an easement, whether the Lawrence/Curry family should have been a co-applicant to the processing of a Tree Removal Permit. Mr. Robert .Kahn said that while the easement does not mention exclusive rights, it does mention controlling rights by the Lawrence/Curry property. Commissioner Schallop asked if the rights include the issue of tree removal on the easement. Mr. Robert Kahn said that it includes issues of grading, drainage and planting. Trees represent a planting. Commissioner Schallop asked about whether these trees are removed with the trunk left intact. If the roots are left intact, there would be no impacts on the erosion control function. Mr. Robert Kahn said that while he is not an Arborist, he knows that once a tree is cut it is a matter of time before it stops holding the earth. Suggested an alternative of having an Arborist determine which limbs have a potential for danger and removing those limbs only. Commissioner Schallop asked whether Mr. Robert Kahn's clients could plant other trees in the easement as replacement of these removed Eucalyptus trees. Mr. Robert Kahn advised that the other property owners (Cosentinos) have placed a fence at the zero property line and .have blocked access by the Lawrence/Currys to this area. Added that there is no love lost between these two households. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Robert Kahn whether the Lawrence/Currys have planted on this easement. Mr. Robert Kahn said that they have maintained the easement. Commissioner Nagpal asked if that included planting anything new. Mr. Robert Kahn said he did not know but believed that they have maintained rather than planting new landscaping. Mr. Tom Lawrence said that previous property owners planted the two Eucalyptus. Ms. Jennifer Cosentino, 21851 Via Regina, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 14 • Stated that she loves trees and finds it ironic to be here before the Commission on the issue of tree removal. • Said that she has planted 14 trees on her property had has plans for another 14 trees. There are already 28 mature oaks on her property. • Advised that they had received a Tree Removal Permit but her neighbors appealed. • Said that she believes these two Eucalyptus trees to be a double threat to both her family and home. • Pointed out that her residence has a shake roof. • Said that the larger of the two Eucalyptus trees is located 75 feet from her unborn son's nursery. • Cited as an example the huge Eucalyptus tree that came crashing down at Saratoga School. • Added that these Eucalyptus trees are responsible for 20 deaths in Oakland and are considered combustible due to the oils they contain, of concern due to the shake roof on their home. • Said that Connie Curry removed about 75 percent from three Eucalyptus trees on her own property about five months ago. • Declared that they have been harassed and lied about. • Said that they are not moving and that this represents a control issue rather than a tree issue. • Advised that she would be giving birth to her son next Thursday. Mr. Matt Cosentino, 21851 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Said that these are but two Eucalyptus trees on an Oak studded property. One of these Eucalyptus trees is small, the other is large. • Stated that these trees are dangerous. • Said that this .removal would not infringe upon the Lawrence/Curry easement. The easement right is for slope control and there is not a trail. • Pointed out that Eucalyptus trees are shallow and prone to falling over. They would not prevent soil erosion. • Added that this is not a major hillside and that this tree could actually contribute to soil erosion. • Stated that they are willing to plant replacement trees in the area and are willing to get consent from the easement holders on what species is replanted. • Said denial of the Tree Removal Permit would mean that they are losing the right.to the enjoyment of their property. • Added that the health and safety powers held by the City should grant it the authority to allow this removal despite the easement. • Advised that there is still access to the easement area from the Lawrence/Curry property through a gate. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has read the staff report and that he finds the bashing of Eucalyptus trees to be troubling. • Opined that this applicant has not met the criteria for tree removal. • Asked why buy this specific property if they are allergic to Eucalyptus trees. • Said that he is concerned that there is no Arborist's report and/or replacement plan. • Stated that the Tree Removal Permit process needs to be tuned up. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Corson if he had gone to the site. Mr. Tom Corson replied no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 15 Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Agreed that there is a lot of unnecessary Eucalyptus bashing. • Said that Eucalyptus are beautiful trees and so what if they are not native or ornamental. • Stated that these two Eucalyptus trees are large enough to be protected. • Said that a tree lives because of its leaves and branches and that erosion control is a big issue. It is important to protect the soil. • Stated that she has seen the impact from soil erosion following tree removals. • Suggested that good forestry practices be followed in this City. • Said that there are no grounds to remove these trees and the City's staff member who inspected the trees raised no issues. • Expressed her hope that the Commission will side with the appellant. Commissioner Garakani questioned Ms. Elizabeth Lara's tree knowledge as compared to an Arborist, pointing out that the Arborist has said that stumps staying in ground will continue to help prevent erosion. Mr. Der Torrosin, 21977 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Declared that these trees are on Cosentino property. • Said that about 10 years ago, another Eucalyptus tree fell from the Lawrence property onto the roadway. • Stated that erosion control is a big issue. Mrs. Jennifer Cosentino: • Stated that Eucalyptus trees poison the ground and nothing can be planted beneath these trees. • Said that this area has been raw soil for the last 30 years and nothing has been done to improve the landscaping in this area. They want to do something now. Mr. Robert Kahn said that the Cosentino home is uphill from these trees and they could not fall onto their home even if the tree were likely to fall uphill. Added that the easement was in place when the Cosentinos purchased their property. The fact that the Lawrence/Currys had control over this easement area was known by the Cosentinos when they purchased their property and that the concern over danger from these trees is not supported. Commissioner Garakani asked who overall controls this land and would assume liability if something should occur and this tree should fall over causing damage. Mr. Robert Kahn said both properties would be held responsible. This is anon-exclusive easement. However, there is no eminent danger of either of these trees falling over. Commissioner Garakani rhetorically asked what if one of these trees falls and lands on a car of someone visiting the Lawrence/Curry property. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Hunter: • Advised that she knows a lot about Eucalyptus trees and disagrees with the Arborist's report. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 16 • Stated that Eucalyptus trees don't drop the most limbs, Oak trees do. • Added that 450,000 Eucalyptus trees were planted in the San Diego area and these trees represent a huge part of California. They have been planted to serve as a barrier between fruit trees. • Said that using wood chips is not a preferable soil erosion control as they will simply float down the street in a good rain. • Said that she does not find these two Eucalyptus trees particularly attractive but agreed that they would fall downhill rather than uphill. • Disagreed that Eucalyptus trees poison the ground. It's difficult to grown anything beneath any tree. • Said that there is no apparent reason to remove these trees but that they should be trimmed since it does not appear that they have been trimmed over the last 30 years. Commissioner Zutshi agreed with Chair Hunter and said she cannot support removal. Added that Oaks shed also as evidence with the fact that she has to clean out her pool several times a day to remove debris from the surrounding Oaks. Commissioner Barry agreed. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated his belief that the landowner should have the right for the enjoyment of their property. • Said that he loves trees and believes these owners will mitigate the removal of these trees by planting replacements. • Advised that he has seen Eucalyptus trees fall down onto homes although he does not see an eminent danger to this family here. • Expressed support for this Tree Removal Permit with the replanting of the area. • Suggested the method of topping off the tree, leaving the trunk and roots in ground to serve the function to prevent soil erosion. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that other types of trees also fall over. Chair Hunter added that it is an urban legend that Eucalyptus trees fall over more often than other species of tree. Eucalyptus trees have been widely planted for erosion control. Commissioner Schallop asked staff for the Arborist's general impression of Eucalyptus trees. Director. Tom Sullivan said that the Eucalyptus tree can drop limbs when there is a significant temperature change in a day. Said that he has seen them planted to serve as wind breaks for strawberry fields. Their wood is strong and one has to consider their location. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that in general she hates to see a tree free from disease come down. • Added that she is able to make the argument to support a few of the required findings. • Agrees that there is no apparent eminent danger from these two Eucalyptus trees. However, the applicant wants to remove them for the enjoyment of their property. • Said if the allergy to these trees can be documented medically, she would take that impact seriously into consideration. • Supported the idea that retaining the stumps could take care of the erosion issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 17 • Pointed out that there are more than 40 trees on this property, which helps put this removal into perspective. • Said that she could actually go either way here but that she hates to see removal without compelling reasons, including clear health issues. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that these Eucalyptus trees are a mess. Eucalyptus trees are not a natural tree to California, having been imported. • Added that Eucalyptus trees do break. • Said that these property owners should not be stuck with trees planted by the previous property owner. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out and questioned why the staff member inspecting the Eucalyptus trees only marked off one of the criteria on the inspection report. Director Tom Sullivan said he could not answer why and pointed out that this was not done by an Arborist but rather within a Building inspection report. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that in future more than one criteria should be met to support such a report. Commissioner Barry said it does not make sense not to have a replanting plan and questioned how replanting can occur if the stumps are left in the ground. Said that it is important to maintain the M hillside in its existing condition. Commissioner Nagpal suggested replanting with native trees. Commissioner Barry agreed and proposed either Oaks or Redwood trees. Chair Hunter advised that when the stump is dead, it loses its ability to hold soil within five years. Commissioner Garakani disagreed. Chair Hunter pointed out that she studied to be a landscape architect at UCLA. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Chair Hunter, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal and overturned the Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Eucalyptus trees on property located at 21851 Via Regina, due to the following findings that did not support this removal: • The trees are not diseased or in eminent danger nor do they interfere with utilities; • The property owners can have the economic enjoyment of their property without taking down these trees; • The topography argues in favor of leaving these trees to help prevent soil • erosion; • The trees do provide scenic beauty; and • This property is able to support these trees; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 18 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi • NOES: Garakani, Nagpal, and Schallop ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None This resulted in a tie vote. Upon consultation with staff, it was determined that the appropriate follow up action is to bring this vote back to the full seven-member Commission to break this tie vote. Commissioner Uhl will be asked to watch the meeting tape prior to the next meeting. Mr. Robert Kahn asked if the Commission at that time will accept additional information. Director Tom Sullivan said no. This will simply be on the agenda as a Commissioners Item for a vote. Mr. Robert Kahn said that his client had been denied access to copies from the file. Director Tom Sullivan said that everything in the file is of public record. However, any plans that are copyrighted cannot be copied. Mrs. Jennifer Cosentino again questioned liability should a tree limb fall. Director Tom Sullivan advised Mrs. Cosentino to consult with her own attorney to receive the appropriate response to that question. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-182 (397-04-026) - FORMICO, 14456 Sobey Road: The Applicant requests modification of building plans and development conditions to add a circular driveway to the proposed project. The gross lot size is approximately 61,855 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for the modification of building plans. • Said that if the Commission initially approved a project, changes to modify that approval must come back to the Commission. • Stated that this project consisted of a single entrance and the applicant wishes to convert that into a circular driveway. • Said that the original approval was granted in January 2001. The project is now completely framed up. • Said that the project site has a large 166-foot frontage. There is no street parking along the applicant's side of the street. A circular driveway will allow guest parking to occur on site. • Said that this change would have a minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood as half of the homes in the area include circular driveway. • Said that this proposal results in the removal of two trees. The City Arborist has looked at the site and feels that the other trees on the property will more than mitigate the removal of these two trees. • Added that the applicant will be planting a large, number of 24-inch box trees on this property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 19 • Recommended approval. Chair Hunter said that one of the proposed trees for removal is leaning over but asked why the second tree needs to be removed. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the driveway could impact that tree. By removing these two trees, the circular driveway will not touch the canopy of the other trees in-the area. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the lot coverage has been recalculated as a result of this driveway change. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Linda Formico, Applicant and Property Owner, 14456 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Said that she is available for any questions. • Advised that once they began construction on their home, it became clear that this property needed a circular driveway. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the tree protection fencing. Ms. Linda Formico said that they worked with City staff on placement of protective fencing. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that the applicant is working with the Arborist on the entire project. Commissioner Nagpal stated that she loves circular driveways and feels that it is a good idea to use them on Sobey Road. She stated that this circular driveway will be an asset and she is all for it. Commissioner Barry agreed. Commissioner Garakani agreed, saying he has no objection. Commissioner Zutshi agreed, saying that this is a good idea in this area. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved Application #03-182 to allow modification of building plans and development conditions to add a circular driveway to the proposed project at 14456 Sobey Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: -None ~~~ .. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 20 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #03-183 CITYWIDE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING • MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishes development standards for mixed-use developments in the Commercial and office zones of the City of Saratoga. A mixed-use development is one that has commercial or office along the street frontage and residential uses in the rear or on a second floor. The proposed amendment implements Programs 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element of the General Plan. (TOM SULLIVAN) Due to the lateness of the hour, Director Sullivan suggested that this item be continued to the next agenda. ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS PC Minutes from Previous PC Meetings: Chair Hunter advised staff that it is important that the Commission be provided with previous Planning Commission minutes for any items returning to the Commission from staff rather than from the attorney of an applicant. -02-182 Sa archi 13089 uito Road and whether this ro~ect still Discussion of A~plicati~n #~3 requires a Studx Session with the Planning Commission: Director Tom Sullivan advised that m the opinion of Assistant Planner Ann Welsh there is no need for a Study Session on this project. The Commissioners concurred with that impression. COMMUNICATIONS Written: City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on September 3, 2003. AD TOi:fRN1VIENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2003, at 7':00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • .. ~~ :~ • :7 ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I Application No./Location: 03-164;19102 Austin Way Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Tri Hong, Designer Mr. &t Mrs.. Siddiqi, Property Owner Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planne~ ~ Date: October 22, 2003 APN: 510-06-013 Department Head: ~®®~®1 19102 Austin Way Application No. 03-164; 19102 Austin Way -- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 7/21/03 Application complete: 9/05/03 Public hearing conducted: 10/22/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests design review approval to construct cone-story single-family residence greater than 18 feet in height, which requires planning commission approval. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 ft. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,476 square feet. Materials and colors include, an oatmeal stucco exterior and brown the roof. The gross lot size is 47,045 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. The lot has double frontage on Austin Way and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road the proposal includes access from both roads. The facade of the proposed residence is located on Saratoga Los Gatos Road. The existing residence is to be demolished with the exception of the existing foundation and an existing fireplace. The existing residence is 2,900 square feet STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the design review application 03-164 by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Documentation of neighbor notification. 3. Arborist Report, dated August 4, 2003. 4. Mailing labels for project notification . 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". • ®~~®2 Application No. 03-164; 19102 Austin Way 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: 47,045 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3.5% GRADING REQUIRED: None PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT EXACTIONS: An enchroachment permit shall be required for any work in the public right of way. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction of a new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: An oatmeal stucco exterior and brown the roof material are proposed • 000003 Application No. 03-164; 19102 Austin Way Proposed Code Requirements Lot Maximum Allowable Coverage: 23 % ~ 35% Residence 5,476 sq. ft. Driveway, patios, & walkways. 5,050 sq. ft. TOTAL 10,526 sq. ft. (Impervious Surface) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Residence 5,476 sq. ft. • TOTAL 5,476 sq. ft. 6,160 sq. ft. i Setbacks: rement Minimum Requ Front 55 ft. 30 ft. Rear 100+ ft. 50 ft. Side Right Side 22 ft. 20 ft. Left Side 28 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable Height: 23 ft. 26 ft. 1!. (~~®4®4 Application No. 03-164; 19102 Austin Way PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct aone-story single-family residence greater than 18 feet in height which requires planning commission approval. The existing residence is to be demolished with the exception of the existing foundation and an existing fireplace. The existing residence is 2,900 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 ft. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,476 square feet. Materials and colors include, an oatmeal stucco exterior and brown the roof. The gross lot size is 47,045 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. The lot has double frontage on Austin Way -and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road the proposal. includes access from both roads. The facade of the proposed residence is located on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Existing residences in the project vicinity are a variety of architectural styles. Lot sizes in area are typically one acre or more. There is a mixture of one and two story residences in the project vicinity. The generous proposed setbacks from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Austin Way greatly reduce the visibility, mass and bulk of the proposed structure from the public right-of--way. Decorative details such as shutters, quoins (stone-like blocks arranged vertically at building corners), and molded arch window trim with a center keystone add architectural interest to the proposed residence. Additionally, hipped rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the residence. For comparison, the overall design of the proposed residence is similar to a residence approved at the September 10, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The project approved at the September 10, 2003 meeting included a maximum height of 24 ft. The applicant proposed a 25 ft. tall residence for this site. Staff required a reduction in maximum height; therefore, the designer revised the rooflines and reduced the maximum height of the proposed residence to 23 ft. Heritage Preservation Commission The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the proposed project because it is located along Austin Way, a designated Heritage Lane. The proposed Austin Way improvements include: resurfacing an existing five-foot tall retaining wall; replacing an existing chain link fence with athree-foot wrought iron fence setback five feet from the retaining wall; installation of six-foot wrought iron entrance gates, two seven-foot stucco columns are to mark the entrance gates; and a driveway apron cut is proposed. At the October 14, 2003 Heritage Preservation meeting the HPC required. the following conditions: that the existing retaining wall remain unimproved, as is. Portions of the existing wall which are removed for the driveway cut shall be reused by being placed on the retaining walls which line the driveway. The HPC also required that there be no disturbance to the brink road of Austin Way. Lastly, the HPC required that low plants be installed along the Application No. 03-164; 19102 Austin Way existing retaining wall. With these project conditions the HPC did not find the project would have a negative impact on Austin Way. Neighbor Notification To assist .applicants' with their responsibilities for neighbor notification prior to the public hearing and to keep the process of neighbor notification consistent, clear, and concise staff has created a "Neighbor Notification Template" for the applicants to present to their neighbors. Neighbor notification templates for this project have been provided for, each of the adjacent neighbors (see attachment 2). Arborist Report The Arborist Report, dated August 4, 2003 details project impacts on the existing trees. Four olive trees will be significantly damaged by the proposed driveway (#4, #5, #6, #8). The Arborist concluded that the trees are non-native and create a significant mess from olives dropping and that removal of these trees is appropriate. The applicant does not wish to remove these trees until their health noticeably declines. Prior to releasing the tree bond ($16,460) the applicant shall be required to plant replacement trees for the olive trees on site. In the future, when the olive trees are removed because their health is compromised, the owner will plant trees in the same location. The plans have been revised, as required by the aborist, to preserve the health of tree #7 (coast live oak). Design Review Findings Staff finds the proposed project 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: • Decorative details such as shutters, quoins (stone-like blocks arranged vertically at building corners), and molded arch window trim with a center keystone add architectural interest to the proposed residence. • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • The generous proposed setbacks from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Austin Way greatly reduce the visibility, mass and bulk of the proposed structure from the- public right-of--way. • Materials and colors are earth tone and will blend well with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include an oatmeal stucco exterior and brown the roof material. • No trees are proposed for removal at this time; however, four non-native olive trees will be significantly damaged. When the olive trees are removed because their health has declined the applicant will plant trees in the same location. Native replacement ®~~Q~~ Application No. 03-164; 19102 Austin Way • .trees equal to the value of trees are required prior to the release of the tree bond (see attachment 3). • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate neighbors support the project; therefore, view and privacy issues have been addressed (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 03-164 by adopting the attached resolution (see attachment 1). • • ~~®~®~ C] Attachment 1 • ~~'~~Q~B APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 03-164 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Siddiqi; 19102 Austin Way WHEREAS, the City of .Saratoga Planning Commission has .received an application for Design Review to construct a new one-story residence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, 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: • Decorative details such as shutters, quoins (stone-like blocks arranged vertically at building corners), and molded arch window trim with a center keystone add architectural interest to the proposed residence. • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • The generous proposed setbacks from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Austin Way greatly reduce the visibility, mass and bulk of the proposed structure from the public right-of--way. • Materials 'and colors are earth tone and will blend well with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include an oatmeal stucco exterior and brown the roof material. • No trees are proposed for removal at this time; however, four non-native olive trees will be significantly damaged. When the olive trees are removed because their health has declined the owner will plant trees in the same location. Native replacement trees equal to the value of trees are required prior to the release of the tree bond. ~~1(~~~9 • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate neighbors support the project.. