Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-10-2003 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 10, 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 Uhl STAFF: Planners Oosterhous &z Vasudevan, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 12, 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 staff 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 December 4, 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). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to partiapate m this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Norif ication 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) CONSENT CALENDAR 1. CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ~St GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING; - The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the proposed 2003-04 Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. (APPROVED 6-0) 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. 2. APPLICATION #03-078 (503-16-022) CHEN, 13280 Pierce Road• The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence with a maximum height of 25 ft,10 inches. The proposed residence including garage will be 4,032 square feet. A 1,969 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,597 square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 6-0) 3. APPLICATION #03-167 (517-22-11) YANG, 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane: The applicant requests design review approval to construct aone-story single-family residence greater than 18 feet in height with a gross floor area that exceeds six thousand, therefore planning commission approval is required. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 ft, 6 inches. The proposed residence including garage will be 6,493 square feet. A 2,813 square foot basement is proposed. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior with orange clay the roof. The gross lot size is 82,500 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 6-0) 4. APPLICATION #03-216 (393-37-029), LUN (Appellant), WANG (Applicant), 19932 Merribrook Drive: The City granted a tree removal permit for five redwood trees located at 19932 Merribrook Drive, the Wang property. A neighbor, Yong Lun,19894 Merribrook Drive, has appealed the tree removal permit. The trees are located in the applicant's rear yard. The Ciry Inspector issued the removal permit based on information from the applicant that previous limb breakage had occurred, which damaged a neighboring residence, located to the rear (east). The appellant resides to the right side or south of 19932 Merribrook Drive. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (UPHELD THE APPEAL &r DENIED REMOVAL OF TREES 6-0) 5. APPLICATION #03-266 (397-16-128) RAHIM, 14350 Taos Drive: The applicant request approval of modifications to a previously approved Design Review. Design Review #O1-011 was approved on July 25, 2001. The dwelling has been completed at this time. The applicant desires to eliminate architectural details such as stone veneer, window fenestration and other architectural details. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 6-0 MODIFICATION, RESOLUTION TO BE APPROVED ON CONSENT AT NEXT HEARING) DIRECTORS ITEM Remind Commissioners that the meeting on December 24 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 9:40 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 14, 2004 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 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, December 9, 2003 -12:00 noon 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, DECEMBER 10, 2003 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #03-266 - RAHIM Item 5 14350 Taos Drive 2. Application #03-167 - YANG Item 3 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane 3. Application #03-078 - CHEN Item 2 13280 Pierce Road 4. Application #03-216 - LUN Item 4 19932 Merribrook Drive 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 Plamm~g 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 rrnnutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE. Wednesday, December 10, 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 November 12, 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 staff 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 December 4, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the Ciry Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CONSENT CALENDAR CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM &t GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING; - The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the proposed 2003-04 Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. 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. 2. APPLICATION #03-078 (503-16-022) CHEN, 13280 Pierce Road: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence with a maximum height of 25 ft,10 inches. The proposed residence including garage will be 4,032 square feet. A 1,969 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,597 square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. (LATA VASUDEVAN) APPLICATION #03-167 (517-22-11) YANG, 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane: The applicant requests design review approval to construct aone-story single-family residence greater than 18 feet in height with a gross floor area that exceeds six thousand, therefore planning commission approval is required. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 ft, 6 inches. The proposed residence including garage will be 6,493 square feet. A 2,813 square foot basement is proposed. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior with orange clay the roof. The gross lot size is 82,500 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 4. APPLICATION #03-216 (393-37-029), LUN (Appellant), WANG (Applicant), 19932 Merribrook Drive: The City granted a tree removal permit for five redwood trees located at 19932 Merribrook Drive, the Wang property. A neighbor, Yong Lun,19894 Merribrook Drive, has appealed the tree removal permit. The trees are located in the applicant's rear yard. The City Inspector issued the removal permit based on information from the applicant that previous limb breakage had occurred, which damaged a neighboring residence, located to the rear (east). The appellant resides to the right side or south of 19932 Merribrook Drive. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 5. APPLICATION #03-266 (397-16-128) RAHIM, 14350 Taos Drive: The applicant request approval of modifications to a previously approved Design Review. Design Review #Ol-Oll was approved on July 25, 2001. The dwelling has been completed at this time. The applicant desires to eliminate architectural details such as stone veneer, window fenestration and other architectural details. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) DIRECTORS ITEM Remind Commissioners that the meeting on December 24 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 14, 2004 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 ~lamm~ @sarato a.ca us \ ~ ~ I • i F ~ ~, ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: ~ 03-167; 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Dave Flick, applicant Alan Yang, property owner Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner R Date: December 10, 2003 APN: 517-22-011 Department Head: ~''~~~.~' • • 0444®1 1UlUU t~onnle rsraC Lalic Application No. 03-167; 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~ CASE HISTORY ~- Application filed: 7/28/03 Application complete: 10/30/03 Public hearing conducted: 12/10/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a one-story single-family residence greater than 18 feet in height with a gross floor area that exceeds six thousand square feet, therefore planning commission approval is required. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 feet, 6 inches. The proposed residence including garage will be 6,493 square feet. A 2,813 square foot basement is proposed. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior with orange clay the roof. The gross lot size is 82,500 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. The existing residence is 2,300 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the design review application 03-167 by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Documentation of neighbor notification. 3. Arborist Report, dated August 8, 2003 and November 24, 2003. 4. Mailing labels for project notification . 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". • ®~~®`Z Application No. 03-167; 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane 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: 82,500 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 16 GRADING REQUIRED: 1,240 cubic yards cut (includes basement) 860 cubic yards fill (per soils report recommendation) 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: Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior with orange clay the roof. An off-white cast iron stone trim is proposed for the stone columns and window sills. Wood windows are proposed. An olive green trim is proposed for the windows. • ©~~©e~ Application No. 03-167; 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane Proposed Lot Coverage: 15.3 Residence 7,147 sq. ft. (including stairways and lightwells) Driveway, patios, & 5,500 sq. ft. walkways. TOTAL 12,647 sq. ft. (Impervious Surface) Floor Area: Residence 6,493 sq. ft. Basement 2,813 sq. ft. TOTAL 6,493 sq. ft. Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 35% 22,523 sq ft. Maximum Allowable 6,500 sq. ft. •i Setbacks: Front 30 ft. Rear 160 ft. Side Right Side 28 ft. Left Side 50 ft. Height: 23 ft. 6 inches Minimum Requirement 30 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. • o~~®~ Application No. 03-167; 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane • PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct aone-story single-family residence greater than 18 feet in height with a gross floor area that exceeds six thousand square feet; therefore, planning commission approval is required. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 feet, 6 inches. The proposed residence including garage will be 6,493 square feet. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior with orange clay the roof. Wood windows are proposed. A 2,813 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 82,500 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. The existing residence is 2,300 square feet. The majority of existing residences in the project vicinity are large-scale, one-story, stucco residences. Lot sizes in area are typically one acre or more. The architectural style of the proposed residence is Spanish Eclectic. Prominent architectural features include arches placed above the door and principal windows, glow-pitched roof-line, orange clay the roof, and elaborate chimney tops with small the roofs. Decorative details such as stone cast columns and window sills, arched windows and eave overhang with brackets add architectural interest to the proposed residence. Additionally, hipped rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the residence. . Neighbor Notification Neighbor notification templates for this project have been provided for by two of the three adjacent neighbors (see attachment 2). The third adjacent neighbor is located off Piedmont. The neighbors located at 15050 Bonnie Brae Lane (to the south of the property) have submitted concerns. They are concerned their oaks may be disturbed by trees planted along the south property line. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which does NOT include planting any trees along the south property line. Staff has also included a condition of approval to that effect. Additionally, the neighbors asked for a wood fence as it relates to privacy. The applicant has proposed replacing the chain link fence with a 6-foot wood fence along the south property line as requested by the neighbor. Arborist Report Documents on file with the community development department indicate that a cash payment of $152,400 was paid to the city in 2001 by the current property owner of 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Andrew Yang, for illegal tree removal. Removal included approximately 75 trees cut to stumps at ground level. The trees varied from 4-inch to 45-inch diameter. Thirty-two of the stumps were healthy, vigorous coast live oaks. The payment collected was used by the City for planting and maintenance of public trees. The Arborist Report, dated August 8, 2003 details potential project impacts to the existing trees. Six trees (#3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9) are at significant risk of damage from installation of the proposed driveway. The arborist report suggests mitigations to the proposed driveway. The Q~®~S Application No. 03-167; 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane project plans have been revised to incorporate the arborist recommendations for minimum • distances. In addition, tree #2, an outstanding Deodar Cedar, was proposed for removal by the applicant. At staff's request, the applicant has revised the project plans so that the proposed basement and first floor are designed no closer than 20 feet from the trunk of tree #2 which is the distance suggested by the arborist. No ordinance sized trees are proposed for removal. 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 stone cast columns and stone cast window sills, arch windows, and eave overhang with brackets add architectural interest to the proposed residence. • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • The generous lot size and flag lot configuration 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 wood windows, a beige stucco exterior and orange clay the roof. • At staff's request, the applicant revised the plans including the driveway, basement, and first floor so that no trees are proposed for removal and no trees will be significantly impacted. • 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 03-167 by adopting the attached resolution (see attachment 1). ~~~~~ • Attachment 1 r~ ~~ ~o~©~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. • Application No. 03-167 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Yang; 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane 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: • Decorative details such as stone cast columns and stone cast window sills, arch windows and eave overhang with brackets add architectural interest to the proposed residence. • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • The generous lot size and flag lot configuration 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 wood windows, a beige stucco exterior and orange clay the roof. • Under the staff recommendation for project revisions to the driveway, basement, and first floor no trees are proposed for removal and no trees will be significantly impacted. • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate neighbors support the project; therefore, view and privacy issues have been addressed. • ~0~©~8 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 03-167 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Front yard 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 8, 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 6 inches 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 10. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report dated August 8, 2003 shall be followed. ~®~®®~ 11. Tree #2 shall not be removed. The basement and first floor shall be designed no closer than 20 feet from its trunk. 12. The driveway shall be revised to preserve trees #3,4,5,7,8, and 9. The driveway shall be designed so absolutely no soil excavation is necessary beneath the canopies of retained trees. 13. A tree bond shall be secured to ensure the recommendations of the arborist are met. 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. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 15. No trees shall be planted along the south elevation to protect the habitat of existing oaks on the property of 15050 Bonnie Brae Lane. 16. The applicant is to replace an existing chain link fence located between the project site and 15050 Bonnie Brae Lane with a six foot wooden fence. CITY ATTORNEY 17. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must commence within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga 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 10th day of December 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES NOES: • ~~~~1~ 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 • ~~~®®~~ Sep 11 03 11:45a p.~ Neighbor Notification Template for . Development Applications POROJECT ADDRF:SS• ~v I ©~ ~ D n t1 12 ~j ;i'a ~ .--~ -- - Applicant Nan~e• `'~t~ira'_ ~dt ~ to ~c;{, y '~ ~11 C... t~ Application I~Tumber (~ ~~ -- ~ b '7 The Saratoga Planning Coinmtssion requires applicants to work with their netghbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applicattons prior io the evening of the public hearing oil the proposed project. The Planning Coininission does itot look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solici[ed by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer lhat i7eighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have drrectly to tl~e applicant Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all restdenls residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and commwucate it ro the City of Saratoga. ,~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the protect plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues whicb need to be address by the applicani 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 ~~,~~~ ~ ~' ~` '~• ~, - ~ r '~"' ~-° ~ ~ t. Neighbor Address: ~~ J ~,-,, ~- -.. Signature: ; % ' ~•e,?~, „-7 •~ I 1 7 Neighbor Phone #: -• ~ v Printed r~ U City of Saratoga Planning Department ®~~®~~ Sep 11 03 11:45a y, . Neighbor Notification Template fo~- ~}evelopment Applications PRO71/CT ADDRF,SS: _~~ I U ~ ~3 n n n ; 2 (~r^a1 e. Applicant Name: '{~+~~ p"'- Ycl - t~~;(, V •e f- ! 1 C,. ~t Application Number (~ ~ -- 1 ~ 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 Izearing on the proposed project. TJze Planning Commission does nor look fa~rorably upon neighbors ~•vho fail to voice Zheir coicerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public Bearing. Staff and the Planning Commtssio~z prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express atzy cotcerns or issues they »zay have directly ro the applicant. Please etzsure the signature on this docurnetzt is representative of all residents resisting on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to arneizd your opinion at a later date and communicate' it to the Ctt}~ of Saratoga ~vly signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of~vork; 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. ;__JMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the protect 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 tf necessary): Neighbor Name. .-~ nP~'"- " ~~ ~ ~~~~1`- l" r'~' Nezghbar Address. ti t S O l7y ~ n ~e_ ~j ra.e. L h . ~ S °"-~~ 'i-. C/~ ~ ~° ~ v Si Qnature: Neighbor Phone #• ~~~~J ~>7z' J z 3 Printed: h ,~ City of Saratoga Planning Department p.3 ~0~®~3 • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: I ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~~~~_ PROJECT ADDRESS: (~x I ~ L~ 1r1~C'i ~~~` Applicant Name: 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. ^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): G~ZNl.~ Neighbor Address: 1 ~'o S b Q ~ C~ Y'GcQ L~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ j ! ~~ 7' ~ Signature: Printed: • ~ , ~ s ~ City of Saratoga Planning Department~j*©~®2S Neighbor Name: ~N OU~1Z {J~-b~ev=~~~ rnGiY191 ~'~tl~ A"~~ 1~e~ fA 2 ~a12e1~ ^~un~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OAK ~~ ~ ~ -Yln~, tve~~ `I'mo flw~ Q.ea~. ~o ~~t o1~- ash- r.~sw~~ av~ t~ll~ w~e, a-z.e. cw~ce~v~. ~vt ~+~ ~t~ ~ vt~ Itia-&it~" ~ wt,~ oa~~.fY,eee. Tl,.v iv~.o~llR.~ l2 v~~~ os~o u~ ~`Tosso~)~ ~~tj ~vt +~ ~1~,~ ~ ~~ ~w.~ ~ P~ o~~ ~~ • ~®~~16 • Attachment 3 • ®®®~~ _ ~ i~~~ `~ ARBOR RESOURCES ~ ~ ~ - /' ~/ p p p n p e ~'7 /7 . 'r"rt ~'GOfES1tOl2Q.L aT4lJOaieuLtil.'LQL C.:OYLSU.L~LYI~ GT J4EE C.rR'CE • A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 20100 BONNIE BRAE LANE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: YANG APPLICATION #: 03-167 APN: 517-22-11 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certif ed Arborist #WE-4001 A Site Inspected: July 31 and August 6, 2003 Report Submitted: August 8, 2003 • P.O. doh 25295. San T~~Eateo; Cta?iiarn~a 94462 ~ Emat[: arhot'z'esou~'ces@earthlink net S ^^s- E Fah. ESG.6:=+._~`- E ~;censed Co3~tracto~'=~?9G7G~ Phone: 656.6..4 .» _, 1 O~O®~C7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 8, 2003 • SUMMARY The proposed project exposes 39 Ordinance-sized trees to potential impacts. Through implementation of the proposed design, tree #2's stability and survival will be jeopardized, and replacements will be necessary. If this tree is expected to survive, plan revisions are necessary. Trees #3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 will be significantly impacted by installing the proposed driveway. Plan revisions are recommended to promote their longevity. Upon availability, the utility and drainage plans, grading plans, and landscape and irrigation plans should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. I recommend a bond amount of $34,127 to ensure trees planned for retention are protected. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the tree impacts anticipated from implementing plans for a new single-family residence at 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga. This re ort resents m findings; recommends mitigation for Ordinance-sized trees being p P y damaged and removed; identifies each tree's condition, species, 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 perimeters, as well as the recommended tree protection fencing locations, are shown on an attached copy of the Topographic Map (sheet 1; July 25, 2003; Chris Spaulding Architects, Berkeley, CA). For identification purposes, numbered metal tags were attached to each accessible trunk, which includes all trees except for #16 and 17. OBSERVATIONS AND REVIEW OF PLANS The 39 trees presented in this report include 1 Black Locust, 36 Coast Live Oaks and 2 Deodar Cedars. The trees' overall condition appears good. Trees #4, 5, 7, and 16 thru 23 were not shown on plans reviewed. There locations were estimated and plotted by me, and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. Note that until the locations of trees #4, 5 and 7 are surveyed, I am unable to effectively Yang Residence, 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga rage ~ o~ o Cary of Saratoga Community Development Department ~®~~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 8, 2003 evaluate impacts to these trees. My opinion regarding the level of impacts to these trees may change upon viewing their actual locations. Tree #2 is one of two large outstanding Deodar Cedars on site. By implementation of the proposed home design, its survival and stability will be jeopardized. When considering the significant amount of trees remaining on this property, as well as those located on neighboring ones, I do not believe its removal would significantly impact the surrounding tree landscape. Mitigation for its removal should include trees equivalent in value to its appraised value. If this tree is expected to survive and remain vigorous, the proposed basement and first floor must be designed no closer than 20 feet from its trunk. Trees #3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are at risk of significant damage from installing the proposed concrete driveway. To promote these trees' longevity, I suggest the following minimum distances between the driveway and trunks: 17 feet for tree #3, 8 feet for tree #4, 12 feet for tree #5, 10 feet for tree #7, and 14 feet for tree #9. Furthermore, the driveway should be designed so absolutely no soil excavation is necessary beneath canopies of retained trees. RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are intended to mitigate foreseeable damages from implementing the project as proposed. Modifications to the plans reviewed will necessitate revising the below 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 driveways, two feet from the existing foundation, and four feet from the proposed home. 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 maintained throughout the construction process (including driveway installation) until final inspection occurs. 2. The recommended fencing location does not consider the parking, operation or access of motorized wheeled equipment on the adjacent vacant property of 20150 Bonnie Brae Lane. Should this property be accessed, additional fencing will be necessary and must be approved by the City of Saratoga. 3. The fencing location assumes the route of access for all equipment and vehicles will be from Bonnie Brae Lane, and not uphill from Piedmont Road. Fencing on the plan has been adjusted to consider driveway design revisions beneath trees #3, 4, 5, 7 and 9. Yang Residence, 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga Page 2 of 6 Crty of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~®~r0 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 8, 2003 4. 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. 5. 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. Driveway 6. Redesign the driveway to establish the following minimum distances from the driveway and trunks: 17 feet for tree #3, 8 feet for tree #4, 12 feet for tree #5, 10 feet for tree #7, and 14 feet for tree #9. • • 7. The portion of driveway proposed beneath canopies of retained trees shall be constructed on top of existing grade and require no soil excavation or root cuts. Tree Locations 8. The locations of trees #4, 5 and 7 should be surveyed and shown on relevant plans. Hardscape Removal 9. To minimize absorbing roots from dessicating, the existing asphalt driveway beneath tree canopies #8, 9 and 11 must remain intact until after construction is complete, and the new driveway is prepared for installation. 