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 03-164 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 2. The proposed color shall be of an earth tonality for example a brown, beige, or tan and not a pink or orange color. 3. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated August 4, 2003 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 5. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 6. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 7. The maximum height of the house shall not exceed 23 feet as shown on "Exhibit A." 8. 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. 9. The applicant or his designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. CITY ARBORIST • ~~~~~0 13. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report dated August 4, 2003 shall be followed. 14. 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 15. The existing retaining wall shall remain unimproved, as is. 16. Portions of the existing wall which are removed for the driveway cut shall be reused by being placed on the retaining walls which line the driveway. 17. There shall be no disturbance to the brink road of Austin Way. 18. Low plants shall be installed along the existing retaining wall. PUBLIC WORKS 19. An enchroachment permit shall be issued prior to any work in the public right of way. 20. Disturbance of the brick road shall be avoided. 21. No trenching in the brick road shall be permitted. 22. Discuss any necessary work during the Encroachment Permit process. CITY ATTORNEY 23. 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. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 24. When the olive trees are removed because their health is compromised, the owner will plant trees in the same location. 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 City 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 22nd day of October 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 ®~~12 • Attachment 2 • ~~~~~t3 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~3 ~3 PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~~ST~ N L.S ~Y Applicant Name: R ZIT ~ ~ ~ ~ S t ~ ~ l 0.t Application Number: ~ 3 - ~ ~~ SEP 0 5 2003. CITY OF SARATOGA ~nnngAl iR~ITY nFVEl,QPMFTMrF The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): !Z: bor Name: - f ~ , ~~~ Nci~h Neighbor Address Printed: 1 t1 a ~ ~- ~ ~ l.V y~~ Planning Department ~~ 6~ ~9~ ~al~1 Neighbor Phone #: • • ~~~~~~ City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date:~~3 03 PROJECT ADDRESS: I q ~ ~ ~- PtUST! IV inS t~Y 21V1.Ar`~ ~ ~ Pct P~ s ~ ~ ~ 10.1 Applicant Name: Application Number: ~~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~~o~~ D SEP 0 5 2003 C[TY OF SARATOGA ~~r~~?RAT1AdITV nF1!>a(,OPI•dF''" The Saratoga Planning Commission-requires .applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the pa~blic hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and isstces when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Siaj. j`~and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. L~1My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the Cify's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion ~i~ith the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: T= S G ~~'^ °` J Neighbor Address: o Q ~" ~ Q v.,S -~'i vt j~~ S p p Neighbor Phone #: ~D A- '~ ~ ~- 9 91L Signature: Printed: ~J 4 ~S ~ ~ / ~.0 0 3 City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~C1~~,.5 Neighbor Notification Template for . Development Applications Date: ~ ~~ ~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~~5~"~ ~ ~~~ Applicant Name: ~ ZiT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ f ~i Application Number: ~ ~ `" ~ ~- ~t The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. 77ze Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Cofrtmission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they-may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. L~dMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following::I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion . with the applicant, have not been addressed': My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Nei bor Name: ~ ~ ~,~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~~~ ~ ,~- Neighbor Phone #: `t%d ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ Signature: City of Saratoga Printed: ~ . (,i. ~~.A- Planning Department ~~~.~~.~ • Neighbor Notification Template f'or Development Applications Date: ~o~~~~ ~ ~D ~IUJ~~ U PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~~ ~ ~ °~- ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~' SEP 0 5 2003 Z~.l~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Q'1 CITY OF SAxATOGA Applicant Name: „~1~~AA1ITIl'['V [~FVF1 ~pMFpT~ Application Number, ~'L~ The Saratoga Planrzirrg Co~nnzission t•eytrires applicants to N=ork ~~+=ith their neighbors to address issues mzd concerns regarding developrnetzt applications prior to the evening of the public )tearing on .the pro. posed project. The Planning Cotrznaission does not look favorabl}= upon neighbors who fail to voice their ~hae ~~Q-~.s annd ~ot~mission prefert~at applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and g neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues tlze_y nzay have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the sig~zature on this document is representative of all ,•esiden~ residing on ~=our properh=. l ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues ~~'hich need to be address by the applicant prior to the Gity's public hearing on the proposed project. ~r- t-.1Nly signature below certifies the follo4ving: T have reviewed the project pldlls; _ understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following.(please attach additional sheets if necessary): t ~ `f_,`~~_ ` ~. Neighbor Name: ~1~'c:;:, Cz- ~ '~ Neighbor Address: iG ~~ Neighbor Phone #: 1 % (s ~ ` j ti/ Signature: ,~- Printed: ~] ~ ~ ~ - ~" - ~ /. Citil of Saratoga planning Department ~~~~~~"~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications 3~ Date: ~ ~ ~?J PROJECT ADDRESS: L -1 ~ A ~ DUST'! N Ls PrY Applicant Name: ~ Z~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S 1 D ~ i 1 Application Number: ~ 3 J ~ ~ 4 II II SEP 0 5 2003 U CITY OF SARATOGA ~~~n,ihAl11`~1TY nFVE,LOPMr'~`~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I 'und rstand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following:. I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Nei hbor Name: ~ D ~w ~ ~" ~ g Neighbor Address: I l~ 2 0 v P~"t ~.L.l ~ `-~ ~G,~~-z, ~ ~''~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ 3 ~~ Z Z~ " Signature: Printed: ~~~~~ ~G~w~~ . `jam, ~ ('=c~~.~ S~~ecQa'~. City of Saratoga ~ ` Planning Department • • • ~~~~~~ r1 Attachment 3 • ,~;~in.~:° ARBOR RESOURCES ''~-~ rJi t P __IL_I'_ l'tt..~a~ ~oniuP~cnr~. ~ ~¢€E ~a¢~ _ -~":. J 'C67E3iLGif.Ce.c. V/'~c~G"Z:,GW _ l ~ - A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL AT THE SIDDIQI RESIDENCE 19102 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: SIDDIQI APPLICATION #: 03-164 APN: 510-06-013 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Site Inspected: July 28 and 31, 2003 Report Submitted: August 4, 2003 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California. 94402 ~ l:,mail: arborresources@earthlink.net Paione: 650.654.3 151 e Fax: 650.654.3352 ~ Licensed Contractor #, 796763 • • 400020 • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 4, 2003 • SIIMMARY The proposed project exposes 29 Ordinance-sized trees to potential impacts. The proposed driveway will significantly affect trees #4 thru 8. The removal of trees #4; 5, 6 and 8 is appropriate and should be allowed. To promote the longevity and vigor of tree #7, the driveway should be designed no closer than 10 feet from its trunk. The removal of tree #15 is anticipated and should also be allowed. Replacements for trees being removed are suggested. I recommend a bond amount of $16,460 to ensure trees planned for retention are protected. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the tree impacts anticipated by implementing plans for an addition and remodel of an existing single-family residence at 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga. This re ort resents my findings, and recommends. mitigation for Ordinance-sized trees P P anticipated to be damaged; identifies each tree's condition, species, estimated size and suitability for preservation; presents tree appraisal values; and provides a tree protection bond amount. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the spreadsheet attached to this report. Each tree's location, number, canopy perimeter, as well as the recommended tree protection fencing locations, are shown on an attached copy of the Site Plan (sheet 1, July 2003, TDH Design,, Saratoga, CA). OBSERVATIONS AND REVIEW OF PLANS The 29 trees presented in this report include 1 Blue Elderberry, 1 California Bay, 1 California Black Walnut, 1 Chestnut, 14 Coast Live Oaks, 1 Incense Cedar, 5 Pines, 4 Olives, 1 Silk Tree. The trees' overall condition appears good. Trees #3, 9 thru 13, 15, 17 thru 21, and 24 thru 27 were not shown on plans reviewed. There locations were estimated. and plotted by me, and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. Trees #9 thru 13, 17 and 18 are located on neighboring properties, and are were inventoried as they are exposed to potential damage from the proposed project. Note one Siddigi Residence, 19102 Austim Way, Saratoga Page 1 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~0~~.~ • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 4, 2003 of these trees, tree #12, is declining. It appears further decline of this tree is likely regardless of the proposed construction. Due to their location, I was unable to accurately determine the locations of trees #9 thru 13. Until their locations are verified, I am unable to properly estimate the level of anticipated impacts to these trees. Olive trees #4, 5, 6 and 8 will be significantly damaged by constructing the driveway beneath their canopies, and should be considered a loss. The damage will alter their structural form, and affect their longevity and vigor. As these trees are non-native and create a significant mess from olives dropping, their removal is appropriate. If trees #4, 5, and 6 are desired for preservation (they do screen the neighboring southern property), the proposed driveway must be designed 15 feet from their trunks. Based on the driveway design in relation to the proposed garage, tree #8 should be considered a loss and no design revisions for this tree are suggested. Tree #7, a Coast Live Oak, will also be affected by the driveway. To minimize impacts to this tree, I recommend the driveway is designed approximately 10 feet from its trunk. Tree #15 is a Chestnut located approximately one-foot east from the existing home. Its removal is appropriate and necessary to accommodate the proposed design. There is one short dead tree (not inventoried) of Ordinance size located to the southwest and in proximity to tree #14. ,Its removal is suggested. RECOMMENDATIONS Tree Protection Fencing 1. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to demolition and the arrival of heavy equipment to the -site. Its location shall closely resemble that shown on the attached plan, and be placed no further than one-foot from the existing and proposed driveway, as well as retaining walls. Where possible, the fence should, be established at or beyond the outer canopy edge. It must be comprised of five to six feet high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and in place throughout the construction process (including driveway installation), until final inspection occurs. 2. All development activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, the storage or dumping of any materials, and vehicle and equipment operation and parking. 3. The proposed fencing location must be approved by the City of Saratoga prior to beginning demolition and the arrival of heavy equipment to the site. Siddigi Residence, 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga Page 2 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~0002~ • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 4, 2003 4. If measures aze taken to retain trees #4, 5, 6, the fencing for trees #3 and 7 should be connected along the driveway. Driveway 5. The driveway should be designed and established no closer than 10 feet from tree #7's trunk. Root Zone Protection 6. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline). is prohibited beneath canopies of retained trees, or anywhere. on site which allows drainage beneath canopies. 7. Surface scraping and grading must be avoided beneath canopies. 8. Motorized wheeled equipment shall not operate or park on unpaved areas. 9. The removal and replacement of the wall beneath tree canopies # 17 and 18 must be removed by hand and not by using heavy equipment. In addition, no grading should occur beneath their canopies. 10. Any future drainage, utilities or sewer lines must be planned outside canopies of protected trees. Where this is not possible, I should be consulted for alternative means of installation. 11. Underground pipes, utilities and old irrigation lines beneath canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut at existing soil grade. 12. All drainage (including roof drains) must be established so water drains away from beneath canopies. Supplemental Watering 13. At the onset of demolition, supplemental water shall be supplied to trees #1, 2 and 9 thru 13, and continue throughout the- construction process during the dry summer and fall months (any month receiving less than one-inch of rainfall). The suggested. rate is 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter applied every two weeks.. The water should be supplied using soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface at approximate midcanopy. Pruning and Removals 14. All pruning must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to standazds established by the Western Chapter of the ISA.- Information regazding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by calling the Western Chapter ISA at 530/892-1118, or by referring to the following website: http://www.isa- arbor.com/arborists/arbseazch.html. • Siddigi Residence, 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga Page 3 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~~~3 • David L. Babby, Registered C• Iting Arborist August 4, 2003 15. Trees being removed should be cut near grade. Stumps must be ground, as opposed to .being pulled or uprooted. Tree Removals and Replacements 16. Trees anticipated to be significantly damaged include trees #4, 5, 6, 8 and 15. Replacements aze recommended, whether or not they are removed, with trees equivalent to their combined appraised value of $11,090. This is roughly equivalent to eight trees of 36-inch box size, and one of 24-inch box size. Other combinations are also available and are as follows: $120 fora 15-gallon; $420 for 24-inch box; $1,320 fora 36-inch box; $5,000 fora 48-inch box; $7,000 fora 52-inch box; and- $15,000 for a 72-inch box. 17. Acceptable tree replacements include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifodia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big Leaf Maple (Ater macrophyllum), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). They should be installed outside from beneath canopies of existing trees, and at .least 20 feet apart. I suggest they aze integrated into any landscape design submitted to the City. 18. Because large replacement trees may not be available when the project completes, I suggest the trees are secured with a grower within 90 days from issuance of development permits. Planting and Irrigation 19. The landscape contractor must be provided a copy of this report and follow all recommendations. Any plans for landscaping and irrigation should be reviewed by the .City for tree impacts prior to installation. 20. Lawn must not be installed beneath Oak canopies. Plant material proposed beneath canopies must be of low water use and comprise no more than 20-percent of the total ground azea. A publication of compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation at 510/763-0282, or a-mail: oakstaff@californiaoaks.org. 21. No irrigation trenches shall be installed beneath canopies of protected Oaks. For all other trees, irrigation trenches proposed beneath canopies, and perpendicular or diagonal to root zones (parallel to tree trunks), must be placed no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter. Irrigation trenches installed radial to trunks can be placed no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy perimeter. 22. Irrigation should not be sprayed beneath Oak canopies, and not strike or come within several feet from trunks of all other trees. 23. Irrigation for new plant material beneath canopies must be of drip or laser line. This can be placed on grade, and covered with mulch. 24. Installing edging material or rototilling beneath canopies should be avoided. Siddigi Residence, 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga Page 4 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~~2~ Au st 4, 2003 David L. Babby, Registered C• Iting Arborist gu 25. Mulch or other landscape features/materials must be at least two feet from trunks. 26. All pathways or other landscape features must be established on grade without soil excavation. 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 value of trees planned for preservation is $65,840. To ensure their protection, I recommend a 25-percent bond, which totals $16,460. r~ U • Siddigi Residence, 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page S of S ~'~00 G5 "`~ ARBC~ RESOURCES ~ ~~ ~'LOfSS1lOn:a.L ~4fJ0'LLG~LLL~114RL tnOI214G~Gn:9 ~ J4EE C.:Q.ZE li TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET n n .~ v7 w y ^. ~ N.~ ~ .ti ~," .. ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ O ~ N ~ ~ ~ II ~ ° ~' II i~ ~ q O O O ~ ~ o ~ O O O W \ 'Ly " r„7 ~ Q ~ H f" o y ~ C r y i Q U ~-' A ~ ~ ~--~ a td o Q ~ A ~ 4v T „~",~ ~ V ~ # IFII ~ ~ " 0 ~ ~ ~ ,d .I.~E ~ v ~ ai V ~ ~~ o iC ~ y ~ w ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O w > ~ y x y U N y b H p O NO. TREE NE1ME F, .~ E., ,r~ x v ~n a x ~ ~ ~ O C .~ A H a w Incense Cedar 1 (Calocedrus decurrens) 29 26 65 25 High 100% 100% Good 4 - - $10,400 Silk Tree 2 (Albizia julibrissin) 14 - 15 35 Low 50% 75% Good 5 - - $1,840 Coast Live Oak 3 (Quercus agrifolia) 11 10 25 20 High 100% 100% Good 4 - X $2,640 Olive Tree 10,2(4), 4 (Oleo europaea) 1, 1 - 20 25 High 100% 100% Good 2 - - $2,300 Coast Live Oak 7 (Quercus agrifolia) 11 10 30 20 High 100% 75% Good 2 - - $2,240 Olive Tree 8 (Oleo europaea) - 10,9,7 25 30 Low 100% 75% Good 1 - - $3,460 Monterey Pine 9 (Pinus mdiata) 16 15 45 35 High 75% 100% Good 3 - X $1,440 X Monterey Pine 10 - (Pinus radiata) 15 14 40 35 High 75% 75% Good 3 - X $1,210 X Monterey Pine 11 (Pinus radiata) 18 17 40 35 Hi 75% 100% Good 3 - X $1,590 X Pine 12 (Pinus sp .) 16 15 40 25 High 25% 75% Poor 3 - X $850 X Pine 13 (Pinus sp .) 13 12 35 15 High 75% 100% Good 3 - X $1,250 X California Black Walnut 5(4),6,6, 14 (Juglans hindsii) - 3,3 25 35 Mod. 100% 25% Fair 5 - - $1,110 I Sift: 19102 AasOin Way, Saratoga Prtpared jor. CFly ojSaratogo Prtp~ed by: David 4 Bobby. RCA 1 oj2 Augast 4, 2003 ~~002~ ''~ ARB(~ RESOURCES ~ ~zo fESS~o-~ae ~4eoz~~ue~u~ae eo>zsuet~-~9 s ~~~~ ~a~~ T RY SPREADSHEET TREE IlWEN O r--. Y ~ ~ . ~ .~ ~ .~ N" ~,.. ,~ H 3 H 3 a + 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ o~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, +' dD ~' 0q ~ N ~ ' d ~ H a ~ W Q o y'~ b ~ a~ ~ ~ y `" o 'b r: o ~q+ ~ l6 Q~ ~'' ~ y ~ ~ a ~ ~ Q o A ~ A ~ ~ a ~'~a U ~ ~ ~ V o ~ ~ o ~ a y TREE ~ ~ a~ a~ ~ , ~,,, o ~ ~ i ~ o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ > ~ x > a o a~ U~ ~ b ¢ o w ~ a~ a o w NO. TREE NAME ~ ,~ F, ,~ x U ~ '" x ~ ~ C O y ...a ~ .~ Q H a Chestnut 5,5,4(3), 15 (Castanea sp.) 3,2,2 - 20 30 Low 100% 25% Fair 1 - X $600 Blue Elderberry 8,5,4,4,3 16 (Sambucus caerulea) - ,2(3) I S 20 Low 75% 25% Fair 3 - - $640 Coast Live Oak 17 (Quercus agrifolia) 14 13 35 30 High 100% 75% Good 5 - X $3,320 X Coast Live Oak 18 (Quercus agrifolia) 6, 5 5, 4 25 20 High 100% 50% Good 4 - X $1,190 X Coast Live Oak 21 (Quercus agrifolia) 12, 9 10, 8 40 30 High 100% 75% Good 5 - X $3,150 Coast Live Oak 22 (Quercus agrifolia) 18 16 40 35 High 100% 100% Good 5 - - $5,200 Coast Live Oak 23 (Quercus agrifolia) 14 13 25 20 High 100% 100% Good 5 - - $3,700 Coast Live Oak 24 (Quercus agrifolia) 15 14 35 35 High 100% 100% C,ood 5 - X $4,170 Coast Live Oak 25 (Quercus agrifolia) 11 10 35 20 High 100% 75% Good 5 - X $2,130 California Bay Tree 26 (Umbellularia californica) 8,6,6,5,4 - 40 20 Mod. 100% 50% Good 5 - X $2,690 Coast Live Oak 27 (Quercus agrifolia) 12 11 35 20 High 100% 50% C,ood 4 - X $2,150 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 14 - 30 25 Hi 100% 50% Good 4 - - $3,130 Coast Live Oak 29 (Quercus agrifolia) 12 11 40 30 High 100% 100% Good 4 - - $2,870 Site: 19102 AasSn Way, SaraWga Preparedjor: CFry ojSm~ogo 2 oj2 Aagust 4, 200.? Prepared by: DavidL Babby, RCA ~~®~~~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ t~ ~ Site Address: 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga in ; - N mmunit Develo went De artment •~ •~ ~ ~ `~ Prepared for: Clty of Saratoga Co y p p Notes: Ma identifies 29 Ordinance-sized trees. ~~ 4 r p ...~ I,~aJU7'' ~+ Canopy dimensions and tree locations are approximate. ~ Map is not necessarily to scale.. ~ ~e 604 / ~ _ 'S •? _ ~. ~r ~ ~ / rn t~a ~'. ' 2 rn ~ ' " F, 8~S • o \ b \ ~ \ o I ~ ~ ~. ~ use ,~. s~ dl nl $J\ ~ u~ . ~ ~ `y~ N ~ 1 2~0 ~ TION FENCING ~ ~ .,~ . ~6°' "• TREE PROTEC 15 :r 8 ~. . m ~ r,. X ~, ~~ m yr m ~,:. \~ ` W 29~ o ~ ~ . ~~~~~ ~ i~ ~ M ~i p...o.. j:#=fR~]jll7 28 F 1 s~ ~~a ?, ~,~ . azl of , r, ti ~, ~: ,.I '. ~ w . m f~ o. ~, ~, ~, o R.ol-oa ~ ~ C ;! ° .~. ~ g . ~ ht. . 26 I .:•~ P ~~ ~ _ JL ..•• ~ \ ~. M• 1 25 "~ - Y ul ~ p TREE PROTECTION FENCING ~ 24 ~ 23 ~J ,-WALL / ~ ~~ ~~. 11; 3 6R \ 22 ~ ~ ~~ l ~ m Q N /m/ b ~' / ~ / ~ 4 1 P ~ /.. J r. ~ 1 iI f ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __~ ~ 20 ~ / ~: I MWyM I ~ j_ . -.. - rl. 1. f ~?a ~ 9 DEAD TREE J I _ J 1 `U ~ P6N40 0, ~~ 1 V 1 Q rn _ /, y ?7GJ ~;c L U~ m ~ - !. 1 V ~ ~eNC:e yI m ~ ...: ' :. I AEiJ :a l- N ~ o ~ I:.. ~ wo.L.L e KaY s1eN! wALL•. ^ 1 • m ~ ^ M' R b 1 / a ~ PAVED SHLDR. aRIDR 5T. Prepared By: I _ " """ - N 42.2 i oo •• u~ ARBOR RE$OUacE$ I N C ~~,f~..coAOf df•6o•c•~:[t~~[ G+s~lecoy & O~• Co.. 867-0244 ~ AUSTIN , . ,94402 t P.O. Hox 25295 San Mateo> CA i Phone: (650) 654-3351 • Email: arboaesonrcesQeardillnk'net ~~ ~ ~~~~2~ ~~ n tc~ l~z Attachment 4 C7 ~~~~~g STEPHEN C & ROBERTA RICHARD S & ALICE ENG ROBERT E & ROSALYN WORK YOUNG 19000 SUNNYSIDE DR 19015 SUNNYSIDE DR 15471 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 • RAYMOND W & VIlZGINIA SAMPSON 19045 SUNNYSIDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 BANK OF THE WEST PO BOX 1121 SAN JOSE CA 95108 ROUBIK & AGNES GREGORIAN 18867 MONTEWOOD CT SARATOGA CA 95070 THOMAS G ONG PO BOX 2176 SARATOGA CA DONALD P & MARY LEACH 19075 SUNNYSIDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERTA P GIES 19110 SUNNYSIDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIAM L & NANCY CARSON 18879 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MOHAMMAD & POURAN GARAKANI 95070 19061 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SULOCHINA H LULLA 19099 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 GLAJCHEN 19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 NEWMARK 19165 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 JERRY & KARMEN ASKEW 19066 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 PASCAL J & SIMONNE ONESTO 15467 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 HELMUT F & MARIA LIPPERT 1301 DOVE ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 AZMAT & SAIRA SIDDIQI 115 ABBY WOOD CT LOS GATOS CA 95032 PAUL T & JUDY KEEBLE 19041 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 CHADWICK 19120 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 EARL C & PATRICIA CHARLES 19200 BOUNTIFUL ACRES SARATOGA CA 95070 DONALD E & GALE MUDER & YASMEEN KOTHARI STEPHEN D & LOUISE HALL STURDEVANT 19244 BOUNTIFUL ACRES 19201 BOUNTIFUL ACRES 19222 BOUNTIFUL ACRES SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 MIWAKO A THOMAS VINOD & NEEMA MALHOTRA DOUGLAS W & BARBARA 19239 BOUNTIFUL ACRES 19088 AUSTIN WAY BROYLES SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 19145 BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CHARLES L & YVONNE GOSS 19180 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~~~~~ '1 ALLEN & LILLIAN WONG ` PO BOX 700005 SAN JOSE CA 95170 JACK R BLACKWELL S C V W D 15681 ROBLES DEL ORO BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95030 ~, ~ J 00®031 - - - pfiV181G7N8 BY I. , ~ ~~~p~ s ~q.~ 02 a,usr- ~ WaY , . races.; cA q~~o I I ~~~ (,, i .: /, o • ~° :R ryY P~~ _ Z y PROJECT DATA SEWED LATERAL WORK ^g ~ w r 1 I. AIL PROPO`.+E05[WERIATERAL WORK SJALLBE•DONE PER LITYQF P~~c _ \ ~ I he N.5 n^c+aeor PUBLIC WORKSDEPT a BLDG.DEPT.SPELIFILAtiONS. r FD ASSE50R'S RARCEL NUMBER. 510.06.0'13 - 2, ELEVATIONSaLOCATI0N90F ALLE315TING U1RttRS SHN:L DE VERIFIED BY ~ ~ ~OV\ ,0'~ PRGJEC'T ADDRESS' .9102 :.A41 Sf1N- WAY -~ - - - THE CONiRACfOR PRgAT05TpRTOF ANYLONSTRULTION AFFELTINGSAID ~ pw` ~ ~ .U LINES LOMAC7 U5A~(BOD)642.2444ATLFASTTWO WORKING DAYS rP.A`[, ~ ,p oA\ i SAR/ATOGA, G~ $5076 J ~"a°,~~ `~ OWNER: AZMA7&$AJRA$IDDIQI PRDmroE%cnvgnDN, ~~ 115ABBY DCOURT ' 3, THELONTRACTOR 6HAlLRE5i0P.E ALL DAMAGED, REM0YE00R _ - ~ - •W~ OIMERWI5ED151URDE0WALLS,FENLES.SERVILES,UTHATES,^ \ ) r - I LOSGATOSI CA. 95D32 - kAPRDYEMEM50R FEATURES OF WHATEVERNATURfi, OlIETO i'O' ~ 1 - ' cONrrspcrDRSwaex " ~ ~ °~ - ~ ~ , E%15TING ZONING; R•1.40,000 0 W ' E%ISTING U5E 'SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ' A THE LONiRACTOR 6HALL000RDINATE NIS WORKWITHTHE IHSTALIATION~ - o ~ o W - ~~ oFFAaunes6YPGaE,v`ncIFICBELLacABLETVIN6TpLUrwNnS ~ ~ \0~~ ~v,~° \ ~ , 'PROP05ED USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ' REQUIRED,VALYEBO%ESaMANHOLE5,ft5TRU0rURE5T0BE6ETT0 \ ~9 ~ ~ S GRQ$$ SITE AREA; ~h7,O45 SQ.FT. (i.OBAG.) . GRADE INLONLRETE nPrER Pgvmc. _ a ~...,J~~~ eee ~ ~a ,'~ ~_~~ AVERAGE SLOPE-OF ppOPERtt: 3.5% ' 5. AIL STREET MONUMENTS dOTHERPERMANEN(MONUMENT5015TURBED ~ NO s '. ,E '1,7' ' DURINGCONSTRUC(IONSNALLBEREPIALEDBEFOREACLEP(ANCEOFTHE ~; • A~ " ~ _ EXISTINGLIVINGAREA: 2,003 5(tFT• IMPROVEMENTBYTHE LRYENGMEER - _ ~\ $ X ~~ ~ ~ - EXISTING GARAGE• ~ $OG SQFT i G. PorsuNEClosuRES,THECONTRAC1oRSHALLPREPAREnTRAFFIC - \~ ~ / TOTAL EXISTINGFLOORLOVERAGE: 2,903 $O.FT. ~~ CONFROL PIAN a OBTNN gPPROVAI f RDM THE CITY PUBIIL WORKS ' ENGwEERBeFDRECDMMeNCIN~woRK.rHECDNTRACrDRSrwLPRDVroE °•a 9 N/ \ PROP05EDADDttI0y~00RC0YERAGE: 2573 $Q FT. I FLAGMEN.coNESORBnRR1cADESnsNELESSARYrOZDNrRDLTRgPFICa '< / TOTAL NEWFLOORGOVERAGE: 5,476 SQ.FT. ' PREYEMNAIARDOU6 LONDITIbN5 PERINE REOUIREMENTOF THE LIfY ~ ~- ~~ ° gN ~, ALLOWABLE FLOOR CQVER/+GE 6,160 54.FT. - ENGwEER 'D~` " b \ ! 1 - o . ~ ~ BUILDING COVERAGE:} 5,476 5l1.Fi. (11.6%) ' 7.'NO TRENLHE65HN.LBE LEFTOPENOVERNIGHTW STREETAREA, U5E t. ~ \ u~ ~ - STEfLPUTINGORHOT~MI%ASPNALTA9REDUREDTOPROrELTOPEN \' 4~ ~^~ ~ I~ ~ o /~~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ (MPERYIOUSCOVERAG~(SEENOTEBELOVJ) bA6oSOFi(1t7%1 ,- TRENLHE50YERIIIGHT. - - D, ~ I I° ~ ~ 70TALSITEGOVERAG~: 10,346.5(1 FT(k3,~b) - - ~ ` f o I ~ ^I °' ~~ 1 / - ALLOWABLE SffE LO4~RAGE: 16,466 SQ.FT. (35%) I 4 a '>o - e a~ _ LANDSCAPE AND NAT~IRAL OPEN SPACE: 25,953 SaFT,(67.7%) _ y I n, e ~ o 9~ 1 a ~ ~ 6~E ~~ / ~ ~ 6 - ~~'a. ~ ~~ ~ '° ~ NOTE: IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE-GON515TS OF DPJVEWAY-~(45~~'?:'~AFJJ, Ay00 ~' ° PATIOS,Fb~g1ANDWALKWAYSd4Bo5a,pT~,). 2~' " d e .o ~..~. 1 I ~~ ~ ~ ~I I ~ f, _J r'-T- '~ I ~~~~-r ~ A ~~ 11 ~, ~ ~ ~ G~ I o ~ ~ I! / ~ - -~ ~° ~ 941:0 `"m s ~ < y } ~ w ), + o. ~ ~~ W . ~~I N o n ~~ ~ ~1 t - ~~ W ~ n N^~~ I Y _ 1 J~ ~ ' ~7oi~eW / ~ ~ ~ ~n ~P \ :r d.6.1. 1 ~ DI I V e ,~~ ~ y ~_ T r ~~ f,~ - - Ni 'D~ ~ X Y~ ~ s~" ~ ~~ ~ °O ~o ~ ILIA ~ -~ w m~ ~ ~ ~ RR. VALL~ '71 ~ ~x~i~~ ~. I IIIVV,, t• ~~~~ ~~ s ~ ~~ ~ a m_ e ~ I T `~ - SITE °0~D' 4 3 ;~' ~ I F ~` ' /6 < ~ ~ I ~ z VICINITY ,MAP _ • o-~W , u / -. /- ; ~.- ~ .. °bC / / ~ ~ / 5A 11 U ~ ~ / .. _ / - i ' c wren n c~i ~ ~~ e 1 u:o'R~1n~~'e,~u~-uP I m a n ~ w ry m 0 PAKD SHLDR. ~ ~, I n N is ~ G _ r i BRf Y( ST. o 1 ~ ..._... .., .. ~ WESTFALL ENG I NE.ERS , I NC . ~ " 42•zI'DD., u 16.17' aTS ~ ~ ~ ~.o~c~ _ G?~ BY: HARRY BABIOrtA I - I AUSTIN WAY ART ~~ 11 h DATE: L.S. 4953 14583 B1G 9ABIN ilAY. SARATOGA. CA 95070 (40B10fi7-0244 ~' i j r. ql, b+l I aewalanls ev I H i I j II ~ VIZ WWC»2. W ~~ -- Work SNop -- .-_-- I ' I I Nw TP2 LkDpNMI BEOPCVN R 1IJI~1~i. qaO h1 " A y __ I~I ~ Y ggptA9M 'S . IrGIC i[ITGHE ~ lJ QJ~ ~ ~ I 5w,l~Y amN : ~ I. .~ ~~~ I •. FLOORAREA CALCULATIONS I. T-a° x z-a^ n 3. 22'-0^% 4'-6 _ 99 4. 31'-0'X30'- 6" 961 5. 19'-0"X 6'-4° = 120 6.48'-0°%50'-0' =24001ncluded #13 of45 utR. covered pwoh 7. 18'-4 "M 6'-0' fl0 10.25'-0" X 41'-4° = 1,033 fl. 5 0' X 1T 0' 85 HOUSE & COYERID PORCH 4,926 SO.F7 +~ ?5 0"% 22 O° 550 GARAGE 55050.FT 5.476 TOTAL 5,4765QFf. Px~51ING HOUSE&6ARAGE 29035O.Ff NEW ADOIiION 2,573 SOFT. SQUARE P007AGE: EXISTNG DENIOLIrE NEW ADDITION TOTAL LIVINGAREA: 2,003 SQFT. 2,8785Q.FT. 4,8785Q.FT. COYEREDPORGH: 45 SOFT. 45SQ.FT. GARAGE 900 SOFT 350 SOFT 5505QFf TOTAL: 2,903 SQ.FT. 350 SOFT. 2923 SQ.FT. 5,476 SOFT. TOTAL NEWFLOORCOVERAGE: 5,476 SQ.FT. ALLOWABLE FLOOR COVERAGE: 6,160 SQ.FT. I tA' b, ~ yb,- 4.. P ~- gn ., ~ -EXISTING FLOOR PLAN l lo4•I. 4° „_ 10'-O~ __ ZRF-OI __ ~I. III _-_ I f A _--, ~ ,i Pone 'd I h 0 y t. NW t j i ~ r'~ ~ i 1 bSPfboM 2 -~- ~r- 0 r , ~,• - - I.. x ~ 7'V°9T84 0 ~4 •I NI4 O III ~ I I ~ . I I 0 WTI% vJ.l, 0 bN 0 1 - r--r I _~ 4 G_ I~„ k-- i -- _ y O C7 0 ~~ _ ~ '- ri ! I r I I j i 1 a ~ ! I ~H . a pq I ! '_.~_. I " ~ ~ LIVIN[e I I r I I ! ITT I! I ~ I _ I I !- - I .... .+r---_.. .FLOOR PLAN geA.E a I/&~ ~ II: pll 19AY 1~1 16twll= PINILY (WkI Ibt n1~_ D W LNG n-TT6°- 2" rW0 4x0. GAAACsC 24tttlf ~ n v ~ ~~ - At.154 1, davk; I W O f ~ a t ~ MP m -0 o ` 0 WU ~ and w mo g W q Q _Q LL N • Q 3 ~ z ! m P 3' l oppww Twl H -- 14'- CM8CN80 OpTe JULY lroh cc ~E I~~I : I I°oll DoE rv Aab -e3 aHEET OF 8N[ETB P • i, -- -- -- - -. --.__ - - -- -- - I• neweiEANia er A ~C T ~ i --- SS.o I I, I _ 0Ros5 _ :~L.r1 o N ~ ~ T ' fie; 1-8 1/~11 a I FOR I~ -..~ ~ -Fwi"2coP I, ~'Rn.r Roof I ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ -.~' l ~_ r~ -_ F- - ~I o I exlsi. rrsruH.c ~ ~•I G PIN~SH vR..oe 51i~8t --- I ~ - _ \ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 612055 S~GTioN a~ scp.~a. I/6n eII_on _~ i -- ROOF PLAN A 54a.e1, _ 540 31 1 I - d w o -, mQ . ~ I ~1 4 FlN N ccmE 516/AL ~ ~ Q C 0~~~ ~ _ 51,_bla~~ ~ y .a Q Sl i.bl F. v: _. - - - 2 ..R . 51L.1o0 ~ Q ' as F. v- 51(oGln &15r YI II ' LUST. SII U"1 4gs.DE r• . ~ - .. DEFT SIDE. ELEV~TIo~I • WEST• _ REP.R ELEVa.ttoN • NOt2TM • ~I I > - - F~cTertioa.tM4'ERIA1.9: w.~a: 1/e II-_" ° ; ryu.l.¢: I/~u a II. oll Ror 6vucatte nu amw ~ N ~ • Sroc~o FXf6RJOP. z z . 5ruuo y..roan raAl a aw i ~~: ~ ~~o bi ,a.. 0 - ~o bl 4V ~ bWli• euf quolA .. m • Wro0 fI1NNfD WIµMiJ V . P 1 ,. F"~ , Jw~. ~ -rE ~ <~ !~ ~ _ ~c . ~~ ~Cl , it C EGK80 I .. • = ~' , ~1=7L~~ ~ I t Qg4o e~slL.sl Ju~~'T4oo3 rII.l17N GPOOE. ' . -- ~~~ ~ 1 ,. ... _ _ ..- -. .- • ~. '. . EuEe 510.01 ' . ~ ~, ' ~ ~. ~'1 e . ~ . E%157:tVIOML ~ ~i_J~~ ~ ... ._ 1/bNP II•QA JOE NO. (~40E--5i5.b7 ~_ Fa 511. b1 ~ - ------------- ~~~ _-, ~ eN8TO3 J, _- ~;;; RIGHT' SIfJE ECEVAT'ION FASt r "' FI2O~T ECEVhTION • SOUTH • . - 6Cr.LEA 1 ~Li.! I/bE = 11.ON /be n I •O E ' Oc Ne6Te PRAHEH ON CIFAAMIXE 1mON [~ I - ' K.. oerdhnuRs •^ ~ ___ -:./tJ~:J~ ~j~~J~ ~JJ~~+J~:J~J~~ howiaTUVxaA 0 ~..~fPmk,J_, (e. inadenEmn 'ma ( free ''~~r~''~ rcea 5Droxl $lnlrRR' OJ~~ a '9lanHE FruleuCfi! jJ,^ i~^{'J, '&abll WaE~d Pw ' naEe LDhnuP tine ~~~l1~, //~ ~p~e. ~~+,~a I aaercw A .I(.Ia BAN' w l,r. o>k ~~~ Tom- ~~ ~ +~~~~~ i~ 19102 AUSTIN WAY, SARATOGA, CA. 95070 xklaaEaaaNCrukr Aeda NW4llDPlf Uw ' ks7e5 BnHblsiD _ . _.~ sl e NITROGEN FORTIFIED Y DEPTH M,9.ON 3' BERM FM GR BAOK ILL MIX (Ip NttRO " PORIDIED WOOD REDIDL > iA NATIVE ROIL) it GRAM Fi.ANT TABLET I GO. I }ABL@78 5 GD. 7 TABLDTD B GO _ 3 TpBLETO 0 ALLOW R00T BALL TD SETTLE TO PMISH GRACE FOOT ipMP PLANTING NOTES nib PLANTem PJV 18 DIa8RY41ATIC ONLY. n+e EXY.r LOCATION CF PLNVT nnrpalµ BNeLL fNf CEIWfildD A ixa FIPLD. rxa eo~TRacTOR exnLL ~,eRPr rNnr rxa Boil ro ae Fuvrm iB wrr.l, a» rKn Faon eur roalGV rurwuu oR BnBrnvcae - . nu eu Nm PuNttn eaeae ro a cerrx w B'. nNO imao>s Au w:me, errc<e, Browe oaR m• DlnnanR: AND Avrorxw nArwlu wxa;x uauLO a xdRnu ro FM1YJr oROwrN, ALL NW P3Ni8A5 dRBdD DxeLL RBClIK d i' LdYaR p N8R05DJ PORrFIBD IUOOD ReDOV/l iILI. A iO n pEPlx CP e' aVD eNa GRnCl. eu. r.ANr nnrwlaL aNnu RQQIK •mRanRr Pwrnl7w rdDUrD nr rNa rDR m PLaNram, DewTeo w twe eacrslu nlX er xur rxe O@Prx a rxa Romseu. rnaur plaNTlrele vuD OI.i aB iNOaA1aD aN rxa PLnvnnn Dttaas. errD¢ rlw GFAOO~G, eNO FLAVnNG, Iwlo,z ro roP De6001uD wlni IT~LG4J n PRl.v+ew/wr xaRDaa! Dx4t es nPrleo nr d an avo narwoo RlCd?1aVDaD DY tw P!N' CJCT nA`n/aLWffiR BPR/dD AB n ioP DRl80RLf.6 ]' urge a wrRCama roRrnleo Duac ru~x. A eLt ruvrnr, naves ~ .DOInoNU. w® wNma nuo wnrw RarwrlaL wenrc a BAMPIe roR dwaovAi eu. FLAVr ndrwuL wSBnnrcloNi exau ee aaROrlo Dr rxe aAwe oR rxe LnvcBCdFa eRC11REC1. el. PILNiBp Esrelu extra De cLOxLY roLLO!®. eNO nu LanL 60wRNIUD cco998xALL N nat. eLL LnuN ro sa Bea rooxLe OWdFF cxnnPlcA• Dr rxe crsdss FnRn IN norraN XILL LAVA Xe.aowe DWLL D81' ixILK FLnSrlp LOI~P. BrnKe 4.ID OPLIO@ rp ncNIM BnOpiM aRCB dLL p..LNr IYTIRIal9 8N4 Ba M d NaaLixY, VIOOR:4{ 6VD DIbld>A IRHI CONOIrION, nf! PLANT DIID BxaLL' BB PROMR*IONAL r0 Me CONiaRRR BIID BP8CP1@D. ftpNR9 Not nEnans TxeX RaWIRD4Nie WILL BB REWDED, [vIDx Ir PL.L ICED eOaV)iR9 BMdtl DB DeT wl'M V3 Co rxE BWLDER DJRIW. ~,.>m~J ,N'aq. l>ns eu wwl 3~ > Il08wE8 e ~~ ~~~ S ;~ ~. ! i, 9 _ ,~..,~~ ~ e~ 'REE PLANTING & STAKING N 92'21'00" a 1bb I(" AUSTIN WAY i .~.~a~ o l~~d eBN ~4 A bet ~, e61ta Bi VIEW ~o~c~~p~a~0 o tw ~`~° r ~ w o ~~ _ ~ ~ '~ ~ D, . Q ~ O ~ Q N w ~ ~° 7. _>~ Ir, ~ N • " 3 ~ Z m ~. 4 ~ $ ' r.I ~~~l~~~apc~ p~~~ ITEM 2 • 1"~ • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-221; 20305 Seagull Way Type of Application: Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application No. 03-151 Appellants: Michael and Angela Frazier Applicant/Owner: Mark Mikl/Essex Properties Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Assistant Planner4~U ~ Date: October 22, 200'3 APN: 386-52-020 Department Head: 20305 SeagullWay ~~~~~1. Application No. 03-221(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application No. 03-1 S1); 20305 Seagull Way CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 07/03/03 Application complete: 09/09/03 Neighborhood Review Period: 09/10/03 - 9/23/03 Appeal Filed: 09/23/03 Notice published: 10/08/03 Mailing completed: 10/03/03 Posting completed: 10/03/03 ZONING: R-1-10,000 (Single-Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD (Residential -Medium Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 11,598 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Flat GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project, which proposes to remodel and construct additions to asingle-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 (e) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 1 exemption applies to additions and alterations not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. The home is located in an urban area. • ~®®~®2 Application No. 03-221(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application 03-1 S1); 20305 Seagull Way PROJECT DATA: Proposed Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable: 34.3 % 60 Building: 2,933.4 sq. ft. Walkways, Driveways: 1,055 sq. ft. TOTAL: 3,988.4 sq. ft. 6,959 sq. ft. (Impervious Surface) Slope: Flat (No grading proposed) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable: Existing House: Existing Lower Floor: 1,165.4 sq. ft. Existing Upper Floor: 620 sq. ft. Attached Garage: 333 sq. ft. Proposed House: Lower Floor Addition: 1,315 sq. ft. Upper Floor Addition: 93.4 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED: 3,527 sq. ft. 3,540 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement: Front: 36 ft. -9 in. 25 ft. - 0 in. Rear: 1St story: 44 ft. - 0 in. 25 ft. - 0 in. 2nd story: 75 ft. - 0 in. 35 ft. - 0 in. Side (North): 1st story: 6 ft. - 8 in. 7 ft. - 4 in: 2nd story (@ .dormer): 12 ft. - 4 in. 12 ft. - 4 in. Side (South): 1St story: 6 ft. - 8 in. 7 ft. - 4 in. 2na story (@ dormer): 12 ft. - 4 in. 12 ft. - 4 in. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence: 19 ft. - 0 in. 26 ft. (no change from existing) . i~ ~~~~~®3 Application No. 03-221(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application No. 03-1 SI ); 20305 Seagull Way PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant requests Administrative Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing two-story home and construct a 1,315 square foot addition to the lower floor and construct a 93.4 square foot addition to the second floor. The height of the first floor addition will be slightly less than 14 feet as measured in the scaled drawings. The floor area addition to the second floor level involves the construction of three dormer windows at the roof of the front facade. The maximum height of the structure at 19 feet will remain the same because the project proposes to maintain the existing roofline. The total proposed floor area of the structure will be 3,527 square feet, including the attached two-car garage. This proposal was processed as an Administrative Design Review application because the applicant is proposing a significant remodel of the existing structure. Staff determined that Design Review approval with a public hearing will not be necessary since the additions to the home are less than 18 feet in height. As shown on the site plan in Exhibit A, both sides of the existing home encroach into current side yard setback requirements. Staff is requiring in the attached Resolution as a condition of approval that the walls that encroach into the side setbacks shall not be removed, other than in the areas where window opening are being modified. A wall is considered removed if all elements of the wall have been stripped and only the wall studs remain. If the walls are removed, then the applicant shall comply with current setback requirements. Trees No trees are proposed for removal. An Arborist Report was not prepared for this project because there is only one tree in the front yard (a Golden Raintree) that is ordinance -sized. Since the applicant is proposing to keep the existing driveway, Staff is requiring only. tree protection fencing around the canopy to prevent damage to the root zone during construction. As a condition of approval, Staff is requiring that a utility plan be submitted and may require City Arborist review based on the design of the utility plan. Appeals On September 9, 2003, Staff sent a "Notice of Intent to Approve" to neighbors in the vicinity of the subject site. In response to this notice, the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Frazier, who live at 20308 Knollwood Drive, filed an appeal. The appellants' letter,. which describes the concerns regarding this project, is attached. The appellants feel that the proposed addition is significant and would result in a huge home. They state that the unique character of the neighborhood is being changed by the construction of giant homes such as what is being proposed in this subject application. Several homes in the vicinity of Seagull Way have been remodeled. Staff finds that the proposed additions and modifications to the home have been tastefully designed. The dormer windows add interest to the existing plain facade. The appellants feel the additions to the home will make them feel `crowded in' However, the additions to the rear are significantly setback from the required 25 feet rear yard setback. The applicant has ~$~~~®~ Application No. 03-221(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application 03-1 SI ); 20305 Seagull Way indicated to Staff that his offer to plant trees in the rear yard were not accepted by the appellants. Given the minimal height of the proposed lower level addition, there does not seem to be any impacts on privacy with respect to the appellants' property. Staff has added a condition on approval that the maximum height of the lower level addition at the rear shall be less than 14 feet in height. During the neighborhood review period, another- letter of concern was submitted on September 22, 2003 to Staff by the neighbors to the right at 20297 Seagull Way. This letter, which is attached, expresses concerns over impacts on privacy and views. Staff requested the applicant to place a mock framework over the roof to simulate the protrusion of the dormer windows. Staff found no impacts on views from the neighboring property which as a one- story home. The neighbors at 20297 Seagull Way also have issues regarding privacy impacts from the two existing upper floor side facade windows. This concern was expressed in meetings with the applicant and neighbors shortly after the first letter was submitted and is expressed in another letter from this neighbor recently submitted on October 14, 2003. A copy of this letter is attached. Based on the neighbor's privacy concerns, the applicant has since modified the existing windows on the side facades to eliminate concerns on privacy voiced by the neighbor. As shown on Exhibit A, the applicant proposes to have smaller fixed, obscure windows on at the second floor on both side facades and operable skylights to meet the Building Code requirements for egress, light and ventilation. Because of this design revision, Staff finds that impacts on privacy from the second floor are minimal. The neighbors at 20297 Seagull also feel that the proposed remodeled home will be incompatible with the neighborhood, as indicated in the October 14`h letter. Seagull Way does have two-story homes in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The applicant is merely adding dormers to the otherwise plain roofline, which will be maintained at the same height. There does not appear to be a significant addition to bulk or height to the front facade. Therefore, Staff is unclear about the rationale for this concern on neighborhood compatibility expressed by this neighbor. Conclusion Staff finds that the proposed, remodel of the home is a significant improvement to the appearance of the existing home and finds that it would be compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. The following is a discussion of how this project meets all of the following policies contained in the Residential Design Handbook. Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk Since the main ridge of the roof will remain at the same height and size, the proposed remodel will not add additional bulk to the front facade. The three dormer windows provide visual interest and break the massing of the wide roof. Bulk is added to the rear of the home. However, the height of the one story addition is minimal at less thanl4 feet. • ~~~~~5 Application No. 03-221(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application 03-1 Sl ); 20305 Seagull Way • Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The proposed home, with limited number of materials and earth tone colors, will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. No ordinance size trees- are proposed for removal. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views The applicant has modified the design of the existing side windows to minimize any impacts on privacy to the two side neighbors. The dormers do not appear to have impacts on views. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The site is located in a relatively flat area of Saratoga. As discussed above, access to views will not be affected by the proposed single-story home. Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence will have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements, and will be equipped with energy efficient heating and cooling appliances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal and approving application No. 03-151 with conditions. The decision on this appeal is final and not subject to further appeal to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Letters from Appellant and Neighbor at 20297 Seagull Way: 3. Affidavit of Mailing Notices and List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 4. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A". ~_J ~~~'~®~ Attachment 1 ®~~®~ RESOLUTION NO. _ Application No. 03-221 Denial of Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application No. 03-151 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mark Mikl/ Essex Properties; 20305 Seagull Way (Property Owner) Michael and' Angela Frazier (Appellants) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission-has received an appeal of Administrative Design Review application No. 03-151 which proposes to remodel an existing two-story home and construct a 1,315 square foot addition at the lower level and 93.4 square foot addition to the second floor ;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 remodel and construct additions to a single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 (e) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 1 exemption applies to additions and alterations not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft.; and of re uired to su ort said WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of pro q pp application No. 03-221 which appeals Administrative Design Review Application No. 03-221 in that the findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the following policies of the City's. Residential Design Handbook to approve Application No. 03-151 have been determined: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk Since the main ridge of the roof will remain at the same height and size, the proposed remodel will not add additional bulk to the front facade. The three dormer windows provide visual interest and break the massing of the wide roof. Bulk is added to the rear of the home. However, the height of the one story addition is minimal at less than 14 feet. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The proposed home, with limited number of materials and earth tone colors, will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. No ordinance size trees are proposed for removal. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views The applicant has modified the design of the existing side windows to minimize any impacts on privacy to the two side neighbors. The dormers do not appear to have impacts on views. ~~~~~g Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The site. is located in a relatively flat area of Saratoga. As discussed above, access to views will not be affected~by the proposed single-story home. Policy #S: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence will have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements, and will be equipped with energy efficient heating and cooling appliances. NOW, THEREFORE, the Plam~ing Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 03-221 appealing Administrative Design Review application No. 03-151 has been denied, and approval of Administrative Design Review application No. 03-151 is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" ,incorporated by reference. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 3. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 4. A grading and drainage plan combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. S. The existing side facade walls, which encroach into the setback requirements, shall not be removed, other than in areas where wiridows are being added or modified: A wall is considered removed if all elements of the wall have been stripped and only the wall studs remain. If the walls are removed, then the applicant shall comply with current setback requirements. • 6. The maximum height of the lower level addition at the rear of the home shall be less than 14 feet in height. The .elevation points shall be indicated on the drawings submitted to the Building Division. 7. A landscape, irrigation and utility plan shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to issuance of City Permits. The locations of air conditioning units shall also be shown on the utility plans. -Any proposed undergrounding of utilities may require review and approval from the City Arborist prior to issuance of Ciry Permits: 8. There shall be properly maintained front yard landscaping prior to Final Building Inspection approval. 9. Tree protective fencing around the large tree in the front yard shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. The fencing shall remain in place throughout construction. CITY ATTORNEY 10. 