10. When the time arrives for removing the driveway beneath tree canopies #8, 9 and 11, as well as for removing all other hardscape (including the foundation) beneath canopies of retained trees, first break the hardscape into manageable pieces, then hand lift them onto a loader. The loader must remain on pavement at all times and not travel over or park on unpaved areas. Immediately (within one hour) after removing the hardscape, spread (by hand) afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips on the entire exposed area beneath the canopies. The wood chips should remain moist and in place until the overlaying surfaces are applied. The chips must be removed by using hand tools only. Additional Root Zone Protection 11. Any grading plans, as well as utility and drainage plans, should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 12. No grading, surface scraping or trenching (to include irrigation) shall occur beneath canopies of retained trees. 13. 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. 14. Motorized wheeled equipment shall not operate or park on unpaved areas. Yang Residence, 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department rage ~ u~ ~ ~~~®~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborrst August 8, 2003 15. 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. 16. Underground pipes, utilities and old irrigation lines beneath canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut at existing soil grade. 17. All drainage (including roof drains) must be established so water drains away from beneath canopies. 18. Where immediately adjacent to or beneath tree canopies, avoid over excavating soil for the basement. Supplemental Watering 19. At the onset of demolition, supplemental water shall be supplied to trees #3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, 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 20. All pruning must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by calling the Western Chapter ISA at 530/892-1118, or by referring to the following website: http://www.isa- arbor. com/arbori sts/arbsearch.html . 21. Pruning should be limited to removing deadwood one-inch and greater in diameter, detached branches, heavy limb weight reduction (as necessary), and construction clearance. 22. Trees being removed should be cut near grade. Stumps must be ground, as opposed to being pulled or uprooted. Tree #2 23. If tree #2 is planned for retention, the proposed basement and first floor should be constructed no closer than 20 feet from the trunk. In addition, supplemental water should be provided (follow the specifications described under "Supplemental Watering"), and the protection fencing established to enclose as much area beneath the canopies as possible. The fencing location can be specified upon review of the revised plans. Tree Removals and Replacements 24. Replacements for tree #2 are recommended unless plans are revised to mitigate this tree's damage. Its appraised value is $20,900, which is equivalent to four trees of 48- Yang Residence, 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga Page 4 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~®~®2i~ August 8, 2003 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist inch box size, and two of 24-inch box size. Other replacement sizes and amounts can be used, and are as follows: $120 fora 15-gallon; $420 for 24-inch box; $1,320 for a 36-inch box; $5,000 fora 48-inch box; $7,000 fora 52-inch box; and $15,000 fora 72- inch box. • 25. Acceptable tree replacements include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big Leaf Maple (Ater macrophyllum), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). They should be installed outside from beneath canopies, and at least 20 feet apart. I suggest they are integrated into any landscape design submitted to the City. 26. Because large replacement trees may not be available when the project completes, ] suggest the trees are secured with a grower within 60 days from issuance of development permits. Landscaping Guidelines 27. The landscape contractor must be provided a copy of this report and follow all recommendations. Plans for landscaping and irrigation should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts prior to installation. 28. All pathways, patios, driveway, or other landscape features proposed beneath canopies must be established on grade without soil excavation or root cutting. 29. Lawn must not be installed beneath tree canopies. Plant material proposed beneath canopies must be of low water use and comprise no more than 20-percent of the total ground area. A publication of compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation at 510/763-0282, or a-mail: oakstaff@californiaoaks.org. rnga ~ several feet from trunks of all other trees. 30. No irrigation trenches shall be dug beneath canopies of retained trees. Irrigation for new plant material beneath canopies must be of drip or laser line. This can be placed on grade, covered with mulch, and shall be in place before final inspection occurs. I ton should not be sprayed beneath Oak canopies, and not strike or come within 31. Installing edging material or rototilling beneath canopies must be avoided. 32. Mulch or other landscape features/materials must be placed no closer than one-foot from trunks. 33. Plant material planned for removal beneath canopies must be removed by hand only. Yang Residence, 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department . wb~ ~ ~, ~ ~®~~23 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 8, 2003 TREE PROTECTION BOND The appraised tree values are presented on the attached Tree Inventory Spreadsheet. These values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. This method is used in accordance to the Guide for Plant Appraisal; 9''' Edition, authored by the Council of Landscape Appraisers, 2000. The total value of trees planned for preservation is $262,930. I suggest a 30-percent tree protection bond for trees #3, 7, 8 and 9; and 10-percent for all other retained trees. This combined amount equals $34,127. • • Yang Residence, 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga Page 6 of 6 ~~~®2~ Cary of Saratoga Community Development Department • . ~,. - •.M ARBOR ESOLIRCES Jam- ¢ofessiotzaC ogz~o¢ieu~tuaaC eonsuetin9 & ~~zes ~a~s NTORY SPREADSHEET TREE INVE ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @~ ~ y v o ~ ~~ •~o ~ 0 ~ 0 ona ~ ~ a ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ° a~ ~ a a ~~ ~ ~ v •~ ~ ~ ~, ~ w °° ~~ ° ~o °' > ~, >x a~ V ai b ,~ w , o ° ~ wrn TRFF 1~TA1V(F ~ C v C 'Z' c U C/1 P. ~'~' .~ O ~l .~i .~ Q H .-a Site: 10100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Smatoga Prepmed jor: City ojSmatoga ~ o j3 August 8, 2003 ~` Prepmedby: DmvdL Babby, RCA ®®®02~ ALLOM•ABL[ rLOUR AR[A 630050 R eUnUinG A1tU UVINGi Si.D6 SO rl 6ARA6[ l6B 50 rf Toro L454 3(7 fi yrKUCrurAL eovuw c ul3. w r r -vex+/ \ ~~ ~i }i {'=` \xX ~•- ~~= \°°°°k ~~ \~`~~\~G: ~~p '~ ARBOR RESOURCES c.•\, ` tF. ~. ~~ r ~` \ \\~•s~e~~ -...__~` P..~..4.d o4.i..r.,.fe...l C•...G.y 67... C... P O Boa 25295 San Memo, CA 9x102 • ` ' 2yy !- ! \ ~' \ _ 6r. Phone (650) 6347751 • F..-.r arbomwur ~nnhLnk ne /\//~~ \ ' \ ` 8 ~"' ` ~ t3 \}\ ~ t ~ r~`` ~ , - ~ :, ~„ egg ` ~i,44i b ;,~ 7Y. ~•I \ \ \ \ Q \ ~` \ \ '~~~M1^bk Syr "Y .f .~- ~ ~~ ~.~*a{/.~ :5 ~` \ \ \ \ ~°. ~ \' T/7 , r-". '-`~~7~`t # ha'~ W, ._;',-'~: /ip,:.Kd,.~.~~°`•';: ~;~p~F~#~"~(~7 ~~~G`7 ~-~~ ~ t` s \rv \ • \\ \\ ~! r ~ `5-~ PORCH "'r%r ~~~ -nL, ~CII:OSFJD-i(~/~Y'•~~~.~- ~~~ ' ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ \y1 ~- j ~ a ~P%; . Minix ~cvtC9m[ToOR~,• xx a y \ ~ \` 2 31 (A. ~ a_ ~ t+i 5.yt'r.~~:f ~;k..~aY ~'~`u, rr ;{' t.' / ~` ~ a \. ~ \ , -3 • ~ T • ~' } '1 ~', r.~1:7ta ;Tnas,.YJ,y~;~~~~:.... s k "tee F4~R \\ . ~ ~ \ ~c ~~ ~i ~ • g . ,~L • '~ ;~^ ~ t -~- 21 19:1-~. "~ 17 : r k, - ~- ~?~ \\~ ~~ ~~\~~ ~ 5 e ~ •~26 25 _ 2,4,,x' •_ -_' ~ = 1,-. , so \ \ ~ _ ~.~ 8 .~ ua / \ ~ ~~; \\ s4•' \ ~ \ ~.1 !p :° °°,F~\ ~ ice.,, v°µ' a-~---7p s0 ~ ± ~ ~~; \~ ~ ..\~~ \~' \ % ~~ ~: Prepared By: Site Address• 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga __ _ preyared for City of Saratoga Community Developm.at Department ~ \\ ~ ~ Z Notes Map tdentlfies 39 Ordinance-sued trees \ 7C1 Canopy dtmensrons and tree locations are appwxunate / Map u not to scale _ t ~ \ ~T \ I tic iNf. 5vcul~ , r • •'•o ' t }~ . QQ}\\ \ ~ \ ~\ \k`~\ / ~_~ 1 ~Kry ~ r ' ~O ~' ~ ~ y^P{'~~,yyY'.~ ~ `'--~ / `\ I '~ / • \tf p~ ' \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\., \`r' ~ ~~ rt -•~'°:'•'-' .} ~ / • TRe[ ' G''~, /~/ '1rSiYF 9~k I~-i { If / 3/` J _ _ ~ ~`~~i' / \\\ \ \ \\ \\\\ ~\ b~\ \ ~f ~,!~iX #.~~-` `p'ry`+)*,t y/ 0~ `Q~~rT./y,1~~~.j~ Xy '~ ~~ ,( /~l a \ \ ~~\~ S 4'~~\`\ TREE PROTECTION FENCING `~,~:'';~k uwe ~,r~ ~~~' t''a~'~' E i. ~.; • • • ,~ u ~~= ~~-=~~- ARBOR ESOLIRCES '~ ~_ ~20TE8.4L012RL QT2ITO~GLL~U.LEtL~LLLL (~OtZ1U.LELYL~ ~ _J'LEE C~R.'LE November 24, 2003 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Review of Landscape Plan for the Yang Residence; 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga Dear Christy: I have reviewed the Landscape Plan prepared by Chris Spaulding Architects, dated October 3, 2003. Overall, I believe the plan complies with recommendations presented in my report dated August 8, 2003 and is compatible towards sustaining the longevity and vigor of trees being retained. Lawn is planned beneath the canopies of trees #1, 37 and 39. Note irrigation trenches must • be hand dug where within the following distances from their respective trunks: 15 feet, 30 feet and 15. All roots two inches and greater in diameter must be retained and tunneled beneath. To my understanding, tree #2 will be retained and I recommend the following: (1) The tree protection bond should be increased by 30-percent of tree #2's value, which is $6,270. This brings the recommended total bond amount to $40,397. (2) The tree protection fencing should be installed to enclose as much of the canopy as possible. Where the home and pool are proposed beneath the canopy, the fence should be placed no further than four feet from the basement wall and pool edge. (3) The proposed lawn must not be placed or irrigation sprayed within five feet of its trunk. Additionally, trenching for irrigation lines beneath the canopy (which is 30 feet from the trunk) must be installed in a radial direction (like spokes on a wheel) no closer than 15 feet from the trunk. All trenching beneath the canopy must be performed manually and root two inches and greater in diameter retained and tunneled beneath. (4) The walkway and pool patio proposed beneath the canopy must be laid on top of natural grade and require no soil excavation or root severance. Sincerely, • David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist P.O. Box 25295. San Mateo. California 94402 ~ Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 a Fax: 650.654.3352 e Licensed Contractor #796763 Attachment 4 • ®~~~~ SFISHADRI-ASOK 20040 MENDELSOHN LN ~~, S ~ TOGA CA 95070 FRANCIS L &EDYTHMAE STUTZMAN 15195 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID R & FRANCES FRANKLIN 15177 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ARING 20080 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA CA 95070 NANCY L TKALCEVIC 20077 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA CA 95070 • T H & HELENA SMITH ER 20152 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 HILBERT K & ROSEMARY ALBRECHT 20190 WINK RD SARATOGA CA 95070 BERNICE K & FRANK GIANSIRACUSA PO BOX 2430 SARATOGA CA 95070 ~ES & SHERRIL KENNY 52 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ELIZABETH P & ET SPEER 15181 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID R & FRANCES FRANKLIN 15177 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 NORMAN C & ALLISON KLINE 20121 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CLEARY 20087 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA CA 95070 ANDREW T & LUNG YANG 16856 SE 58TH PL BELLEVUE WA 98006 THOMAS J & ROSE PASHOS 15041 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 FRANCIS L &EDYTHMAE STUTZMAN 15195 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 KISHORE & KALPANA SESHADRI 20040 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA CA 95070 RAISA R & RICHARD KOCHER 15139 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MARIA D & M KHOUJA 15211 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 GEORGE W & GEORGETTE LAMPROS 15168 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 FAY R WEISLER 20161 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 VICNENT R & SUSAN BORELLI 49 SPANISH BAY CIR PEBBLE BEACH CA 93953 TA-HSIN & PYING-ING LN 20125 WINK RD SARATOGA CA 95070 HENRYS & LISA CHANG 15050 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 WARREN & ET WINOVICH 15091 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 GEORGE S & ET KOCHER 15139 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STANFORD M & DUCKHAM- SHO SHOOR 15177 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~®~©~9 ~ ~~ SHEAU-DONG & SEN WU HORINE TR FARRELLY 20150 BONNIE BRAE LN 15250 PEACH HILL RD 6627 DARTMOOR WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 ~ SARATOGA CA 95070 SAN JOSE CA 95129 GARDNER SARITA K JOHNSON ANDRES 815 KOZERA DR 15277 PEACH HILL RD 15255 PEACH HILL RD SAN JOSE CA 95136 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 CHRISTINE A CHIDLOW ALI & LIDA SOOZANI HARLEY B & JUDITH NEGIN PO BOX 3096 15180 PIEDMONT RD 15172 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SCATON INVESTMENTS LLC EMMONS W & MARGARET LARRY G & MARIA VOTTA 409 WASHINGTON ST 201 COOGAN 20100 HILL AVE MONTEREY CA 93940 20120 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT M PATTERSON ROBERT M PATTERSON 15195 PIEDMONT RD 15195 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 • • ®~~~~ " " TREE PROTECTION RNpNG NOTES ~~EP--{I ~ M~(~~ ~ DAAWQdGS PREPAREDBY -Tree protxtwn lnrolnq must ba msr Iled poor to dem^upon aM the mval [I of hea`t' equpment to tk elte Ib Ignban ehal doeey resrmble nut SITE DATA shown on the attadud plm, and be placed no further than one toot Irom the euebng and propoxd dnYeways, lwo legit from the umtng ro~mmNon, aM '_"~ ~ I ' CHRIS $PAULDING I lour legit tram the proposed home Wnue passAle the fence should k N ~, TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE SYMBOL SPBCIBS QTY SiZB PI BIG LEAP MAPLB (ACER MACROPHI'LLUA~ 2 24" BOX ~ COASTLNBOAK (QUERCUS AORDrpL1A) 4 48"BOX PROJEQ AODR[S9 20100 BONNI[ BRAE LONE NI N vuN u o A R C H 1 T E C T o establuhed at or beyond tk oumr uropy edge I<must k canPnxd d ~ 4 hve ko sn feet hqh chNn hnk mountrA on lxo~nrF dumetu steel posb, OWN[R9 ANDREW AND LIMA YANG „yR i` a dnven l91nchee ldo the groundend spaced romom khm l2[eu apart ! a+v' 4 r' ~~~le Once estabhshed, the fmang must remain urdlsbrbed aM wmGlnW OCCUPANCY R-3, 01 throughout the mmtmdron proax 6roluduq ry msblUtwnJ until Lnal 5 Insptaloncwire LOT 91ZE 82,50090 fT ~~'"'4 801 CAMP1fA STREET SIEIEE -NI development actmbra musE be conducted wbde the fercrd arru 9 "" BP.RRELflY CALIFORNIA 94710 ihex acNYlEes ndude, but am not Invited to, the blbwq grading, ALLOWAf51P ft00R AREA 6SC090 IT { f I wdaw xnping,<he stongeadunpmg of alt' matemb, and wlode and ~" e ~ (!10)521.5991 FAR (!10)521.5999 equipment opentNm and pa^6iq -the propoxd lenung IocaWn musk ba appmsd W Ne Cay d9aratay BUILDING AREA I poor to bupnning demddwn and the amwl dheasy equpmnt Nthe sle LIVING 9651590 PI CgNTRACTOR TO FOLLOW ALL RECCOMENDATION90F R1ETREE TO 6444 °A A P t' ~i~nh i 41 ~ r'A'e ~ Q T L T PRDTECtION REPORT, 9N7 t7 BA9EMENT 2694 90 IT ~ e, i ~p~ LorcovEROGE stRUauw,LCOVew+ce G4615p rt-1 eY,x ~, m ;~ N ~ ~ 0t~ERAGE 390090 Rx=593 V ~ a I ~ $ 1 ( TOTAL I096 ~~l aaa ° ^ ;. t rh s ... .~P 8 • o ` n"1nn ~~~~~~., .~ ;~~ ~~ ~,,~ ~~~~\ :~ 11~re' 0 n•d . 'EW ~~~- --- rf -- rc -Y 7L I V f sA,urrf~,er .IFm~,~ r,;~t~.e l3k Wi'~r' 3~ ,rl APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK QUANTIit 5 LOCATION CUT cu ros FlLL cu ros (NOT INLLImNG rOUNDAI~N IXUVATLAq 140 DNVEWAY NDL NQUDING RAStRDGq f10.9NeM INOf INQDDNG LuGRBIL91 I 5 DursloeemtowGreaNeleR GzD rota to esD droRT nu IXr,~sroCg 40 sr^~,g~ -o~, V~ Aqs 6~1 fr ~`."~y~ 2 ~[ r,' ~ f\.~' D L7 17 l7 ~ ~ ~ AR~~r Nou ~ 6 2003 CITY OF SARATOGA ~yUN1TY DEVEtiOPMf l `6¢ a bo J8 ~~ \ ~'c ~f . ap -' --Ai Lf6END: TREE P~TELTION FENCING, 5EE NOTE ABOVE ~••~ PROP~1b 6/Vr _..,-,,,_ OpBE OFA4V6NENT ga enWlou uaE ~~~a INDICvIfES Sddpf . ,ra41E 6Y. rxeE PP v9lree Pou 69P6 6,fp 968L,f C1ffIA! Wr WM WA9r;¢ NOlFk F!C!NITY MAP N~7.B. INN/E RAC lN. __~ // ~~ AVF AC Si OPF fAf CIII ATfONS. AVERAGE SLOPE=,00229 {lf (L)/A WIIEREI=SET. A ~ 1.890 AC. L ~t635 L.F. AVERAGE SLOPE . ,00229 (8)13635) f 1.691 AVRRA SI 1)PR IS Ot o~2 l1SIN • Si nPF RFbli("L~AR1 ATSLOPE OP 16X, PERCENT IIEDUCTION • 22X NET,WT3LZE~8;SOD S,P., LESS 33X NRT I OT S17a A4 ~^ CR IiSING Fi__~(1(IR eu,~RANrtA~SL~, A, .DWARI R Ri.ftflg ARF L= 6 SBO S F REVISIONS BY 11.20-03 LS CRELIMINARY SEf DE91GN REV~W SET PLAN CEBiCCKSET PERMRSGT CONSTRUCTION SET W U W A W ~ ~ m ~ O 0 z ~ O o O ~ ~ N DATE 7.29-03 SCALE. A9 NOTEp DRAWN E1AN lOB YANG SHEET 1 OF B SHEETS DRAwwcs eaerAReoav • BASEMENT P 16"= I'-0" HRIS SPA[JLDING opRCH[TECTo aoIDAMe,LUS7xBe1 sunBE BERKELBY CALIPORMA 94710 (110)127.1997 PAX (110)127.1999 PRBLIMINAItYSET DESIGN REVRlV 36f PLAN CHEIX SET PERMR SET CON9?RUCTION SEf W U Z a ~ w Q w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U Q G~ 0 O O ~ O N DATB 7-25-03 SCALE A9 NDTED DRAWN EUCS JOB YANG SHEEf OF 8 2 SHEETS DRAR'WOS PREPARED BY HRIS SPAULDING opRCHITHCT^ • B01 CAbiHLlA S1RHAT SUITEH HERXELHY CALIFORNIA 91710 (SID) 527-5997 PAX (SI0) 5275999 PRELIMMARY SET DESIONRHV~WSHT PLAN CHECK SEf PERNRTSEf CONSTRUCTION SEt • • FIRST FLOOR PLAN 3116"= I'-0" W U Z a ~ w Q W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z p~ o o o ~ ~ o N OATB )-25-03 SCALE A9 NOTPD DAAWN CUCS f0A YANG SHeET oP 8 3 sHHers ~... DRAwnvcseREeAREDHv CHRISSPAULDING opACHITECT~ SOI CAMELIA STRCCT SUFIBE BERKELEr CALIPOAMA 94110 (SIO) 527.5997 FAK (510) 5275999 REVISIONS Br %-IS•o3 Gs Il.n.o.~~, ca • ~~ 0 5 10 15 20 25 RIGHT-S PRELIMINARY SEP DESION ItEVDiW SEI PLAN CHECK SEF PERMFf SHf CONS7RUC170N SEi w ~ V w A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W o ~ ~ b Z o 0 ~ o ~ ~ ~+ o ° ~ N DATE 7-2503 SCALE AS NOTFO DRAWN EI/Q IOH, YANG SHEEf of 8 sxsEis FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION 3116"= I'-0" • 00 ~w ~ ~~§ ~~ ~~~ N ~N~~~ 00 L L- ~ .~.~_~-_--J-- REAR (WEST) ELEVATION "TT~~~ • r.Iar w O ~\ 'm - N Dtnb DbLK ____--_ _____________________ ____}tw°G I~0_________ _____ _______ __._ E%~XiN6 0 OE UR9ER III4NE5F FbiKR Rp.b~ FINISH /~RAEE --~~ _~ ~-"J' EKISila4 (RAVE -'J'am +~~ I ~ 3l 16_= I'-OI' 0 5 IO 15 20 25 • BUILDING PROFI,E ~~ ~ ~.~ - I "DK~1{ 0MP6 LEFT-SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION DRAF7NOS PREPAREDBY CHRIS SPAULDING ^ARCH[TECT^ emcanJe[.usTREer sD1TEe EERReLEY CALIPORMA 94710 (510) 527.5991 FAX (SID) 527.5999 19.16•D3 I ~> I PRELIMN'ARY 9Ef DESIGN REVPW SET PLAN CHECKSEC PCRMIT SET CONSiRUCfJON SET w lT V Z a ~ W A W ~ o ~ ~ ~ U w o a/ c7 ~j ~ ~ 0 F-~ O O ~ N DATe 7-25-03 SCALE. A9 NOTED D1LIWIN fU[9 JOB YANG SNeET OF B 5 9NEE1E BUILDING PRCFI,E Mf ! p E Dsuwwas eaeeARFnDY CHRISSPAULDIN~ oaecxlTecTD • eolDAnsELUSrnEer suDH~ BERKELEY CALIPORMA 94710 (s(D) sn-seP7 PAx (sta) sn•59~ REVISIONS BY I 11.20.03 -II PAELLIUNARY SEE DESIGN REVIEW3Ef PLAN CHECK $Ef PERhETSET CONSTRDCTIONSHf • 33 (B%BP2 32 34 (B 13M8 13y2 33.05 70TAL 6106 50 Pf FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM LVING ROOM 1199' I I8"= I'-0" ROOF PLAN I / 16"= I '-0" I I l1 I I I I ENTRY II GRAND I I I I PORCH II GALLERY I I II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II STOR. HAIL P CROSS-SECTION A-A NOiC NO LCNNGS TO ERLFED I S' IN HEIGhIT MASTER BATH • II II MASTER BEDROOM ~ ~ VESTIBUIP I II II I LIBRARY LONGITUDINAL SECTION B-B DINING ROOM 1 ___________ _ _ __ ___________ 96 5' PAD GRADE 97 5' IXISi GRADE I II II II ll LIVING ROOM I I II II r PAD 975' ~ ~ 96.5 '------ ~________ _____. 31 16"= I'-0" DINING PORCH W U Za~ W ~~ A M""I M U F.~{ ^ ~po O PSI N DATH 7-25.03 SCALE 0.5 NOTED DRAWN ENN IOD, YANG SHEET 6 OF 8 BREEB .7 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~~q ~~ DATE: Wednesday, November 12, 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, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Nagpal and Schallop Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 22, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 2003, were adopted with a correction to page 12. (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Nagpal and Schallop were absent and Commissioner Barry abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 6, 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 Tom Sullivan clarified that the action taken on the two Consent Calendar Items will be final. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 2 Chair Hunter reminded that the two Consent Calendar Items are before the Commission to break a tie vote, which was reached at their respective Public Hearings. . Commissioner Barry said that she was under the impression that the vote must be taken when all seven Commissioners are in attendance. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City Attorney advised him to put the items on the next agenda at which there would be a quorum. There is a quorum tonight with five Commissioners present. The Commission needs to break the tie. Commissioner Barry asked to have Item No. 1 taken off Consent Calendar so that she can state the basis for her vote for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-221 (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant) MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant) 20305 Sea ulg 1 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 to the second floor. The property is 11,598 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. Applicant 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." The motion at the October 22, 2003, Planning Commission Public Hearing resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Barry absent). Therefore, this item is placed on the agenda for a deciding vote to either support the appeal or deny the appeal and approve Administrative Design Review Application #03-151. (LATA VASUDEVAN) There was no additional staff report provided on this item. Commissioner Barry: • Advised that she has read the minutes of the October 22, 2003, Planning Commission meeting at which this item was originally considered. • Assured that she is prepared to vote this evening on this item. • Said that the basis for her position is the belief that this home is already a legal two-story home. • Added that the way the home may have been used in the past is not a basis to review this home as anything but an existing two-story. • Stated that she is satisfied that privacy issues have been dealt with and that, from a Design Review standpoint, the changes to the front of this home will represent an improvement. • Suggested that an alternative that is available to this neighborhood is to seek aOne-Story Overlay District designation for this neighborhood. This option can be pursued if a majority of the neighbors want to see this Overlay District imposed on their neighborhood. Chair Hunter saw that Mr. Frazier is asking to speak this evening. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Public Hearing was closed on this item at the last meeting. Tonight's action by the Commission is simply deliberation on the matter and a vote. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 3 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission denied an appeal (Application #03-221) and upheld the Administrative Design Review approval to allow a remodel and addition to an existing two-story residence on property located at 20305 Seagull Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** Commissioner Uhl asked to have Item No. 2 taken off Consent Calendar so that he can state for the record the basis for his vote. CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03 211 (503 69 030) CURRY (Appellant) CONSTANTINO (Applicant) - 21851 Via Regina: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Eucalyptus trees. The two Eucalyptus trees are approximately 3 feet and 11 feet in circumference. They are located at the periphery of the property. The motion made at the October 8, 2003, Planning Commission Public Hearing resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Uhl absent). Therefore, this item has been placed on the consent agenda for a deciding vote to either approve or deny the appeal. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) There was no additional staff report provided on this item. Commissioner Uhl: • Expressed his desire to come up with some way to achieve awin-win situation. • Said that adding a requirement to plant native trees of equal or greater value should be imposed. • Stated he would support removal of these trees as long as they are replaced and that the replacement trees are placed in a mutually agreeable location to both sets of property owners. Chair Hunter said that the desire of the appellants is to retain the soil and prevent erosion from their property. Suggested that there is the option to cut the trees but leave the stumps in place and allow them to reshoot themselves and be maintained as a hedge. Commissioner Garakani suggested that perhaps retaining walls could be constructed to help rrutigate soil erosion. Chair Hunter pointed out that it would be cheaper to keep the roots in place and allow these trees to reform themselves as a hedge. Commissioner Uhl suggested that the final outcome be worked out with City staff. Chair Hunter asked if Commissioner Uhl is recommending additional trees be planted. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 4 Commissioner Uhl said that since this hillside had trees, they should be replaced, perhaps with Redwood or Oaks. Stated that he would only support the removal of these two trees with a requirement for their replacement. Commissioner Zutshi said that she too supports with a combination of soil erosion mitigation and tree replacement. Chair Hunter stated that she cannot support the poisoning of the stumps to prevent their regrowth. Commissioner Barry asked Director Sullivan if a discussion of Conditions of Approval is appropriate at this point. Director Tom Sullivan replied sure. Commissioner Barry: • Stated that it is not acceptable to her to see these two Eucalyptus trees cut down and a long period of time passes before the road issue is fixed. • Said that she also does not support the slow poisoning of the roots but rather they would have to be removed by grinding. • Said that the road should be supported. • Expressed support for either Oak or Redwood replacement trees or some other native species. • Said that with these Conditions of Approval, she is reluctantly okay with the removal of these trees. • Suggested that the Commission specify a size for the replacement trees. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Condition will call out for equal value but suggested that the Commission impose a specific replacement tree box size. Chair Hunter suggested that the Condition stipulate that the replacement trees must be native. Commissioner Garakani said that small trees would not mitigate erosion and that mitigation to prevent erosion of the road should be imposed. He added that this would result in a win-win situation with these mitigation measures. Commissioner Uhl asked for a suggestion on size of replacement trees. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission denied an appeal (Application #03-211) and upheld the Administrative Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of two Eucalyptus trees on property located at 21851 Via Regina, with the following added Conditions: • That the roots/stumps of the two removed Eucalyptus trees not be poisoned but rather be outright removed and/or grounded; • That the property owner be given the option to leave the stumps in place to allow them to re-sprout and grow into a hedge; and/or • That the property owner be required to support the road by mechanical means; and • That the replacement trees be native species of equal or greater value and at a minimum be of 36-inch box size, Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 5 by the follo~ . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: wing roll call vote: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi None Nagpal and Schallop None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-184 (393-18-010) Appeal of Administrative Decision, SAADAT (Appellant): Hamid Saadat, property owner of 19681 Junipero Way, has filed an appeal of an administrative decision which requires the following: replacement trees, a cash payment and tree removal costs for a neighbor's tree which was rendered unstable as a result of the appellant's actions. The administrative decision was made after the appellant caused severe root damage to several trees. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant, the owner of 19681 Junipero Way, had mitigation imposed as part of an administrative decision. This mitigation includes replacement trees, a cash payment and tree removal costs for the removal of a neighbor's tree, which suffered root loss and subsequent damage due to work undertaken on the appellant's property. • Said that staff is recommending the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit for Tree #1 and Tree #2. • Commissioner Barry said that she was unable to locate Tree #4 when she visited the site. Associate Planner Chesty Oosterhous advised that Tree #3 and Tree #4 are located very close to each other. Chair Hunter added that both are Monterey Pine trees. Commissioner Uhl added that Tree #1 was an Oak. That tree is gone. Said that during the site visit he had asked if the valuation was based prior to the damage. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the valuation was based prior to damage but that the trees were not in 100 percent condition. Commissioner Uhl said that the Oak was not in good health according to the report. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said this is true. Commissioner Uhl asked if the tree inspection occurred after the August construction on the driveway was done. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. The report was prepared following the damage to the tree but the value was based on the tree prior to that damage. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the valuation is based upon 1992 guidelines. Questioned if valuations are different now, 11 years later. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 6 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that per page 16 of the Arborist's report, the most . current methodology was used. Commissioner Barry asked staff to comment about the letter distributed. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the City Attorney prepared a response to the appellant's attorney's letter. In summary, a Tree Removal Permit was required for removing or destroying trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City Attorney addresses the issue of absolute authority regarding the removal of trees, including when damage is caused to a neighbor's tree. Chair Hunter added that, in this case, major root damage was caused. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that these roots were damaging the concrete on the neighboring property and stressed the importance of proper tree placement on a property. Chair Hunter pointed out that this tree was planted 30 years ago. Commissioner Barry said that it is a valid point to consider the placement of new trees. She added that the failure to obtain a Tree Removal Permit is a real issue. Commissioner Uhl said that it is clear Tree #1 was already declining but that Tree #2, #3 and #4 are beautiful. Questioned staff to verify that there is no way now to save Tree #2. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Hamid Saadat, Appellant and Property Owner, 19681 Junipero Way, Saratoga: • Said that he was in the process of replacing the cement driveway between these two properties, a driveway that was damaged due to trees. • Advised that when he purchased this property, the Real Estate Agent told him he was buying this property "as is" and would have to repair the concrete driveway. • Stated that he also paved a new area and needed to remove old concrete in order to pour new concrete. From the entrance to the garage and behind the garage has new concrete. • Explained that four trees were involved. Tree #1 was an Oak that was located exclusively on his property. Tree #2 was on Mr. Hernandez' property, located close to the shared fence. Tree #3 and Tree #4 were also on Mr. Hernandez' property, one being 15 feet from the old driveway on his property and the other being 20 feet away from his driveway. • Added that all he did was removed old concrete. • Stated that the City's inspector told him that he caused damage to four trees. • Said that he agrees that he must pay to remove and replace Tree #1 and that he also agrees that he must pay for the removal of Tree #2. • Said that the tree was actually encroaching and trespassing onto his property and that the other owner should share the cost. He is willing to pay the cost of replacement for Tree #2 but that his neighbor should pay for the replacement landscaping. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 7 • Pointed out that there is no evidence to support the fact that Tree #3 and Tree #4 were damaged in any way. Therefore, there is no basis to make him replace those trees. • Advised that he should not be limited to just one tree service company but rather should be able to solicit competitive bids from eligible tree companies in a fair bidding process. • Said that he would be willing to plant along the side property line and that there should be a mandatory setback for the placement of trees on a property line to avoid such problems as this. • Stated that it is only fair to have he and his neighbor share the responsibility here. Commissioner Garakani asked if Tree #3 and #4 have already been removed. Mr. Hamid Saadat replied no, the trees are still there. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that if work is done within the drip line that causes damage to a tree, the person who caused the damage has to pay for those damages. Mr. Hamid Saadat pointed out that his neighbor's tree was bent over and leaning to his property. Mr. Paul Hernandez, 13020 Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Said that Tree #3 has a spread of 50 feet and Tree #4 has a spread of 45 feet. • Said that Tree #1 was an Oak located on Mr. Saadat's property. • Stated that Tree #2 is a two-trunked Monterey Pine. • Said that Tree #3 and #4 are both Monterey Pine trees located on the left of his property. • Explained that he heard construction noise next door and saw massive roots being removed from the ground. • Advised that this tree was a nice tree that provided screening and privacy, including screening off views of power lines from his property. • Stated that Tree #2 has been taken from him and that is why he is here. • Pointed out that his neighbor is suing him because his tree grew under the neighbor's driveway. Chair Hunter asked Mr. Hernandez what type of construction equipment was used in the driveway removal. Mr. Paul Hernandez: • Replied that it was some sort of front loader and/or bobcat. There was a lot of equipment. • Said that he was not there when the destruction took place but saw one huge main root that had been removed. • Said that he saw that lots of damage had occurred and called Saratoga Tree Service because he wanted to see if these trees could be saved. • Explained that Saratoga Tree Service concurred with the evaluation of the City's Arborist that the trees should be taken down. • Stated that he trusts Saratoga Tree Service to do work on his property as they have done work for him previously. • Said that the estimated value of the trees does not get much of a replacement and that he will not get the same amount of screening and coverage that he once had. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Paul Hernandez what his Arborist is proposing for Tree #3 and Tree #4. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Paul Hernandez replied that they suggest he just watch and see. Perhaps they are far enough away from the construction to have not been permanently damaged. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification that they just propose to leave those two trees alone and not take any pro-active action. Mr. Paul Hernandez said that Tree #2 was the prime focus. Between 30 and 40 percent of the tree roots for Tree #3 and Tree #4 were damaged. He will have to wait and see if they can survive. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Paul Hernandez if he was aware of the damage to the cement driveway on the Saadat property prior to this work. Mr. Paul Hernandez said that he had never had occasion to look over the fence and that the driveway was usually well covered in pine needles from the tree. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Paul Hernandez if he finds it fair to have a tree from his property damaging his neighbor's driveway. Mr. Paul Hernandez said that he did not know of any damage and that the previous neighbor had never said anything about damage. He added that this tree was in place when he bought his property. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Paul Hernandez how he would have treated the situation if he learned his tree was damaging the neighboring driveway. Mr. Paul Hernandez said that he would have had to think about what is his responsibility. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out the final paragraph in the City Attorney's letter. The damage to the driveway would be a civil issue between two property owners and not an issue for the Planning Commission to consider. Commissioner Garakani said that he had a similar experience occur when he moved to Saratoga. He had to remove trees from his property that were damaging his neighbor's property. Mr. Paul Hernandez: • Pointed out that had the old driveway on the Saadat property been removed by hand and with care rather than through the use of heavy construction equipment, his tree would have been much less impacted. • Added that the new driveway is now twice as wide as it was previously as Mr. Saadat is trying to take advantage of his property for on-site storage of a trailer. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Paul Hernandez what his preference might be for the replacement of Tree #2. Mr. Paul Hernandez replied that he would look at the recommendations of the Arborist. Chair Hunter said that he would have to be careful about placement of trees since his pool is nearby. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 9 Dr. Ralph Wood, 19661 Jumpero Way, Saratoga: • Said that he has lived on this street since 1966. Mr. Hernandez built his home in 1969/1970 and planted his trees a couple of years thereafter. • Said that he has two neighbors, both of whom he likes. One neighbor is new and the other he has known for 20 years. • Pointed out that under Ordinance nothing is supposed to occur within 10 feet of an Oak tree. Additionally, Tree #2 should never have been planted where it was planted. • Recommended that the Tree Ordinance be modified so as not to allow trees to be planted within 10 feet of a property line to avoid problems such as this. • Added that it is crazy not to be able to prune a tree from a neighboring property that is growing over a neighbor's property as is part of the new Tree Ordinance. • Suggested that property owners on both sides should have equal consideration. Chair Hunter pointed out that 10 feet would bring a tree too far in on smaller lots. Dr. Ralph Wood said that one has to plan ahead with landscaping. Ms. Maria Guerra, 19660 Junipero Way, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided on this street for six years. • Advised that she too has power lines in her backyard and that her neighbor has three very tall pine trees whose roots come into her yard. They are not yet lifting her foundation but they are impacting the fence. • Said that she is here in support of Mr. Saadat and is concerned about the Tree Ordinance. • Pointed out that Mr. Saadat's driveway was pretty broken up. • Explained that trees located at the back property line are trimmed every so often by PG&E. The work is badly done causing shock to the trees. • Stated that trees should not be planted that closely to a fence. Commissioner Barry reminded that the Tree Ordinance is coming up again before Council. Ms. Maria Guerra said that she is aware of that fact and said that she would love to participate on the Tree Committee. Commissioner Garakani suggested that she approach the Mayor. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Tree Committee is already formed and finalizing their work. Commissioner Barry added that the preparation work is done and Council's action will be final. The most productive thing Ms. Guerra can do is attend the Council meeting and/or send a letter expressing her views. The work of the Tree Committee is already done. Ms. Marti Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga: • Expressed that she is appalled that this has occurred. • Added her dismay at the prevalence of monster homes in the City. • • Said that she is concerned about fast traffic, which makes it dangerous for her mom to walk in her neighborhood. • Stated that she is fed up and tired. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Hamid Saadat: . • Stated that he is sorry this has happened and that this damage was not intentional. • Pointed out that the tree was located so close to the shared fence to avoid its debris from falling into the pool on the neighboring property. Instead the pine needles would accumulate on his property. • Said that the roots seen by his neighbor were from Tree #1. The trees were approximately 30 years old, which is closed to their natural age. • Questioned where replacement trees should be located in order to avoid a similar problem from occurring again. • Said that he is willing to put in screening shrubs as he did between his property and Dr. Wood's property. Shrubs provide good screening and privacy. • Assured that he is not going to sue Mr. Hernandez and that he is hoping to come to some agreement tonight to resolve this situation, coming to a compromise and finishing it here. Commissioner Barry asked about the valuation per Mr. Saadat's Arborist. Mr. Hamid Saadat said that his Arborist, Deborah Ellis, provided a letter. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Hamid Saadat whether this driveway is his main driveway or a secondary driveway. Mr. Hamid Saadat said that it runs along the main driveway to the side of the garage and to the back. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Saadat why he did not secure a permit. i Mr. Hamid Saadat said that he did not think his work would cause damage and did not think he required a permit for what he was doing. He pointed out that the loss of the Oak tree from his own property is a big loss to him. He had plans to install a box around that tree and plant it with flowers. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Hamid Saadat how much impervious surface he has on his property. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised Mr. Hamid Saadat that if he plans on doing any paving he should come to the City to ensure that he does not exceed maximum allowable coverage. Mr. Hamid Saadat said that his property is 20,000 square feet and he would not surpass allowable coverage. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous warned that coverage includes the building footprint and driveway. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that it is unfortunate that beautiful trees have been damaged here. • Stated that it appears Mr. Saadat is trying to work with his neighbor and is willing to pay for the removal of Tree #1 and Tree #2. • • Suggested that it is not clear how much damage has been caused to Tree #3 and Tree #4. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 11 • Expressed concern that this represents a secondary rather than primary driveway and that trees take precedence over a secondary driveway. • Said that Mr. Saadat should pay for Tree #1 and Tree #2 with the value of $6,790 being fair. The cost should be shared in the spint of compromise. Commissioner Zutshi: • Pointed out that there is often not enough information available to new residents and that she is not sure how to remedy that problem. • Said that Tree #2 is severely damaged and disagreed that Mr. Hernandez should have to pay any part of removal of that tree. • Added that Tree #3 and Tree #41ook fine and that Mr. Saadat has to pay for Tree #1. Chair Hunter: • Agreed that this situation is indeed most unfortunate. • Pointed out that Mr. Hernandez' backyard is greatly impacted with the loss of this tree as he will now have to stare at power lines. • Said that the heavy equipment used by Mr. Saadat's contractor has caused the problem and that Mr. Saadat must bear the cost for removal of Tree #2. He should also be required to replace Tree #1. • Suggested that a bond for Tree #3 and Tree #4 should be imposed on Mr. Saadat to ensure their survival and, if they do not survive five years, their replacement with the funds from the bond. • Stated that Mr. Saadat should have been home and/or should have notified Mr. Hernandez of his construction plans. Now Mr. Hernandez has a bare backyard, which has caused a tremendous impact. Commissioner Garakani: • Agreed that this is a very unfortunate situation. • Suggested one way to have new owners made aware of City regulations is to have sellers provided Codes to new buyers at the time of sale. • Said that there is no proven damage to Tree #3 and Tree #4 and that he does not believe he can support the imposition of even a bond on those two trees as there is no evidence of damage. Chair Hunter pointed out that Tree #3 has been assessed as having 30 to 40 percent damage to its roots. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that the Arbonst's report is recommending that nothing be done for Tree #3 or Tree #4. • Added that Mr. Saadat is responsible for the replacement and payment for Tree #1 and Tree #2. • Suggested that the replacement tree on the Hernandez property not be planted in the same place. Commissioner Barry: • Expressed the importance of evaluating the existing condition and what was done today as opposed to what has happened in years past. • Said that it is clear that a Tree Permit should have been obtained and was not. • Said that the only way to be consistent in imposing fines is to use the City Arborist's valuations. • Stated that it is reasonable that Mr. Saadat be allowed to solicit competitive bids for the work to be • done with the removal of the tree on Mr. Hernandez' property. • Stressed the importance in consulting with Mr. Hernandez on the tree replacement. • Supported the bond for Tree #3 and Tree #4. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 12 Commissioner Uhl: • Said that the $7,000 figure is a reasonable amount. • Expressed his support for a bond in case Tree #3 and/or Tree #4 do not survive. Commissioner Barry stressed the importance is supporting the Tree Permit process. Cautioned Mr. Saadat to pay attention to the impervious coverage on his property to avoid any grief in the future. Commissioner Uhl suggested that the removal cost for Tree #2 be subtracted from the $6,970 value of the three trees. Commissioner Garakani asked what type and size of tree should be required. Commissioner Uhl suggested that either the Commission could specify or allow the neighbors to decide. Commissioner Barry pointed out that $3,200 was for the replacement of the Oak on the Saadat property. She said that the money needs to be spent and the neighbors need to agree. Commissioner Uhl suggested letting the neighbors agree as to the placement and species of replacement trees. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission denied an appeal (Application #03-184), upholding the • Administrative Decision against Mr. Hamid Saadat, owner of 19681 Junipero Way, to impose the requirement for replacement trees, a cash payment and payment of the tree removal costs for a neighbor's tree, and imposed Conditions for a Tree Removal Permit as follows: • That the City Arborist's Report will be the basis for the valuation; • That the cost of removing Tree #2 will be subtracted from the valuation amount; • That there will be agreement with the neighbor for the replacement trees selected so as not to have undue imposition and impact; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Uhl asked whether the bond is a cash bond. Director Tom Sullivan replied that often these bonds are taken as a Certificate of Deposit, which earns the property owner interest. Commissioner Uhl suggested a bond amount of about $1,000. His formula was to add the $2,100 and $1,400 values of the two trees to reach a total of $3,500. He then multiplied that by 30 percent, which • represents the percentage of potential damage to the trees, from the total value of Tree #3 and Tree #4. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 13 Commissioner Garakani said that he wants Mr. Saadat to be able to go to competitive bid for the removal of Tree #2. Director Tom Sullivan said that by omission, the applicant could go to competitive bid. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission conditioned that Mr. Hamid Saadat, owner of 19681 Junipero Way, is to obtain a bond in the amount of $1,000 for five years to guarantee the survival of Tree #3 and/or Tree #4 and/or to pay for replacement should either tree not survive that five year period, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #03-100 (397-19-027) - CILKER 15143 Alondra Lane: Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 5,972 square foot house with a 1,100 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 40,719 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new one-story residence consisting of 5,972 square feet with a 1,000 square foot basement on a 40,719 square foot lot within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The maximum height is 26 feet. • Described this as a unique location off a dead end street on a curve. Avery small envelope is seen from the street. Mature trees surround the site. • Stated that the proposed materials include cedar shingle board and batten siding with stone veneer. The siding will be stained a natural green. The roof is metal in a brown tone. • Said that the home will blend with the surrounding landscape and meets Design policies. It minimizes the perception of bulk since the majority of the house is 15 feet high. The mature trees are to be maintained. The home will integrate with the environment as it will be surrounded by the existing canopy of trees and will blend due to the colors and materials. The home will protect the privacy of adjacent properties as it is a single-story home on a large lot. • Advised that there are 19 protected trees of which five will be removed. The City Arborist is recommending replacement trees. The applicant proposes to plant six 36-inch box Maples, two 24- inch box Oaks and three 36-inch box Redwoods. They will plant a lot of new large box trees above and beyond the recommendations of the Arborist. • Stated that no negative correspondence has been received. • Recommended approval and advised that the applicant is present. Chair Hunter expressed concern about the siding color and use of a metal roof. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 14 Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this project represents a unique site and architecture that is a woodsy type of architecture. The roof is a metal standing seam roof that is often seen in heavily wooded areas such as Tahoe. Commissioner Uhl questioned the use of a bright green. Commissioner Garakani said that this green is for the window trim. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the driveway and breezeway material. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the breezeway between the house and cabana creates an outdoor area that will keep the rain off. It represents the highest point of the project. Commissioner Barry questioned the use of orange. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that there is no orange but rather a natural wood is being depicted on the drawing that appears to be orange. Commissioner Uhl asked about Tree #2. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that Tree #2 would be going. Chair Hunter pointed out that trees often have to be removed when a house is being remodeled or rebuilt. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Victor Lee, Project Architect: • Said that he met on site with the Commission and heard reservations about the metal roof. • Assured that he has used metal roofs extensively in Menlo Park, Atherton and Los Altos Hills on contemporary style structures. He displayed some examples from Architectural Digest as well as two other photographic examples. • Pointed out that his clients both originally had different architectural preferences. One wanted Mediterranean style architecture while the other wanted a rustic cottage. • Said that the City's new library has a metal roof that is very handsome. • Explained that metal roofs are practical as they hold up well to storms and severe weather. They are stable and easy to repair. They do not suffer from rot or pestilence. They are a lifetime material and are totally fireproof, which is important as evidenced by recent events with the Southern California fires. Chair Hunter asked Mr. Victor Lee if he had considered the use of slate. Mr. Victor Lee: • Replied, yes, a slate roof is nice but also out of their budget. This metal roof is low maintenance. The public has not been exposed to it as much here in Northern California. • Urged the Commission to please consider this roof and said that if the color is wrong they can alter • it. • Reminded that the maintenance and longevity of this metal is called for. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 15 Commissioner Garakani asked if they had considered installing copper tubing below for photovoltaic energy. Mr. Victor Lee said that this is not planned for at this time. Chair Hunter asked about the breezeway. Mr. Victor Lee said that it would serve to connect the pool house with the family room of the main house. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the material of the floor of the breezeway. Mr. Victor Lee replied tile. The driveway will be asphalt. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the project is maxed out in its use of impervious surface and asked where pervious surfaces could be used if asked to reduce the amount of impervious. Mr. Victor Lee replied that pavers could be used for the driveway. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 Commissioner Garakani asked if the interior height above 18 feet has been double counted. Director Tom Sullivan said this practice has been removed from the Code with the recent update. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that this applied to smaller lot zoning while this site is R-1- 40,000. Commissioner Barry said that this project is not visible. Suggested that this project might represent a good opportunity for the Commission to Condition this project to require this property owner to consult with neighbors on the replacement trees selected. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the neighbors are not impacted. Chair Hunter: • Stated that she is against metal roofs. • Expressed concern that to allow a metal roof here will open the door and said that she is not sure she is ready for that just yet. • Pointed out that Saratoga does not have snow. • Said that a metal roof would set a precedent and questioned if such roofs are wanted in the Hillside. • Said that this would represent quite a change and that there are other materials available that are more appropriate. • Said that this is a very unusual design that is too contemporary for her. Commissioner Garakani asked staff if they had any issue with the use of metal roofing. Director Tom Sullivan: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 16 • Said that Associate Planner John Livingstone initially had similar concerns. This project was discussed in a staff meeting and the proposed metal roof was found to match the architectural style . of this building. • Agreed that this would be one of the first such residential metal roofs. If the roof material is changed, it would have to match this architectural style. This material does match the style. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that he likes this design, finding it to be leading edge while not "in your face." This is where architecture is going. • Stated that the architect has made a very conscious effort to blend this house into the site. • Asked what level of precedence would be established if this metal roof were to be approved. Chair Hunter: • Said that this home is not the least bit compatible with the existing architecture in the neighborhood. • Suggested a similar material but not metal. • Pointed out that there has been no metal approved during her tenure on the Commission. Commissioner Zutshi said that the metal roof matches this house's architecture. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that it would not go with most other styles of architecture. Commissioner Zutshi said that it would not be a shiny metal. Commissioner Garakani said that energy efficiency is a concern. If copper tubing were located underneath, the homeowner would have free hot water and said that he promotes this idea. Commissioner Uhl said that this is a first step. Commissioner Garakani agreed and added that he prefers this metal roof to the commonly used red tiles. Commissioner Uhl asked again about precedent impacts. Director Tom Sullivan replied that every Design Review case is measured under its own merits. Commissioner Barry suggested making a finding that this metal roof is approved as it is integral to the architectural design. Commissioner Uhl suggested a Condition to require the driveway surface to be of pervious material. Chair Hunter said she would not support this project. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #03-100) to allow the construction of a new one-story home with basement on property located at 15143 Alondra Lane, with the following additions: M Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 17 • That an additional finding be made as to why the metal roofing material is approved as it is integral to the architectural design and with the hope that it will be a step toward energy efficiency in the future; Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the following Conditions were added to the above motion for approval: • That the applicant be required to use pervious pavers for the driveway; and • Condition that the applicant consult with neighbors on the types of replacement trees; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None **~ PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. S APPLICATION #02 182 (389 14 037) DORCICH ORCHARD SUBDIVISION 13089 Quito Road: Request for Planning Commission approval of a revised site plan for asix-lot subdivision of the 1.97 acre property located at the corner of Quito Road and Martha Drive. The R-1-10,000 zoned parcel would be subdivided into lots ranging from 11,118 square feet to 13,371 square feet. The six lots i would take access from the proposed private cul-de-sac. The existing historic farmhouse would be restored and moved onto Lot 4, which is the end of the cul-de-sac. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for asix-lot subdivision at Quito and Martha. • Reminded that the applicant previously proposed aseven-lot subdivision at the September 10, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. • Added that the revised plan has eliminated the access to McFarland and consists of regular shaped parcels, ranging in size from 11,118 to 13,371 square feet. The road width would be 35.5 feet with parking allowed on both sides, except for in the bulb. • Informed that the applicants conducted two neighborhood meetings on September 29`h, one in the morning and the second in the evening. No one attended the morning session but 12 neighbors attended the evening meeting. • Said that the revisions appear to have met the concerns. • Stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the project again and supported the relocation of the Hentage Farmhouse to Lot #5. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Barry asked for the reasoning for the relocation of the Farmhouse. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that the neighbor abutting the previous location did not want a two-story residence adjacent to their property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 18 Chair Hunter said that the Farmhouse would be a feature if placed in Lot #5 at the middle of the cul de sac. Commissioner Barry asked if the letter received is objecting to the current placement of the Farmhouse. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied no. She said that letter also indicates that they do not want a sound wall as they have concerns of sound impacts from a wall. This issue would be considered during the Design Review phase. Commissioner Uhl questioned why details such as fencing, trees, etc. are not considered at this time. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that the applicant would have to provide plans for landscaping along the right-of-way along both Martha and Quito Road. Each lot will be reviewed individually during Design Review approval. Chair Hunter reiterated that tonight's action is just for the subdivision. Commissioner Barry asked whether the first action of the Commission would be to approve the environmental action. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Salim Sagarchi, Project Developer, introduced his associate, Mr. Sia Hashemi, who will make their presentation. Mr. Sia Hashemi, Project Representative: • Stated that this is a two-acre lot, which will be developed with six individual R-1-10,0001ots with a minimum of 11,000 to 13,000 square foot lots with two-story homes. • Assured that the Heritage Farmhouse would be preserved and remodeled. • Added that no security gates are proposed and a sound barrier will be constructed against Quito Road. • Assured that they plan to keep the neighbors involved and to meeting the R-1-10,000 requirements. • Said that they reduced their subdivision from seven to six lots, which has an $800,000 financial impact. • Said that they met for the third time with the Heritage Preservation Commission. The first time, the Heritage Farmhouse was proposed at the end of the cul de sac. When there was objection to that placement, they offered either Lot #4 or Lot #5 for placement of the Heritage Farmhouse. Lot #5 was selected, facing the driveway. • Said that they have widened the street from the initially proposed 28 feet to the current 35.5 feet. The minimum requirement is 30 feet. Fire requirements are for 35 feet in order to allow parking on both sides of the street. This makes the street a public street instead of private. • Advised that there is no longer need for a lot line adjustment and that there will be no access from McFarland. • Stated that they followed staff recommendation to set the garages back to allow a longer driveway to accommodate additional off street parking. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 19 • Discussed trees, saying that nine trees are outside the perimeter and not on the property itself. Tree #38 is exceptional. They will follow all Arborist recommendations to maintain and preserve trees. The large Fig tree will be preserved. Two trees are impacted #29 (ranked as marginal) and #28 (ranted as fair). They will remove all poor specimen trees as they are a fire hazard. • Stated that they tried to meet with all neighbors and met 23 by going door to door as well as by holding Open House. They held two neighborhood meetings on September 29`h and provided their email, fax and cell phone numbers. They met 40 to 50 people from the neighborhood. The noticing radius was 500 feet. • Asked the Commission to approve this subdivision. • Thanked staff, particularly Ann Welsh. Mr. Christopher Ducote, 18569 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that his house is located on the north end of Lot #3. • Said that he attended the Heritage Preservation Commission because he is adamantly against having a two-story located next to his home. Commissioner Zutshi reminded that the home designs are not under consideration this evening, just the subdivision. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the plan says two-story. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that this is a subdivision plan only. . Director Tom Sullivan added that there are no floor, site and/or elevation plans under consideration. The subdivision requires conceptual stuff but the only action is the Tract Map. Mr. Christopher Ducote said that he has experience with adjacent property trees destroying his garage floor and that he wants input on future tree placement. He added that all his concerns have been met except for the limitation to single-story homes. Ms. Janet Lynch, 18581 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the developer for meeting the conditions put forward. • Expressed concern about the two-story issue and the issue of sound walls. • Said that there will be a big impact in taking out an orchard and that she wants this project to fit the tone of the neighborhood. Ms. Encarna Panadero, 18325 Clemson Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is happy that most concerns have been met. • Said that she is worried about the loss of the orchard and the impact of walls. • Stated that she does not want to see her neighborhood divided. Mr. Po-Yung Chang, 13043 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Said that he lives next to the property on a busy street. • Expressed concern that a sound wall may direct sound to his home. • • Stated that he was never informed of any meetings and said he would appreciate an invitation to any future meetings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 20 • Said that he did not want the historic home located next to his because it is a large two-story structure. Ms. Marti Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that she has lived in Saratoga her whole life. • Said that she did not believe Mr. Dorchich would like this project at all and she does not like it. • Stated that traffic is bad already and it is not safe for the elderly or children to walk. • Suggested that big homes do not fit in this neighborhood and that the neighborhood as it used to be is no longer. • Said that the decisions being made by the City are not good ones, including the Commission and Council. • Said she is worried. • Compared a City she recently visited in Washington State that is much like Saratoga used to be. • Said she is scared for the safety of her parents. • Explained that a man chased her father to his home when he perceived that her father had somehow cut him off in traffic. He yelled at her father in front of his own home. • Said that she has collected 1,800 signatures against this project. Chair Hunter said that many of the concerns being raised by Ms. Foster are more appropriately addressed to Council. Commissioner Barry added that the statements made by Ms. Foster against the work of the Commission and Council are not fair. . Mr. Robert Block, 18596 McFarland, Saratoga: • Said both he and his wife want to reiterate their concerns about the idea of two-story homes on these new lots. • Suggested that the developer consider basements in order to limit heights of these new homes. • Said that those lots adjacent to existing single-story homes should be developed with single-story homes. Commissioner Barry asked if anyone had canvassed the neighborhood to determine the number of single versus two-story homes. Mr. Robert Block replied no, he has just spoken with some of his neighbors. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon, Saratoga: • Said that a neighborhood poll was conducted in February at a Community gathering. Of the 50 people there, 82 percent were in support of single-story. • Expressed concern about traffic impacts including construction traffic and the moving of the farmhouse. • Said that a Traffic Study is an important piece of information. • Said that of 13 Redwood trees, only four are expected to survive. • Said that she still has concern about the survival of trees and questioned why tree retention issues cannot be finalized right now. . • Pointed out that there are currently no sound walls along Quito. • Suggested that the sound wall be approved in a review process like homes are reviewed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 21 Chair Hunter reminded that trees are considered at the time that Design Review occurs. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that a site plan is needed to review trees. A landscape plan for the right-of-way along Quito and Martha will be submitted. Commissioner Zutshi sought clarification that no sound wall is being approved. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that sound walls are not a part of the subdivision application but rather will be considered at the time of Design Review. Mr. Sia Hashemi: • Reminded that several sensitive issues, including building heights, sound walls and trees, are not subject to approval tonight. • Said that houses will impact only four trees. • Encouraged neighbors to contact him. • Said he appreciates the opportunity to speak with neighbors re privacy issues such as window placement. • Reminded that today the issue is only the proposed lots and other issues will be resolved at a later time. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved the Initial Study prepared for Application #02-182 to allow asix-lot subdivision on property located at 13089 Quito Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal, Schallop ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Garakani said that he has no issue with this revised six-lot subdivision and that the staff and applicant came up -with a great subdivision taking into consideration the feedback provided at the September public hearing. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that he is very concerned about turning an orchard into a subdivision. • Stressed the importance of putting reviews and conditions in place and involve neighbors. • Said that he needs to see details such as walls, trees, etc. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application #02-182 to allow a six-lot subdivision on property located at 13089 Quito Road, with the Condition that a number of meetings and reviews are scheduled with neighbors to review • individual buildings, landscaping, walls and public right-of-way, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 22 AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal, Schallop ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Barry said the issue of demolition equipment will be specified when specific proposal comes forward for development. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that a condition be added to the previously adopted motion to require a staging plan and construction schedule to be prepared. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission added a Condition of Approval to Application #02-182 requiring that a staging plan and construction schedule be prepared for this six-lot subdivision on property located at 13089 Quito Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal, Schallop ABSTAIN: None Chair Hunter reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Joe, 13135 Martha Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that on one would buy the orchard to retain it as an orchard since is has been so badly neglected. Chair Hunter reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.6 APPLICATION #03-233 (C-N ZONE BOUNDED BY LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY AND PROSPECT AVENUE) Zoning Ordinance Amendment, City of Saratoga: The Saratoga Zoning Regulations expressly prohibit drive through windows in all commercial zones. The City Council has determined that there is sufficient reason to direct the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and report back their findings regarding the creation of an Overlay Zone that would allow drive through facilities in the CN Zone bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue. (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Council recently adopted a Resolution of Intent directing the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing to establish an Overlay Zone allowing drive through services. • Explained that the Code currently expressly prohibits drive through windows Citywide. • Said that Council is recommending that an Overlay Zone be created to allow dnve through windows . in this specific area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 23 e • Informed that Council has given fairly specific direction on what it wants to be studied and take action on. • Explained that drive through windows creates more traffic and results in 40 to 60 percent more sales. While the pollution created by use of drive through windows is greater, this area is already pretty heavily auto related. Other drive through type uses in the immediate area are a gas station and car wash. • Pointed out that across the street, in San Jose, there is a drive through window currently being remodeled. • Said that for this area, the concept of having drive through windows is not out of the question. The area is at the intersection of two arterial streets. Commissioner Barry asked if this area is where the Wherehouse and Kentucky Fried Chicken are located. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. There is also an auto parts store and a Jack in the Box restaurant. Chair Hunter said that in Mountain View a Krispy Creme business continues to have long lines. There is no tax generation. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that in the staff report it is mentioned that a Use Permit would be required. This requirement is not called out in the Resolution. Director Tom Sullivan said he put that requirement in the staff report to have the Commission discuss a the idea. If the Commission wishes to put the requirement for a Use Permit into the Resolution's Conditions, it can do so. He added that corporate architecture can be modified. Commissioner Garakani asked what the purpose is for this change. He pointed out that if there is no drive through, parking is required. There is a convenience factor in a drive through restaurant. Commissioner Barry asked if the Planning Commission is to give direction to conduct a Public Hearing. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that this evening's activity represents a Public Hearing. Chair Hunter said there appears to be a great feeling of urgency by Council. Commissioner Barry asked if this Overlay is in specific response to Krispy Cream. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Commissioner Zutshi said she has no problems. This is a heavily commercial area with a lot of stuff going on. There is no impact on residential uses. Commissioner Garakani asked if a Traffic Study was done. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 24 Director Tom Sullivan said that staff will require Traffic and Circulation Studies for specific uses. Commission Barry said that this requirement should be a Condition. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application #03-233 supporting the creation of an Overlay Zone that would allow drive through facilities in the CN Zone bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Cancellation of November 26`'' Planning Commission Meeting: Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the next meeting has been cancelled as it falls on the day before Thanksgiving. COMMISSION ITEMS Gateway Subcommittee: Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Gateway Subcommittee has finished its work. The matter will go to Council next Wednesday. Those within 500 feet of a commercial zone will be notified of the Council hearing. This will be a very large mailing. The Subcommittee did not reach a unanimous consensus. Tree Ordinance Subcommittee: Director Tom Sullivan said that the Tree Ordinance Subcommittee had a productive meeting and came up with consensus. First reading of the Revised Tree Ordinance will take place on December aid. He offered to provide a copy to the Commissioners by email. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk ITEM 1 ~~Crty of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director DATE: December 10, 2003 RE: Capitol Improvement Program/Finding of General Plan Consistency The Public Works Director is requesting that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution finding that the City's Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. In the material provided by the Public Works Director each project is listed and the associated General Plan goal or policy is stated. The environmental determination will be addressed project by project as they are funded for construction. Staff recommends the Commission adopt the attached Resolution. Attachments 1. Memo from Public Works Director, John Cherbone 2. Resolution 3. Pages from General Plan which include supporting Goals and Policies cited in spreadsheet 4. Capital Improvement Project List Spreadsheet • 000001 • Attachment 1 • {j00~~2 ~ ~ ~ /"~. A • Memo To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: John Cherbone, Public Works Director Date: December 10, 2003 Re: 2003/2004 Update to the 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan I am pleased to transmit to you for your review, the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 update to the five-year 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The role of the Planning Commission is to determine whether the new CIP projects are consistent with the General Plan. The new projects for consideration in this fiscal year's CIP update have been reviewed by the City Council at recent City Council Meetings. There are 14 new CIP projects proposed this fiscal year. Attached to this memo is a spreadsheet with a brief description of each new project and the applicable pages from the General Plan, which correspond to the referenced Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures of the applicable General Plan Element. In addition, and for your information, please find attached a spreadsheet of the adopted five-year CIP, which also includes the new projects. I will be in attendance at your meeting to review the new CIP projects with you and look forward to receiving your input. Ultimately your recommendation on the projects will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the December 17 CIP Public Hearing. If prior to your meeting you have any questions about this information, please feel free to contact me at 868-1241. • ~OOUO~ • Attachment 2 r~ ~ J ~~~~~ • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request from the Public Works Director to find that the Proposed Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the City of Saratoga General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the materials submitted by the Public Works Director which include a listing of each capitol project and the corresponding General Plan Goal and Policy, attached as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby find that the proposed Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the City of Saratoga General Plan in that the various improvement projects implement the programs and objectives outlined in the various General Plan Elements. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on December 10, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • ~~a~+5 • Attachment 3 • ODUO®6 Land Use Element • LAND USE ELEMENT u City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 1 of 9 ~~~® ` Land Use Element OVERALL HEIGHT LIMIT Except for structures located within the Village boundary (as defined by the Village Area Plan, 198, no structure shall be over two stories or 26 feet in height. In the Village, structure height will be lirruted based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment. (Include graphics to extend this to a full five pages; begin land use Policies on next page...) LAND USE GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES The following goals, policies, and implementation measures are an important part of the Land Use Element in that they offer specifics to help guide citizens and policymakers. GOAL 1 : SHPERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN Adhere to the adopted Saratoga Sphere of Influence Plan POLICY 1 Land shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless they are contiguous to the existing city hrruts and it is deterrruned by the city that public services can be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City and dilution of services to existing residents. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 1 Annexation proposals shall be carefully studied to determine their economic and urban service impacts to the City. POLICY 2 The City shall evaluate its designated unincorporated Urban Service Areas to determine if the areas are compatible with the County's Local Agency Formation Comrrnssion (LAFCO) Policies and area appropriate for annexation and urban development. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 2 All four urban service areas to be studied to determine if further retraction of urban service boundaries is required. These studies should be coordinated with LAFCO with public hearing before the Commission and Council. GOAL 2: NORTHWESTERN HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN Adhere to the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan which is incorporated herein by this reference. GOAL 3: HISTORIC CHARACTER Enhance the unique historic character of the Village as the center of commumty activity, commerce, and vitality. City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary dory ~~d®~ Land Use Element POLICY 3 The City shall encourage the designation of heritage resources and assure their protection, maintenance, and enhancement by the provisions of the heritage preservation ordinance. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 3 To be implemented by the Hentage Preservation Ordinance and the Heritage Preservation Commission. GOAL 4: ECONOMIC VIABILITY Encourage the economic viability of Saratoga's existing commercial areas and their accessibility by residents, keeping in mind the impact on surrounding residential areas. POLICY 4 Non-residential and industrial uses shall be buffered from other uses by methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berms, and soundwalls. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 4 Review the Design Review and Lirmted Idustnal Ordinances to determine if increased setbacks and landscaping are required. POLICY 5 Non-residential development shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan for non-residential uses. Existing non-residential zoning shall not be expanded nor new non- residential zoning districts added. POLICY 6 The City shall revise the zoning ordinance to allow bed and breakfast establishments as conditional uses m commercial or residential zoning districts where such uses have not previously been permitted and where such uses would be appropriate. GOAL 5: DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS The City shall use the design review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible v~nth the site and adjacent surroundings. GOAL 6: NEW DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USES Relate new development and its land uses to presently planned street capacities so as to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and public safety hazards If rt is deterrruned that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall be m place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 7 of 9 oooo®o Open Space Element OPEN ~ SPACE ELEMENT • • City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 1 U I .7 Do~~~® Open Space Element • PREFACE GENERAL OPEN SPACE GOALS GOAL 1 To provide and maintain open space resources of local and regional significance accessible to the public. GOAL 2 To preserve the hillside and mountainous land in its natural condition and inherent natural beauty. GOAL 3 To use open spaces to protect human life and property from natural hazards such as fire, flood, seisrruc, and geotechmcal hazards. GOAL 4 To achieve and maintain a harmonious relationship between the natural environment and man- made structures and land uses. GOAL 5 To protect and conserve natural resources including watersheds, water quality, productive agricultural land, native vegetation and wildlife habitat, rruneral land, archaeological and historic sites and areas of ecological significance. GOAL 6 To encourage preservation of land uses for open space and agriculture. GOAL 7 To preserve the natural and rural character of Saratoga. GOAL 8 To preserve and protect existing view sheds, view corridors, and scenic open spaces. GOAL 9 To create and maintain distmctrve, attractive entrance ways reflecting the City's rural character and scale. • City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary LOT a ®VV~~~ Open Space Element GOAL 10 To ensure that any new development is sensitive to the natural environment and the community's open space resources. GOAL 11 To provide and maintain parks which are located, designed, and improved to serve the needs of the residents, the community, and the neighborhoods of Saratoga. GOAL 12 To provide and maintain a trail system which links open spaces, schools, public facilities, the Saratoga Village, and historic sites. GOAL 13 To encourage the awareness, appreciation, and use of the City's open space resources in Saratoga's residents, particularly its youth. GOAL 14 To preserve and maintain existing open space resources. GOAL 15 To preserve open space and recreational resources provided on school sites and surplus school . sites through acquisition and/or land use controls. GOAL 16 To preserve, protect, and maintain riparian habitats and creek corridors. GENERAL OPEN SPACE POLICIES POLICY 1 Preserve, through a variety of methods, as much as possible of the open space areas described in the Open Space Element for visual greenbelts, conservation and management of environmental resources, public health and safety protection and for recreational use. POLICY 2 Prepare an open space management plan in conjunction with its Capital Improvements Program. The Plan would identify open space needs as well as the appropriate use and ongoing maintenance needs of open space areas. PoucY 3 Encourage and facilitate the participation of individuals, citizens, groups, civic orgamzarions, and those having special needs, such as the physically disabled, in the open space planning process. City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 3 of 9 o~(~~~~ Open Space Element POLICY 4 Improve and upgrade existing municipal open space, parks, and trails to serve the current and future recreational needs of the community. These shall be consistent with preservation of open space. POLICY 5 Be vigilant in maintaining existing and future parks and dedicated open spaces to ensure that they remain part of the public domain in perpetuity. UNINCORPORATED HILLSIDE AREA POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES POLICY 6 The City shall make a concerted effort to protect open space and manage future land uses within the unincorporated hillside area and shall apply the Residential Open Space zoning district standards [to] these lands [should they] become part of the City of the City's Sphere of Influence. POLICY 7 A significant component of the open space value in the foothill area comes from agricultural uses which have a long history of existence tied to the heritage of Saratoga. In evaluating future land uses, efforts shall be made to maintain agricultural lands as a component of open space and to preserve the rural and agricultural heritage of Saratoga. The City shall discourage the early cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts. POLICY 8 Public use and enjoyment of the unincorporated hillside areas for recreational purposes shall be encouraged through direct or indirect public land acquisition, encouraging both private and public recreational uses. Appropriate regulation of privately held lands to obtain maximum use of open space resources, such as the establishment of trail and open space easements, should be consistent with conservation of the natural environment. POLICY 9 Future land uses within the western hillside or any sphere of influence expansion area shall be consistent both with existing patterns of land use in the unincorporated hillside areas, and with the City's desire to mamtain the area as predominantly open space and rural. These uses may include city county, state, federal, or special district parks, nature preserves, and resource protection areas; private campgrounds, picnic areas, and similar low-intensity recreational uses; non-residential, for- profit uses, which invite members of the public to enjoy open space resources and amenities in a small-scale, low impact manner; residential uses which are environmentally sensitive and visually non-obtrusive, maximizing open space protection; the environmentally sensitive expansion of agricultural uses, including vineyards, wineries, orchards, and pastures; and existing recreation facilities. • City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary flora 000013 Open Space Element IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 1 To promote the preservation and maintenance of open space in the foothill area, the City of Saratoga should pursue a cooperarive agreement v~nth the County of Santa Clara that will ensure Saratoga's ability to comment on development projects in the unincorporated hillside area. If necessary to secure the ability to comment on development projects in the unincorporated area, pursue expansion of the sphere of influence, to include those areas with a strong relationship to the City due to visibility and/or the protection of infrastructure and services. If the expansion of the Sphere of Influence is pursued, the City will apply the Residential Open Space zoning district standards as the prezone classification for all lands outside the existing Sphere of Influence. The City of Saratoga should work with the Town of Los Gatos and the City of Monte Sereno to establish logical planning area boundaries pursuant to Local Agency Formation Commission regulations. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 2 The City should offer incentives to agricultural owners and operators as a way of continuing such uses. Incentives could include allowing the sale of agricultural products grown or produced on the site, as well as the resale of goods related to on-site operations (e.g. equestrian equipment); residential density bonuses for significant investment in agricultural improvement (e.g. vineyards, wood lots, or orchards) or open space dedications; allowing additional dwellings on farnily farm operations when such additional dwellings will permit continuance of inter-generational agricultural uses consistent with Williamson Act provisions (not constituting a residential subdivision of the land under the Williamson Act); modifying road construction standards in hillside agricultural areas (e.g. curbs and gutters, which could interfere with agricultural operations, should not be required). • SCENIC OPEN SPACE POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES POLICY 10 In evaluating scenic open space for planning purposes, the City shall consider microscale, intermediate scale, and macroscale elements of each site, with the understanding that those sites which encompass all three scales may have the highest potential for providing quality scenic open space. POLICY 11 Hillside Development The hillsides and the valley provide Saratoga with its prime macroscale views. Therefore, development must include careful study of the effect on scenic open space. POLICY 12 Existing Vegetation The preservation of native and other vegetative species indicative of Saratoga's cultural heritage shall be given priority over development and provide for the perpetuation of such species. Fire safety shall be an important consideration when evaluating the preservation of native vegetation.. • City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 5 of 9 ~~V,~~~ Open Space Element • POLICY 13 Natural Environmental Features The preservation of the natural environment including geological and ecological features shall be encouraged. POLICY 14 Major Entryways and Arterials The major entryways and arterials throughout the City shall be designed to enhance Saratoga's residential character and scale. Public health and safety shall be an important consideration in evaluating the design of major entryways and arterials. POLICY 15 Street Improvements Open space objectives shall take precedence over the width and landscaping of roadways and the inclusion of curbs, sidewalks, and gutters. POLICY 16 Parking Lots The design of parking lots shall be evaluated for opportunities to reduce large continuous expanses of asphalt and to promote the establishment of visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing parking lots. • POLICY 17 Acquisition of Scenic Open Space The acquisition of scenic open space for park sites shall include an evaluation of the microscale, intermediate scale, and macroscale potential of each site. POLICY 18 Scenic Views and Trail System The City's trail plan shall access as many natural views as possible, including hillside macroviews and rnicroscale views. POLICY 19 Creeks The City's creeks shall be preserved and restored where possible, as natural scenic views. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 3 Hillside Development In addition to the applicable city development standards, potential impacts to scenic views shall be evaluated pnor to development. Criteria shall include but not be limited to the use of unobtrusive colors, controlled grading, lirrnted disruption of natural vegetation, use of structural height limits, and structural design and density guidelines. Special consideration should be given to the eventual development of a canopy effect of tree growth. City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary ~ ~~ x00015 Open Space Element IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 4 • Existing Vegetation The City should provide information and assistance to the public in the preservation and care of native trees whose existence can be threatened by environmental stress and development. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 5 Mayor Entryway and Arterials A street tree planting, landscaping, and maintenance program should be developed to encourage drought resistant, native vegetation to be planted and maintained throughout the City, especially in City owned and privately maintained rights of way. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 6 Parking Lots Large continuous expanses of asphalt should be limited by measures such as overflow parking on pervious surfaces, an increase m tree canopy coverage required and the encouragement of shared parking with adjacent and compatible uses. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 7 Non-scenic views enhanced Man-made, non-scenic, or unenhanced views such as railroad and utility facilities and quarries should be enhanced insofar as possible by erosion control measures, landscaping, use of color, and other methods of scenic improvement. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 8 • Scenic Open Space Inventory As a public reference, the City should prepare and update an inventory indicating all dedicated scenic open space resources m Saratoga. TRAIL SYSTEM POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES POLICY 20 Regional Trails Network A regional system of hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails shall be encouraged, which includes trails within and between all City, County, State, and regional parks, and other publicly owned open space lands, as well as trails providing access from the City of Saratoga to these lands. POLICY 21 Trail Acquisition Cnteria The City shall promote the acquisition of trails as a mode of access and for recreational purposes, through purchase, dedication, or gift. The trails network should emphasize creating connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, public open spaces, historic sites, and activity centers; connections to the regional trails network; and acquisitions of trails that respect the rights of property owners as well as their privacy and security. Trails proposed for acquisition are identified on the Trails Map. City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 7 of ~~Q~~~ Open Space Element POLICY 22 Coordination Trail planning, acquisition, development, and management shall be coordinated among the various volunteer agencies and local, regional, state, and federal agencies which provide trails or funding for trails. POLICY 23 Traditional Trail Routes Trails shall be established along traditional routes whenever feasible. POLICY 24 Development and Maintenance Trail development, patrol, and maintenance responsibilities shall be coordinated with all entities involved in each trail segment. In most cases, development responsibilities are borne by the property owner and maintenance activities are undertaken by the City. The City is encouraged to work with volunteer groups to maintain City trails. POLICY 25 Trail Location and Design Trails shall be located, designed, and developed with sensitivity to the resources and environmental hazards of the areas they traverse, as well as their potential unpacts on adjacent lands and private property, including potential impacts to private property owners' privacy and security. Trails shall be designed to City specifications, require rmnimal grading, and include effective erosion control measures. POLICY 26 Development Controls The City shall control land development along designated trails in order to provide sufficient trail nght-of--way and ensure that new development adjacent to the corridors does not detract from the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the corridor. POLICY 27 Creekside Trail Restriction The City shall not acquire, plan, or develop trail easements or public access easements along Wildcat Creek or Saratoga Creek, across single ofmulti-family land uses as designated in the Saratoga General Plan abutting said creeks, or adjacent to said creeks between the centerline thereof and any single or multi-family designated property. This policy statement shall apply to Saratoga Creek from Prospect Avenue south to Tollgate Road, and to Wildcat Creek from Quito Road south to the Villa Montalvo Arboretum property line, with the exception of the section between Carnelian Glen Dnve and Douglass Lane, as shown on the Trail System Map. POLICY 28 Access for the Disabled Whenever feasible, trails shall be designed and developed to meet the accessibility needs of all segments of the population C7 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 8 of 9 ~~~~~ Open Space Element POLICY 29 Trail Access Trails shall be designed with adequate ingress and egress points to minimize the need for parking at trailheads. Parking should be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. POLICY 30 Transportation Improvements Transportation improvements, such as road widening and bridge construction, shall include bicycle paths, as indicated on the master • • City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary y °T a ~~~~18 Circulation and Scenic Highway Element ~~ CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAY ELEMENT • • City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 1 of$,~~~~9 Circulation and Scenic Highway Element PREFACE Following is a circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed maJor thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. Also included is a scenic highway element for the development, establishment, and protection of scenic highways pursuant to the provisions of Article 2.5 (commencing v~nth Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code. GOAL 1 : BALANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Promote a balanced transportation system m Saratoga with attention to energy efficient transportation. POLICY 1 The City shall encourage and participate in the County-wide implementation of a variety of modes of transport to serve Saratoga. POLICY 2 The City shall work toward improved public transit, including more frequent service and access to the village. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 1 Coordinate with County Transit on City efforts necessary to increase transit availability. POLICY 3 The West Valley Corridor right-of--way shall be designated as a public use corridor. GOAL 2: SAFE MOVEMENT Facilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic within and through the City, taking into consideration the environmental, historical, and residential integrity of the City. POLICY 4 The City shall require public right-of--way to be offered and all private roads designated as collectors. PoucY 5 For safety, every new or developing public or private cul-de-sac greater than S00 feet in length, and every new and developing residential area in the City with more than 15 residential lots on a cul-de-sac should have a primary and an emergency access. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 2 Modify Subdivision Ordinance accordingly. City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 2 of 8 (30~®2~ City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures A circulation element consistin a st ortation rou~est t rmmals,tand other local public proposed major thoroughfare p utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. A scenic highway element for the development, establishment, and protection of scenic highways pursuant to the provisions of Article 2.5 commencing with Section 260 of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code. OVERALL 'TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Goal CI.1.0 Provide a balanced transportation system in Saratoga to give mobility to all segments of the community and to maintain the City's rural character. Policies CI.1.1 The City shall encourage and participate in the implementation of a variety of modes of transport to serve Saratoga. CI.1.2 Encourage development of inter-regionally based cooperation to support local and regional transportation solution and improvements. STREET SYSTEM AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE Goals CI.2.OaFacilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic within and through the City, taking into consideration the environmental, historical, and residential integrity of the City to maximize benefits and minimize adverse impacts and costs. CI.2.Ob For traffic management and street design, balance the efficiency of vehicular traffic with the safety and livability of residential areas. Policies CI.2.1 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and strive to reduce the total number of vehicle miles traveled through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternative modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems. CI.2.2 Maintain and develop aCity-wide street system that manages vehicular access, but also provides for emergency access. Page 39 Fehr & Peers Assoc-ates, Inc. 000~2~ City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures CI.2.3 Adopt the proposed roadway classifications as shown on Figure C-2 and as described in the Background Report. CI.2.4 Maintain a minimum Level of Service (LOS) D operations standard at all signalized street intersections that are under City jurisdiction. (Intersections and roadways included in the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program are held to a LOS E standard). CI.2.5 Require public review of any development project or other proposal that causes an intersection to degrade by one or more levels of service (e.g. LOSAtoB,LOSBtoD). CI.2.6 Accept Level of Service E or F operations at City-maintained signalized intersections after finding that no practical and feasible improvements can be implemented to mitigate the lower levels of service. A proposed development that exacerbates LOS E or F operations and causes a significant intersection impact should be considered for approval if it will provide a clear, overall benefit to the City (e.g., library expansion or relocation, new community center). CI.2.7 Ensure that new development or redevelopment projects provide adequate property dedication to accommodate future roadway improvements at key intersections and other problem areas. CI.2.8 Manage traffic flow on major and minor arterial roadways to discourage through traffic in residential neighborhoods. CI.2.9 Align and design through collector streets to minimize adverse impacts on the character of residential neighborhoods through which they pass, while functioning efficiently to collect and distribute traffic. CI.2.10 Design new local streets to reduce travel distance, promote alternative modes, and provide a more even distribution of traffic. CI.2.11 Establish the primary access for major traffic generators on arterial roadways and design overall access to minimize traffic intnzsion to residential neighborhoods. CI.2.12 Strive to maintain traffic volumes and speeds on collector and local streets that are compatible with the character of the adjacent land uses, the function of the street, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic. CI.2.13 Protect the integrity of and improve existing hillside streets by planning future development according to existing street capacities. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc rage 4 v ©O~(~2~ • City of Saratoga Ctrculation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures CI.2.14 Focus future improvements on the most congested intersections to maintain an acceptable level of mobility for all modes of transportation. CI.2.15 Require development projects to mitigate and reduce their respective traffic and parking impacts by implementing practical and feasible street improvements. Implementation Measures CI.2.16 Continue to use the Capital Improvement Program to program and implement needed improvements to the street system. CI.2.17 Implement roadway and signal timing modifications to improve operations and enhance safety (e.g., lengthen turn pockets, adjust left-turn phases, widen lanes). CI.2.18 Establish street and driveway accessibility requirements for all streets designated as a major or minor arterial roadway as shown on Figure C-2. Ensure that driveway or street access does not substantially impede arterial traffic flow as part of the City review process for individual development projects. CI.2.19 Install coordinated signal systems on all major arterial roadways in the City to improve traffic flow as appropriate. Funding should be obtained from all available City, County, State and Federal funding sources, and developer contributions. CI.2.20 Evaluate the need for upgrading or enhancing intersection control (e.g., signalization, stop signs) at existing intersections on arterial roadways and collector streets to improve overall access and circulation. CI.2.21 Install traffic signals to serve existing and projected traffic demand, provide acceptable traffic operations issues, and enhance pedestrian safety. CI.2.22 Require a transportation analysis for all development projects resulting in 50 or more net new daily trips. The analysis shall identify potential impacts to intersection and roadway operations, project access, and alternative travel modes, and shall identify feasible improvements or project modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts. Impact significance should be consistent with the criteria maintained by the VTA. City staff should have the discretion to require focussed studies regarding access, sight distance, and other operational and safety issues. CI.2.23 Evaluate development proposals and design roadway improvements based on established Level of Service standards. Page 41 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. ®~~ ~~~ City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures CI.2.24 Require that roadway improvements identified as mitigation measures for development projects be in place prior to issuance of occupancy permits. CI.2.25 Require new development or redevelopment projects to dedicate property to accommodate roadway improvements at the following intersections: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Prospect Road, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Saratoga Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue/Cox Avenue. CI.2.26 Identify potential capacity improvements and access modifications to maintain adequate circulation in the vicinity of the Civic Center, West Valley College, Redwood Middle School, the Public Library, St. Andrews School and Sacred Heart. CI.2.27 Consider paying for improvement costs to serve a development project, as appropriate, where the City's economic development interests may be served. CI.2.28 Develop and adopt a Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Plan to specifically include a process for identifying problem areas, and for evaluating, funding, and implementing traffic calming measures to reduce 'high traffic volumes and travel speeds on City streets. CI.2.29 Design local streets to carry low traffic volumes at low speeds and to function safely while minimizing the need for traffic control devices or enforcement. Physical features should include gentle curves, changes of grade, narrow widths, short lengths, and T-intersections where feasible. CI.2.30 Design streets to minimize impacts to topography, riparian habitats and wildlife corridors. CI.2.31 Implement the action programs identified in the Hillside Specific Plan to provide adequate vehicular access including improvements identified for Pierce Road consistent with Policy CI.2.13. Where feasible, improvements will include widening of travel lanes, increasing vertical clearance, installing additional signs, and providing new pavement overlays to improve safety. TRUCK TRANSPORTATION Goal CI. 3.0 Limit the intrusion of commercial truck traffic on streets within the City. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. O~®O~~ Page 4z City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element ' Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementatton Measures Policies CI.3.1 Require trucks to only use the designated routes shown on Figure C-3 unless making a local delivery. CI.3.2 Encourage or require deliveries to be made during off-peak periods (i.e., outside the morning and evening commute periods), especially in areas where intersections operate at LOS E or F during the peak periods. Implementation Measures CI.3.3 Continue to strictly enforce the truck route ordinance by citing violators. CI.3.4 Require as part of the development agreement for new projects with regular truck deliveries that such deliveries be made outside the typical peak commute travel periods (e.g., 7:00 am to 9:00 am and 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm) as appropriate. CI.3.5 Establish and maintain reserved commercial truck loading zones on public streets in appropriate areas such as the Village. Time limits for designated loading areas may be established to allow public on-street parking in loading zones at other times. CI.3.6 Require new or redevelopment projects to provide on-site truck loading areas except for areas such as the Village with small commercial lots. Enforcement will be provided by the Sheriff s Department similar to other on-street parking areas in the City. TRANSIT Goals CI.4.Oa Promote local and regional transit as a viable alternative to automobile travel for destinations within and outside the City. CI.4.Ob Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity. safety, accessibility, and convenience of existing and planned transit, bicycle and pedestrian systems. Policies CI.4.1 Coordinate with the Valley Transportation Authority to increase service range and frequency within the City as appropriate. Existing service is illustrated on Figure C-4. Page 43 Fehr & Peers Assoc-ates, Inc. ®®~©~aj ..~ -, City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures CI.4.2 Install transit improvements to improve service, increase safety, and maintain traffic flow on streets serving as transit routes. CI.4.3 Encourage the public school districts, private schools, recreation groups or other operators to develop a local bus system and to expand ride-sharing activities that will help to reduce school-generated vehicle traffic in neighborhoods and on City streets. Bussing should be the first measure considered to reduce school-generated traffic before substantial roadway capacity enhancements are implemented. - CI.4.4 Investigate the feasibility of a local shuttle service within Saratoga to reduce local traffic volumes on City streets and overall parking demand. The feasibility study shall identify potential routes and funding sources. Implementation Measures CI.4.5 Require development projects to dedicate right-of--way for purposes of constructing bus turnouts and/or bus shelter pads on major and minor arterial roadways as appropriate. CI.4.6 Provide seating and shaded waiting areas at transit stops, with stop locations near entrances of buildings to encourage ridership. CI.4.7 Recommend to the Valley Transportation Authority specific streets (e.g., Cox Avenue) to be included on new or modified. CI.4.8 Improve the links of local transportation systems and alternatives such as bicycling and walking with private and public regional transit such as bus transit, light rail, and CalTrain. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements should be funded as Capital Improvement Program projects or through private development projects to further encourage the use of transit. CI.4.9 Provide information to the public on available alternative transportation choices and routes. CI.4.10 Encourage local businesses to provide employees with transit passes or other financial incentives to use transit to commute to and from the workplace. CI.4.11 Recommend potential stop locations for local school bus service and provide minor street and landscaping improvements as appropriate. CL4.12 Commission a feasibility study of local shuttle service within Saratoga. Funding for the study should be obtained from federal and state grants/sources and private development projects. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 44 ~~0~2fi ~~ City of Saratoga Circulation and Scentc Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN AND EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES Goals CI. S.Oa Integrate facilities for safe bicycling, walking, and horseback riding into the overall transportation system. CI.S.Ob Encourage equestrian and pedestrian trails and pathways pursuant to the Parks and Trails Master Plan along roadways in areas where safety and aesthetics permit. Policies CI.5.1 Develop and maintain a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for commuting and recreation. CI.5.2 Integrate the City of Saratoga bikeways system with the bikeways system of adjacent communities, where economically feasible. CI.5.3 Pursue the development of a new multi-use path along the Union Pacific Railroad alignment through the City of Saratoga that will link the Stevens Creek Recreational Trail in Cupertino with the Los Gatos Creek Trail in Los Gatos. CI.5.4 Pursue other potential rights-of--way such as Santa Clara Valley Water District and utility easements for bicycle, pedestrian, and/or equestrian trail development. CI.5.5 Assure implementation of the City's trails system by requiring trail dedication, construction, and a method of trail maintenance pursuant to the Parks and 'trails Master Plan as part of the subdivision or site approval process. CI.5.6 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential areas linking transit centers and important community centers such as the Village. CI.5.7 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to all public and private schools to enhance safety. CI.5.8 Provide trails, sidewalks or separated pathways along all arterial streets and along some collector streets in areas where needed to provide safe pedestrian access to schools. CI.5.9 Require adherence to the trails policies noted in the both the Parks and Page 45 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. C)~OQ2'7 ~•- City ojSaratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Trails Master Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan. CI.5.10 Develop a set of practical and realistic transportation demand management (TDM) measures that can be used by employers in the City to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle trips. These measures would encourage ride-sharing and transit alternatives. Implementation Measures CI.5.11 Update and adopt the Bikeways Master Plan to include goals and objectives, a detailed list and map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. The Bikeways Master Plan should include the proposed facilities shown on Figure C-5. CI.5.12 Upgrade existing bikeways and designate new facilities where they can be accommodated according to current Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) technical guidelines (prior to adoption of City standards in the Bikeways Master Plan). For example, travel lanes on Fruitvale Avenue north of Burgundy Way should be restriped to provide bicycle lanes with 5-foot minimum widths or pathways. CI.5.13 Coordinate with the school districts and other entities to develop "Suggested Route to School Plans" for all public and private schools in the City. Plans shall identify all pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and traffic control devices for residents to determine the most appropriate travel route. The plans shall also identify existing easements for sidewalks. CI.5.14 Prohibit parking in designated bicycle lanes on all streets unless adequate width is provided according to VTA guidelines or City standards. CI.5.15 Require the provision of secure bicycle parking as part of all future development projects that include multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, office, and institutional uses. CI.5.16 Develop a plan to review and identify additional bicycle parking locations in the Village area. CI.5.17 Require new development projects and redevelopment projects to dedicate right-of--way and/or provide improvements to accommodate bicycle lanes on streets identified on Figure C-5. CI.5.18 Require new cul-de-sac streets to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access between residential areas, public uses, and community areas. CI.5.19 Encourage non-residential development projects to include amenities such Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 46 ~~~~~8 City ojSaratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element ~ ~ Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementat-on Measures as showers and lockers for employees to further encourage bicycling as an alternative to automobile travel. CL5.20 Increase priority of pedestrian safety projects (i.e., pedestrian street crossings, sidewalks or pathways) as part of the Capital Improvement Program. ' CL5.21 Make bikeway improvements a funding priority by: l) continuing to consider financing bikeway design and construction as part of the City's annual construction and improvement fund; 2) incorporating bikeway improvements as part of the Capital Improvement Program and pavement management efforts; and 3) aggressively pursuing regional funding and other Federal and State sources for new bikeways. CI.5.22 Update the Parks and Trails Master Plan to maintain and expand the Citywide pedestrian path system. The plan should include the proposed trails shown on Figure C-6. CI.5.23 Prohibit motorized vehicular traffic on trails, pathways, parks and dedicated open space areas except for maintenance and emergency purposes. CI.5.24 Include new sidewalk or path construction in the Capital Improvement Program, or as part of any new development, to close gaps in pedestrian facilities on the following arterial roadways: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga Avenue, Prospect Road, and Cox Avenue (see Figure C-6). CI.5.25 Include new sidewalk or path construction in the Capital Improvement Program, or as part of any new development or redevelopment, to close gaps on local and collector streets near schools. CI.5.26 Review the need to install sidewalks and crosswalks on all City streets within one-half mile of all public schools. CI.5.27 Review the present equestrian zones and assess their consistency with the trails and pathways plan of the circulation element. AESTHESTIC QUALITIES AND HERITAGE LANES Goals CI.6.Oa Protect the aesthetic, historic and remaining rural qualities of Saratoga through street design and landscaping. Page 47 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. n n V~V~~~ ~. r ` City ojSaratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures CI.6.Ob Strive for aesthetically pleasing views from all roads in Saratoga and the Sphere of Influence. CI.6.Oc Encourage the preservation of the width and appearance of those roads designated as heritage resources by the City. Policies CI.6.1 Identify areas of critical need for beautification and coordinate plans with revitalization or anticipated development of areas such as City gateways. CI.6.2 Adhere to minimum City street standards based on location, terrain, character of areas and the anticipated function of the roadway. CI.6.3 Permit variation of the conventional City street development standards, as described in the City's Subdivision Ordinance, in order to preserve environmentally sensitive roadside features where traffic safety will permit such variations. CI.6.4 Identify the function of a street in advance of construction, and apply design criteria to minimize disruption to the area caused by through or heavy vehicle traffic. CI.6.5 Encourage the planting of trees and plan the development of landscaped medians along major arterial roadways. CI.6.6 Enforce ordinances to prevent the use of non-conforming roadside signs on all roads and highways within the City, whether erected by private individuals or business enterprises. CI.6.7 Require increased setbacks of up to 100 feet for structures,~walls or fences to be located on lots adjacent to officially designated scenic highways where it is determined by the City that such increased setbacks are necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway. CI.6.8 Require increased setbacks and landscaping for commercial and multi- family residential structures on corner lots adjacent to arterial streets, as required, to reduce the visual impact of such structures and to enhance the appearance of important intersections where it is determined by the City that such increased setbacks are necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway. CI.6.9 Approve designs for new hillside streets that maximize the use of natural terrain for roadbed construction and minimize "cuts and fills." Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Page 48 ~~?~1Q30 .~ , City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Imylementation Measures CI.6.10 Review Subdivision Ordinance street standards for adequacy and prepare illustrations of corresponding roadway cross-sections. CI.6.11 Require a sight distance analysis to ensure adequate site access for variances from street design standards proposed by the City or by private developers. Use Caltrans design standards as guidelines for sight distance studies. CI.6.12 Encourage residents of streets and roads believed to have historic merit to nominate those rights-of--way for designation as heritage lanes through the Heritage Preservation Commission. CI.6.13 Design commercial areas with pedestrian amenities, shade trees, and on- street parking to create inviting environments. CI.6.14 The designation of Heritage Lane shall not preclude City action necessary to guarantee safe access for emergency vehicles while maintaining the integrity of the existing heritage lane. AGEMENT PARKING SUPPLY AND MAN Goals CI.7.Oa Provide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods. CI.7.Ob Provide on-street parking spaces in commercial areas that provide direct access to abutting properties while requiring off-street public and private parking lots to serve the majority of the demand. Policies CI.7.1 Review on-street parking policies and utilization in the Village area. l CI.7.2 Designate curb parking in the Village area for short-term use by those visiting businesses and public facilities. CI.7.3 Encourage the location of parking lots behind buildings to emphasize the buildings' physical and visual connections to the street and to maximize pedestrian access and safety. CI.7.4 Encourage the use of carpools and vanpools by providing preferential spaces as appropriate. Page 49 Fehr & Peers Associates, lnc. qq Q~~~~1 ~~ H City ojSaratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Implementation Measures CI.7.5 Enforce parking ordinances in terms of time limits and zones. CI.7.6 Establish time limits for on-street parking in commercial areas. CI.7.7 Adopt design standards for parking stalls, aisles and driveways for on- street and off-street facilities. 1 s Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. P ~~~ lr~ u • • Safety Element 4®~~33 Safety Element • PREFACE: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION The identification of hazards that affect the city is the initial step in the safety planning process. It is also the most important stage in this process since inaccurate hazard identification and the formulation of inadequate safety land use policies could result in unnecessary loss of life, injury, and property damage. The natural hazards that have affected Saratoga in the past and those that may affect it in the future can be identified with a high degree of accuracy. Geologic, flood, and fire hazards have all caused considerable damage within the community in the past, while recent earthquakes have been minimal m their damaging effects. Although the future extent of natural hazards is unknown, m all probability the future will include the same types of hazards as have occured in the past. Accurate hazard identification is an accounting of historical information to be used as the basis for the evaluation of the future and the risks involved in relation to current and proposed land uses. HAZARDS OF LAND INSTABILITY The physical and geologic characteristics of Saratoga have the potential to produce geologic related problems for land development. Land development in areas of geologic instability can sud~ect life and property to hazards caused by both seismic and non-seisiruc conditions. Many hazards occur when property is developed in ways which are unsuitable to geologic conditions in the area. When structures or roads are built on geologically unstable land such as landslide areas or unstable slopes and soils, there is a definite risk to the community. Geologic hazards are unavoidable in California. However, some geologic conditions represent greater hazards than others. Faulting and unstable bedrock present great risks, while surface mstabihtes can often be engineered to make construction safe. When unstable soil combines with steep slope, development can be hazardous and the environment is endangered by potential landslides. Recognizing and delineating the geotechnical hazards which could result in injuries, property damage, and econoiruc or social dislocations is an important function of the city planning process to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The background geotechnical data for the Safety Element of Saratoga's General Plan is contained in the Saratoga Geotechnical Report (1974); the Ground Movement Potential maps and Geologic Hazard Analysis of the Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed and of the Congress Springs Study Area by William Cotton and Associates (1980); and also in the Geologic Hazards Analysis of the Lower Saratoga Hillsides Area by Terratech (1985). Included here is a summation of those data, and additional geotechnical information which has been compiled from more recent site specific geotechnical investigations. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS TOPOGRAPHY Includes the low-lying, relatively flat valley floor and northwestern foothills. Outside the city limits, but within the sphere of influence, are the Castle Rock portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains. These mountains are very rugged, comprised of steep canyons and sharp to rounded edge tops. City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary LOT LL ~~~~~"3 Safety Element VEGETATION The mountain areas in the sphere of influence have a solid cover of vegetation. Hardwood trees of oak and madrone are abundant in this area, as well as redwood and douglas fu. The canyon floors near streams are covered with sycamore, elder, and maple trees. Much of the area is densely covered with chaparral, with only a few areas covered with grass. GEOLOGY The dominant geologic feature within Saratoga's sphere of influence is the San Andreas fault zone, bisecting the mountainous portion of the terrain. The fault zone determines the geology and topography of the area by separating two different rock assemblages and their associated erosional characteristics. The fault zone is composed of a complex system of fault traces and fractured rock. The rock formations to the east of the San Andreas fault are composed of sandstone, shale, volcanic rocks, some diabase and gabbro, and also large shear zone areas. The mountain area is separated from the flat area within the city limits by the Santa Clara formation, composed of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated gravel, sand, and clay. The valley floor of Saratoga is comprised of several alluvial fan deposits from the creeks and streams flowing from the mountainous area. The alluvium is composed of unconsolidaed particles consisting of clay, silt, and gravel. This is Class I and II agricultural soil and is considered fertile by the United States Conservation Service. GEOTECHNICAL TERRAIN UNITS AND RELATED HAZARDS There are large areas of the city and its sphere of influence which have sirrular bedrock and soil characteristics. These areas of similar geotechnical charactenstics are designated geotechnical terrain units. There are five such terrain units in Saratoga and its sphere of influence. The following conclusions can be made based on an evaluation of the geotechnical data for each terrain unit. 1. Terrain unit I (not shown) cannot support urban residential development but can support very limited rural residential development in accordance with site- specific geotechnical studies. The Santa Clara County General Plan states that specific hazards within this terrain unit must be placed in permanent open space. 2. Terrain unit II can support both controlled urban residential development and rural residential development in accordance with site-specific geological and soils investigations. 3. Terrain unit III cannot support urban residential development but can support rural residential development in accordance with site-specific geological and soils investigations. 4. Terrain unit IV cannot support urban residential development but can support rural residential development m accordance with site-specific geological and soils investigations. • City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 3 of 11 0®~~35 r` Safety Element 5. Terrain unit V can support urban residential development. Geological investigation is not necessary, but soil analyses should be required. Additional data on each tenam unit is available in the 1974 Geotechnical Background Report. These data are supplemented by the geology and soils section of the Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan (adopted m 19~ LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE INSTABILITY Although most landslides are natural occurences, some damaging landslides are the result of human carelessness or haphazard construction. When construction is allowed m areas where landslides exist or where landslide susceptibility is high, the potential for substantial property loss and human endangerment increase. The potential public costs for the repair of roads and utlities or disaster relief make it imperative that the city restrict developme in geologically hazardous areas. Most sloping land has some potential for landslidmg. Slope stability is affected by several interrelated factors, such as steepness of slope; weak, unconsolidated soil units or formations with a high clay content; water saturation; vegetation removal; and seismic activity. Usually a combination of several factors will bring the hillside to the verge of a failure, and single factor such as heavy rainfall or an earthquake will be the catalyst responsible for initiating slope failure. The development of sites where these conditions exist may also trigger landslide activity. As shown on map 2 (relative geologic stability), a major portion of Saratoga is underlain by a geologic stability zone. This type of geologic unit is moderately stable when dry, but moderately unstable when saturated. Within the city boundaries, landslides are most likely to occur where silt and clay have been eroded along the stream channels traversing the city. Map 2 also shows areas in Saratoga that contain rock formations conducive to abundant landslides. These areas primarily lie west of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, pass through a portion of the Northwestern Hillsides Residential District, and continue past Big Basin Way. The zone is also present within the sphere of influence, along the city's northwestern boundary and crossing Bolhman Road. Landslides and unstable slopes are prevalent in tlns area, and can create hazards within the city lnruts as the slide debris and rock moves down the incline toward the city's valley floor. Landslides and slope instability are the mayor non-seismic geologic hazards in Saratoga. Although most of the hillside areas m the city experience these hazards to some degree, the most severe asks are found in the vicinity of the Congress Springs area and the upper Calabazas watershed. The present land use consists of hillside residential and watershed areas. The northern portion of the Congress Springs area is traversed by the potentially active Berrocal fault, which has contributed to deformation and fracture of the bedrock in the vicinity. It also lies within a mile of the San Andreas fault; the proxirnity of these two fault systems has produced unstable slope conditions. Large landslide deposits blanket the underlying bedrock throughout much of the hillside region, and approximately 50% of the hillside contains landslide debris. The most geologically unstable area of the city lies m the Congress Springs area. An extensive section of several active landslides is shown on Map 3. The upper portion of the section includes the hilly region south of Congress Springs Road, part of the natural channel of Saratoga Creek, a section of the Congress Springs Road alignment, and a considerable amount of the low foothills located north of the road. Slope movements have been noted m this region for over 50 years. The . Congress Springs Road surface has been significantly deformed and elevated about 14 feet since City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary `}Qf~~~~c Safety Element 1931 when the present alignment was constructed. Extensive structural damage has been experienced by all man-made construction within or south of this region. (MAP KEYS) Active landslidmg can also be traced across Belnap, Bohlman, and On Orbit Roads and private driveways at a number of locations within the Congress Springs and Lower Saratoga Hillside areas. Santa Clara County has surveyed a short section of Bohlman Road below the intersection of On Orbit Drive and found it to be moving at a rate of 2.7 to 3.6 inches per year. This is considered an extremely high risk area for future development, even in those areas which appear to be stable at the present time. The equilibrium of even the most stable ground witln this hillside could be destroyed by the advent of road construction, imgation, alteration of natural drainage, or the introduction of septic tank effluent. Rapid failure of these slopes could cause considerable property damage, personal m~ury, or loss of life. Other highly unstable geologic units within Saratoga and its sphere of influence are those designated on map 2 according to the key (ON PAGE???). These amts include all landslides shown on Map 3 which are considered extremely unstable, particularly when saturated. The upper Calabazas Creek watershed is located in this hillside region. Although the ma~onty' of the land is underlain by relatively stable ground, the stability of large portions of the hillside is undernuned by landslide deposits and unstable soils. The most extensive occurrence of landslide deposits is in the central portion of the watershed located north and south of the Mt. Eden Road-Pierce Road intersection. Forty percent of the total land area in the Mt. Eden-Pierce Road vicinity is covered by landslide deposits. Isolated landslides are common in this area, as are large landslide complexes which cover entire hillslopes. Examples of these large slide deposits are those on Pike Road and on the Garrod Farms property. Within the same general area, the Quarry Road slide adjacent to the Calabazas creek has moved part of the roadbed into the creek. To prevent potential geologic hazards from occurring m areas of slope instability and unstable soils, Saratoga requires that detailed geotechmcal investigations be made for all land use proposals in the Northwestern Hillside Residential District (NHR), the northwestern hillside area of Saratog, and adjacent Santa Clara County lands (see map), and in the Hillside Conservation Residential District (HC-RD) in accordance with Section IS-13.050 and 15-14.050 of the City Code. The sphere of influence is within Santa Clara County's jurisdiction and development review area. Saratoga's sphere of influence is defined as that area outside the city's incorporated boundary, but designated by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commtssion as the unincorporated area most likely to be influenced and annexed by the city at some future date. The county has adopted a geologic hazard zoning district where development is restricted due to large area-wide landslides. The county has established specific guidelines for review of development proposals in this district to aid in identifying areas of land instability, and to require that appropriate conditions be met by developers. This zoning designation has been applied to the major slide area at Congress Springs Road, shown on map 3. SOIL CREEP AND EXPANSIVE SOILS Soil creep and expansive soils are most prevalent in the western hillside regions of the city. Soil creep is the slow, downslope movement ofnear-surface materials. The rate of soil creep is a function of slope angle, soil thickness, and texture. It can be regarded as a continuous process, and may cause retaining walls, foundations, and paved roads to fail over a period of time unaccompanied by any obvious signs of slope failure. Soil creep should not have a prohibitive City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 5 of 22 ®~~~~ Five-Year 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan F.Y. 03104 Update -New Project List NEW CIP PROJECTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN CONFORMI TY LAND USE ELEMENT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CIRCULATION ELEMENT SAFETY NOTES ELEMENT Public Safety Projects GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE Sobey Road/Qmto Road Traffic Improvements' Sobey Road/Qudo Road roadway improvements to increase 4 8 411 513 5 20, safety m the vicinity of Marshall Lane School 2 Oa 5 7, 5 8 , , , 5 26 Norton Road Fve Access Construction of a fire access road connecting Norton Road to Montalvo's Artist ]n Residency Road 2 Oa 216 4 Aloha Street Safety Improvements Roadway safety improvements at the intersection of Aloha Street and Highway 9. 2 Oa, 2 Ob 216, 2 20 Infrastructure Projects i Cdy Entrance Signs/Nlonuments Installation of Entry SignslMonument at City entry points where none exist. 9 Blaney Plaza Improvements - ConsVuction Phase Implementation of improvements based on the Blaney Plaza Master Plan 3 3.1 1, 4, 5, 9 Facility Projects ~ Civic Theater Lower Penmeter Re-Roof. Re-Roof the lower penmeter of the Civic Theater No General Plan i Element Identified Crnc Center Eave Replacement (Community Replacement of courtyard eaves on the Community i No General Plan Dev /Engmeenng) DevelopmentlEngmeenng wing of the Ciwc Center Element Identified Histoncal Park Buildings -Fire Alarm System' [nstallatwn of fire alarm system m the Histoncal Bmldmgs 4 located m Histoncal Park 3 31 Village Fagade Matching Fund Matching funds to busmessJproper[y owners directed at improving budding facades. 4, 5, 9 North Campus Improvements - Fellowship Hall• ADA restroom improvements and mtenor upgrades at the North Campus Fellowship Hall 1, 4 Parkl'frail Projects ~ Foothll School Joint Field Improvement Project City and Foothill School lomt protect to make improvements to the School's unimproved field areas 1, 4 San Marcos Open Space Trail Development of trail through the San Marcos Open Space 1 4 20, 21, 22, 5 Oa, 5 Ob 51, 5 2, 5 20, 5 21 25, 28 5.3, 5 6 Trail Segment #3 Repairs Erosion repair work to Trail Segment #3 (Tank Trail') 1, 4 20, 21, 22, 5 Oa, 5 Ob 51 5 2, ~ 5 20, 5 21 25, 28 5 3, 5 6 Odd Fellows Trail Development Development of a new trail through the Odd Fellows property establishing a link to the San Marcos Open Space 1, 4 20, 21, 22, 5 Oa, 5 Ob 51, 5 ' 5 20, 5 21 25, 28 5 3, 5. 6 ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-078/13280 Pierce Road Type of Application: 'Design Review Applicant/Owner: Jerry and Jill Chen, owners Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Assistant Planner o~i/ Date: December 10, 2003 APN: 503-16-022 Department Head: • • ~ . _ ..~ ,.,~ -- -- _ 1 ~{ `~ 0 Buffer zone around 13280 Rerce Road .' 13280 Rerce Road -~•~------ ---- ---'-r -~---- ~ Parcels w dhin 500 ft. of 13280 Rerce Rd N ~ ~ t~ ,,..-~-~ j ~ ~ i /.~ j i~ ~~ 3 ~ ! E ` ~ / / ff i `/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ./~ f`/ ~ ~ ~ __ ( t ~ ~ ~ ~, < l_ ~ __ ~ ~, '~j " ~ ~ ~--- /~ ~ i ~''*,~ ~ _ i ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~` \ ~~ I A.V. ~ ~~ ~ ~ v~> ~~ +,, ~'~ ~ ~ .r ~'` 0 60 120'""1 B0•-.240_ ~ 300 ft ~. 1 ~' ~ .,may ~..,~ ,~~ ~~.. ~ f t ~ ~~~~ ~ r~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I _.. _..~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 1 13280 Pierce Road t~~~~~~ Application No. 03-078; 13280 Pierce Road CASE HISTORY: Application filed. 04/02/03 Application complete: 11/04/03 Notice published: 11/26/03 Mailing completed: 11/19/03 Posting completed: 11/21/03 ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential -Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 14,597 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than 1% GRADING REQUIRED: 39 CY of cut and 9 CY of fill. The City Code does not count basements as grading. Therefore, the basement excavation is not factored into the proposed cut and fill amounts indicated above. 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. J ~®~~302 Application No. 03-078; 13280 Pierce Road PROJECT DATA: Code Requirements Proposed Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable: 30.3 % 35 Building: 2,464.3 sq. ft. Walkways, Lightwells, Carport, Patio, Driveways• 1,960.6 sq. ft. TOTAL: 4,424.9 sq. ft. 5,109 sq. ft. (Impervious Coverage) Slope: Less than 1% (minimal grading proposed) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable: (Existing Home - to be (1,634 sq. ft.) demolished) ls` Floor: 1,837.5 sq. ft. 2nd Floor 1,567.5 sq. ft. Attached Garage: 626.8 sq. ft. (Basement) (1,969 sq. ft.) TOTAL: 4,032 sq. ft. 4,050 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement: Front: (from entry) 31 ft. -6 in. 30 ft. - 0 in. Rear: ls` story: 90 ft. - 7 in. 50 ft. - 0 in. 2nd story: 94 ft. - 3 in. 60 ft. - 0 in. Side (west/right): ls` story: 8 ft. - 0 in. 8 ft. - 0 in. 2nd Story: 14 ft. - 2 m. 13 ft. - 01n. Side (east/left): ls` story: 10 ft. - 7 in. 8 ft. - 0 in. 2nd story: 13 ft. -11 in. 13 ft. - 0 in. Height: Maximum Allowable: Residence: 25 ft. -10 in. 26 ft. - 0 in. ~~~~®a3 Application No. 03-078; 13280 Pierce Road PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,634 square foot single story residence and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story contemporary style residence with a basement. The proposed home will have concrete flat the roofing and tan- colored stucco siding with off-white trim. The facades will be accentuated with wood corbels and wood entry columns, with stone veneer at the lower portions. Staff finds that the entry is proportionate to the scale of the other features of the front facade. The homes along this stretch of Pierce Road vary in architectural styles and are a mixture of one and two story homes. The neighboring property to the right is a two-story home obscured with surrounding foliage. The home to the left at 13270 Pierce Road is a single story home. Next to this home, on the adjacent lot at 13250 Pierce Road, is a new two-story 4,123 square foot home under construction. Neighbor Review The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors on either side and to the property owner to the rear at 13386 Surrey Lane. Trees mostly obscure the view of the home at 13386 Surrey Lane from the subject site. As shown in the attached letter, the property owner at Surrey Lane does not have concerns regarding the proposal, but has included a note regarding the location of the rear property line and care during construction to maintain the cleanliness of the pool, which is situated directly behind the rear property line of the subject site. To address this neighbor's concern, Staff has added a condition of approval in the attached Resolution requiring the applicant to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's [BAAQMD] Basic Control Measures to ensure that provisions are made to prevent dust or debris from blowing onto the neighbor's pool and all other adjoining properties and streets. According to the applicant, the issue regarding the location of the rear property line was once under question and has since been resolved with the neighbor at Surrey Lane. The neighbor to the east of the subject property at 13270 Pierce Road initially voiced concerns regarding impacts on privacy from the proposed second floor balcony. The applicant then modified the proposal by flipping - or presenting a mirror image of -the entire design of the home such that the second floor balcony is at the west side of the property. While the attached letters from the three neighbors on either side of the subject site and to the rear on 13386 Surrey Lane have reviewed the initial proposal, the applicant has shown the `flipped' design plans to the neighbors on either side along Pierce Road since they would be the ones impacted by the design revision. The neighbor to the east at 13270 Pierce Road has indicated in the attached letter that this `flipped' plan, shown in Exhibit A, is fine as long as screening trees are provided to screen views from the master bedroom sitting area. Staff has added a condition in the attached Resolution requiring four 24 inch box arbutus `Marina' (evergreen) screening trees as shown on the conceptual landscape plan. As shown in the attached letters, the neighbor to the west at 13282 Pierce Road is fine with the `flipped' design shown in Exhibit A. ~~~~o~ Application No. 03-078; 13280 Pierce Road Trees Eight ordinance-sized trees were inventoried for the City Arborist Report. Two of the inventoried trees, a Monterey Pine and a Giant Sequoia, are on the neighboring property. The applicant proposes to remove tree #8, a London Plane tree that is in fair condition with a `Moderate' level of suitability for preservation. The northern portion of this tree is located beneath high voltage electric lines. The Arborist Report indicates this tree will be severely unpacted by the proposed installation of the driveway. Modifications in the design of the driveway, as recommended by the City Arborist, have been incorporated to preserve trees #1 and 2. However, even though the Arborist Report suggests measures that could be taken to preserve tree #8, the Report does not expressly recommend its preservation. In page S of the Arborist Report, an option of planting native replacement trees equivalent to the entire value of this tree is required if the suggested measures for preserving this tree are not implemented. Staff has added a condition in the attached Resolution requiring the planting of replacement trees for the proposed removal of tree #8 as well as for the proposed removal of trees #3 and #4, both Modesto Ash trees. Also per the Arborist Report, Staff is requiring that the Arborist review the final grading, landscape, irrigation, and utility plans prior to issuance of City Permits. Geotechnlcal Clearance Since the applicant is proposing a basement, Staff required the applicant to submit reports for review by the Ciry Consulting Geotechnical Engineer. Geotechnical clearance was granted with conditions, which have been incorporated in the attached Resolution. 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, corbels, and stone veneer accents, which provide architectural interest and minimize the perception of bulk. The home is well- proportionedand not 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 #8, 3 and 4 would be removed. Replacement trees re required as conditions of approval. 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, subject to the planting of screening trees. Staff is requiring screening trees in along the east side of the property to mitigate any impacts on • privacy that the two-story home would have on the neighboring properties. ~~~~®$ Application No. 03-078; 13280 Pierce Road Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The site is located in a flat area 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. The main bulk of the structure has windows oriented towards the south for increased solar access. Conclusion 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 #03-078 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Arborist Report, received April 15, 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". ~Q~~~~ • • Attachment 1 ®Q~~}®~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 03-078 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Jerry and Jill Chen; 13280 Pierce Road WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to demolish the existing home and construct atwo-story 4,032 square foot home; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new small single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and • WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the 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 v~ith varying rooflines, corbels, and stone veneer accents, which provide architectural interest and minimize the perception of bulk. The home is well- proportionedwith varying rooflines. 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 #8, 3 and 4 would be removed. Replacement trees re required as conditions of approval. 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, subject to the planting of screening trees. Staff is requiring screening trees in along the east side of the property to mitigate any impacts on privacy that the two-story home would have on the neighboring properties. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The site is located in a relatively flat area of Saratoga. Impacts on views are not an issue with this proposal. ~Q~~~B 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 I. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 03-078 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 April 15, 2003 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The vertical distance from the highest point of the proposed home to the immediately adj acent natural grade not created by fill shall not exceed 25' -10". 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. The~radin~ and drainage plan shall show the correct orientation of the home consistent with the site plan (A-2) in Exhibit A. 7. Final landscape, irrigation, utility and grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for Staff and Ciry Arborist review and approval prior to issuance of City Permits. The final landscape plans shall show the required replacement trees for trees #3, 4 and 8. The utility plan shall show locations of air conditioning units. Any proposed undergrounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees. ~~~~~9 The applicant shall be responsible for making provisions to prevent dust or debris from blowing onto the pool of the property to the rear at 13386 Surrey Lane, other adjoining properties and public streets during demolition and construction. The applicant shall comply with the BAAMQD Basic Control Measures for dust and debris control. 9. Four 24 inch box~arbutus `Marina' trees shall be planted along the eastern side of the property to mitigate impacts on privacy prior to Final Building Inspection. The trees shall be shown on the submitted landscape plans. A different species of 24 inch box evergreen trees may be selected subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 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 Apri115, 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 City, in a form , acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $3,023 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 required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 15. Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall include a statement in his plan review letter addressing the generally accepted long-term performance benefits of utilizing apier-and-grade beam type of foundation in this seismically active area. Recommendations for basement subdrainage are not included with the remainder of the engineer's recommendations in the referenced report, and thus could be overlooked by potential contractors. Both the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review final plans for the development to assure ~~®~~,® • that basement subdrainage improvements (i.e., subdrain pipe connected to a sump and pump) are consistent with their recommendations. The results of the plan review, with specific comments noted above, shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 16. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for the basement and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 18. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any clauns or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. FIRE DISTRICT 19. Applicant shall comply with all Santa Clara County Fire Dept. conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 20. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, mcurred 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. 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. • ~®~~11 • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 10th day of December 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 • t~~~Q13 _ '~`~~F~:;, ARBOR RESOURCES (' ~ n ~ .ro J ~Q fESb(.OnQL PT'LLT02l.L~ilLtU.'LQ.L C~On3LLCti.ny S JnEE C.:Q'ZE AN A,RgOgICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT THE NOUROZI RESIDENCE 13280 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: NOUROZI APPLICATION #: 03-078 APN: 503-16-022 Submitted to: J ~ ~ ~' U `l CS APR 1 ~ 2043 U , CITYOFSA~ 1 p~A Community Development Department, Planning Division City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Plans Received: Apri18, 2003 Site Inspected: April 11, 2003 Report Submitted: April 14, 2003 P.O. Box 25295. San Mateo. California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 1 • 0~00~'~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Apri114, 2003 • SUMMARY Eight Ordinance-sized trees were inventoried and evaluated for this report. Through implementation of the proposed plans, one tree (#3) will be removed and two trees (#4 and 8) will be severely damaged. Design modifications to the proposed driveway are recommended to minimize impacts to trees #1 and 2. To ensure protection of trees #1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, I recommend a bond of $3,023. If measures are taken to mitigate impacts to tree #8, I recommend increasing the bond amount by $1,510. ASSIGNMENT This report has been prepared at the request of the City of Saratoga's Community Development Department in response to the proposed demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new two-story single-family residence at 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga. This report reviews the effects the proposed project will have on Ordinance-sized trees located on and immediately adjacent to the subject property; identifies each tree's condition, species, and size; establishes an appraisal value for each tree; provides recommended bond values; and presents recommendations for mitigating trees being removed or damaged. A summary of my fmdings is presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached to this report. Each tree's approximate location, number and canopy dimension are shown on an attached copy of the Site Plan (sheet A-2) prepared by Memarie Associates, Inc., dated 2/25/03. The recommended tree protection fencing locations are also shown on this plan. Note tree #7 was not shown on the plans reviewed. Its approximate location was plotted by me and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. OBSERVATIONS Eight Ordinance-sized trees were inventoried for this report. These include 3 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata), 2 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v. `Modesto), 1 Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), 1 Edible Fig (Ficus carica), and 1 London Plane Tree (Platanus acerifolia). There are many additional trees on site which are smaller than Ordinance size and not included in this report. 