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 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 36 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. • ~J~4~~.JLtI • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 22nd day of October 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 ~~U~11 • Attachment 2 ~~~~~~ -._ - Michael and Angela Frazier 20308 Knollwood Drive Sara#oga, CA 95070 September 23, 2003 City of Saratoga Community Devebpment Department Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: l..ata Vasudevan Cc: Planning Commission Reference: Building Plans for 2030b Seagull To Whom ft May Concern, After review of the plans submitred for 20305- Seagull Way, as owners of the home directly behind the property, we would Eke to express our concern: • First, theextensiorr seems excessive. Tfl go from an existing 1,315 square foot home to 3,528 move than doubles the living space. • The current-owners-have no-interest in living-b-the house. They are simply investors who will immediately put the house back on the market assoon as the modifications are completed. • The- trend- for large- houses on SeagutF has changed the unique physical characteristics of the neighborhood. In speaking-with Ms. Vasudevan-Ifound-that-the reason this prnject was not up for review by the city Planning Commission was that it was already a two story structure and although- ~ was a substarttiat re-model, it was not excessive. This home is a tiny "ranch° style, which gives the appearance of a one story structure from the street. To change it to a large home-continues the irreparable personat~ty change to Seagull Way. When the home at 20297 Seagull Way (next door to the properly in question) was tom down and- a substantialhr-larger home went in-its pace, it felt 6k~ we were being closed in on that side of our track yard. When we searched for a place to live, we stayed away from hon9es with yards that- fe{t- "claustrophobir;'. ff the house, in question proceeds as planned, the feel of our home will change from our unique Saratoga neighborhood to that of any,, other city in the Bay Area. The trend- for giarrt ~ houses- on SeagulE Way (termed "~Ac Mansions" by other neighborhoods) should stop. In the last couple of years there have been many "re- models° that-replace exis~g °ranch-° style homes with much lamer ones. As stated in the Residential Design Handbook "Saratoga's physical charactensttcs are unique among the many cotrrrnunities located in the Santa Clara-Valley area°. Changing. this Tittle ranch ~~~~~a~ • Page 2 September 23; 2003 style-home irrto a giattt'h~rse on-a-small bt will continue to "bleach" the cobr out of this little neighborhood. • Finally, the reason for' t#is substa~ial-change appears to be fqr profd only. There isn't a growing family in need of extra space, wanting to stay in this neighborhood for the bve of this eor~rrunity anc#ttte-feet of this area: 'Phis is purely to put thg-largest structure albwed on this lot for the money. We chose this neighborhood out of many that we boked at for itsspeEial feel: l##h'rshouse is albwedth "crowd" is on us it will change that. We would like to ask that the City reconsider the approval of these plans as they currenty stand. Pleaseflo-not-hesitaa#~ta-contact usat408879 4510 (w) or40a~i 865 1630 (h) it you have any questions. Regards, ~~ ~~ ~~ MichaeF R. 8 Angela fVt. Frazier • • ®®®~~~ • Page 2 September 23, 2003 - style home into-a giant-louse on a small kit-will continue to "beach" the color out of this little neighbofiood. Firr~Hy; the reason- ft~r' this substantial change appears to be fob profit only. There isn't a growing family in need of extra space, wanting to stay in this ne~ghbofiood for the bve of thiscommunity-and the:feel of thisarea. Thisis-purely to put the largest structure alknived on this lot for the money. We chose this neighborhood out of many that we boked at for its special-feet If this house-is allowed to "crawd~ its on us it will change that. We would like to ask that the City re-consider the approval of these plans as they currently stand. Please do-not hesitate to-contact us at 408 879 4510 (w) or 40$ 865 1630 (h) if you have any questions. Regards, ~~ - (s~,. l Michael R. 8 Angela M: Frazier • ®~~~.s Sept 22, 2003 To: Lata Vasudevan From: Peijun DingBo Zheng 20297 Seagull Way, Sazatoga 95070 IIID1SI ~~~d~'I~ uu SEP 2 3 2003 L Re: 20305 Seagull Way Project Dear Lata, CITY OF SAKn t u~H "'-MMUNITY DFVFI Onner~ Thanks for sending us the notice letter regarding the construction on 20305 Seagull Way. We had reviewed the plans. Actually, the project location is our immediate neighbor. There are several reasons which make us strongly against the plans. First, all the immediate neighborhood houses aze one story.. Therefore, the project is azchitecturally incompatible with the neighborhood. The second one is violation of our privacy. All our bedrooms aze located near the right side fence of 20305 Seagull Way. Therefore, our bedrooms and backyard are right under the view of the planned second floor. Our privacy will be seriously violated if the plan is approved. The third one is that the project will block our view of the beautiful Santa Cruz Mountains. Please seriously consider our concerns. You will be greatly appreciated if you can disapprove the second story addition at 20305 Seagull Way. Sincerely yours, Peijun Ding and Bo Zheng 20297 Seagull Way, Sazatoga 95070 • • • Q~CD~~.~ • • To Lana Vasudevan From : Peijun DingBo Zheng 20297 Seagull Way, Saratoga 95070 Re: 20305 Seagull Way Project Oct. 14, 2003 r oCT ~ ~ 2003 CITYOFgS~TCGA ~Ar,-n„ ~~ rrilRirn- Dear Lana, Thanks a lot for sending us the notice of the hearing on Wednesday, 22th day of October 2003. We are the immediate neighbor of 20305 Seagull Way. We have review the plan at 20305 Seagull Way. We have the following reasons to against plan specially the remodel of the 2"a floor. 1. It is architecturally incompatible with the neighborhood. Both right and left side the neighbors of 20305 Seagull Way are one floor house. Although the house at 20305 Seagull Way is 2 floor house, however, the appearance is still like one floor house. If the windows will be added in the 2"d floor, the appearance will be 2 floor house. 2. It seriously impacts our privacy. All our bed rooms are located near right side fence of 20305 Seagull Way. Therefore our bedrooms and backyard are right under the view of the expanded second floor at 20305 Seagull Way. Due to this addition, the activities will be significantly increased because of its conversion from storage room currently to bedrooms in the future. We would greatly appreciated if City Planning Commission seriously consider our concerns and disapprove the plan. Sincerely yours Bo Zheng %~~ 20297 Seagull Way, Saratoga 95070 ~~~~~.~ Attachment 3 • ®~~~LB • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~Gt~,. ~9,,~e.ti'~,_.. ,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 `~ r t ~ ~~?~ ~-~-'i~' 2003, that I Planning Commission on the ~_ day of deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said ersons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing P pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that. on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. A Signed • ®®~~~9 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 22°a day of October 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Sazatoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #03-221, (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant), MIKI,/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant), 20305 Seagull Way; Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #03-151; A neighbor has filed an appeal of an administrative .design review application to substantially remodel and construct additions to an existing two-story residence. The applicant proposes a 1,315 square foot addition on the ground floor and a 93 square foot addition on the second floor. The property is 11,598 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. Appellant Frazier has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal -Code Section 15- 45.065(c) after receiving a "Notice of Intent to Approve." 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 to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should. be filed on or before Tuesday October 14, 2003. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within S00 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. Lata Vasudevan, AICP Assistant Planner ~, ~, , ~ ~ -,~- - rt---~--~ '+ i .~ C- --~ 1 ~ li _-i- Y ~ --- _ ~ ~ Knell god -~ ~ -~ ;- f J -~ ~-_ -r - ~_ sou ~ ~=- -- l_ ; -~ _- ~ ~~ ~- ~ r ~ ~ ~~ III r j J~ \ \ j ~~ ~~ .. z~ .. ~~, ~~Q~20 • RYL or Current Owner 74 E WINDMERE DR P NIX AZ 85048 HiJMBERTO C & MARINA GEROLA or Current Owner 20390 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 KENICHI & TOMOKO KATASHIBA or Current Owner 20342 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SHIN-MING & CHOU LIU or Current Owner 20288 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MILDRED M & STEPHANIE GOH or Current Owner 20222 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 B~NY & GRACE MA or Current Owner 20329 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 RU-YU & TIEN-LO LIANG or Current Owner 20385 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN F & SUSANNE MALLORY or Current Owner 12258 KIlZKDALE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL D & YAGHMAI STEELE or Current Owner 20376 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CHIN C & YING WU or Current Owner 20320 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STANLEY K & YUKA OKAWACHI or Current Owner 20266 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 H M & TIFFANY LYON or Current Owner 20210 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ARNOLD V & MARY BRUNI or Current Owner 236 LOMA VISTA AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 BU-CHIN & RHODA WANG or Current Owner 12231 KIRKDALE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 PAUL & MIYABI CHEN JOUN-SHIN & JIH KAO or Current Owner or Current Owner 12947 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO 20227 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIAM R & BETTY BENEVENTO or Current Owner 12270 KIRKDALE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CHARLES A HAMILTON or Current Owner 20364 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL R & ANGELA FRAZIER or Current Owner 20308 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 NIM-CHI A & CHANG YUNG or Current Owner 20244 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CHUN-HUNG CHEN or Current Owner 20307 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MEI Z LIN or Current Owner 20363 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 RON P CLARK or Current Owner 12219 KIRKDALE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 LAWRENCE F & LEILA HUGHES or Current Owner 20249 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 EDDY S & EVA YANG ~ CHARLENE G & MARK JIMMY & PATRICIA EMBREE or Current Owner SARSYCKI or Current Owner 20275 KIRKMONT DR or Current Owner 20319 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 20301 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ~RT A & LINDA CONNORS CHIEN-SHENG & JING-SHIO SU LARRY L & JOANNE WANG o urrent Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20320 KIRKMONT DR 20300 KIRKMONT DR 20288 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA ,95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~~~22 THOMAS E & CARMEL HALL FRANK J & DORIS ZIEGEL KO-HUI A SHIN or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20278 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 20254 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 20236 KIIZKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 JULIA H & JOHN MURPHY DONALD F & JUDITH RICHARD ROBERT G & KARLEEN or Current Owner or Current Owner FERGUSON 20208 KIRKMONT DR 20211 KNOLLWOOD DR or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 20233 KNOLLWOOD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SUJET V & MAITREYEE SHELDON G & SARAH ELLIS ELENI T STRATIGOPOULOS MAHAJANI or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20277 KNOLLWOOD DR 20197 KNOLLWOOD DR 7173 BRISBANE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SAN JOSE CA 95129 JEFFREY & LORI TARTER PEI-HiJAN & MEI-MAN LItJ GUOFU & CAI FENG or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20198 KNOLLWOOD DR 20176 KNOLLWOOD DR 20225 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 GUOFU & CAI FENG STANLEY A & JOY TANI LELAND M & FREDRICA LONG or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20225 SEA GULL WAY 12362 TED CT 12358 TED CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JACKSON H & KAREN CHOW BRAD HAWTHORNE THOMAS L & BERYL or Current Owner or Current Owner FRANKLIN 12346 TED CT 12334 TED CT or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 12331 TED CT SARATOGA CA 95070 MARVIN L & SHARON WEN C & DAPHNY HSU EDDIE C YUAN NUNNENKAMP or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 14029 OAK HOLLOW LN 20255 SEA GULL WAY 12343 TED CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIAM E & FRANCES FATJ MICHAEL M & HELEN HO PEI J & ZHENG DING or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20269 SEA GULL WAY 20269 SEA GULL WAY 20297 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ARDYCE H PANGRAC YUE ELLA M PERRY or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20305 SEA GULL WAY 20315 SEA GULL WAY 20325 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SHEN ALICE & GEORGE LIU JEFFREY K & DIANA • or Current Owner or Current Owner LEVALLEY 20600 DEBBIE LN 20353 SEA GULL WAY or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 10133 BERKSHIRE CT CUPERTINO CA 95014 ®~~~~. r ARVIN & DALE ENGELSON or Current Owner 20 ~ 81 SEA GULL WAY TOGA CA 95070 IMTIAZ & YASMIN HUSSAIN or Current Owner 20338 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070. JIM & ASAKO DOI or Current Owner 20296 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 MARK B MONEY or Current Owner 12385 TED AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SCOTT D BALKMAN or Current Owner 20331 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ~T D & DAMYANTI PATEL or Current Owner 20381 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 LOUIE TERESA A or Current Owner 18000 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 HAOJIANG & ISA LI or Current Owner 20395 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 LOH-KOH or Current Owner 20324 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN P & STEPHANIE BRUNEMEIER or Current Owner 20282 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 BALA & VIJI GRANDER or Current Owner 12401 TED AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 RICHARD C & ANNA BARRANCO or Current Owner 20349 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 KARENJSAVALA or Current Owner 20394 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 MURAKAMI JAMIE ET AL or Current Owner 18006 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 CHEN TSE KUN AND WU KUAN AJIMINE ERIC AND LYNNE FANG or Current Owner or Current Owner 18050 HARVEST LN 18032 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 VICTOR A WHITE or Current Owner 20393 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CHONG K & ANG LAI or Current Owner 20310 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 JUNE Y OBA or Current Owner 20268 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 LEE J LAI or Current Owner 12415 TED AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 KAROLE J UTLEY or Current Owner 20351 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ERIC X & GUO YANG or Current Owner 20380 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SUN JIE AND SHEN SHEHUA or Current Owner 18026 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SHANBHAGSANTOSHSAND SHII.PA S or Current Owner 18068 HARVEST I:N SARATOGA CA .95070 LI HENRY H AND LINDA L MOW MATTHEW AND MARR CHEN HSIN-LIANG AND HSU or Current Owner DIANAH ET AL SHAN-HSIN 18076 HARVEST LN or Current Owner or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 18088 HARVEST LN 18096 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JING WU AND HUANG SHAO MIN JEN AND TESSA CHAN KAM KIN AND YUET YIN IA J or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 18079 HARVEST LN 18037 HARVEST LN 18083 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~~~23 SALAZAR ALEXIS K AND CATRINA A or Current Owner 18029 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 TZAVARAS PETER J ET AL or Current Owner 18128 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 HO WAIYAN or Current Owner 18010 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SLOBODAN & MARGARET GALEB or Current Owner 20437 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 ANYONE & ZORKA FICOVICH or Current Owner 20330 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MARK M & KELLY CARROLL or Current Owner 12414 TED AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 YALIN T CHEN or Current Owner 20188 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner or Current Owner HASAN JAVED AND KOCHHAR CHAN KAR M AND SHIOUER NEENA or Current Owner or Current Owner 18015 HARVEST LN 18021 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 LEONG WAH SOON AND FEN HUEY KEVIN S SHANG CINDY Y or Current Owner or Current Owner 18101 HARVEST LN 18117 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 LUI ANDREW K AND DONNA F or Current Owner 18018 HARVEST LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SLOBDAN & MARGARET GALEB or Current Owner 12335 GOLETA SARATOGA CA 95070 SLOBDAN & MARGARET GALEB or Current Owner 20330 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA -95070 ALEX & MARTA KOZERA or Current Owner 20294 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAN L & WENDY NOVAKOVICH or Current Owner 12400 TED AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 STEPHEN T FICOVICH or Current Owner 20330 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JIlVIlVIY C & WENDY LI or Current Owner 20282 ZORKA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TERRY L & LINDA PYERS or Current Owner 12384 TED AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 WEST HILL INVESTMENTS LLC TR FAN or Current Owner or Current Owner 1060 W HILL CT 12401 DE SANKA AVE CUPERTINO CA 95014 SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner ®~~~~. ti • ~~~ ~ D ~~ • L, io l t i tion d REYISIONB BY ns at tabu proper y escr N _. EX. L?WEF e1LY1R- 654 p1NNER8 ESSE%FIOELITYI CORPORATION ~~~ EX, U ~'P~{i ~Loop~ : ^ - ~~. X10.0 ~ C'+6RAGI"+~ 3330 MPAK J. MIKE ZO3O53FAGULL WAY .. •. ,... _... ... ~~~~ . . . ~K.r~$17 7 PROJECT ADDRESS 9ARATOG0. CA B5O7O ~~--~ 0.0 .hlParatbl. 25 ~,'} 7 BZS EAST MEADOW DRNE ADDRE88 PALO ALTO, CA 81303 , D o TELEPXONE A5D8/615i4 - I, 15'~ f~EkbJED 4?v, yN>=D j ,. 215. ~ A.P.N. 3W52-0ZO h fl ' ~ L_. .. _____. _... . __..______...__.__ ... __, _.._,_ _~ }-- __ / . / / ~ 1 ! ~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ J . I d I -PRo~r>@D LoI~JeR f?£Ik~E FL'cbIR~~6DDltlouh I ` e ~ ~i . ' ppoRya~ED LO1J~{~LR~~u }~{5,p PP[7Fbo9"iD LIPP~Fl~•df~'IJ, °I.3 b._ 352b.8 k}bK'aLl.o~iE,I~P~E+^'.'35Qe.e .. LO j',p•PE> (UEt ~ E+Pa'yi) ( ~, O I. >=X.Go~YERrEE~. (Nall(J8) Igge,4l F~F~3EA Gam' (PllC7'N~ i?T}CJ.G. PNoRS~~'(Fbf~H) 12no 'f~ ~ LLO ~ ce .. 'b q~.b~ ('n'~ .. .~ ~ P ( a~o° ZONMG R~1-IO, ooa CONBTRIICTN)N TYPE V~d AMILY ROOM SO~OF PROJECT PRPOSEDMA~ROBEDit)OOM GARAGE, AND BEDROOM 3ADOITION. KRCHEN, LIVING ROOM. BEDROOM 2, AND STAIRS INTERIOR REMODEL. THREE NEW OORMERSANOZCLOSET ADDED TO7HE UPPER FtAOR, AS WELL ASA OM EUPPER FLOORINTERIOR REMODEL, TORN STING TWOSTORYHWSE. N W I~nlv T. ;~ 1 ~ I ~N, b -} ' ~ ~ ~" ~-, ~, rFP~ ~, ~ _ ~~ _ ~~~._' ai notes ge ~ ~ ne ~_ ity vi in ma .,. a ~ 6 ' - ~~ / ~ ~'i '~ ~ ~ i~ -.J /~ ~~~ ~ T ~~, / fff ~~_''((Eo~ Y -'G~ / ' ; ~~ ,',~ fJ ~ Y 'I I ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ NTRACTOR PNO3UBCOMRA!ORS SHALL ~ VERITY ALI GRADES, DIMEN610N91AN0 CONDITIONS PRIOR TO6TART OF~IOB TO DIYENSN3N8 DO NO73CALE THE6E DRAWIM3$~WRITTEN DIMENSION&SHALLTAI~PRECEOENCE OVERORA'MNGS I 0 dBCREPANCMS MINOR gSCREPANGES BETWEEN THE ~ y ~ ° e > 1 ° e ^~d+ .x, W.. '~. , .,.,.M"I b. .: ~~ ) «. ~ ~ ~~~ C) ~ 01 a V /W~ U) ~O ~ C ~ 100 O W W N ~ i j ' ~ ~ J r// ' ~.~ ~If ~ / ~ ~ - I;I Y 1 ,. i :,,~ i ! ,` V~~.-~-/1L<L L/~:i/~'- J~~ JC ,,} ~ ~W~1~ ~~ -- .. ... '~. Pf ,'" Q ,,. .I ,r ~ (~ >•.- ...,- ,,,r.:.. ~.:_; :.. ,-.-.. ~,.~ ~ ~' r•• ,~ ~t } ~. ( f/, ~ ~ LA • i ~' IN6~~,~e. y _, .- ~ S ' / 6o I 1 1 ORAWIN03 AND ACTUAL CONDITIONS ARE TO BE EY,PECTED. CONOITN7NS RE0U(RING CLARIFICATION SHALL SE SROWWT TO THE ATTEMION OF THE OESIGNERIM DIOSELY. y~ RgNDO'NBf000R6 CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE~UANTITY, ROUGH OPENING SIffB, TYPES N~0 EGRE3S REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ORDEABJG. ANY pISCREPANGES SHALL BE BROII~HTTO RESOLVED PRIORTO OADERI GEi AHD 5 COPYRIDXIB PLANS PRODUCED BY THIS DESIGN FIRM O SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR THE pE61GNATED PRWECTAHII ADDRESS AS SPECffIED BY CALIFORNIA STATE UW: ANY COPIES OR TRANSFER OFINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ~ EI ~ ~ / YC~T ~ / ~ U` ' , ~ ~ .4 .S ~ ~ ~` ~/~ Eb 1'i J °+ ~ „ n u 6 y AA •, u ~" - ~ I, .' •~ '~ ~l/ ` _ s ~ ~qx. ~ €" ~p y ^ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ y L - t' W ' u i_ " ME•4~Q--.._... Flc~7I~4aDi IOI.IGj >.$. f ;~b ~ ~ I kk41'41,~~LHH~- 'K.1MtlP;1 f I_-_- ,„„ .L. .~ _,,; ~ " ADDRE WRHOUTWRRTE RPROJECT O PERMISSIION OF THE PRINCIPAL OESIGNER. ~ CODE$ CONSTRUCTION SHAH CONFORM TO. ~ ~ - w 'w* ., .;... , b1t~FS ~rF4>LL + ~ ~ o / S~. P Fsc H ~ I y ~ '. ~ ~ ! b ' ' ~ 1887 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (U9.C.( 1BB7 UNIFORM MECHAISCAL COOQ IU.M.C. B L - `mite lan note .. _ _ Q ~ ... ... .... .. ~~ ~~~ , ..' . ..- _ IZ gN IN ~.. _ ~ `!ll.w-' A~iy:,.t..~ ~:.~. _ ,.,~ ; .. _. / .I ~ - 1 L, ~ ~IP~1~ KR~/EJ~7-.HE> ' ~ I 1 I 7`__~_ I~Q~Y~1,,16T~ ~k ~~f P/,fj,~~ - ~ ~ . j i! ~. ' L ~ " I ' J ' ; il 1 i!I .I. ..._ .... _. __.. ~ __i_ t.' ' ~J I I ' 1D!tn t~-.Mt GW'ULIIJJ~ .I Nittl ~ xB4L~ +J6 FC~'~ :~ 1895~ONALE AND LROCAL ORONNANCES. ~ T"- SPECULL SPECIPI INSPECTIONS FOR FOUNDATION O INSPECTIONS OFREGO~RD THH LETT~E OF APP~ROVAI ER AVAILABLE FOR BLDG.INSPECTOR PRIOR TO BUILDING DEPTSIGNOFF.SHOP WELDED STRUCTURAL FABRICATIONS Al1~GLU LAM BEAMS SHALL BE DELIVERED i0 SITE WITH CERTIfICATE OFINSPECTNINS ANDIOR CLA661FICATIONS. O APPROVED ONE SET OF APPROVED'J08 Cam" STAMPED PLAN9 PLANS WRHIN~ECTION CARD SNALL BE - KEPT ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. E°. ~ IVEMWAY WHERE EHOWN ~ DRNEWAY x AC OR ON PIANS.'Tb REFMIN~~ ((~~I L EIATWORK FOR NEW ADDITION. ADDFRONi PORCH PER FOUNDATION PLAN. a DIWNAUE FlypI,J P1i0POSED PORCH%PRONOE AY SPLASHBLOCKSATENDSOFNEWOOVJ& SPOUTS FOR POSITNE DRAJNAGE FROM NEWCONSTRUC710N, y~ FENCER CONTRACTOR SHALLL REPLACE ANY FENCING REMOVED OR DAMAGED ECURITV~FENCNGTSHALL 9E ERECTED WITH OWNERS PRIOR CONSENT, ~ lAlOBCAPINO N~EVEORY EFFORT TO 0 ECT ALL F1OSTING UNDSCAPING SUCH THAT REPNflS ARE KEPT TOAMINIMUM AFTER C~IPLETION Of THE WORK. u Jtnz u m QQ~~ ~V' ~ ZT~q W N i Oa° W TAB' ~ W f0 = ~ ~0 `~, e o - a Ez~ ,~ zm - a ~, ~f~C~'[IA`L'rD 1 1 ' -'~ H. a ~~ ~; 24h I ~~,~.yy + ~, ~~~Cd1Y~''µ". B SETBAg18 FRONT YARD 23` FT. 91DE YARDS ~FT. REAR YARD 25^ FT. ~ .__ :a21 ~ ,- ~ consultant director `, .sheet index ~ .. 71 ~ `, I ~ /~ .. `-`.:-;, 4 : 1 . `'~5y,,, ~ ~~~ ~,,,,~"`... ~~u.1 ~ 1•., I/~'' V~ w 1 ' ST1iUCTURAU 90PoN CONANEBCU,AL1 CONSULTANT LNERMOREECA 81550 MARIUS HARTAU, ASSOCIATE A[321S/7S8/8fO~9Be5 T11LE 2/F1IFAOY TINOTNY H, BARYON CONBULTAMT iNTERNATIONAI. ENERGY SYSTEM6 7AO3ARATOGAAYENUE SAN JOSE, C4 951P8 I gpSp55.1ygB SPECIALINSPECTION OF RETROFR ANCHOR BOLTS, SUCN AS AT bRFb1AAG~ 1 SRE PLAN VIGNRYMAP,PRWERtt 0E3CRIPTION/4L S PROPOSED FLOOR PIPN (LOWER LEVEL) { PROP0.RFU)FLOOR PLAN (IRPER LEVEL) NAILING BCHEIXILE B FOUNDATION PLFN FPAMING DETAILS, HOU]OYJN SCHEDULE B S'ECONDfL00P/LOWER R00FFRAMING PUN FHappWN SCHMEDULEHEARWALL SCHEWIE ~(~Jj[ ~ U ~ ~, 7 RWFFRAMINO PIiW FRPMMG DETAILS, SH ALLE HOEDOWN SCHEDULE ~VV S BUILDING SECTIONSA C FRAMING DETAILS w a ~ ° o ¢, N ~ t{J Q n - Z Zom Q NN ¢ I~ ¢p¢m Q a s -. XOLDON7181NT0 ElO8TW0 CONCRETE, AND COUPLER NUTS FORT HOEDOWN AIN:NOR BOLTS 311011 BE PERFORMED BY THE EN1iINEER OF RECORD: ALET7ERl PREPARED ANDSTAMPEDP910NED BY TfE 9 BUILDINGSECTIOND 3 ~ O 8,2~~3 FRAMINO DETAIL6 .. oen b,L'J,Ki.ld3 EN015~ER OF RECOIm1 VERF'lINO SUCH INBPECTIONB WERE ~ PERFORMED BFULLBE ON THE 8RE FOR THE CITY FlELD OJSPECTOR 10 E%TERIOR ELEVATIONS 11 EIECTRICAII LKYJTING 8cW ~IF.o=m ,~^: , AT TIME DF SNEM WALL INSPECTION. 12 ENGINEERING NOTES rRLF P1 ENERGY REPORT T CC AAp ATOGA r H1iM HARDY FRAME N STS+"' T A D I ' Q , Ora"^ L°'p¢ . ~1 .~.._.~ sate. pia/l ~ .. * T DETA fY O E5 N I;C~ A ) nPA~, tnn}}T"nr i ~,3n J~ µl UOR'TN' ~ > Sn~' 'q 1,' DIIZ SMHe • -{?E.i.Upy~..:.:: '. _'fboTq . demolition notes PIUI®INO CM~F, E%TEND OR RELOCATEEFFECTED BIRPLV, DFWN AND WASTE LIMB AS REQUIRED. ~2 ELECTRN;AL ~ Rr~ D ~ REPLACED OR RELOCATED AS REWIRED a FLDDR coNTRACraasNAUrAI~PRECaurloNs COVERINBS TO PROTECT EAISnN6 FLOORING. ED ~ ~ A E%ISrMD EPUCEDO hUTCH R R O ~4 BRAgNO CONTRACTOR BHALL PRONDE TEMPORARY BRAgNG AND SNORING OF S'TRUCRttYE pAitNGCONSTtdJCTIW WHERE SAFETY PND EYJSTING STRUCTUWTL cowmnoNS FxsT. ^9 CLEANUP gCLEAN ~ ~ ~ N C ~ ~ .Y ON4 SLY T RF S E ~P B - ~ ~ FREE OF DANGEROUS OEBIBS ONA DRILY 84518. DEBRIS SINS SHAI.I. SE ;.. ^~ ~ FIllEO, STOREOAND DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCALAND STATE ORgNANCES. , ~ -_ E%ISnNG WALLS TO REMAN .~g'`"~a-"^w', EYJSTING WALLS TOSE REMOVED .. ® RELOCATE SEE PIi0PO8E0 FLOOR PIAH FOR NEW LOCAnON O SALVAGE RELOCATE PEN OWNERS REQUEST. 14A0 =,s z~ ~ m,K lor> II,4&& I`•~~ ~] z& k~ :I76 - - - - - --- _. J _ dh ~ ~. w~ , ,, i ~ r j I, ~ I' i _ S~ Rca?1Yt,~i I~~~` I, G61.L ~~.~~„ ;. ::.. ~~_, li.. ;..: ~- ~$ m l __....,. _.., t. .~ ~~ _.-- __.. _ ....~ 2-~.Mev~ / ~ ~ `1 i I a°~ '. I ~~ 2b ~+ qe C-~c,KIJ~EId6LL '~I. existingldemolition plan • • • • f 1' 1 ,.. .. _. e l REVISIONS SY _8 .. __ - . 5 __ __ __ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ _-~ - s _ oor Lan not f `~ L ISM ~II f ~~~ pu __ ly' b ~ . __ _ _ _ _._ _ i ,~1I % 1, II b ~ t 1' AI ___ ___. _ __- -____ _ ,. II I, q P 8 I O 11 4 ~' 5 P 1 CODES AILCONSIRUCTION SHALL CONFORM i0 ND ~ O A7 "f ~._...._ J. I 1 I 2 7 __ _ - i ! . } i ..._ 1887 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE IU e,C)A ANY STATEAND LOCAL OROtNAIICES. SEE OTHER SHEETS FDR RELATW CODE- , T COMPLIANCE REOUBiEMENT3. I ; 1 i ' ~' ~ i I I ~ I ~2 EGRESS ALLBEDROOMS SHALL HAVE WINDOWS OR DOOR9 MEETING EGRE55REOUIREM~TS f - .. .~ I { ~~~• _ ... _ ~ I I I __._:.... _ _....___ '-`-- '--- ~ PER 7887 U.B.C. SEC, 3101 {MIN.O 5.7 SO. FT. NEi OPENABLEAREAAMIN. OF 27 WIDE AND 24'HIGH. MAXI SILL I ~ I ~` ~ ~~ G _' I ~ HT. OF 44" FROM SU8FL000. _~_ . I ~ _... . _ ._ _ ..._ ._- ~ .__ Ir, .mD YoP ~, '. _~ ... ... .--._...-._._. __ _ I ~3 NB1 80'CORNER 7U8 'PftOFLE%6000"AS IC TI E C ' ~ _- ... ' I D BY KOHIER. SET IN ERAM L MFR PLATFORM WITH CERPNIC TILE BULL1105E i .- _ - ~ I SPLASH.fAUCETSANDDECK MOUNT UNIT TA80URET" A9 MFRU BY KOHLER OR EQUAL I i L arhayoR~ II ~----- Tl:~is Ur 'l~f ., o, \\~~ 7 ~ ~ Y 4`. ~FIP-0'--~° ILL ¢ ~E ~• ~ ~ ' ~ { ew4ss FlNUSH, I I i . I I- . , ~ - - - - -~.- - - ---- I 0 TUB2 28'X BIY TUe'MENDOTA AS MFRDBY KOHLER R ~ ~ . I OR EQUAL, THICK BET IN MORTARWfLH _ ~ ~~,Yi`'n I ~ ~ ',J ~ ~ ~ I ' tn.. 11 ~ -' $ CERAABC TILE WALLS 706/'HT. CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS DOORS. SHOWERHEAD, I I * d .__'. '. ~ - ~ MIX RAND TUB SPOUT CHROME FINISH r ! ~ ~ y ~~~ `/ ' U~t ~- L/G L7P+?~JV' I ~ IL ~P.G17U ~ - nn ti': ' I I I ~-~ -- I V,.JLTG6 GLF. W I } ~ ~ ~ ,j~ 'vr.U Lt ti GL( 4T - 3G'7J. DOUG. _ 2 ~IQiaR j ~ - , I ~ ^4 BHOWERI JOB BUILTWITH THICKSET CERAMICTIIE FLOOR CURB AND WALLS TO B4" NT, GUARDPVCa MIL PROV DEAPERMA L t . I ~ _.. . 1 ~~~'~~-__ ~ NJ ~~ T~f~G ~f_ ~_~ I I I ~ I MAT T024ABOVE SUBfL00R. SHOWER i""' N • ~ LI ENCLOSURE SHALL BE CLEAR TEAPERED 4i ___ UI"'4 ~ ~ g ~ ~ I . ~ ~ ~ ~ I PROVIDE~HLPLED SEAT ANDNT'X 1B" n W LOO a _ __ _ - - --- _ - 1- ~ yn~ .._- _ W ~~ ~ 1'"I j ~ ~+ ~ I.. Iy ' I x I II ~I$1~' ~',f ~ M ' + ~~' ~~ ~ SHAMPOO RECESS. ADJUSTABLE NT,hUND HELD SHOWER HEAD BYGROHE OR EQUAL. ' 3O ~ O ~ 07 r _ I ~ I, .... .. .__ _ .._. _. 4 ...... I ~--~--- -i i I U ~ ._._ ~ _._. - " _.__ F ?t50 ~ ~ 9 1 ~ \~'~~ ~~I' WI - ~ ~ / I ~ I ~'~ ~ ~ ~ I _ r ._.. _.... ..-__.__._ _ __ ' j i ~ ~ I ~ I ~ SXOWER2 JOB BUILTWITH THICKSE7CERAMIC TILE AT FLOOR AND WALL 700EIUN0 HEIGHT, PPBOVME SUBFDLOOR.47 MDERED GLASSY HINGED DOOR IN ANODZEO AIUMINIIRA FRAME. 15'HT. ANGLED TILE (EDGE ~ ~(Or O) X d LO W ~ ~) O rA N7 ~ v/ O I ~I .. _ ' ~ ' I R } ~ 6°Ub Hf I' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ y _ ~~ c.~.. Lt l ~ __..____.._...__.. -~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 SPLASH AREAS PROVIDE I2"WATER RESISI7RNT"GREEN BOARD°AT WATER SPLASH AREAS PER O N ~ W N ~ I ~~ ~ , _ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ UBC, SEG 25181Aj, ~ --~- ~ n ~ ~'~- ! ~ ~ ~'-- 2r' ~ yry G ~' ~ & 4~ o i ~ 1' ~ I ~ NNIJNG 9EE NNlJNG 60HEWlE BELOW PER r I G 1 . II II ~ ' . , :II I i K - A 1897 LIBC, TABLE 23.IFB. Y 5hio~J@ • ~ R I ~' \ ~ ~~~ ~ ; r _ ~ W ~~ , D WNDOWS DUAL GLAZED IN VINLY FRAMES AS .- I _._ ---- ~ ~ -- Pk • Y ~~ . I I _ Y O~~T E~11u6 I', I 1I EjP~' -„ ~ ~ ~: ~I ~ ~ AS MfRDBY MILWARD WHITE DIVIDED LITES A7 FRONT ELEVATION ONLY. C G ~ I ~a~rh~ I ~i I I ~ 111 s'~ Ito' i ~ ~ ~ of ; 1~ I ~~ _ I a G~• I 01 • m .S __ , _, ~~~~ i~ ___ - ~ l;l ~-J F...~ N~ ~ 0 DWIiJb X I ~= 1'~ b ~ j ~ . B 1 ~ ~ Ili '~ ~ I ..._,........ ,. ._......._... .. PROVIDEINSECT SCREENSAND LOCIONG 19 SKYIITEB BEMPERE03AfETYGlA3S 1N BROWE I.,_ ANDDIZID ALUMINIUTA FRAME RSAB•TiT1 VELUX MODEL>rFS101 AND FS401. ' ...~. *.. _._... _..._._.__ ....__.._._._.._._..._ - :::- -.:-: -~ - ~ ~b I~ 1~ I~ 1 ~yy ~ .. ~,}~ )+G'f'7G _ _- ~ ~ ~' . ~ Va i ` I I I.CB.O ItNER-21fi FURED SHAFTTO OPENINOINOEILINO BELOW. I I _ -'k „ _ ~ ! Q I P 1 ~ _ . I ~ ¢1J GLE•H1 ~` ~ ~:_ i 10 tlRERK1R000R3 IHARDBOARDDMASONHITE WITH GRNNED ~ ,I~ ~ ~ * I I I FINISH AS MFRD BY€LITE. PLANT PNISH. STEEL FRAME SYSTEM ~ ~ ~ I ~ 0 x ~1Q I I' ~ PE I~ ~~ ni I ~~ i ~ ~ OOONS, ATT POCKE MFR DBLY SCHLAGE. E~SERIES.E AS ~ ~.I ~.._ ~' I ~t _ ' -- ~"'-°'-'" -~-~~--- -------~~~--~-- --~ I 11 EXTERIOR DOORS EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE 50110 N' ~ I I 0 !b GLb• Hi' t} 1 i ~` r CORE PANELED W000 AS MFHD BY M'P. STAIN GRADE FINISH. ~ y - ~~ ~ ' ~r U.2 ILL p LVII-I6 ~'4£1MII ~! ~ L ~J `F 8 2 ~ __ ~}~"~b I I~.. __.... .____.... _ ~Mp ~ ~ 1 b ~ ~ RDWARE AND - PROYEDEBRASS f1A ' JNOw a N '... __, :_ _ ._ .. ..... _._ ~ - ., ._ ._._k ,{ I +.__g .(~O Z FL.P I C . _. -. .. ..... ..._ , . . ~ e'_ _ .. 1 C ., d ~ . C °~ ~ -I L~.t~I`JR~ u 3 J 72 '. N,,.; 1, -.. _ a,'~J~ 4) _ ~'- rW t~p' ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ DEAOBOLTS AS MFR D BY BALDWIN. EXIf& SELECTION WITH OWNERS. EXR DOORS SHALL BE OPENABLE 12 FROM THE INSIDE WITHOIR THE UBE Qa w - U z r WN~ r l ~ ® ~ 2 -. _ , •• e I . ] O ~H Fj•LL _~. ~~LV ~ ~ OFAKEY OR RNY SPECIAL KNOW- 1 LEDC£Oft EFFORT SEC 10D3 3 B raj w s W _- Pl ' t x - . J fo G>7aP~> .. . " _ \ _ ......_._ -- -- _,.__ .._... __ ' ~ , . . . , . Nor ~ - ~ I ~ v- --_-- ~ - I cv ' !lj };- ~ ~ ~ I '. L y' ° ~~~ - ~ G. _ . _ I I ~ hsl. aOf. b, - - ~, ~~__ ~ ~ L'A'" pl~~> 'U I 73 WALl81CEAJNf88 /RGYPSUM 80ARD WITH LIGHT TEXTURfi fINI&H WHERE J013TS ARE PROVIDE 98'GYPSUM BOARD 24'O C y~ r ~O~ do ' ~~ ~ C - Y 1 0 ~• 0 I ~ --3" I D~° ° `~~ NI ~ I ~ ~ I I I Y ~ K, b I I . . . -F= ~ ~~ ~ 1 _._ ~ I I I 1M1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ "-. S a ~~ SCI l- 1 ~ I ._.. ~HF ,.-_.. ,........~~-._~_ ~. ___ ~ ~ i t bh OPAb ~ r b ~ ~ ~ f UG ~ I _ ~i 14 FBtEPLACFJ PREFAB METAL FIREBOX INSERT, _ NEARTHI ZERO CLEARANCE RS MFR'D BV ARCO MODELAA41MR1 GAS < d '' -k ~... . . ' ~ ' - - I _ 1 t ' fl I 11 : 1 I ry . FEED I C 80 82675 o ..._ .... _ .~ _ __ _. ..,_ i , ( , ,,,,~,~, .. ,; vo- ~ - ' S O .. . pl 0 y1 b _ _-_,~~_ y _~.._.. ._.._._ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . . , ~ PROVIDE GRANITE FAGNG Q~j I (n . , \ ~~}......- _ ~:~-. _ -:: ~ J:U}IG`~' ' . 4' 3 'JDb?+ PI' FMcr ~ . . ~ " ~ I I ~ - _ I I ~ ~'I AND HEAATN MIN 2P DEPTH PER INTERIOR ELEVATIONS. _ n a _ . N. .... _. ,..- _.. .. .. . .._ .__ ... J I , . . -~ II~ 1 _ol ~ ~-q. !! ~( S b -. _.___.-_ Cj 1 Ir,.lb.~~-_-._~. !~ ~ 15 GARAGE WAlLB PROVIDE 518'ttPE'X'OYPSUM 80ARD _ ' , _ __ . ,- -' ' S- ~d '°~'"'--" - __ ~- .. ~~ -'-LIJE ` ~ AT 80TH SIDES OF GARAGE WAITS ADJACENT TONEW LMNG AREAS ' Ir ~ ~ ) I,V ~ I r -Lc, of 2 ~ i ' ,~ ' 2 > I N I ^~y I~1 i ~ ''~ 1 ' 16 STAIRS AND OAN BULLNOSE TREADS MIN 38" ' ipp K I _... ._, ~ ,;- L.... ppcc i ~ b' r~ .... p- ~ - I ~- ~ ~, ...I ~ I ~ HANDRML TH.HANDRAIISHALL CONFORM 001907 UBC, SEC. f000.3 AND SHALL ER DE ABLE TO WITHSTAND 201BS P ' . Yi11 ~. Fx P. ~ T ~ I l ~ I LINEAR FODT IATERAI L0A0. I 1~ i3 _ ~ .bffi.. /L} ~ ~.U. - ~b~U3? C r ......._ - .-~ ._. .._..._ .!syA-_AF7,Et_ -.... ~ HANDRAIL GRASP MAX, 2" DLA VERIFY SELECTION WITH OWNERS. ~ i] ~; A 1- DBGL,G';'Ht, rb4 GL~. H~. ~ ~ W 1 ®~U~~1 E .I r 9~~. " \ ~ ~' ' _ I - _ I BALIISTPAOE SHALL BE TREAD MOUNTED SO THATAI"SPHERE - USAB ETSPACE UNDER STAIRSSHALL - BETYPE 618 GYPSUM BOARD PER ~X 'U/SJ8 d' {{Sm~ ~ ; ~ 2 - ..._. . _...,._ ._.._ _ _ - __' "_ .__..._ ~i2 x "1 .Ntsu~ m~ ~ e d r ;- __ __-:.-_-~._ sEC.7o2,a.3. N J ~.. ..._;. ___. _ -._. _._. "-~ Wa P 144 ~ teP I ? ~. ~ I G i Gcl-IG. ~d ... ~=- '~ /~'~ FbPGH ' So~° ~L. ~ ~ I ) ~ .. IG ~ ~yEGt'L 6tiFJ66 CR. T ~ 1 .. •F .:. -y-.rc: _ an h~ELa4JB~~cGF~P¢WIlf~6 ~ ~ ~ 17 QUAROPAS-. ., l3UARDRAJL SHALL CONFORM TO 1887 UBC SEC 508 AND SHML ui+E~AR~WUT~ERµuD2ao~3e~ HT. MAX. BAIIISTRAOE SHALL BE MouN>EDSOnuTa4'sPHERE W QQ Z Z~ ~ Q ~ N Q wy Qom i I ~ a I ~) 7HFr~~ ~ {~ 6L4 I ~E}~F~il ~Il r-~~I~Ut ~ CPNNOT DASSTHROUGH. Q a [~ ~ v I ~ ~ ; l -__~ . - t_ _ j _ _ I x 1 ~ 1 ~ ~:. A 2; ~ I 1 u `~ ' I EDGEB AND I~ CDKISTRUCT~O om d(~~Je ~~ - b ~ O 8 G e +--~J~------g 4' - .'}_ ~si ,bll ~%~ ~ - - II ~ WALIS (NOT BHEMWALy (OR EOUALI 12"O.C. FIELD scW V~ _~~.~,~, _, ' ~ _._ _._._~. __ _ G Ci ~8 ~ I / -O ~ i /y I •~ ~: INTERIOR 1R'GYPSUM BO. Sd COOLERS WALLS (BLOCNEDI 7'D.C. EDGES Dre.n L"~ + ._ _.._.. _ ...__. . _._ ~ .__ _.. .... _... _._.__ ..... _. .... _ .., ~.~. P711. ._ ._ . , ..._._ `__ __,.. ~. ~ _~,.._... .........,_._,., _. . ~ AND FELD TBG tOtl COMMON YWOOD 3f/"D~F Jab r^tI~L/r+.y~. ' _. _ ,_._ __.. _..... ___- ..___. _.__.. _ . PL SUBFl00R CDX.INOFX 8'O,C. EDGE AND 48124 10' O.C. FIELD gbal proposed _floor__plan__Iower_tevel. .._ .... or 12 sMm I ~. .. „_._~......_.._-.-...____..._..._.. __.__._....... I `r ({ I FE +1 ~H - NI =- '.. -. -.- 3 2lnw+~ b'' Yyh _ \° 1 ~ ~'` _ ~~t< 1a}J F16 --- ~ -~ I I I y_ ~ 1 ~a bl .. I I 11~autK~~,ri~. ~ r, ,~ _~~c 2. . .¢ ¢ O 4 X ~ -t i ~ :. ~ _ !. I ' e~ ~eD¢oa4~ ~ " - - __ -_ ~ ` Pce~~d ~~aFG ~D I f u~ w~ ~1 ~ __ k n `*~" ~ ~~ .fg1d ~ ~ ., ~ '. I a11~; ~1 a. i LIF{Ehl : I v0. ~ ~ I N . .__~ Q ~~. ~ ! 1' i_ i~ f 3 H L. ~'L~ic .- _ ~ . .. _., .... + ~ Idn b ZH ~ ~. P , _-_ , .. `i " ~ ___. __._.._. ... __....._ ..... .__ .__ I ~. ~jp^`( R4• p 6 PR G I --- -- 426 FR.~G4.. : - ~ i I ,., 1 `I n 1, I _ _ ~ -fff , ~'.y/'.~,5"-, Ca'.•.a.". ~ +'I'I(-- • H W~rN -T _. .. _.._ _... 12~. 9.B L. Gl'Pl __. __.__ .._y ......_ 1 t r~ ~I I • I.I-...,,' _ _ __._ ~___. OI_ ~_~ .. proposed upper level.' • dE ~P Flidl.-liu6 fpy.W~ ~tJ PEM~~fh~~RWaI-L aaP . Nd'~' bpxiLa~lpr.l ~- - ~x!'•rtINC. 1oetE2.F~coe~ p - SLC,u 25 .. I `t1.5 2~ - 7.0.. ie.<.o ia2.~ ~pROPOZED.IOacIEC~ 1434.A• D 17~J.x il,a ~ 18?.0 . @ 15,ra6.x..:.n,o . A4fi.6 ~0 2. Gbx .66 '10.3 }'~'. ~~i.D X .7.L4 ~. i.4. `~ 1''7'^,2 ZUI7,~ I y}IN6 UPP~g FLm~ . . : : (pV¢r 5=~}~ .. ..... . .. 12.0 ~. 51.6E vzo.o ~y33 ,Ci \ f"~cPc=•'a u{...Plcci:g. bGy7' BJ (mn".5° jt# „l 6.o x 2 33x 9~nwe.B!~ ¢2.a ~K. °I:fgc"i.o ~a 2cb5a~s.:.. .. .19,4 5.3~ ~ 2.o,.a.tm/,~ _2.0_ °8.4 >>~i27,o o < 35GO Mpvc. nailina schedule `I.;~p;p,~aaJ~.m~a ~~ E.6mpielmlou,mwil exA aG ]& ). hc6'lllwp~l4mm)mblloaalw eabplR fm nLl a& .wvl<rkm l'~6'Ia6pm1c133 mm)wNbmm<xnpisl, amend 6 1S1 .x'61 rvmlwukamp~paBimol,blllakd lxea0 'tibl 6. SOkplwmjoipatlaYiN.ry~il~ - SekpluewPpaFhWRU2~xdvJlpaab 16fp1r(lpbmm)aF }IbO Pa Ib'(W6mm1 i. iW phnmpW,.Nail ~ i~lbf B. SrvJwwbplpe 4~A4aeailai~l6; vd all Oabbwm+, ka a4 16f nN'f610mm)ac ILL DOU61W mp leu+IY-Jfxewil 161p 1d (b6 il6a I BIaY R6nwenpkuanM1maopp.m aril add I3 Pimpiaabppka mwl 9Ea6'(Ibamm)ac Ww, wm~rmwb,,. m. au tlaa 11 Con' MaEa, to%mn 16Ea16' 16E6ma1au.kq~xA MF z c rn~i® v u.laaa lta a ca. nem pw.lap,l ~^ 1m' l~km pal lka ra=vel }Im CeJinalovu Iel nBm (xeral }161 s aJU v~ ~ lad m I as )tea r,~pmaa%pt~ , aa~ a sass aoymw,k.~mNawlma;n kvlrg(x.lu1 su a.wmma rtal am Maol mm)amaWmaene<mny (x. mli -lad llBilp uah~ Bd a+1610 ')ac a B 'I WVlkred kre 10d x1Y pll 1 and k.+ ma ep~d~am am.m n~vna 35. t51 Iplmts 1166 <xA tannB M. Wm6 vunl P^~ p>ni<Idwe1~ 6uMw IOWWxdl OalAinp lwf in~;U iad=~Ma mml (li ~ a - Can ' 'awbfwb ~ Bmem lwfrsein{Lll iab=a3A mm) l W ka ~~•, _ ~ Im~aa~~ ~, - salaam • • ~.- . -~°~ ~- -~~ ~ ~ ~\ I-_ /' ~a lJ~ ~ ~>~ G _-. ~ 2,'~0 ~ _-....... \\\ ii I" 'Ii t P O~GH ~. ~ . ~ -_ - .. I \ ~ ~ r-~ ~ 3,~y"YLIFFyHJJ~I` B I~,° ~w,o~ ~ ~ a~u ~. ~~ . ~ u~~ ~• ~~ ~ ' I I t-~ _- ~^ ~v:lv pLt~CF?M~2> --~ " j G=J~..n.lfi kV L I il_ a+rl~ -- ~~ ~~~+~M pty~ ~~ ~lu~~.dt'a -C 24''O.G~ I xCa ~P'rEP ~O 61_~ .. II _ _ ~ ~ _ _ ~.~~ e~ _ .... ~ - - ~ _ 7 ~g \ ~X~o~'IN6. ' _._ _. i - I ,y - ,Jarrr3 ~~ _ ,. u I+i: plukuL.~t,~ : ~ ~ plnA~ _ .-section, A° er \ C I ; ~ >r p ) Vi i ~ I i ~ l ~ ~iw u~ k~r,' I I J1,'~«r -J i' ,: 12"MU Ll~' I ' . ~~ ------ ` ~ Is ~ . ` ~ ~ ~~ @2Ye. c. ~ _.-_ ~~ I ~: ~ r ~y ~° r~ ... ~ ~ I __. i ~ ' ~ ' I 1 ~ r I ~I \- z ~ -~4E.~LCe ^'~yct~tJOYZ ~ .:. ~ ~ I I I d - ®iL,~1L.d'hOV J~ - ~ ,~ ill; -- ~ o '-s . ,. 18 lab--- I ~' I 1 --. m FV~t~ ~~ I ti%I'.I l'~! ~I~,~.. aection B L ,}.~~ section C 1 ~ sIM ^~ .i-~l-I I L.=~i?~r{ . __ .-~ ,~F ' '1`YI'E ~T~C ~!I'IO.G. ~M ~.~. HD ELI ~ E--~ FI46rd~~l I~P~ B•N• ~(0 RAEE1er~."17R -r-tti I r~ ~ ~.,M o{4H II ~~ %4 kIN'e ~ ~d'~~ o m"o,c, a2t12 TO ~ ~PG6EP° °r!GH ~D; C .~G~l ~l~ -r^ --_ _ _ . k---_,-. ;-.~w !O °,..x.21. `' :; ,:.. 4 I tting postlstrap REYISIDNB BY 'WN~/ li W Wo ~r 0 3~° ~' a o'u~ V K ~, ~~. yoRm WNw CY_ G Jm~ a~;~ Qa w OZ3 '" N~?' WNW w ¢oa a ~~q ~rv NmO W Qr Q-N W Zn z a ~, 2 wN ¢pm O aO J'~}}`` ~l' B.I. M~ I ~ stela ~°=I-o eo5,~~ki AAert /A OI I /4/ SMals ~ eavelvaulted ceiling ~ .. _ _ ..O RooF ~ ~.-- ~.N. ~1EM -1 . , SAVE $LOGK t ®II~ULaTIN.... n1 . v~Ntli~tlaN r1 !(,PLiGH._ I iYP' IxCorGfA?~R.PA AT a,,avErp ~Fl. ~ 'CSIM RGPT$a~'~ ©'L~))LING ' IAILa 1b ~W'IGH ~ WLPT7IC CK~4T~ RIoR 4 1aL L! 4 ®IN~1LatIO ,-. N construction notes ai ROOF CUSS ACOMPOSITION ASPHALT ROOFING BY81EM 4D VEM PRESIOENTIAI 013 DYERS 301 FELT STAGGERED a ^„ 17 COX PLYWOOD SHEATHING UID k' PERPENDICUUR TO y 2X80. F. PAFTERS ®18' O,CI l 1X8 O.F. RAFTERS ®24' O.CI l ROOF TRUSSES TYPE "A' ®24' 0.0! OR ROOF TRUSSES TYPE °B' ®24' O.C. PER PLAN. ~2 FLOORLCEIING Yd'DF. (T)8(G)PlYW0005UBFL00RAPPUE0 BYS7EN PERPENDICULAR 702 X12 D.FY2 FLOOR JOISTS ~ 18" O.C. TYPICAL, U.N.O. MAX SPAN 14'U' PROVIDE DOUBLE FLOOR JOISTS UNDER PARALLEL WALLS. BLOCK AT MIDSPANS B-0°OR MORE. GLUE AND NAIL PLYWOOD T JOISTS W1 BCe ®8 D.C. EDGE AND tOP O.C. FIELD. ' DOUBLE BUILT UP MEMBERS SHALL BE NMlEO TOGETHER W/18Sa ~ 12'O.C. STAGGERED. TRIPLE BUILT UPMEMBERSBHPll BE GLUED PND BOLTED TOGETHER W! 77 DIR. M. BOLiS ~ 18' OC STAGGERED 03 HEADERS PROVIDEdX12 DF Y20R BETTER HEADERS ATAII NEW OPENINGS AT LOWER FLOOR ®TWO STORY AREA U.N.0, PROVDE 4 X 8 D.F.12 HEADERS AT ALL OPENINGS AT UPPER FLOOR ' OR WITH ROOF RAFTERS ABOVE U.N.O. GUTTERS 5114" 28 GA G.I. FASCIA GUTTER. L~ PRIM FINISH. L:1 DOWNSPOUTS YX 3"26 GA G.I.OOWNSPOUTS TO MATCH EXISTING. PAINT FINISH. PRWIDE C SPLASHBLOCKS AT ENDS AND DRAIN AWAY FROM STRUCTURE. ~ ~ FU8HING PROVIDE 28 GA G.I. FLASHING AT AIL ROOF TO WALL CONNECTIONS AND CHIMNEY TO ROOF CONNECTIONS, USE NJ" FLASHING AT AI.L VALLEYS. I ~ EAYE BLOCK PROYIOE2%80F. BLOCKING BETWEEN VENTIUTION RAFTERS AS INDICATED ON OETAILS, OR 2X1 BLOCKING BETWEEN TRUSSES AT NEW LOWER FLOOR ROOF SYSTEM AS INDICATED ON PUNS, PROVIDE 3'2" DIA HOLES PER RAFTER FOR A771C VENTIUTION AT VAULTED AND FLIT CEWNGS, PROVIDE A MIN. OF 1 SD. FT. OF VENTIUTIOH PER 750 B0. FT. Of ATTK; AREA, SEE E%TERNXR ELEVATIONS FOR GABLE END VENTS. III---~~~ I o' INSUUTION R~13 FIBERGLASS B4TTS ATNEW EXTERIOR WALLS GNiAGE WALL6 AND SKYLIGHT' WELLS. R-18 FIBERGLASS BA7TSIRIGID BOARD INSlMTION AT NEW VAULTED CEILINGS. R-1B FIBERGLASS BATfSAT NEW CEILINGS WITH ATTIC. ' ~9 EXTERIOR 718 3 COAT STUCCO AND WIRE LITHE d WAlLB 2 DYERS CLASS D BIHUDING PAPER aS~B' O.F. PLYWOOD a2%/ O.F STU05 ~ 18 O.C. WITH DBL TOP PUTES ANO SINGLE BOTTOM PUTE W/72"GYPSUM BOARDAT INSIDE FACE. ttPICAl, U.N.O. 10 INTBRIOR Z%4 D.F. C25TUD5~76'OD. WALLS WITH DBL TOP PUTES AND SINGLE BOTTOM PUTES WI1R"GYPSUM 80ARD AT BOTH SIDES. 11, CEILINGS WITH 2X 0 D.F. 12 JOISTS ®18' O.C. W1 ATTIC 17 GYPSUM BOARDAT BOTTOM SIDE. SIB' GYPSUM BOARD WHERE RAFTER! JOISTS ARE 24'DC. 12 FIREBTOPS PROVIDE FIRESTOPSA7 All WALLS HN3HER THAN 8'-0' PER SEC. 13 ROOF DIAPHRAGM 17C0%PLYW000 SHEATHING NAILED W/ACS ®e' O.C. EDGE AN012' O.C. FIELD: 11 FRAMING NOTES PROVIDE! %80F. DDLWiTIES ®dB'.O.C, WHERE POSSIBLE. PROVIDE A35 CLIPS FROM RAFTER TO TOPPUTES ®d8'O.C. PROVIDE 578278 STRAPS ACROSS NEW TOP PUTES TO EXISTING. CHORD SDLICE AT DOUBLE TOP PUTES SHALL BE 4'.O' W/i8d's ~ 3' O.C. STAGGERED, 15 SKYLIGHTS TEMPERED SAFETYGUSS TINIE010% _ IN BRONZE ANODIZED ALUMINIUM FRAME AS MFR'D BY VELUX LC.B.0./HER-218. DOUBLE FRAME AROUND OPENING W/A35'5 AT INSIDE CORNERS PER PLAN. MODEL 1 PER FLOOR PUN, A1L OPENABLE SKYLIGHTS 3H4LL BE MIN. OF 78 FROM EXHAUST VEMS. 18 FOOTING MONOLITHICALLY PaJREDCONCRETE PERIMETER FOOTING, MIN. STRENGTH 25(p PSt AT 2A DAUB. WRH STEE{ STEEL REINPORCING,w REBARS AT TOP AND REINFORCING BOTTOM MIN, 3"CLEARANCE FROM ALL SIDES. 17 FUIY/ORK 4'THICKCONCRETE 3U8 WI 10 GA. W.WM, ON DORIES a4' CRUSHED BASEROCK auNDlsrunfisosou THIaa:NSLAeAr E W ES. Y7iYGTi000YGORi~YIiYAN1( 7fA1G W MAiGNGWIBMAIYNiY W l 1A CONCRETE 8LA8 4'THICK CONCRETE SLAB W/W RE BAR ®1A' OC. EACH WAY O!2' SAND 0170 MIL VISOUEEN VAPOR BARRIER 014' ~- PEA GRAVEL ONNO15TURBED SOIL 19 NAILING REFER TO SHEET4NMUNG SCHEDULE ~I 2111.61 FOR NAILING REOUNAEMENTS. • I~ L~5x+ewv i!f ? l '~~~ ¢I r~ ~~'6 . .. ..... ~ ~ ''~ 8 ~ : P~-~ ~~4 ~~ ~~~u __ __.,. ~ .._.. ~t/Ifn~'o.c. ~. ~~ 1 strap `details 3 'strap detail 5 ?,~' ~~o oih~ I2;~.R. ~~~ ' ~~~ 2xCoCONt. 2wG ttCGK~6 _ 2y.1 b~,aiWN6 ~ ~d~e3"ac. --rr*~r ,_ ~r-G6~L'ro~f '' `" roH~~.l4Ll- . ~.~?v° J._. ~~d~e~~~ae. , Sdro®m'o.c. Fsf~~ ~~-DEL.ToPtt~t~ ~ Ef~tiWLIN6, _ _ ___.. ~4 PER RAN _ _. _. _. 2 drag collector 4! shear transfer ~ g -- -- oR~ en 2*V erPf~~° 1 8 dra collector detail j 12 plug strip detail ~";~ -'. - / ~ I B I],Ia:O. , f - S,iMP.~rlSCt _,~ ~~ ~ 1,:._ 4J,L'C?E`I,1?IL6, #aFW`-kf~. \ _. _ ___ ~IDr.B et-1:': SILE:P~-F2.p1. ridge and valleyeflush bm. g rid a wl blocking 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,_y2'f1r~7o ~~,=. FNPt~' r~~ ?- sxm Ramie ~ -`eJ-~z3Z-~1~J~ - Notcn2.l cx•ry~aMIN6 ' _ N6ILEP~'hW~ ub ~i°PtLf'S ~.~ilx+t~: ~- ~la~lr~d'7 ~ f~Etlt~=~ _, PEf~P?FiEP---1 G+I~o.c. rsi i ccc- L~3,[ f~~Eb~~ L~LC~~ .:"_.. '" drag at rake wai 10 califorriia framina~ ~~7~~ Ya.°.k~Y~t?~ _ ~ ~- ._ : , ~ _--_-- pp ~ _ ~I 6~ vl7x.~ Dr`"01S7Q3 i. ~ iCa^.O.G.- ~1~151llA'f}-~; .~L<.~P.E ~ .: ~ ~ ~~ __ oc°SPG31,~ : ~ ~N~ 32~oc. c~t~ -~oPE~b _.. _. _, 1bP"PLP'1`--. jl I ~ .. i .I 4+Co:CEILl~l6 'LIB'' ~,«r. __ r shear transfer 11 li ht/shaft detail t auk; u6 ou+luuou5 ~.u~~if 'section D ~+~t ~ r~ I-lots<- , ` -C1J I .._. .... ._- _. _ _ • .. ._. _. _. .. ... .. .. __ .- ~ Imo.. .... _ -_ _- _~. _... _ - ....._ . •. . _ ._ _ . _ ' I .. _ :.. ~ ~. _ y~~~' .._..- _._ ,.. _ _ ,_ r -T7 _FI-.-I it ~ _ _.~~ _ .. ,_~ _ _ ;. _ -~ _; T .r __ ~ --~ - _ - ~~_ - _ - ~~ ,\ ~_ - .:_ -- - __-. _ ~ w. - -- GJ1'}1CL0 }taro ~ E... I~ ~ ti - I _' ~, ~.. L. j ~,I I ~* ~ II I / I R~M l 1 ~ i~ I I t ? 1 ~ ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I Nv---- = ~ fill ,~ ~° ~ 1 _ t _ ~ ;, a ~, _ I ~ ,_ 1 ~.~:_ _ _ _i ~TI -- ~' ~ ~ I ~~'~ a I; ~'~I If~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._~>~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ----- - I ''I III t ~~ --- ~ _~C- .. . orth elevation south elevation ~ , ~I$.~I w~ _ ---.12 °"_f exterior notes 1 I ~ _ _ ~~L. tbRNIeR ~.J____ - 1~ ROOFING CLASSACOMPOSRION ASPHALT ~ _ _ __., _- ~ gOOF TO MATCH E%ISTfNG, 48 VFM ,~ ~~\ \ i i WARRANTY BY PRESIOENTIAL. fxD ~IIt I ~ 0 OURERS 5111"28 G4 G.I FASCA GUTTERS AT ;,~ ' 01x ' .~ I xe ., _--.--_~~ C®b7c~ IAN: -- ~ ' BOARD PPJNT FINI6N. Df FASCIA _. . , - ._ .. ..__. ._... .. ,.... _..... ......................... - ~ !7L POUTS .:_ ...... .-_._ ... .. _ _ ._- ..-. ' ' . NEW ROOFAREA GUUR OO SPOUT6 -~ ~ ~ ~; , ~ NEW ALLAROUND, PAINT FINISH~SPLA6H _. ~~~Y~(}~ _ ... ' ~, '. SFr l:.'+~ R ' \\\ I BLOCI(S AT ENDS fOR POSITNE DRAINAGE -- - F I I ~_ a EEE AWAY FROM BUILDING. ,~.~oP~tpt~ { a^ SIORRiA acoarr~e'sruccDAxowlREwrHE- - - ~"~ ~i TE%NRm TO MATCH E1US71NG, PAINT ..~ - . _..:- ... -" r _. ._ - -L. I _.- FINISH TO MATCH Ex1S'fING. . .._._ --.___-_- 1 _ rl Q ~1 - `r- y z T , ' ~ ~ ~' I O YANDON'S DUAL GIAZED IN VINYL CUD FRAME9 ~~~~'.~4~Ufi~o ~ ~ 1 ~ I 1 ~ AS MFRDSY MLOUARD WrNfE 0RID6 V I ~I ~ ~ I- AT FRONT ELEVATION ONLY. PROVIDE ~ ~ I I l i ~ I IN6ECT 9CREENSPNU LOCKWG HARDWARE ~I; - ~ ~ f f 8 TRM STUCCO O/2 x1 TRIM SURRWNDAT ' ~ -+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I . ' ~ p` _ -: ~ ~ _ - ,"~--~ ~ - I , I ~ WINDOWSAND DOORS ON FRONT ELEVA11ON _ - i I: .. 1. a , it ONLY. STUCCO MOUID AT AIL OTHERS. ~~9H. ~XiS' ~'+~ - ~ .y ~ ~~ ~ F~FLP i- _ ~ ~ , T~ BARflE RAFTERS 1x4 D.F. SNI EM (Ll .~.~ ._.--... ~z .. „__-._ k..::-4P;~Q~k'-LA~i-.~ -: _ _,__ _. ..:~:.....,~~....,.r,_ ~..-_:.~.~-,~.-~ .c..-'r ._._F-.~.~=., I G.I. EAVEDRIPO/7 %6 flAR0EWRAFTER. I ,~ - PAINT GRADE P~6P•- B^ VENF GABLE ENO WOOD LOUVREDVENT AS MFq'D BY AWSCO. G.1 SCREENED BACKING FOR VENTING AT BAY ONLY. PLANT FINISH. " '. ~ ~ •1 6~ BKYINiMTS SAFETYGU65 LAMINATED 5KYLIGHB I 1 ~I III I We-s `. e,ieVa~'o~ ( ~ E E III IN6ROIrgANODIffDMETALPRAMES {I VII I) I ~I ~ ASMFR'D BYVELUx SEE FLODR PUN I I i1IV ICI' ~ f V j l '~! I I FOR 612ES. i~ 11~1~1'~ I II 10 FRONT DOOR SOLID CORE FRONTENIAY UNR WITH ' ~ ~ ~ {+I ~~~ ~ ~~ ~I ~I UNR SIDEIRES PER OWNEq 6ELECTION. I I~~I ~I ~ V. i TEMPERED SAFETY OIAZING. PAINT I I I -s, I ~ - FINISH. . ~ ' ~ I l ~ I II~i I; II ~~- I I II i~ i .. _.. ~~ !V ~ I it ~~III ~~ ~~I _.,- , - :: ~~ ~ ~ v i~ ~ 11~{ ~~ I~ ~~! riroa ~- I~ I ~Ijl' ' ~ ob'z ~ ~n *\ +~II IE ~~ i III ill'! ,,, ,,~ - ._ .. ~I VII ~~ ~ IVY I i~ I ~ _ ti -- f i __ ~;;y~ t_._:.. i ~~. .. -7 I (~-€X_lr?~'6 pcr~INb~1 - - - ---.________~ _____._. 'E.14 U~Eh -- lT I ~ ~ .. ~ _ - _ --- -- ~= r F ~~ r ;;~,; ~,~ I ~T I i ll ~I 1 ~~ -~{ i~ ~ ~ , ~~ , ~ t ~ ~ I~ , ~ I Ili ~ ~ I'~ ~ li I II I11;: - l it I i I yeast elevation r_.o~-~+-au rl~~_--~i~b~ lr l1 u a (~ 1 ~' ~ i ~ i ~ ~ Ll P PEA gl-rx~i~ r~ a, ~~ 1~~---9, 3 3X z. o •I 'ti +~ ,c 2 . ~~ l ~. I~LIKI-~~~x ~Mo~EL /20~ '~~C~u-~Y 1"~-tt-a~ld1~~ ~~,~tl N~ Lo ~E~. ~~ R ~r~~o ~~'`. ,+~ • ~Z..G,c 25. n 81~j, o Pj• l°I,o x le,'~4 ~~~ G - l`i~o x ~?.~a ~~ X33;o i p~oP~P LouJ~ ~~ b 15. ~~.x 30. o ~~~~ ~ 17, o ~ II ~ a I$7~ a ~ 15~fo~ ~ ~'~ o i ~C~,$ 68 E ~~ . 6 2~, 5 x 7~ ~ (~svc ~aX°» ) 1 . , ~ aoK ~ ~ EXI~fi'~NCa UPS. ~L~~ f (ov~,rG~° ~},} ~} ~2, a ac ~(,G G- X020, a i n~ Po ~ D UP~'~ ~~ (eves' ~~ ~f) 01L Z,~j'31l ~J~~b1~b1iA..VS, Z ~0 ~'trC ~ ~ ~, ~~~ (,ox 2 (c.lo~~) ~~, 4 ~j, ~ 3 ~t 2, o x 3 Cd~ r ~v' ~ 32, ~ ~~r4 Lo~W~.. ~l.ao~- ITEM 3 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-159;14250 Elva Avenue Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Mohammad Estahbanaty, owner Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Assistant Planner O~~ Date: October 22, 2003 APN: 503-27-029. Department Head: -~,. -~`~, ~. ~~ ~~~ s ~~ ~ ~ ,-- ---,\ ` ~~ t; ~~~~ ~ j ~ ,~ ~ 14250 wa Avenue Parcels w ithin 500 feet c 0 a U 14250 Elva Avenue ®®~(~®1 Application No. 03-159; 14250 Elva Avenue CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 07/16/03 Application complete: 09/15/03 Notice published: 10/08/03 Mailing completed: 10/02/03 Posting completed: 10/03/03 ZONING: R-1-10,000 (Single-Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD (Residential -Medium Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 7,500 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than 2% GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. • • ®~'~®~ Application No. 03-159; 14250 Elva Avenue PROJECT DATA: Proposed Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable: 34.5 % 60 Building: 1,946 sq. ft. Wallzways, Driveways, and Pool: 645 sq. ft. TOTAL: (Impervious Surface) 2,591 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. Slope: Less than 2% (No grading proposed) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable: (Existing Home - to be (1,200 sq. ft.) demolished) 1St Floor: 1,556 sq. ft. 2nd Floor 930 sq. ft. Attached Garage: 390 sq. ft. TOTAL: 2,876 sq. ft. 2;880 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement: Front: 36 ft. -9 in. 25 ft. - 0 in. Rear: 1St story: 54 ft. - 0 in. 25 ft. - 0 in. 2nd story: 54 ft. - 0 in. 35 ft. - 0 in. Side (North): 1st story: 6 ft. - 0 in. 6 ft. - 0 in. 2nd story: 11 ft. - 0 ul. 11 ft. - 0 in. Side (South): 1St story: 6 ft. - 0 in. 6 ft. - 0 in. 2nd story: 11 ft. - 0 m. 11 ft. - 0 m. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence: 2.4 ft. 26 ft. ~• ®®~~~ Application No. 03-159; 14250 Elva Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,200 square foot single story residence and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story Mediterranean style residence. The proposed home will have gray flat the roofing and off-white stucco siding with dark beige stucco molding. A color board will be presented at the public hearing. The homes on Elva Avenue are an interesting mixture of one and two-story structures in various architectural styles. Most of the recently built homes in the area are built in a Mediterranean or contemporary style with stucco exteriors, including the neighboring home. This home will be very similar in style to many of the other new homes built in area. As shown in the attached letters, the applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors. Staff has not received any letters of concern from neighbors as of the writing of this Staff Report. Unlike other Saratoga neighborhoods, the homes in the vicinity of Elva Avenue are. situated close together. The recently built two-story home neighboring the subject site has windows which look into the subject property. Nevertheless, staff has requested that the applicant plant screening trees in the backyard near the perimeter of the property to mitigate any impacts on privacy to the one-story home to the rear and to the south of the subject property. The screening trees are shown in the landscape plans in Exhibit A, and have been added as a condition of approval. Trees Six ordinance-sized trees were inventoried for the City Arborist Report. Tree #3, a Monterey Pine, is located on the neighboring property. Only the removal of trees #2 and #4, a palm and cedar tree, respectively, require the planting of replacement trees. According to the, Arborist Report, trees #1, 5 and 6 have minor value and may be removed if the applicant wishes to do so. Residential Design Handbook Policies The proposed project implements the following policies contained in the Residential Design Handbook: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk The home is articulated with varying rooflines and moldings. The proposed home will be 2 feet below the 26 feet maximum height limit and only 1 foot taller than the newly built neighboring home to the south. The home is well-proportioned and not much different form the newer homes that have been built in the vicinity. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The proposed home, with limited number of materials and earth tone colors, will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. No trees of significant value, other than trees #2 and 4 would be removed. Replacement trees are required. ~~®~~~ Application No. 03-159; 14250 Elva Avenue Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views The applicant has submitted a petition .signed by surrounding neighbors, who have indicated support for the project. Nevertheless, Staff is requiring screening trees in the back yard of the property to mitigate any impacts on privacy that the two-story home would have on the neighboring properties to the rear and to the north which have one- storyhomes. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The site is located in a flat are of Saratoga. Impacts on views are not an issue with this proposal. Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence will have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements, and will be equipped with energy efficient heating and cooling appliances. ConclUSlon Staff finds that the proposed home implements the City's Residential Design Policies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Design Review Application #03-159 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Arborist Report, received July 31, 2003. 3. Letter signed by neighbors indicating they have reviewed a copy of the proposed plans. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices and List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 5. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A". U ~~®~~~ • Attachment 1 ~~ ~J ~'~~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 03-159 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mohammad Estahbanaty;14250 Elva Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to demolish the existing home and construct atwo-story 2,876 square foot home with a maximum height of 24 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new small single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the following City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk The home is articulated with varying rooflines and moldings. The proposed home will be 2 feet below the 26 feet maximum height limit and only 1 foot taller than the nevvly built neighboring home to the south. The home is well-proportioned and not much different form the newer homes that have been built in the vicinity. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The proposed home, with limited number of materials and earth tone colors, will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. No trees of significant value, other than trees #2 and 4 would be removed. Replacement trees are required. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views The applicant has submitted a petition signed by surrounding neighbors, who have indicated support for the project. Nevertheless, Staff is requiring screening trees in the back yard of the property to mitigate any impacts on privacy that the two-story home would have on the neighboring properties to the rear and to the north which have one- storyhomes. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The site is located in a flat are of Saratoga. Impacts on views are not an issue with this proposal. ~'~~~~~ Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency • The proposed residence will have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements, and will be equipped with energy efficient heating and cooling appliances. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 03-159 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report received July 31, 2003 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The vertical distance from the highest pomt of the proposed home to the immediately adjacent natural grade not created by fill shall not exceed 24 feet. 4. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 5. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 6. A grading and drainage plan combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 7. The grading and drainage plan shall incorporate all Arborist Report recommendations, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Ciry Arborist prior to issuance.of City Permits. 8. A final landscape, irrigation and utility plan shall be submitted for Staff and Ciry Arborist review and approval-prior to issuance of City Permits. The final landscape plans shall show screening trees in the backyard. The utility plan shall show ~~~~~8 • locations of air conditioning units. Any proposed undergrounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees. 9. Front yard landscaping and screening trees in the backyard shall be planted prior to Final Building Inspection approval. 10. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for any work in the public right-of- way. CITY ARBORIST 11. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report received July 31, 2003 shall be followed. 12. Tree protective fencing, as stated in the Arborist Report, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 13. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $450 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 14. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of any required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE DISTRICT 15. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire District conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 16. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. ~~~~'~~ • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 22nd day of October 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 • ®®~~.~ _ ~~~ar-~, ARBOR RESOURCES =ti r ;~;~ "~ ~zo fESSionaC o~z~iozieuCtu~a~ ~onsuCtin9. ~ ~'zes t?aze A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT THE THE ESTAHBANATY PROPERTY 14250 ELVA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA • OWNER'S NAME: ESTAHBANATY APPLICATION #: 03-159 APN: 503-27-029 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ~~~~~~~~ CITY OF SAIZgTOGA ~n MMIINI TY DEVELOPMENT • Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Site Inspected: July 25; 2003 Report Submitted: July 28, 2003 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo. California 94402 Email: arborresourcesCearthlirk.net Phone: 650.654.3351 ® Fax: 650.654.3352 ® Licensed Contractor #796763 O~®~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 28, 2003 SUNIlVIARY Six Ordinance-sized trees were inventoried and evaluated for this report. The plans propose removing trees #1, 2, 4 and 5, and possibly 6. Tree #4 will be significantly .damaged from the proposed home design, and the remaining the trees have minor value. The removals should be allowed, and. replacements are suggested only for trees #2 and 4. Tree protection fencing, as shown on the attached plan, is recommended for protecting tree #3 located on the northern adjacent property. I recommend a bond amount of $450 to promote the protection of tree #3. ASSIGNMENT The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts from implementing the proposed plans for demolishing an existing residence, and constructing a new one at 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga. This report presents my findings, and recommends mitigation for Ordinance-sized trees anticipated to be damaged or removed; identifies each tree's condition, species, and size; presents tree appraisal values; and provides a tree protection bond amount. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the spreadsheet attached to this report. Each tree's location, number, canopy dimension, as well as the recommended tree protection fencing location, is shown on an attached copy of the Site Plan (sheet A1) prepared by Cherine Bassal Planning & Design, dated June 27, 2003. Trees #3, 5 and 6 were not shown on plans reviewed.: Their locations were estimated and plotted by me, and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. OBSERVATIONS AND REVIEW OF PLANS The six trees inventoried for this report include one Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), three Flowering Plum (Prunus cerasifera), one Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata), and one Mexican Fan Palm (yyashingtonia robusta). Tree #3 is located on the northern neighboring property. Its canopy overhangs the subject site, and its root. system will be damaged at tolerable levels from installing the new driveway. Note this tree already shows signs of significant decline, and continued decline is expected regardless of the proposed construction. Estahbanaty Property, 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department O~O~~. David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 28, 2003 My review of the Drainage/Landscape Plan (sheet AS) shows all other inventoried trees, with the possible exception of #6, will be removed. However, no indication of .this is shown on the Site Plan. Trees #1, 5 and 6 are Flowering Plums which are in poor to fair condition. Their removal should be allowed. Tree #2 contributes minor value to the overall tree landscape, and its removal should also be allowed. Replacements are suggested. Tree #4 will be significantly damaged from constructing a new foundation and two-story home within its dripline. I do not find the removal of this tree will significantly impact the site or surrounding properties. Replacements are also suggested. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Tree protection fencing should be installed for tree #3 prior to commencing demolition. It shall be placed as shown on the attached plan and no further than one-foot the proposed driveway. It shall be comprised of five to six feet high chain link mounted on -two-inch diameter steel posts. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and in place throughout the construction process (including driveway installation) until final inspection. Should the tree be removed either before or during the project, the fence is not necessary. 2. All development activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following:. grading, surface scraping, the storage or dumping of any materials, and vehicle or equipment parking. 3. Replacement trees are only suggested for the removal of trees #2 and 4. Their combined appraised value is $3,310, which must be replaced with new trees of equivalent appraised value. The replacement sizes and values applicable for this project are as follows: $120 fora 15-gallon, $420 for 24-inch box, and $1,320 fora 36- inchbox. 4. Acceptable tree replacements include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big Leaf Maple (Ater macrophylltim), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). • Estahbanaty Property, 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department t'ageLOJ3 O®0~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 28, 2003 • 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`" Edition, using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the- Western Chapter of the ISA. For the protection of tree #3, I recommend a 20-percent bond of its appraised value, which equals $450. • Estahbanary Property, 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 3 of 3 ~~~~~i.~ - ~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES ' ~20fES1LOrlCtL UT2~0'd~L'LLL~LL4RL C.:0111LLLt1.IL9 S ~2EE C:.Q'LE TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET ~ ~ ~ .. .~ ~ .~ o o .. b W - ~ b ccf ~ p to \ .~' to ~~~\ ~ . y O OD t-1 ~ ~ A ~ A 'g ~ a U ~ ~ ~ U o ~ ou a. ~ ° ~ '~' b TREE a`~i ~ ~ ai ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ , o ~ ~~" o v ° ~ o ~ ° ~ > ~ x ~ U ~ ~ b ¢ w ~ o NO. TREE NAME E.., .~ E~ .~ a i x U o x ~ o v, ~ O a ~ a i ~ A H a s Flowering Plum 6,6,5,4,3 1 (Prunus cerasifera) ,1,1 - 15 15. 100% 50% Good 5 - - $1,230 Mexican Fan Palm 2 (Washingtonia robusta) 23 20 55 8 100% 100% Good 3 - - $380 Monterey Pine 3 (Pinus radiata) 39 37 65 45 25% 75% Fair 3 - X $2,250 X Incense Cedar 4 (Calocedrus decurrens) 21 18 40 25 100% 75% Good 1 - - $2,930 site: 142s0 Elva Avawt, Sasratoga Preparedjor: CSty ojSaratoga Preparcd by: Da-sd L Bobby, RCA I ~~®~~'.~ ~Wly zs, zoos i ;~~ - , . Site Address: 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Department Notes: Map identifies 6 Ordinance-sized trees. Canopy dimensions and tree locations are approximate. Map is not necessarily to scale. ,i ,, ,I \: ~, s r J ~~ ~~ ~ ~ a 4 .:~,,: • ~r•. ~ ,:. / - ~ •S (, ` • / s. / Prepared By: i . ~ / ~ <, / < r` o s o . ~ z ARBOR RESOURCES ~ '~ o N ~ `~' - / / ~sofsss[onal o¢~6odaLL[tu•ae eottslaLfln9 6' ~css encs <, W ~ o O r- / , ~ ~~ P.O. Box 25295 • San Mateo, CA 94402 / / p Z Phone: (650) 654-3351 • Email: arborresources@eartlilink.aet j ~ % ~ d ~ ~ /,W I ~ , ~ ~I / / /~ _ 1 Jf E ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ dap ~ ~ 0 1 ,~~ ~ ~\ ~ ..:;- :; st ~ u ~-LL. . S ~k . ~ ~ : 4 ~, '- ~~ ~ •~a6v~o ~ ~~ ~Z `- ; .. _ _ `~,- ~~ : ; W •~ ;P r ~~ ~ ! ~ • ~ ~ ~ i~ _l ~ ~ 3 _ , ~, , ~ _~ ~ ~'~ 1 ... ... -- _ ' ~,, ~~ II OO~OLab ~ 4 JO „ ~- TREE PROTECTION FENCING °°~~~ ~~Q~~,,,"~' o ~. ~J Attachment 3 • ~~~~~~ • ~Iml New Homes Mortgage 3395 S, Bascom Ave. Suite 100 Campbell, CA 95008 Ph: X408) 390-4335, Fax: (408}378-5431 To whom it may concern, This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty, the owner of the property at 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga, has shown me the plans to build a new single family home on this property. ~~ Address : 1 ~~ ~ / ~~~t-~ ~~ Name ~'omments : ~ ~ ' '' ~~~ R Signature : ' = Date : 7- ~ _ ®, ~ ~~ ~~o~~~ New Hornes Mortgage 3395 S. Bascom Ave. Suite 100 Campbell, CA 95008 Ph; (408) 390-4335. Fax; (408)378-5431 To whom it may concern, This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty, the owner of the property at 14250 Elsa Avenue, Saratoga, has shown me the plans to build a new single family home on this property. Name Comments Address : ~ 4 ~ 6 v ~ ~ v ~ ~.~ ,~. h .~--~~_ Signature : ~ ~=~~-p-==~ ~-_ Date : - ~Z ~ ~'~~ r~ • 4~~~~20 m New Homes Mortgage • ' ' 3395 S. Bascom Ave. Suite 100 Campbell, CA 95008 Ph: (408) 340-4335. Fax: (408)378-5431 To whom it may concern, This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty, the owner of the property at 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga, has shown me the plans to build a new single family home on this property. ~' f ~ ~ ~. i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nam ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~Address ~n Comments : ~~ ~~~ ~ "`: l_'~ Signature : ~~~ , + ' t- ~ Date : ' 1 l ~/ • ®~~~~ New Hornes IVlortgage 3345 S. Bascom Ave. Suite 100 Campbell, GA 95008 Ph: (408) 390-4335. Fax: (408)378-5431 To whom it may concern, This is to certify that Mohammad Estahbanaty, the owner of the property at 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga, has shown me the plans to build a new single family home on this property. Name : Crj~-~- ~-. ~~~'~ Address : ~ ~ ~?~ ~"~~ ~ U~ . Comments : ~r ~ C ~ 'f 7 ~~"~' ~ ~ 9~1~ C~~ /G~i/ ~a ~~a ~~~y ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ o~ r~~~o~~'~~ Signature : Date n • ~~o~~~ Attachment 4 ~J ~~~~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR.A ) I, ~~~. ~~. QiV(~ ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ day of ~ ~~~ 2003, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) • . that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45:060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. __ ~' _.__ Signe ~~®~~~2~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 22"d day of October 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #03-159 (503-27-029) ESTAHBANATY, 14250 Elva Avenue; Request for design review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 24 feet. The property is 7,500 square feet and is 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 to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday October 14, 2003. 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. Lata Vasudevan, AICP Assistant Planner ~~~~~~ G K & CAROL BURNETT D L & NANCY MCDONNEL SHAHRIARI or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner - 20820 REID LN 20800 REID LN 19 N SANTA CRUZ AVE A SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 LOS GATOS CA 95030 ANTONIO R & JUANITA CHARLES J & MARILYN WHITE CHRISTINE A & CHARLES ROMERO or Current Owner SANDS or Current Owner 20811 CANYON VIEW DR or Current Owner 1707 FAIRFAX DR SARATOGA CA 95070 20821 CANYON VIEW DR MANSFIELD TX 76063 SARATOGA CA 95070 SHARON F REDDEN STANLEY F & SALLY PERRY MARTY & EMILIA CASSERLY or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20820 CANYON VIEW DR 20810 CANYON VIEW DR 20800 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JOSEPH H & MATHEWS OSEKOWSKY or Current Owner 20790 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 HOWARD F & CATHERINE EARHART or Current Owner 20680 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 REZA MAZAHERI or Current Owner 20890 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 RANDY M & CECILIA GRANADO or Current Owner 14341 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PRISCILLA F & DONALD POOLE or Current Owner 14340 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES L RESTER or Current Owner 14310 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CARY J & JUNO LIN ' or Current Owner 12062 JAMESTOWN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 GEORGE B & THERESE GARY L CAMPBELL GORDON or Current Owner or Current Owner 20731 MARION RD 20780 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID S & SANDRA WILSON or Current Owner 20678 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 MARK M STARK or Current Owner 20880 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 PATRICK S & SUSAN KWOK or Current Owner 10222 CARMEN RD CUPERTINO CA 95014 ROGER D & KATHLEEN ARN~ or Current Owner 14343 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA .95070 ROSALEER SPEARS or Current Owner 14351 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SHUN W & JANE QUON or Current Owner 14330 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MCBRIARTY-PINTO or Current Owner 1340 S DE ANZA BLVD 201 SAN JOSE CA 95129 CAPPUCCI or Current Owner 1764 WOODEN VALLEY RD NAPA CA 94558 LLOYD G STEPHENS or Current Owner 14350 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CHESTER J STANARO or Current Owner 14320 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 YIT-SUN A & TSANG WU or Current Owner 14270 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TERRY F & PAMELA MULLE~ or Current Owner 14240 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ®~~~~~ ALEXANDER L IGNACIO or Current Owner 14 0 ELVA AVE TOGA CA 95070 BARRIER & RAVI NOVAK or Current Owner 14231 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAL S OH or Current Owner 14261 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 AMIN R & NARJES GHAFOURI or Current Owner 14291 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BRUCE N & ROBERTA MARSHALL or Current Owner 14341 PAUL AVE TOGA CA 95070 T OR & BIELSKI SZALAY or Current Owner 14328 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TIBOR T SZALAY or Current Owner 14290 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MEI-SHIO LU or Current Owner 14260 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PAUL & PAMELA MCDONALD or Current Owner 14231 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 & YANG QIAN o urrent Owner 14261 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 GARY L CAMPBELL or Current Owner 20731 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 LETA COOK or Current Owner 14241 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT W & KAREN KING or Current Owner 14271 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ARIC J & CLAIRE KAZARNOVSKY or Current Owner 14301 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN F & ANNE MEHAFFEY or Current Owner 14340 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 EDWARD Y & TEHCHI CHIEN or Current Owner 14314 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JOSEPH L & MARIA KOVACS or Current Owner 14280 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 FELIX & ISABELLA MARKHOVSKY or Current Owner 14250 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ANTHONY L & LINDA CLARK or Current Owner PO BOX 81 SARATOGA CA 95071 DONALD M & RUTH SCHWARTZ or Current Owner 14271 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 NIKOLAJS & VIKTORS JANSONS or Current Owner 123 NEW YORK AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 MCCABE or Current Owner 23 GLADEVIEW WAY SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131 TAT C & TINA CHOI or Current Owner 14281. PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 .ROBERT & SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI or Current Owner 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 GARY M NISHIMOTO or Current Owner 14330 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MARYANNE NOLA or Current Owner 14300 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID & DELEEUW HUANG or Current Owner 1836 PORT STIRLING PL NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 PAUL & PAMELA MCDONALD or Current Owner 14231 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 RONALD P & YOLANDA MARTIN or Current Owner 14251 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 RICHAD & SUZAN DEIGNAN or Current Owner 14291 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~~~~~~ TR KRAFT PHILLIP G & LOIS SVALYA FRANK W & MERNA ISIDORO -_ or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 14299 SPRINGER AVE 14277 ELVA AVE 15041 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 . JAMES R & J ARENA or Current Owner 14294 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL J & SUSAN MCCHESNEY or Current Owner 20620 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BAUER or Current Owner 14288 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 URIOL J & CHRISTINE SALAZAR or Current Owner 14303 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ST NICHOLAS RUSSIAN ORTHODOX GR or Current Owner 14220 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAHN W & JENNIFER KUO or Current Owner 14291 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES F & ELAIlVE TENNYSON JIE & QING CHEN or Current Owner or Current Owner 14315 SPRINGER AVE 14230 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 FRANK J FRIEDRICH or Current Owner 14220 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BEVERLY A SLAVIN TOOYSERKANI MING & YAN DU - or Current Owner or Current Owner Owner or Current 14305 PAUL AVE 14315 PAUL AVE 20881 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SHING TAN I G & YAW WAN -ANN M WOROBEY BRUCE F SCHAEFER - - or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20895 CANYON VIEW DR 20905 SULLIVAN WAY 20851 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 KENETH S & SWARAN BAHL EDWIN S & VICKY LAW LELAND V & ET GIRAUDO or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 21154 SULLIVAN WAY 20867 CANYON VIEW DR 20789 REID LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070. LELAND V & YVONNE TR KHAN GEORGE T NISHIMURA GIRAUDO or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 20850 MICHAELS DR 20851 MICHAELS DR 20789 REID LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 CHANG CHANG or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 14351 PAUL AVE. 431 MATADERO DR. SARATOGA CA 95070 PALO ALTO CA 94306 or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner ~®~~~~ e fM • • . Il119p8 B/ ~'D ~' ~'°D ~~~~ ~ ~ ° PROPOSED R~SID~t1C~ FOR: FETTLE, 6 0' N E Kl1, °1P. m~. moHAmmA~ ~sTAH~AnAT~ 14150 ~~VA AVE. I ~B SARATOGA CAIIFOR~IA , a • o 0 a~~~ Planning I I & Design oWrea: woeAM~An EsrA143ARATY I ~,~~ n~ o I ~°~,Q~ 3386 & SA3COM AVE SU1E 100 ate Ngova• K CAAPBFII, CA 86008. II0a4 ~ 9rr~ (408) 380.4335 ExurrtG auaw+~ .dt 140 ELVA AVE Al SRE PLAN /SHEET PDEX / VIC1~61Y MAP sARAroGA, cA eSGTO A2 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS APN s sai~z~-aze A3 EXTERpR ELEVATIONS LOT 9GE (CROSS d -ETk 7,600 S0. FL b,.~, e~•m• zo1E nsTlacT: R•>•1oAao z A4 SECTIONS /ROOF PLAN /AREA CALLS. • ' ' O FT10P08FD lecwr: 24 -0 (~-o ALLOweuf Q A5 LANDSCAPE PLAN PROP03ED rear: 2a'-G' (2g-o• ALLOwen) AB CftADPIG & DRANACf PLAN -4Ax.1i0U3E ALLawEG: 2,880 sa. FT. a I "`°' ¢ a LL a ~ PROPOSED HOUSE ~ I ~w F !_ FRET FLOOR PWt 1,558 30. FT. ~ 0) GARAff PLAN: 380 .9Q FT. re-~ 0 sECOw FLOOR PLa1t BSO sa FT. I a FgOPOSED HOU9E 2.878 sd FT. I .PROPOSED ~elvaus 311E COVERAGE ~~~ ' SULDlp FOOTPRNT: 1043 SF. 263 ~ ~ #mIta7ES E%18TMG BUILDMG DRNEWAY,WALKS d PATIOS : B4B SF. 8A 96 ~ ® POICAFE81E19RW~FLOOR DRAWINGS INDEX roru PRDPOS® d~alvaus covERAGE z5e, so. r7. •34.6 % y I ® PIDItafES NEW 9EGOND RCbR H • EXI3TNC sTRUCTIlAES ro BE oBaa~: I ,~. I a ~ ¢ ~Ogp4tpt'" SNOIE STORY HOUSE :1,080 SF. ~~ i .. m r ~ ~ ~ J aARA/1E: 12a sF. O ¢ a n ~ ktl ' ~ TOTAL EX lO BE DEdpLISFEO: 1200 SF: ~ ~ W W ~~d °r ~' ~ W O W ~ Q ams Avr.. d 4+~ ~ ~ ~ V Q W ~ Q U 14250 Elva Ave, `~~'""" 29b sLOPE • ~ ~ ~ ; ~ o Saratoga, CA 95070 ~ ( ,~, ,~ m I I ~ o w Q ` ~, ~ ~ NOTE, Flf~ PAGES N fills i O O . ~ y~. Nau~ sN.a-~ aE gas : ; a ¢ "°' Saratoga C.~Y~` rr~ ~ h~ 4 $' ~ c W ~ r Q Z ~ N ~ ~ Y ~ ti3LA~~'. d7E ~J ~ ~ 06-77-®3 S1Y18 ~ ® 49 NOTED »`4 F4 ~ ~ ~ . ' ~ ~TM 9 ~~ ~ ~~ ~' ~' ~ l~'-e• ccNCr~re Dalvewr ~ ne xo ®s-rs ~ippjM1M1"msoRGory ~0~31hrix ~ mdforbi,ln" ~-' 14250 ELVA AVE S1EkT ~ . Al VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA SITE PLAN tra°=r-o° ,~ r~~~o~o~ D ~~~~~ OCT C ! 200 CCCY Ut• bARA'I JGA ~M1g~'1~)t`IIT~r nl,,,,~, ~o,,x , ~• • SECOND FLOOR PLAN 930 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1,946.5 SQ. FT. I. LEFT ELEVATION -NORTH aCALE: V4•d'-0' REAR ~~~~ arxE: v~•.r.m• rnviv i GLG Y n I M~ ' t-GJ I anrro o~ roAri mn R-I ~'G'7I'HwT ~~'"'-''~' V I FRONT U p 5~ LEFT ~. --- <~: gNIBH CFADE ~ 't: ExiaTING (MADE 1+:; REAR ELEVATION -EAST ~~~ ~1ng ~ sign g ~~ ~w~ ~~. ~~ ~, I1 • • .m, o ~ ~ as 1 ¢ ® ~B a BEDROOM 3 l a Q 5 ~~~ °1~ ° ~ Plonning ~ fl Da~ign ~ 4162.0605 Y MII NNCi01b K 1 IIOOYI q 911N ; GARAGE LNNG ROOM o FNISN 1N41WLiL GRdOE E - Y 26 fA GL C.'$ WIER 1- d7hL FdYJ4 gp.0Y 3'X3' D90/Xfg1B (O51.TP. QI 4 IYZ~4 I •irFlca.auc.nnrraxFrat _ J 0.8239' BIDG P4'82 Dr82 RTm07D BI 4IWN ~ & E U B A A4 ~ Z a ROOF PLAN ~~a°=r-o^ g ~ U < ~~ a b e LL , O 2 ~ ~ f 6 FLOO71 o1~,a cxci¢.encN: Q b'-m•.r-m'•n'-m•x7'm~. wID U. ~ ® 9 10 79'•m' x ~'•4' • 1755 "J. ~ ~ 4 /y~~~ I~ /~~ BEDROOM G LVf I ~ 5 3 € 3 1- ee > 04 Q'-0' x Po'-m' . T36m 3f. ~ . M1 8 Z g O ` Q O b'-m'x3'-m'.f7'•m'x7'-m'>. 15ID e1. ~ p ~• ~ ~ O Q m•.m• x n'•m• . 537m.f. p~ ~ W a I! ~ e'.m• x ~'.m• . lemur.f. g ~ ~ 0 a n BATH HALL DMIG R o ~ uj °D ~ ~ < a O 09 k'-b'%11'16'. AI5 J. ~. FN 7UILLFAL v € ~E Q ~ ~~ F ~ ~ C < S Tova SfdNFE Fmrxt • ~p~es eoFr. ~•/ / ; y\ \ 33 Na E W1 \ \ \ / SECT ON ~ -n•~ B I ra,~ SECGND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN A4 owe ~ 105 7p sb ~-~ ~ am Ma s A4 FLOOR AREA COMPUTATION BUILDING SECTIONS ~~a"=r-a• ~ ~ ~, . e,x e~ en. wn . oo~rii-~nr 8Ffi1~lR A I GA W CI6TU6 fVRP1aAl,4 ' IlOCkRCN B 5 6 G>1FYILtFA NOELLI(' GIEIALLEA . C S 4 WIDE DClkNOLIA ~ V~l3PIICA D I GA T - LAVA !PE'C~6 I,Ay E 9 13 MYIiICA CALMOIMK~4 CON'!gN M~R%'r=~ ~ . f 5 II RNODODEPIDRIT' NCN PB~l1AL8 G 16A. 0 flLIGA A4BLI,0~ ml1Nt MIM641tlf! H I GA T ~ }H'llllpm DAYLU.T ' :. K I G4 p AAlRGLBY.6H~}hWC1TA1tlE1lJO ~ LA1~t COT19H ~ I Ga n erACre erLwrwt t.m~ibb e~ae > ~~ ~~ la PROVIDE s' Of MEDIUI EANC 1'VAk31l5FI0 ..hr 1lTlITB I , _ 0 D 't~ ; PRD+~DE W41ER • lPIC~If LA~BCAPE ' I'!I[ ARTICLE i-41 I a ~~ ~ ~ ~, OP THE BgPAT04A M1111GPAL LODE ~ --.c- .__.~. .-- _ ~ ~' .. . ... a rlt~tr~~t~a 4~ I ~' ~ i ~ C~IF I,i ~ ~ ~ ~.; ;,, ~~ ' ~ ~ i ~' ` ~ ~ `'L ~ i ' 1 ~ J ~~ ` E N ,. 7~- I.. j ; t - ~ ~ 1 ~ V~ ~'•'~ ~~~ ' ~ i s ~ , ~ ~ u ~ -r--- ~ p : ~, ~ . t . ` ~ .. ',TV R' lam: t ~ ~' 4 ~ i . :M } . L; r1 A f A~. ~ P ~ ~ ~ • I a•ZT~1<: ! ~ f 9 P Q ;, ~ . .. _ i9~ .. a 3 E7f181TNG TRH LAi+ArE L11.VA AVE. ~ ,~ ~. ecasE, rra;.a _~ ~~ N .~«F:a~+'+a~~'~3E~ui~vae;has,'^a+r,,.S+~.<..a.:r...wr~..,3A a: ::..,:ee.1 ..:~.:..,,k..;~,...~: Ces~..t~"x:..,:tvti.&-,-:..~'+:.it+._.....:..uf'~;.~;~?.-`.41+5"ri5.iF~tF a3'?bar~!t *5~ >. ;:-k tn.,...t r.:_, i ~3:,~rvFa: saw„_... ,.=.u.k',n,..:~cz.~: •'-a.:_...,emu,.,...:.-i..:'~.•.'_~~'<a ~. ,;x1~;~itdA•~~"H ~tY ~.`~.Cts_~w..~c7t..3rar~'.?dir=.,~'?..t~a:...~2N3H31+s~.t~:3i~+. aT,+~.a.: ,~..,E ~.x • ~. I 1 __ ~i ~~ R , __. - 40 ` ~w __ _ __- I ~ `__ -~ ~ ~~ , I ~', ~ ~ I ~ ~I l »~ , it II I (~~ 9B2fi ~ - ~ ~ J I I ~ II ~~; h /~ w II I ~l ,~~s8.os~ ~_~_ I ,' of 1 '~ I I ~~ ~ ~ o II of I ~ of I II I I~ ~~ I ~ z I I'~ ( I I _ :t ~~~°4 y~° J D 'i ~ ~~ Ih i ~ ~ i ~I 11,1 i _ mI h 1I ~ ~I~ II ~~~ i 1 ,~ ~J o~~~) i~~Gy~9~ ~a~~ X60 u .-\~~~4 5 6 5.1. ~. ~~~ ~ .. _ „~.~. i" ~a 9 6,7 T.i ~~ ..~-~-~' '.~^-_"_ fro N1D°21'oo~~w i5o.oo~ ~J '~ '~~ ITEM 4 L I~EPOIZT TO THE PLANNING C~MISSI~JN Application No.: Location: Appellant/Owner: Staff Planner: 'Date: October 22, 2003 #03-215 -Appeal of Administrative Decision 19817 Braemar Drive Mukund Ingle Ann Welsh, AICP Assistant Planner APN: 393-26-040 Department Head:'~~ 1 ~ '~ I ~~---._---~, a ~ ~ i ~, ~, , ;~, --i ; i .-:;- -.~~ ~ r..._ ~, r, _'~_ ', ~~, , ~. ---' ~~: ' ~: e 19817 Braemar Drive CASE HISTORY Appeal filed: September 22, 2003 Application complete: September 29, 2003 Notice published: October 8, 2003 Mailing completed: October 9, 2003 Posting completed: October 1, 2003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Without receipt of required permits, the appellant has constructed a wall in front of his home ranging in height from 24 inches to 75 inches, following the contour of the land within three feet of the curb. The wall is located within the city right of way'. Upon being notified of the need for permits, the appellant applied for an encroachment permit, which was granted on the condition that the wall comply with applicable zoning guidelines. The standard setback from the road for an encroachment permit is five feet. The encroachment permit was granted despite the fact that the wall is located two and a half feet from the curb. Since the property owner failed to apply for a building permit, the wall was constructed without benefit of staff review anal upon completion of construction a complaint was received regarding the excessive wall height. Responding to this complaint, staff investigated the situation, informing the appellant that the wall would have to be reduced to the three-foot height limit. An appeal of the administrative decision denying the newly constructed wall was filed upon receipt of staff denial. Review of the site revealed the following conditions that the property ov~~ner is attempting to mitigate with the excessive wall height. The parcel at street level has a ten percent slope across the width of the lot. In addition, there was a ten. to fifteen. percent slope from the house to the curb. This slope is novv leveled off with the construction of the retaining wall. The .applicant was attempting to create a level front yard. Since this request is an appeal of an administrative decision, staff references Section 15-29.010. of the zoning.ordinance, which allows a maxunum height of three feet for retaining walls within the front yard. Any deviation from these standards should be addressed via a variance to the zoning standards. If the appellant should request a variance, staff is of the opinion that there may be grounds for granting some relief on the basis of topography. In teens of granting a variance to the wall height requirements, the following findings must be made: l) because of special circumstances applicable to the property such as ... topography... strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zoning district; 2) granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; 3) granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or. materi~dly injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ~®~ . A windshield survey of .the neighborhood revealed that similar lots with slopes in the front yard deal with their situation by means of slope plantings, juniper or ivy or retaining walls or terraced walls. Most of the lots in the neighborhood. have a level surface from the street to the house and are therefore able to enjoy use of their front yard. Given the slope of -the lot, there may be grounds to allow the height of the retaining wall to be averaged across the front of the lot so that the average height of the wall does not exceed three feet.. This would require that the wall be stepped down as it approaches the higher portion at the wall. By averaging the height across the wall from a point at the low end to a point at the high end, the wall height could range from 25 inches at the low end to 47 inches at the high end. A variance, if requested by the applicant anal granted by the Commission would provide the applicant some relief due to the topography of the site while still maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Since this action is an appeal from an administrative decision and not a variance. request, staff recommends that the height of the wall be lowered to three feet at all points along the wall. Tlvs will require that portions of the wall be removed and that the wall be stepped down. as the street elevation changes across the front of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the wall height be reduced to three feet by means of stepping down the wall as the grade changes across the front of the property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Exhibit A -Denied Plans - Prepared by Mukund Ingle - 9/22/03 2. Neighborhood Notification -eleven neighbors signed in support of the construction. 3. Photos of the Property and Neighborhood 4. Examples from applicant of similar wall height violations in the neighborhood.- • ~~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA INGLE/19817 BRAEMAR DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal from an Administrative Decision issued to Mukund and Varsha Ingle requiring that they lower to three feet an illegally constructed front yard retaining wall; and. WHERF_AS, 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 . WI-~EREAS, the Planning Commission has considered information pro~~ided by the staff, recommending that the wall be lowered with some allowance for the variation in topography across the front of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as .follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the facts related to the front yard retaining wall, the appeal filed by Mukund Ingle is denied. The retaining wall shall be lowered to achieve a height of three feet across the front of the property. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commssion, State of California, October 22, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission ~ ~~~~ Attachment 1 ~ '~ w.,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ;.. ~~„ r ~ ~~, ., ~~. ~` ~ ~ _ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~~u~i `" ,.L~ ~. ~ ~f~~~~~~ r3'~. Ph.A~~m~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ;' ~, r~ ae , , .~, G.lri ,~ ~ i ~ _._ ~ 3 `~ ~Y7~ ~. ~ ~ ~; ' '~ _ _ ~ ~`{t°r ;' `~ ~ _ ~ ~ .~ ~~.,,., ~~.. .~. ~II t ' ~ "~ 3a 4' w,~g .~_~ . , __ v ° a<. , ,.,~A 4 ~~,.~_~ ~~~'.. f r 11~,.y ~ , f ~.,, ~ fi4r f f` ~ ' ~ _ ~, ~~~ ~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~°~~ _ ~ . e.~f . v ~ Y f [®f ] 'mow y~... f 1 `~~ " ~ • _ , v"Y~~ "n... ~ `~~. ~~ i J e ' ~ - - "h .. f' i . ~ ,~ ..F~~ ;' :~1 ,~, ~~ ..v't~)xt ~ ~rs~~. ~M.'K .._. ~ t t - .gym m. ... ..~.;.,.. f .~ _ _ }}4E ~ ......_..,......,~ ....._. t. ~ • ~_. "~R,kCpa,~ __ trj _... i ~~ ~ ~ c~ ; ~,~,~.~e~- _ ~ ~..~ ;.:. • ~~ !1 // ~~s f-+ _. ~.f~i>.z_~ ~`,,tt~~1_ ___L.~V~j„e_ l,~.F_."CEt~ '°f~4E~.t1S~. t ~~:wR}! ~.- ~'r~~~~- S~~ ~t~ '~~ f I~t~ra.~~ ~' 7°u~r ~1,~a r, 2 a r .> ~. ......e... ...,_. -: r ~ ~ e t ...~ .I ~ S ~ ___ , ~ _ . , :~ "' ",a . ~ ~. .~~__w_ _~..,_._...._..,~ . ~ ? f'~( max, , i ® ~a .. .. ~'~ .~'T 7 ~~ ~ i ,r. ~,~ _ ... t _ .. 1~C,l~Ali r.~ v'~t~ ~ _~_.~~ r ... °!~'~°~~<°"~ Vii; fix` ~ ,~+ ~~ .~ ~~ `i a,}~.~~ -~E~ ~rF ~ _ ~ wt q ~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~~ .. ~ -A...~~~-i.47 ~~'.~~~,~~ ! ~..~ ~F~~~SI e`°0.a f ~i~~.,.,, ima ~~.~~~~..~..e^.:~ ... ._...... ~~~ ,.~ - .s _. __. s.. _.~ ~ ~ "~ _ _ ', ~ ~._~ ~~ r~ ~... -- " ~'`~ ~ d- w ~i p'° ~ r - ,.~ _i _ .. __, ~ _ ...~ t,1.~+PJ 'fir ~ i y ... ; . .X! • .I°~ t.+ 4~~ +.a ~~ ~~4 ~ ~r~ ~~ ['d F~ 4a3~~. g - - `~~ ~i ~ . .. '~ ;aF$.'L~ai ,~ ielr~t~~~,,.: ~ 1aJ~1 ~~_~',l~,~ 'e)rMz ., ,~; ~1 ~"~T'4 ~ .~ »~,.. .. -,.,. , _ . _ _ ~ - ~ __ _ _ _ . _ ._... ~ ~.. ~w , - __ ~ ~.~. ~; r ~ _.__..._ __ ____ .. ~_. ~ _~_ a_ _ ~ _ H_. n. ~_. ~..~.----mow ~- --m-~. ~ ~ r .. ,,_ ~~~~ ~ - .~ , .~ ~''~ ___. _._ !~A m <-~.. . _. (°f~L~ v ~. ~#~'~° ~vA ~: s ~~. J~'~_r'f~~fi~ ~i w (err ./~r~,s ~.-.~ n r~.._ _ ... oTf1L ~ ~~_.~ 0.1,~~ s f-rearYtV ~+»,~n~3ar~T~.. h1,~~:t~~ ~ca~~ -:~.~. ~~~ - ^ ~- ~:~~:~~-~--- tom:.-- ~:4~P~~._. ` ' .~ ~ ~ ~ tai o ~ t~A p i ~ r~ T ~a a ~~ ~ n i.~.na r N t~~ ~' ~A r~ ~ ~~ r " nf.o r~ ~~avr~-~7 . ~,tu ... .. -~ .. ~p . _~~~~'~ r~t,~f ~ ~~ -;~'RA~r~=ma'r' ~ ~~ ~'~ i _ ... __ _ -~t~'~,~ vr~_w~~ fJ~ __~ .__ _---- i ~ ~'"' i ___ __ .. - -------r--- ~ ~ .~- f . E __._~ -~-' _ _.. ._ _- ~.~ ___ _~.~ .. --- ~ - --- __ ~ __ ~ , wa ~_ ..~._ .._ ~ ~ ~ t ___._--- __._ ~ ~.,,_._ ~,s ___ -~.-~~r~~~° ~~ ,ter ~E ~ _~ "" ~ ~ ~~ _,~ _~~, a~e . ~ ..~ ,.. , ~ ,,"~` . ~- ~ ~.-- .~~ ~1 P~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C i~w~ p~NAt,2~ ~ ~ ~ U A~~ .~ r~~~d=~~` ~ n.a..~. _M~i-UGt ~ .. i ~_ ~, I rr . ---- ---- ___- ® ___ _._ ~., ~. . . Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications. . Date: `~"~-~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~~~~- :~2~i~;~~1=:. "~~a~"~l ~.fl-i2i~iL~~> ~Rt `~~=~~ Applicant Name: 1 ;l v K,~ r:~ ~ ~-tv ~ z t=. . Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have. directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below ,certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ ~~~~+ ~ ~ }'I ~~ Neighbor Address: >/ ; <J ~'~~ ~, Neighbor Phone #: (~' / -° Signature: Printed: ~f ~' 9 City of Saratoga Planning Department i _ _ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~ 2"~ i ~ ~~o~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~e''a~~" ~~-~~"~. ~'~~'~~~~~~~°`~~t t Applicant Name: t'1 ca K~ N `~ ~ ~ ~-~- Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues theymayhave directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~~~~ r.~ ~ ~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ' °' ~....- I ~ z~~~ ~' ~___.___. Printed: 1 ~ Neighbor Name: ~ 1 ~ '' ~-~ ~='" Neighbor Address: ~~~~ ~ City of Saratoga ~~--~ Planning Department ~~ • _t `:r Neighbor Notif cation Template for Development Applications . Date: ~ °~~'° `~ s ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~`~ ~ '~ ~ '~~~-~" ~"~ ' `~~-t ~~"'A ` ~ l ~ ~ Applicant Name: ~ ~ ~ tiv. ~~~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their "neighbors to address issues and .concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed. project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and .issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues" they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. L~ 11My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns "or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion . with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: c Neighbor Address,:,, Neighbor Phone #: "~ s ~'' Signature: Printed: ,~ r 1 ~_ '~ "~ '~" ~. .3 City of Saratoga Planning Departl~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: _ ~ 2~` ~ ~~Q-3 ~}_ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~`~ ~ ~ ~'~.~ E i~ ~ ~. ~ Riv ~l ~ ~-R-~`T~~~s r ~~~ ~~ Applicant Name: ~1 t..o iG~ ~*~ ~? ~ .~ ~"e t--~. Application Number: The Saratoga. Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly" to the applicant. Please :ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. LJM si ature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I Y ~ understand the scope of work; and I do NUT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I -have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):. s Ncighbor Namc: Neighbor Address: ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~ 4 ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Neighbor Phone #: Signature: 1 ~c ~ Printed: • • City of Saratoga Planning Department ~. Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: `~ a ~, 2.~-t=,,,: PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~"~~ ~~.~.~,~.M~~.'~~..~~v~,~ ~A~~,u~; ~`~ -~. Applicant Name: ~ ~ t~ ~ ~~ ~~~'~ ~ ~._. Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. ,Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have. directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: '~~ ~ Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: ~- Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Deparfine ~, Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~ ~~Z- ,- PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~.~~` ~,°~e~~.~ ~;;-d~~y~ 4.~A~-l~i~~~~r ~-~r`~~~~~_- Applicant Name: ~ ~ t~ ~~ ~. ,~~ ~ .~~ 4 +t~~.-.....~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighborswho fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. ~ Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all . residents residing on your property. l 1'J'IVIy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant.prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: 1~6'c~ ~:w Neighbor Address: Signature: ~.. City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~ ~ ~ - Printed: • C7 4 Planning Department ~~ ,. Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~ 2~-- i ~ ~. PROJECT ADDRESS: "~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~- t=t~ ~-~ ~~v E j ~~ R.~`l'~ ~ ~t C t q5 ~' ~?. Applicant Name:. ?~ ~ ~~.~t~ ~ .. t~..- Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of. the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning. Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. ' 1VI si ature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I Y ~ understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ ~ ~~ ~~.~~;. ~-- -}"~,~„~;`~~_ Neighbor Address: ~S ~' `ZZ.r ~j Yf~' wL~-tvy~' ~--~ ~~„ r ;h; Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ `~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Signature: Printed: ~- City of Saratoga Planning Department '~ ~,`7 J Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~? ~.':~ PROJECT ADDRESS: '~ `i' ~Mt'~ ~~~t~~i~1`li~: ~ ~i~ ~~ ~f~ r2~'~~ ~ G r ~ ~ , 9 5`~ ~-ct Applicant Name: ~%~'~• ~~ ~-~~~ t ~- Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their' concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all . reside' is residing on your property. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): r'--,. Neighbor Name: lf'"~r ~` ~ ~ Neighbor Address: ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Signature: ,-~°', Neighbor Phone #: `` Printed: ~i • • City of Saratoga Planning Departure ~~ . Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date:? ~- ~--~ ~~ ~~~~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: 1`~~~~ ~~~~~~-~~~~F`~~-, '~~~-'~~°~~r t Applicant Name: to;c..,~ ~ "~ ~e~ ~ ~~-- Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. a,, y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the, following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): r ~ ~, _.~_. ~ ~~n.~ . .. r --L Neighbor~Name~: ~ ~.~ tt"~~~' ~ ~~~: ; ;s r ,~~ i~l Neighbor Address: ,f yy .. '~~ (~. g~ Neighbor Phone #: ~`,~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ Signature: Printed: ,~> G ' ~, City of Saratoga Planning Departmer Neighbor Notification Template far Development APPiications L.3ate: s~ ~-~- ~v~l ~c~rcc`~~r ~^d'cx ~. tM Q~ PROJECT ADDRE~S~ ~`~ licant Name: ~ ~ u.~`.°~ .__~-~'"~°-~ App ~~ ~~o~v t ~lpplicatian Number: a a Planning Cana~r~ission requires applicants licattans priathtn the e e~~ng of The Sarat g address issues and concerns regardin ~ ect~IThe Fdanning Commissirin claes not lack the public hear•fng on the proposed p .l n nei hbors y„ha fail to voice their concerns a~d ~amrnissian preferethat favorably upa g have clarectty rxppdicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the P ann g artunity to e~cpress any concerns ar issues they may rieighbars take this app ' nt, Please ensure the signature an this document is representative of a to the apphca residents residing an your praperty~ certifies the fallowing: 1 have reviev~Fed the project plans; 1 ~Y signature blow fond the sco e of work; and I do Nf)T have anb} concerns or issues rvhic nee • >~ is hearing ari the proposed project. undors to be address by the applicant prior to the Ctt} s pu certifies thy: follo~rin~,~ 1 have reviewed the project platzs scion ~Svl}= signature below riderstarid the sco e of work; and l have issues or ccanc msxarethe foil wing please u with the applicant, have not been addressed. y attach additional sheets if necessar~~= ~T~C ~-~rS"T~, ~~ ?~leighbor Name: "~ a ~ Neighbor Addre`~s: _, ~~~~ Signature: Neighbor Phone #: ~,,,_~_ ~~ ~ ~ Printed: • • Planning l3epur•tn~c~t City of Saratoga ~~~ ~~ neighbor Notification Template for pevelopmen# Applications Dater . ' ~ r ~ ~~ r ( ~ ~ ~' ~ ° PRQ3ECT ADDRESS: ~~ ~~ ~ Applicant Name: `' "`}``' Application Number. k uires a licutits to work with their neighbors to The Saratoga Planning C'arnmissiQn r~eq pp lications prior to the er~entng of address issues anal c,ncerns regardin ~ e~.et~e :Mann ng ~'~rr~rr:issi4~vhen sa~ic~ ed by the public hearing on the proposed p 1 avr~rably upon neighbors wha,fail tcs ~` Ste t send the Plan rung Cam fission prefer that applicants prier to the public hearing .l~ ~ ress an ca;kerns or issues they may have directly neighbors take this oppQrtunaty to exp ,~ .ant. Please ensure the signature nn this document is representative rrf a to the appltc residents residing can your prapert}=. l elow certifies the foilawing: I gave reviewed the project which need ,. ~",NIA si~raature b concerns ar issues understand the sco e of work; and I d have ublic hearing on the Proposed project. to be address by the applicant prior to the City s p rp ect lams,I ~;VI signaiure beiou° certifies t1Ze CQllowing: l have re erns hich after discussion understand the seo e ofwork; and I have issues or con s concerns are the following (Please with the applicant,. have net taeen addressed. My attach additional. sheets ifnecessary}: ~ =_.. ~ L "» V•... r n s~~~ ~d sy.~" s ~,~,,,,~__.:_._.. ,~ may'' - _ s .~ . a. _ __ ~ :Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~ " ~~ __ ¢~~ ~~~~` Neighbor Phone ~: _,_._.-~--..- S~ afore: ~~' ~ ~~ ~, ~~~ 2 ~ - City of Saratoga .Printed: ~' ~".~.~-:~ ~ f~jjy~ Planning Depurtmerrt 4 ~. .: - F .. ....4._11- - A ~-- ...~~ ~;_;~_~'~:"'4 `~~ t ~ '.L'.~ t . _. ;1L._,_._ _. i• i~ ~`~ ~~ -~~~- - k i1 -~ ~ ~ r. ~ '4 :~ ~w -~- `, s. .. k S 1 - ~ '~ ~ `X` i ~ . y 1 fir. t _ ~ ._- . ~,_ __ Y~ . _r. - S ~.X e. - ---~$ } 7 ~~ __ ~~ cr ~. - .... - . wl ' '~ - _ ~ t ~~ - 'f~ .. l~ - ' ` " ' ~ ... ~- . s T ,' ~ - ~ ~. .. 4 ' # P ~ ~ t ~' \ .. ra~~~ j~tV ~_~ 5 .. F }' x -- s~ ~''`+~ti ! ;~ ~ et d ' - ~ i.~ t,,r,~~' !~i ~ ~~~ _ i i ~ ~,,~. ' - i {~r~ ' - '~ wS F . ~_ _~__ ' i y< ~ *rb .. s' `yam = y __ ~ _~~~~ +. z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gym. - - ¢ _ +~ ~ - E ~_ y ~ ..-him` • • i~ t ~ ~,p~ll ~~ J . ~=~ _ ~_ ~-~-~-~ n- ~, ~ j _ ' F _ _-_- . ~,,, ~. , ,, ---~ ~-- - - - ~., ~i-- -~~ r~ ,,;~ , - ' f ;~ +,. _~_. ., ~',~ ~~ -.r=. -o.~..-_ - ~s ,~ . ~ ~ ~~,~ o ,n_ ~- ~_~. ~~ _ z, ._ .. ~. :: - R `,. ,, .. r ,_ .,~ _ N i ff " ~`+ r - ~~y ~ '~r ~ __ ~ ~~ ;~, , ~%'~, ~'_ ~~~'_~t _~~ila~r ~ ors '^'r....~ _v. c.il1 .. • • ~. ~_~~ ~~` ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ -.. I .J (y, { ~, ?' ~ ~~ ~`~! ~ ~, ~r~"= ~~,~ ;~, . . ~~ z ~~ - ~j~,.~,,,~~J ~ -? ~,. ~~ty 1 M j. 4 I ~~v~' _ - r ;,' I • ~~~` ~~ ~ ~ i ! _.. `~ ,~~ n, c "` ~ ; .-'~r"r~ ' i t ~ x ...~ a. " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ , Y om Y ~ yY L7 _ ~ 5~ h t ~ / _ 2 ~ "t ., 'y r ~sf ~ ~. ~ t ~i.. 1 ~ ~ ~~ • i ~~~:, ~. (~ ~ ."~ J i y 2 3y' ,,~ ... ' .. -R S..-ate"- - ~ n. s '~ ~n ';cwt *~ - -: _ ~ r elm' ~S va ~ ~,f}7 ~ ~F r' ,~t~ ~ 4 ~` `~~° ,~. ~ _ ~i~i i ~~p ~ ~ ~ +ti -~" 41`~~,i s ~~.Y f ~ "_T / -: F Y'+ ,, ,~ . r '. y ~• ,~-~;~~' rat .y„ ~~~ ~ =k~7~'r yY '~ y"~ 1 ~ '"r. T uat -'~ ~ ~'`~t '>f U~' ~r-~ i ~Kx ^tu~t'k ~'a~,r ~.~ r`` ~ . a K ~ r ~ ~, ~, t~ ~ 1 t 'r W. ~ "~~, f~:.~ ~~ L I ,1'.r i?S r Q .,~~'a~l~.~i„. 7j ~.;•r s. ~ .`~i "t ~1 ~ ',sit. ~',~`C ~~ ~r~w~ ~ ~ 1 i ~ yr. ~~' '•-t ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ' ~..-. T s ~;~ ! ~ ~ ~v~ :~~ ~t r ~~ ~.~/ tip.. i r ~" ~~+ ~E ~~'~ ~~~~ri T { 7~+ ~y, !~z/Si"':~ .~ ..^~ t ~" ~ ~, tea,, ~ ~-• ~ ~ _ ~~ '~t<.? `F..~'_ ~ . ~[;~T„ . t~ y ,y. r' ~ .^ -. ~ - ~- =:.; ~ - - • ~.. -t- " ~ ~ ~M ~ ~ Fem. ~{~ ~rJ ~`C; ~ L ~.- ~ "C`A ~ ~ t ~ ~ • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 The City Council met in Open Session to conduct interviews for the Arts Commission and the Finance Commission at 5:00 p.m. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference with Legal Counsel -Consideration of Liability Claims (Gov't Code 54956.95): Claimant: Raihana Bano Agency claimed against:. City of Saratoga • Conference with Leal Counsel -Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case). 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 7:00 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 Danielle Surdin, Administrative Analyst Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Iveta Harvancik, City Engineer Morgan Kessler, Assistant Engineer Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 17, . 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 17, 2003, was properly posted on September 11, 2003. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bill Breck, noted that the tree protective fences were still missing at the property located at 14480 Oak Place. Mr. Breck stated that this was his 19`h time before the City Council and Planning Commission. Darin Defner, PG& E, introduce himself to the Council as the new Government Relations Representative and distributed his business cards. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested an update on the property located at 14480 Oak Place. City Attorney Taylor explained that a Notice of Code Violation for a number of violations was issued on September 15, -2003. City Staff is waiting for a response from the landowner who has 20 days to file an appeal. City Attorney Taylor stated that if no appeal is filed, the Notice of Code Violation would be recorded on the property. ANNOUNCEMENTS None • 2 • CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. COMMENDATION -EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR SARATOGA CITIZEN JOHN "JACK" MALLORY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Streit read the commendation and presented it to Mr. Mallory. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A. INTRODUCTION OF GENIE DEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SASCC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Dave Anderson, City Manager, introduced Genie Dee the new Executive Director of SASCC. Director Dee noted that she is looking forward to working with the City Council. 2B. CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge. achievement. Mayor Streit acknowledged the award and thanked Director Baloca and his staff for their hard work on the CAFR. CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register: WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. ~~ 3 3B. PLANNING ACTION MINUTES -AUGUST 27, 2003 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT 3C. PLANNING ACTION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. Mayor Streit requested that item 2C be removed from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Streit referred to Item 3 in regards to the AT& T application Mayor Streit noted that the staff and the Planning Commission did a great job with the landscaping and the location of the building. Mayor Streit noted that he would like to appeal the application based on the safety and esthetics of the proposed building with support from the Council. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she supported Mayor Streit's request. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 3D. 2002 CONCRETE & STORMDRAIN MAINTENANCE PROJECT - NOTICE OF COMPLETION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Notice of Completion. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR 2002 CONCRETE & STORMDRAIN MAINTENANCE PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 3E. ADA IMPROVEMENTS AT HAKONE GARDENS- AWARD OF CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve proposal. and authorize City Manager to execute agreement • 4 WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 3F. 2003 CONCRETE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM -AWARD OF CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Declare George Bianchi the lowest bidder; award a construction contract; authorize staff to execute change orders. to the contract. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO DECLARE GEORGE BIANCHI THE LOWEST BIDDER; AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 3G. SARATOGA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (SBDC) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-056 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REPEALING THE DECISION ETABLISHING THE SARATOGA BUSINESS DEVELOPEMNET COUNICL (SBDC) WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION REPEALING THE DECISION ETABLISHING THE SARATOGA BUSINESS DEVELOPEMNET COUNICL (SBDC). MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 3H. EXPANSION OF DECORATIVE AND SAFETY LIGHTING IN THE VILLAGE/APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-055 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE 2003-2004 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $34,532 FOR DECORATIVE AND SAFETY LIGHTING IN THE VILLAGE WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2003-2004 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $34,532 FOR DECORATIVE AND SAFETY LIGHTING IN THE VILLAGE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 3I. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PLAY EQUIPMENT FOR EL QUITO PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PROJECT FROM MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT COMPANY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve purchase. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF PLAY EQUIPMENT FOR EL QUITO PARK. MOTIUON PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 3J. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CONSENSUS PREPARED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-063 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT OF THE SANTA CLARA WATER RESOURSES PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE MEMORANDUM OF CONSENSUS FOR MUTUAL COOPERATION TO JOINTLY DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT WATER AND WATERSHED RESOURCES PROTECTION MEASURES, GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CONSENSUS -PREPARED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 6 3K. CLAIM OF RAIHANA BANG; CLAIM NO. GL-055073 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize ABAG to settle claim. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ABAG TO SETTLE CLAIM. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. MAJOR UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 15-50, TREE REGULATIONS AND ADOPTION OF A ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue public hearing from 09/03/03; adopt resolution granting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; introduce ordinance; and place on consent calendar at the September 17, 2003 meeting for adoption. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-064 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRNMENTAL IMPACT TO THE AMENDMENTS AND RE-ADOPTION OF THE TREE REGULATIONS OF THE SARATOGA CODE Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that various changes to the proposed ordinance: • Adopting ISA Standards • Administrative Penalties • State Licensing Requirements • Defining "Canopy" and "Crown" • Requiring a permit after the fact if a person removes or prunes in excess of 20% or encroaches into the root zone of a tree in order for conditions to be made • Technical and grammatical changes Vice Mayor Waltonsmith asked Director Sullivan what the tree fund would be used for. Director Sullivan noted that the funds should go back into the community for tree maintenance and new trees. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing and invited public comments. 7 Tom Corson submitted a letter signed by six residents in his neighborhood proposing five points that would make the proposed ordinance better • Design Review findings should preserve all protected trees • Noticing on all protected trees not just "native" trees • Determination on Permit -change to state that a tree can only be removed. if actual or eminent physical damage to buildings on a property • Determination on Permit - if an Arborist report is required then it should be written by the City's Arborist • Standard policy be clearly stated -Replacement or payment shall be required in all cases except when a tree is removed because of a disease of public nuisance Bill Breck noted that he supported Mr. Corson's suggested changes and added that his concern is how the City was planning on enforcing the ordinance. Mr. Breck asked if someone is reckless enough to cut down a protected tree, what specific measure could the City use to require a permit. Marvin Becker stated that he feels that the City should not have the right to tell a property owner that they can or cannot remove a tree from their own property. Robert Zager noted that he is opposed to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zager noted that he feels the proposed ordinance is flawed especially because it takes away the property rights of a homeowner. Elizabeth Lora noted that the proposed ordinance is not strong enough to protect the trees in Saratoga. Ms. Lora noted that she feels that neighborhoods should be involved in the process if it affects their neighborhood. Jill Hunter, Planning Commission Chair, noted that the subcommittee worked very hard on the proposed ordinance and noted that she agrees with the speakers that all protected trees should be included in the ordinance not just the native trees. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing. Mayor Streit stated that it is important for the public to understand that this proposed tree ordinance is fine-tuning the existing version we already have. Director Sullivan responded several definitions have been added to the proposed ordinance, which adds clarity for the public and building inspectors. Also the ordinance would be consistent with industry standards. In regards to permit fees, the fee was established last year at $25 and has not been increased since. Councilmember Kline asked for a brief explanation on how the City will. enforce the proposed ordinance if someone is in violation of an illegal tree removal. Director Sullivan explained that the owner would have to obtain a tree removal 8 permit and the City would add conditions. The City arborist would visit the site to evaluate the tree. If the person doesn't comply they would receive a misdemeanor. In response to Mr. Breck's suggestion, Councilmember King asked if drip lines could be required in site plans. Consensus of the Council to add Councilmember King's request in the proposed ordinance. In regards to the concept of misdemeanors in the proposed ordinance, Mayor Streit asked for a clear explanation of this. City Attorney Taylor responded State code states that any violation of the code is a misdemeanor unless the City makes it an infraction. City Attorney Taylor noted that the City could adopt a whole separate section on civil penalties. This would allow the Cit to approach the civil court to ask that they impose a penalty on a person. If directed by .Council staff could come back with civil remedies provisions as a code enforcement tool that would apply to a lot of others things besides trees. Councilmember Kline noted that the City could raise penalties higher than $500 if we had a civil remedy section in the code. . City Attorney Taylor responded yes. Councilmember King asked if schools are exempt from City ordinances. City Attorney Taylor responded that schools are not exempt from city's zoning ordinance unless the school district makes an explicit finding that it needs to exempt itself from the City ordnance in support of a classroom facility. Councilmember Kline asked Director Sullivan if giving notice for protected and native trees would add an extra burden to staff. Director Sullivan responded that it would not be an additional burden on staff. Vice Mayor Waltonsmtih noted that she supports the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Kline noted that he thinks that the misdemeanor should be reduced to an infraction and also the City needs to find a way to enforce the ordinance in a monetary amount. Councilmember Kline noted that he supports noticing on all protected and native trees. • 9 City Attorney Taylor noted that this item would be brought back to Council on October 15, 2003 as amended. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO INTRORDUCE THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED WITH AMENDMENTS INCLUDING: AMENDING THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISION TO REDUCE THE PENATLY FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO AN INFRACTION, ADDING A ENFORCEMENT REMEDY OF A CIVIL PENALTY PROCEDURE UP TO $5,000 PER TREE OR THE VALUE OF A TREE IF GREATER THAN $5000; NOTICING OF ALL PROTECTED TREES NOT JUST NATIVE TREES; INSURE THAT PROTECTED TREES ON ADJOING PROPETIES ARE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTBER 17, 2003; DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH THE NOTICE; DECLARE THE NOT_I_CE SUFFICENT TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ISA STANDARDS BY REFERNCE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. WALTONSMITH/KLINE ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. . OLD BUSINESS SEPTIC ABATEMENT PROGRAM -BELOW GRADE SEPTIC SYSTEMS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained the background regarding the septic abatement program and stated that the current ordinance was interpreted to exempt below grade homes served by septic systems because it was believed that the cost of installing the storage tank, pump system, and piping necessary to convert from septic to sewer would be prohibitively expensive. Director Cherbone stated that new information indicates, however, that the cost of conversion, while substantial, do not differ markedly from the cost of converting above grade systems. Director Cherbone explained that at the February 5, 2003 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to contact the 19 property owners whose homes were • identified as maintaining a septic system with a "below grade" exemption status. 10 Director Cherbone noted that after additional investigation, City staff discovered two of these parcels were recently connected to the public sewer system, one is a vacant parcel, and one was determined not to fall under the below grade exemption status. Per this update information, the proposed new ordinance would affect 15 properties. Director Cherbone explained that staff contacted all affected property owners via mail and invited them for individual meetings. Fourteen, of the original 19 property owners responded; 10 of those met with staff. Staff informed the property owners of the proposed amendment to the septic abatement ordinance and discussed the water quality issues in the City and the City's desire to improve it. Each property owner was encouraged to express his or her concerns regarding the issue. Director Cherbone noted that almost all of the property owners raised concern about the expense of the sewer connection. Director Cherbone explained some other concerns expressed by the property owners such as damage to trees and landscaping, main required for the pumping and existing tank working properly and there is no need to change. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith asked if these properties were the last ones that have to hook up to the sewer system. Director Cherbone responded yes. Councilmember King asked if the City is still offering financial assistance. Director Cherbone responded yes, noting that the money was still available to qualified residents from CDBG grants. Councilmember Kline asked if the ordinance only applied to the 15 properties. Director Cherbone noted that it would be citywide. Director Cherbone explained that there are three exemptions to the Septic Abatement Ordinance; 1) requires an easement, 2) 200 feet from a property line to a sewer system, and 3) below grade. Director Cherbone noted that the proposed ordinance before the Council this evening only addresses the below grade exemption. Rollin Buckman stated that he met with City staff and noted that he objects being forced into hooking up to the sewer system. Mr. Buckman stated that the hook up would be extremely expensive and unnecessary because his septic tank has been working. fine since July 1954. Regina Oldham noted that her property is one of the 15 properties that are below grade only because her tank was not installed properly. Ms. Oldham noted that her septic tank is functioning perfectly and hooking up to the sewer system is not 11 considered an improvement to her house. Ms. Oldham noted that it is commendable for the City to want clear creeks but unfortunately the City cannot prove where the pollution is coming from. W. Donald Head read a letter explaining the background of his property and his options for complying with the Septic Abatement Ordinance. Dr. head stated that staff agreed that establishing a subterranean "holding" tank with no effluent and emptied annually by a professional was a good solution for his property. Mike Landgraf noted that there is no proof that septic tanks are causing the pollution in the City's creeks. Mr. Landgraf noted his septic tank has been working great for years. Bob Binkley noted that he is a civil engineer who designs waste water systems and a long time Saratoga resident. Mr. Brinkley stated that if he were to hook up to the sewer system he would be paying approximately $63,000 in fees. Mr. Brinkley stated that the City has no real hard data to prove septic tanks are the cause of the pollution. Shirley Martire noted that she has been working closely with Director Cherbone. Ms. Martire noted that her property is 500 feet from the nearest hookup. Ms. Martire noted that the costs for hooking up to the sewer system have been very high. Councilmember King asked what the logic was behind the exemption of properties whose property line is 200 feet from the nearest hook up. Director Cherbone noted that he was not involved in the process at the time and cannot speculate on why that particular exemption was put in place. Councilmember Kline stated that below grade properties were exempt in the original ordinance. Director Cherbone responded yes and added that this proposed ordinance only addresses one of three existing exemptions. Councilmember Kline noted that the City has no proof that links the septic systems of these 15 properties to the contamination of the creek. Director Cherbone concurred with Councilmember Kline and added that staff is trying to gather more accurate data to find the source of the contamination. Councilmember Kline noted that he could not support the proposed ordinance without proof. 12 Mayor Streit stated that staff was directed to approach the below grade property owners because their property abuts the creek. The goal was eliminate the flow to the creek. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she supported the ordinance and would like to work individually with the 15 property owners who are below grade to mitigate their hardships and connect to the sewer system. Councilmember Kline suggested that the City look into the public sewer lines in the Village instead of focusing on the 15 priorities below grade. Vice Mayor Streit asked City Attorney Taylor whether the ordinance could be amended to state that as long as a below grade system was working adequately they could continue to use the system, but if someday they do not pass the chemical marker test they, have five years to hook to the sewer system. City Attorney Taylor stated that an amendment might not be necessary. City Attorney Taylor explained that if in the course of the septic inspection the City had a test mechanism that would allow us to demonstrate that material was flowing from the septic system into the creek that would be sufficient enough in the existing ordinance to not give the property owner five years. The City could instruct the property owner to connect to the sewer or take other steps to keep the .material from flowing into the creek. City Attorney Taylor stated that staff could come back with an amended ordinance or take no action. Councilmember Kline noted that none of the speakers tonight opposed to hooking up to the sewer system if there was proof that their septic tank system was contaminating the creek. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to test all of the below grade septic tanks and report back to Council. Mayor Streit declared. a break at 9:25 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 9:35 p.m. 6. HERITAGE ORCHARD WELL AND IRRIGATION PUMPING SYSTEM - ADDITIONAL FUNDING APPROVAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve increase of existing change order for additional scope of work. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. • 13 Director Cherbone explained that last June the City Council approved an award of construction contract to Maggiora Brothers Drilling, Inc. for the amount of $95,475 with a contract change order authority of $9,500 for construction of a irrigation well and pumping system in the Heritage Orchard. The well and pumping system are part of Phase I of the Heritage Orchard Improvement Project. Director Cherbone noted that the original predictions for water bearing layers in the orchard were estimated to be at a depth of 300 feet or less. However, the test well drilled in August indicated that the production well needed to be 540 feet based on the test well and e-log data. Additionally, the sanitary seal around the upper part of the well, as indicated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, is required to be 170 feet instead of the originally estimated 50 feet. Director Cherbone noted that the total increase of the project construction is $30, 004. WALTOSNMTIH/KLINE MOVE TO APPROVE INCREASE OF EXISTING CHANGE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 7. SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RESTROOM FACILITY -APPROVAL OF DESIGN I N: STAFF RECOMMENDAT O Approve design. Iveta Harvancik, City Engineer, presented staff report. Engineer Harvancik explained that background of this project and noted.that Option A shows the facility located at the Transit Center and Option B shows the facility at the parking lot. Engineer Harvancik stated that staff recommends that Council approve both of the design options for the facility. After approval from the City Council and VTA, City staff will solicit bids for both alternatives. Based on the bid results,. one of the two options will be selected and the project construction phase will be initiated. The construction of the restroom facility will be completed by the end of the year. WALTOSNMTIH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE DESIGN FOR THE VTA RESTROOM FACILITY AT WEST VALLEY COLLEGE.. MOTION PASSED 5-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. • 14 8. AMENDED SCOPE OF VACATION OF GEORGE WHALEN WAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-053 AMENDED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA VACATING GEORGE. WHALEN WAY BETWEEN SARATOGA AVENUE AND SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD Richard Taylor, City Attorney presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that at its November 6, 2002 meeting the City Council approved a resolution vacating all public right-of--way in George Whalen Way. Although the vacation has not taken effect pending satisfaction of certain conditions San Jose Water has already taken steps to abandon the George Whalen Way water line in place to replace it with new water line in a different location. Staff was recently made aware that it would be prudent to retain a small portion of the public utility right-of- way in George Whalen Way to facilitate connection between the new water line and the parcel upon which the Fire Station is to be constructed. Since the vacation has not yet taken effect, staff recommends that the Council amend the vacation resolution to retain a public utility right-of--way over he portion of George Whalen Way. WALTOSNMTIH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT AMENDED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA VACATING GEORGE WHALEN WAY BETWEEN SARATOGA AVENUE AND SARATOGA- LOS GATOS ROAD. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. NEW BUSINESS 9. CITY/SCHOOL RELATIONS ADHOC COMMITTEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. City Manager Anderson explained that the City of Saratoga is served by seven public school districts and two private schools, which are located in Saratoga. 50% of Saratoga students attend school within Saratoga Union School District & Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District the other 50% are spread throughout the other 5 districts. • 15 City Manager Anderson stated that in an effort, to bring unification and communication between districts the City Council has tried numerous times to hold meetings with all school officials that serve the City of Saratoga to discuss such items as safety, traffic, construction projects, etc. City Manager Anderson noted that in February 2003 the City Council held a retreat to discuss various subjects. One of those discussions evolved around forming a special Schools Commission. The City Council discussed the idea and the consensus was that forming one more formal City commission was not realistic. City Manager Anderson noted that in the last couple of years the City Council has had tremendous success forming Ad Hoc Committees consisting of two Councilmembers and a staff liaison to tackle various issues. Consensus of the City Council to appoint Mayor Streit and Councilmember King to the City/School Ad-Hoc Committee. 10. OPTIONS FOR CITYWIDE NOTICING - DEANZA, PG&E, UPRR TRAIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist explained that the Mayor requested that staff list noticing options for the October 1, 2003 DeAnza, UPRR, PG& E Easement Trail Public Meeting. Analyst Bloomquist explained each type of notice, the cost, and the alternatives. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that the trail is a community trail 'and everyone should be invited to join in the discussion. Councilmember King noted that she supported citywide noticing for this item. Councilmember Kline noted that he thinks a citywide notice is excessive. Councilmember Kline noted that he is concerned about the precedence that this would be setting. Councilmember Kline noted he agrees that if a project is of interest to the entire City then a citywide notice should be used. Councilmember Kline noted that he feels this is not a unique situation to justify a citywide notice. Mayor Streit commented that he feels this is a unique situation. Mayor Streit added that the people who live along the trail oppose to the development of the trail. Mayor Streit noted that a citywide notice is necessary. 16 Councilmember King noted that they supported Citywide noticing for this item, but doesn't feel staff has enough time to get the notice out in time for the October 1,2003 meeting. Councilmember Kline noted that he concurred with Councilmember King an. The item should be postponed until October 15, 2003 in order for the notice to be affective and allow residents to adjust their schedules in order to attend the meeting. Councilmember Kline asked Vice Mayor Waltonsmith why this item could not come back to Council on October 15, 2003. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith disagreed with Councilmember Kline stating that this item has been discussed for a year and its time to take the next step. Mayor Streit noted that he supported a citywide notice, but agrees that it should be moved to the October 15, 2003 Council meeting. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a citywide noticing for the DeAnza, PG&E, UPRR Trail and schedule the item on the October 15, 2003 Council agenda. 11. SARATOGA RETIREMENT TRAIL EASEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist explained that while in the process of updating the Open Space Element of the City's General Plan, staff discovered a possible trail linkage near the Odd Fellows Retirement Community, which was not previously identified. This past May 2003 the City met with staff from Retirement Services LLC; the contracted developer at the Odd Fellows Property, to discuss the feasibility of developing a possible trail linkage running through the property that would connect San Marcos Road and Crisp Avenue. Analyst Bloomquist noted that in June -August the Trails Subcommittee explored the potential to develop this trail. Subsequently, the issue was forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), who formally gave their support to explore the development of the trail at their July 2003 regular meeting. Analyst Bloomquist stated that in order for the PRC to proceed they are seeking direction from the City Council. Councilmember Kline asked if the Saratoga Retirement Board expressed any informal response or interest to the proposed trail. 17 Analyst Bloomquist stated no. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith commented that City staff met with the contracted developer at the Odd Fellows Property, to discuss the feasibility of developing a possible trail. Logan Deimler, PRC & Trail Sub Committee Chair, added that the staff at the Center seemed to be interested and advised the City to contact their Board. Consensus of the City Council to direct the PRC to approach the Board at the Odd Fellows Retirement Community to discuss the proposed trail linkage. 12. DISCUSSION OF POLICY ISSUES REGARDING PERSONAL SERVICES AND CONSIDERATIONS OF ADOPTING A PROPOSED URGENCY ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON PERSONAL SERVICES BUSINESS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that the Town of Los Gatos recently adopted an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting the approval of applications for personal service businesses in business districts. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Town of Los Gatos found that there were a number of personal service businesses proposing to locate in the Town. This concerned the Town's officials of what it would do to their mix of commercial uses. City Attorney Taylor noted that they try to maintain a level of retail uses as opposed to services uses. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Mayor requested that this item come before the City Council for an opportunity to discuss whether or not this type of urgency ordinance should be adopted in Saratoga. City Attorney Taylor stated that noted that staff was requesting guidance on how to proceed. Councilmember Kline asked if the City have substantial numbers that showed that the City is being flooded with this type of business. 18 • Mayor Streit pointed out the recently a travel agency closed and a nail salon went in the space. Mayor Streit noted that his concern was that now the Town of Los Gatos imposed amoratorium-would personal serves business invade Saratoga. Mayor Streit concurred that the City does not know the mix of business types in Saratoga. Councilmember Kline noted that he is concerned with taking property/business owner's rights and impose a moratorium on them. Councilmember Kline stated that if a moratorium is proposed he would want quantifiable data to support it. Consensus of the City Council to bring this item back for discussion on October 15, 2003and direct the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Streit had no reportable information. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith had no reportable information Councilmember King reported the following information: Public Safety Commission - Lorie Tinfow, Danielle Surdin, and Bridgette Ballingall recently attended an OES conference in San Luis Obispo. Commissioner Kane recently finished the traffic study on Aloha/Highway 9 and will present thee result at the Oct 2003 meeting. Councilmember Kline reported the following information: Gateway Task Force -finished that 1St draft of the guidelines and sent them to all of the stakeholders for comments. Should be ready to come before City Council by the end of the year. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Refemng to a recent fund raising event in the Town of Los Gatos, Councilmember King suggested that the City of Saratoga do something similar. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she would take the suggestion back to the Arts Commission. OTHER Mayor Streit noted that the Hakone Foundation Board would soon begin plans to renegotiate their contract with the City. • City Attorney Taylor added that the Hakone Board is interested in changing their status including removing the City Council from their Board. 19 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Streit declared the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • • 20