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga Page 1 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~~~~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Apri114, 2003 The overall condition of inventoried trees is fair. The trunks of trees #1, Monterey Pine, and #2, Giant Sequoia, are situated on the neighboring western property. As a result, they should be regarded as highly valued specimens. Trees #3 and 4 are Modesto Ash located on the west side of the future residence. In my opinion, these trees are not valuable specimens, are subject to numerous disease and insect problems, and have poor structures. Trees #5 and 6 are Monterey Pines located on the south side of the southern property fence. These trees begin branching much higher than is normal for this species. I suspect the lower limbs were regularly pruned due to deadwood formation and possible tree decline. Tree #7 is an Edible Fig which appears to have fallen over some time ago. The tree, however, remains alive and seems stable at this time. Three trunks of equal size grow along the ground, two of which grow upward and form the upper canopy. Tree #8, London Plane Tree, seems the most valuable tree on the subject property due to its broad spreading canopy. However, the northern portion of its canopy is located beneath high voltage electrical lines and has been regularly reduced in height for clearance. REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLANS Plans indicate tree #3 will be removed to accommodate the proposed basement and staircase. Tree #4's survival will be endangered by constructing the home's first floor footprint approximately three feet from its trunk. This will damage a significant portion of its root area and require removing an 11-inch diameter limb growing towards the east. If this tree is expected to survive, major design revisions are necessary, to include constructing the home no closer than 12 feet from its trunk. When considering tree #4's condition, its low value, and susceptibility to numerous problems, I do not believe design modifications should occur to preserve this tree. No impacts to trees #5, 6 and 7 are anticipated from construction activities. Trees #l, 2 and 8 are anticipated to be affected by installing the proposed new concrete driveway. Several visible large roots originating from tree # 1 protrude above the soil within the proposed driveway location. I believe severance of these roots could significantly impact 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga Page 2 of S Ciry of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division 0~~~~6 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Apri114, 2003 tree #1's health condition. As such, the driveway should be designed no closer than 14 feet from the trunk. The redesign of this driveway will also minimize impacts to tree #2. Tree #8 will be significantly impacted by the proposed driveway design. A lazge 10-inch diameter limb growing towazds the west will require removal to provide adequate driveway clearance. Significant root damage will also occur unless the entire portion of driveway located beneath the tree's canopy is constructed on top of existing grade without any excavation or soil compaction. No utility or landscape plans were provided or reviewed for this report. RECOMMENDATIONS" All recommendations presented below are based on plans reviewed and aze intended to mitigate foreseeable damage. If revisions to the plans occur, the recommendations may require modification. Protection Fencing 1. Fencing must be installed prior to the demolition phase and located as shown on the attached plan. It must be comprised of five to six feet high chain link mounted on two- inch diameter steel posts, driven two feet into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. The fencing shall not be located beyond approximately one foot from the proposed driveway edge. 2. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and in place throughout the construction process and until the project receives final approval. Modifications to the fencing location must be allowed only by permission from the City of Saratoga. 3. The fencing of tree #8 must be installed in the following two phases: (1) demolition and construction, and (2) driveway installation. 4. The tree protection fencing should be inspected and approved by the City of Saratoga before demolition equipment arrives on site and before driveway installation activities commence. 5. All development activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas. These activities include, but are not limited to, the storage of materials, vehicle parking, and dumping of concrete or other construction materials. Driveway 6. The plans should be modified so the proposed driveway is no closer than 14 feet from tree #1's trunk. 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga Page 3 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division Apri114, 2003 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist 7. The portion of driveway proposed beneath tree #8's entire canopy should be installed on top of existing grade without any excavation or soil compaction. Drainage 8. Any alterations to the natural grade must ensure water drains away from rather than towards trees' trunks. Below Ground Pipes and Utilities 9. Underground pipes, utilities and old irrigation lines should be abandoned and cut at the existing soil grade. 10. Plans for installing utilities, drains and pipes must be reviewed by me before installation occurs. I advise the features be installed outside the dripline of each protected tree. Tree Pruning 11. Pruning of each protected tree must be performed under the supervision of an ISA certified arborist and according the standards established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. Watering 12. Supplemental water must be supplied to tree #8 during the dry summer and fall months (a dry month can be described as receiving less than one inch of rainfall) and continue throughout the construction process. The suggested application rate is 10-gallons per inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. The water should be applied by soaker hoses placed beneath approximate mid-canopy. Landscape Considerations 13. The proposed landscape plans should be reviewed and approved by me prior to installation. 14. The existing plant material located beneath tree #8's canopy should either remain or be cut at existing grade. Otherwise, unnecessary root damage will occur. 15. Irrigation heads must be directed away from all tree trunks, including areas where turf would be proposed. 16. Irrigation trenches proposed within the protection fenced areas and parallel to the trunk, should be placed no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter. Irrigation trenches installed radial to the trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. 17. Rototilling and installing bender board or other edging material beneath canopies of protected trees must be avoided. 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga Page 4 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division 4~~~..~f.~~~`7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Apri114, 2003 Tree Replacements 18. In addition to the planned removal of tree #3, I recommend the appraised value of tree #4 is replaced. 19. I also recommend replacing the appraised value of tree #8 20. I suggest installing trees to replace the cumulative appraised value of trees #3 and 4. Their combined value is $1,980, which is equivalent to one tree of 36-inch box size, one tree of 24-inch box size, and two trees of 15-gallon size. 21. If the suggested recommendations for minimizing impacts to tree #8's root azea aze not implemented, I suggest the tree's entire value of $3,020 is replaced with native trees. The value combined with trees #3 and 4's equals $5,000. This is roughly equivalent to either (1) one tree of 48-inch box size or (2) three trees of 36-inch box size, two trees of 24-inch box size, and one tree of 15-gallon size. 22. Acceptable native tree replacements include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big Leaf Maple (Ater macrophyllum), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). TREE PROTECTION BONDS The a raised tree values are presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached at the PP 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. The total appraised value of trees #5, 6 and 7, which aze not anticipated to be impacted, is $2,570. I suggest a 10-percent bond or $257 to ensure their protection. The cumulative value of trees #1 and 2 is $13,830. I suggest a 20-percent bond or $2,766 to ensure their protection. If the recommended measures for preserving tree #8 can be cazefully followed and incorporated into the project plans, I suggest a 50-percent bond of its $3,020 value to ensure its protection, which equates to $1.510. r~ 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga Page 5 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~~~~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES (~ n J"tOfE11LOnQ.L P~t~O'LLG'LLLtLL'CQL (.~01LSLLLEin9 & JtEE C:QtE TREE INyENTORY SPREADSHEET comments: 2 Giant Sequoia (Sequoldendron giganteum) 40 36 70 24 55% 100% Fair High 2 - $12,200 X Comments: Modesto Ash 3 (Fraxinus v. 7vlodesto') Comments: 20 I8.5 45 35 60% 60% Fair Moderate - _ X $980 Modesto Ash 4 (Fraxinus v. 7Vlodesto') 24 23 45 36 50% 50% Fair Low 1 _ - $1,000 Comments: Monterey Pine 29 25 70 26 45% 50% Fair Moderate 5 ~ - $890 - 5 (Pines radiata) Comments: Ono site side of fence. Monterey Pine 28 24 80 32 45% 55% Fair Moderate 5 _ - $940 6 (Pines radiata) C;OmmeniS: VII O S1Le JIUG VL tctiw . 7 Edible Fig (Ficus carica) 9, 8 - 18 25 65% 10% Poor Low 5 _ $740 _ Comments: g London Plane Tree (Platanus acerifolia) 20 20 62 26 70% 65% Fair Moderate 1 - $3,020 _ Comments: Job: 13280 Rua Road, Soramga Prepmad jor: CF[y ojSmaroga CommWnity Dtvdopmrnt Dcpartn'e~+t Ap~it 14, 2003 Aepared by: David L Bobby, RCA ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~'~~ . t I i'~ I W ~.I ~ q a II V ~ Iq i ~ ~~ i ~ 10., 1:. r.{ I REDESIGN DRIVEWAY LOCATION I srw ' GI,,, I I IE,.~apw6 ' ~~ L._~- - -- ~-- o _ °f 1 ~_ ~ 51»= rlores L a1AiRD ~ GY~IL 916 ARAN V CAGED oN arold5+T1W a Hoar ro cwErw,crloR TNe oEreNAL ~aflpaerae awu NOTIFY iHro M1R ~ ~ D~aYI PANG~~ S r r~N,.A~rar r~•T r.1~ r,~~.ararl6 ro r,.ore~ arENn w T~ cw,m~.eroRn uio~wc aTOPA~r~r tae urL~E°•fe. o6Y1E0 TO rrll... AriE.9ENT er COrtE•ErrrE • bAYDIIELD CCTDITN6rl DHER faLT1 RMt+TO lxn'NT ua+aceaaAler eonr• Ars rr+r'raED aw ceun Ars .,+r1u- PA16D TE OYIE r ARCNRECi bI+LL CE OQr'a>-Tm AN a rErPI io eo re n+cPP~w L91 wxax~c~IS.EO ro c 9G.~IrENALL~~A,e.~,NF.~r~.E~ATw1r ~anea wa nE enalcTlrsAL 9nuiEex Pwors ro CONf1R1Ci1Pl • frscae TO raro+rral rertnwl ercealr nE leslsmra.x ar+ta:.a n~iui+u m~a~eE~mrwa +~i~~n nEn rrmre+mmrsxr --- - - -~ "' . - TREE. PROTECTION FENCING /`- - ~ ' ~; i- ~ ~ 'ly„ 1~ ~ ~ I ~- N'C taE PL~ I - G3 I ~ onPn r o~~ 7 ~,' \~ - f ~,~ ~ ~, ;,~ 1 ~1a , r L, . -- - - I Df ~a n -- T rAtw ~ , f ,I : _ _ 't o e1~~•a+o 1 ~~ ~' ~:` / PA110 i ~L ~O~ ~ a LEGEND AND ABBREVIATION5 ~~ _ ~~ PFU£RfY LYE -___-__--- EEIPKX LYE _ -- row ewLnen m ov+ou•NED - _ __ .,fEar CEMEfn.rE tCx, u0.'D RCr<rr ro NCWN __~ . ~___ rW1J CrCLM IHrrE TO tE FBtO.'EO - _ _ __ rEw ueoo race ro ra+Aw rfw aruDO rarE ro ee F®+o.eo I Amy 11180 Plercc Roa4 Sarawka 7'~eyvcd fur C'n\ u15rmNPa Conwwnny Dc.cl6Pwnu Dey+nmcnl family AynI IJ '_-OU` ~~ M.ywldeallRcx 8 CNduuw uxd n~cs 1 C py dlmcmlm s and u~as•'.7 s IaNloa arc epprow n+0. Map u rcduud Bmn lu unpulal vxr +nd u 1wl 1o scale Vrepared tl) ARBOR RESOURCES ,., ~ ,.. L.. , .. 1 fnuc nNl I nuc, ,,1, i `1 w. ..1 n„,,.. ,1 a ~~ 1 \~"NL W UNI ~IURI l' Ilullll Mlr ANI, A1n\ ,1~ ILL k al, IIAIIn~A t .I lr~nt.+ . fluor Rusl,luns C1ry R.rls SITE PLAN A-2 f+e 1AiFAfEr1 ANNLW ra 35u\ • • • Attachment 3 • 4~~~21. Dear Neighbor, Jerry and Jill Chen (408-896-4569) We have just finished designing our property on 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga. It will be a beautiful two story house with 3,408.5 square feet, three-car garage, and a 1,969 square feet of basement. Based on the shape of the lot, the house will have a relatively narrow front than depth, with streamlined stone and stucco facade and rustic barrel garage door that blend in with our neighborhood subtly and beautifully. Special consideration was also given to limit the sizes of the second story windows for the privacy of our immediate neighbors on each side. Now that the plan is ready for Design Review at the City Planning Department, we would like for you to go through this plan and give us your support for the approval of our design. Sincerely, I (we) ~~ .fin r~ ~f-~ Y ~~ ~- ,the owner(s) of the property on (~'-~ ~ ~(`~- ~ ~ ~c~, , ,have been shown the design for 13280 F1 ~gPiertce Road, Saratoga. ~~~Pe~-t~es° r ~j~ ~ r the (pit n r^~,~- ~~ / ~`/ {-~.~tt~E t,~~'!3~ haves f~ s-~~4+s' Cc7!'1 ~ 1-rt3' 6~1 ~a~~ ~ QEL~Lsi.+"i y ~~ ~ .5.-N ~~ _ ~/~~Uer c~ ~ik.S Signature: Date: ((~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~(~.._ 4Jg - ~~ ' $ ~ ~g `~- I , ~ ~~ f ~ r Note: ~~Y~I {~ u ~ Seto ~~/ ~ ~ -~ -~ ~ t ~ r.~~'~ ~ (~. vim. G~~ f,~ C~ ~F !n/ ~ S °f- ~ c~ . D.y ~ ~` t 'f 1e s~ ~: r~ ~~ ~ s .l ~` N fl'~+2 (a ~, ~ s c-.yam ~ ~ a ~ /1 '~~ ~ rv `~ -e ~ o t-~ r 1 ' /i 1/' 1 ,J ~ L ~ Lt, 'eA~l ~ ~ D i tr 1 - C~ ., to / r G . S P °~-J ~_~ ~ ~~>, ~S ~ m~.~~~~ `T~ ~ ~, ~~ ~~~~~~z Dear Neighbor, ~Y ~~ ~/p~~d Ply,, We have just finished designing our property on 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga. It will be a beautiful two story house with 3,408.5 square feet, three-car garage, and a 1,969 square feet of basement. Based on the shape of the lot, the house will have a relatively narrow front than depth, with streamlined stone and stucco facade and rustic barrel garage door that blend in with our neighborhood subtly and beautifully. Special consideration was also given to limit the sizes of the second story windows for the privacy of our immediate neighbors on each side. Now that the plan is ready for Design Review at the City Planning Department, we would like for you to go through this plan and give us your support for the approval of our design. Sincerely, Jerry and Jill Chen (408-896-4569) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I (we) J ,~ c ~,~ ,the owner(s) of the property on - `' ~, have been shown the design for 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga. I / we support these plans for the City approval. Signature: -~ Date: ~ --', - C~-=~ Note: ~~. .7 • ~~~~J23 Dear Neighbor, We have just finished designing our property on 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga. It will be a beautiful two story house with 3,408.5 square feet, three car garage, and'a 1,969 square feet of basement. Based on the shape of the lot, the house will have a relatively narrow front than depth, with streamlined stone and stucco facade and rustic barrel garage door that blend in with our neighborhood subtly and beautifully. Special consideration was also given to limit the sizes of the second story windows for the privacy of our immediate neighbors on each side. New That the pian is ready for resign Review at the City Planning Department, we would like for you to go through this plan and give us your support for the approval of our design. Sincerely, Jerry and Jill Chen ~ ~ ~ Q (408-896-4569) ~ Avg 2 s 200 CITY 9F SARATUC'~' --------------- ----- I (we) -(~ ~o--~, ,the owner(s) of the propertv on (33 ~6 ~S't-~R~___ .have been shown the design for 13280 Pierce Road, Saratoga. I / we support these plans for the approval. ~ ~.. ~P ~ Signature ~~ ~~~~~ D~at~e~ ~ J P Y Q ,Z,~.~ / fi ,-tee ~~~l~r 'Qt ~t e_ i Attachment 4 ~~ ~~~~~.~i~r~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ~ r'~~ ~ ~,~g.~~' SS. C%~ ~ ~~ U / COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ~~~ v ~ 1 I, ~ ~(,~ ~ ~ ~~iCUt~-' ,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. f Signed • ~~~~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 10"' day of December 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 #03-078 (503-16-022) CHEN, 13280 Pierce Road: The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence with a maximum height of 25 ft, 10 inches. The proposed residence including garage will be 4,032 square feet. A 1,969 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,597 square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. 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 m 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, December 2, 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 m 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 Y' .z ,r~_. ~ I- ~ E 1- ~ ~. ~' y. ' \ =,r '-~. ,~ ~ - ~~- ~~ j 1 ''/~~ '`` ' °~:: ~,~ ` 111 f ~ ~ ~ ~~Y / J ~~~1~ , " r G ae 4\ ~~ I f __ .;yam ~ ~ -+`~~ ~`~,~~_'~ ,, ~~®~~~ ~~ • • S C V W D KAY K& PAUL FIREMAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 57 0 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY 13385 SURREY LN JOSE CA 95118 SARATOGA CA 95070 HSIAO-CHIN & ALVIN WANG OR CURRENT OWNER 13425 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 JOEL & KAREN KORELITZ OR CURRENT OWNER 13630 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 RUDY Y & SHAD JUANG OR CURRENT OWNER 13600 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 N LE HUE OR CURRENT OWNER 13570 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 CHARLES E & BLANCA JONES MCKENNA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13440 SURREY LN 13414 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES R & CHANG CHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 13386 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 (,'FEIN L JAN OR CURRENT OWNER 13270 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 GIRARD F & MARY CARACCIOLO OR CURRENT OWNER 13228 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 HOLIC OR CURRENT OWNER 13305 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 BERMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 13360 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 RAFI & NABAVIZADEH BAMDAD OR CURRENT OWNER 13250 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ALFRED J & A WESTPHAL OR CURRENT OWNER 13216 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DANNY G & KAREN FONG OR CURRENT OWNER 13356 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIAM E & MARTHA THOMAS OR CURRENT OWNER 13282 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 E & DOROTHY TERRILL CURRENT OWNER 13277 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 HAROLD A BEAUDOIN OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 55 SARATOGA CA 95071 PRISCILLA B SCHNEIDER OR CURRENT OWNER 13291 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 KEN S & HI-NIANG TAN OR CURRENT OWNER 13405 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 ROY & ANGELA EVULICH OR CURRENT OWNER 13616 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 KRISTIAN V & M1N00 BAKKE OR CURRENT OWNER 13540 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 DENNIS L & TAMARA HITE OR CURRENT OWNER 36312 MAGELLAN DR FREMONT CA 94536 BRONZICH OR CURRENT OWNER 14 CORRALA VISTA DR WATSONVILLE CA 95076 BARBARA A MORRISSEY OR CURRENT OWNER 13240 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 BARRY W & BRENDA JONES OR CURRENT OWNER 13251 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN C & HELEN MCCOLLUM OR CURRENT OWNER 13290 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 HANS H & INGE STELLRECHT OR CURRENT OWNER 13200 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 POELLOT OR CURRENT OWNER 18860 BELLA VIVA SARATOGA CA 95070 dQ~~~~ ' DAWN M YONEDA OR CURRENT OWNER 18880 BELLA VINA SARATOGA CA 95070 ' MORA OR CURRENT OWNER 13327 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 REZA NOROUZI OR CURRENT OWNER 1097 MUIR WAY LOS ALTOS CA 94032 HANSEN OR CURRENT OWNER 18990 BELLA VINA SARATOGA CA 95070 BARBARA A & JOHN CLARK OR CURRENT OWNER 13333 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 REZA NOROUZI 12201 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD. STE D SARATOGA CA 94070 SULLIVAN OR CURRENT OWNER 13370 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 BRIAN BERNARD OR CURRENT OWNER 13337 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 • • ~~~~~~ ITEM 4 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-216;19932 Merribrook Drive Type of Application: Appeal of a Tree Removal Permit Applicant/Owner: Yong Lun, Appellant Yufen Wang, Property Owner Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner ~''lf Date: December 10, 2003 r APN: 393-37-029 Department Head: f • • _" ~ Location of Trees Sveet nlames Parcels w Min 500 tt ~/ hydro Parcels ~ ~~°t ~~~ ~ ~ ~ r . a; :~ ~--~-~--- l Tl t ,. -- -+ ~ 1 O t ~ Ot~ r~ I4 ~~4 ~';~r Ott ~ -~~~~ ~~ j' ~1„ ~ ~ £~ ti, ~~ , .d _ .. P ~ ~ _ ~~ ,. ae~,i ~ ,~_ ~t ~~ t__, _~ , It } J~yRlbtob`~ s ,, ~J Vy ~i; <, ~ ,~} ,,`-,'` \ ~~'~`+, it'd` ~ ,`~ F V d~' ' ' ,'-, ~ '~~ /` I '~ r, ~ .- ~ ''~~ ~ ;, , ,~~` i ~ f ; A ~ '; \ o ~o ,moo ,5~0 2o~n r ~~- 19932 Merribrook Drive 00001 Application No. 03-216; 19932 Merribrook Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City granted a tree removal permit for five redwood trees located at 19932 Merribrook Drive, the Wang property. A neighbor, Yong Lun, 19894 Merribrook Drive, has appealed the tree removal permit. The trees are located in the applicant's rear yard. The City Inspector issued the removal permit based on information from the applicant that previous limb breakage had occurred which damaged a neighboring residence located to the rear (east). The appellant resides to the right side or south of 19932 Merribrook Drive. Relevant background information is enclosed include the arborist comments, tree removal application, and appeal statement. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-50.080 the following criteria shall be used in determining if a Tree Removal Permit shall be issued: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. (2) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. (5) The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and take appropriate action. ATTACHMENTS 1. Tree removal permit, including city approval. 2. Arborist Comments, dated October 7, 2003. 3. Appellant statement from Yong Lun. 4. Mailing labels for notification of Appeal. ~~ V0~®Qi~ • Attachment 1 • OC10O03 ~ ~ _ Date Received: ~ ~~ ~ Tree Removal Permit Application Permit No: Permit Cost : $25.00 Expiration Date: _ Property Owner: Phone :(hm) (wk) Mailing Address: ~ ~ - I ~ .~ ~C'Y1''' ~ 7'~c~ ~k f~ ~^ " ~Cl"Y<v(,~~~ ~~l Address where tree(s) to be removed: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' _ I ~ tf ~~ ~~~ ~~ K (~ ~' Company to remove tree(s) I~"'~' C~~ Nearest cross street: Y~~~ l~~r I understand that the tree(sj maybe removed only if found to be with in the criteria as established by Articlel5-50.080 of the City code and that by signing this form, I am certifying that the tree(s) to be removed islare solely on my property. ~~ of Property Owner Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of trees of the following size or larger (size refers to the circumference of the trunk measured 2 feet above the natural grade). Oak Trees: 32 inches or larger, All other Trees 40 inches or larger. Please list all trees to be removcu u, «,o ~av.~ ~~,.,w. CIES PE S SIZE L REASON FOR REMOVA ~ / - Q ~ !/1./ ~' I.fl~ -y ~ ~ f ILl ~!"t-C~ ~l/14C ~'v~1 V~% ~~,~'~{~' 'L • ~-7fJ zip Location of Trees Prepare a small site plan the area below,showing all trees to be removed frorr~ the property; include dimensions from property lines and existing structures. ti ~,~Y~~Y's ~ (~ ~ v ,r~__ FEES PAID: =-' ~' RECEIPT ®~~ . . • • 15-50.090 APPEALS (a)Except otherwise provided in the subsection (b) of this Section, any person objecting to a decision by the Planning Duector made pursuant to any of the provisions of this Article, may appeal such decision to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15-90 of this Chapter. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 15-90.020, the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final and no further appeal may be taken to the City Council. ~ ~ PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: ~ / ~' Signature of Inspector ~~t1T.~~~ Date of Inspection. ~~~~ Effective Date of Permit Community D Representative 0~®®®.~ CITY OF SARATOGA ~~ J~~ Tree Removal Permit # ./ Applicant: Address Where Tree(s) Are`To Be removed '~C(~~ ~~ ~~ To Be Com le d B A Field Ins ector This tree removal permit is APPROVED in accordance with Article 15-50 of the City Co e based on the following findings. _~ ' ' f the tree with res ect to disease, immin~ an~e~of fa~lmg, The CondtUon o P proximity to the existing or proposed structures and inter erence with urilrty services. D/~,~ .r~~.~ ~~VGf-~ ~ ,~2U~lc'~ D~ Rem ec~o omit o~he~ o ent of the p~Pe~~I / ' The topography of the land and the effect of the removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. The number, species, size and location of the existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, and any established standards of the area. The number of healthy trees on the property is able to support according to good forest practices. Conditions of Approval: Replacement tree(s) shall be planted within 3 months from the approval date. The City will re-inspect to ensure compliance with al] conditions of approval. This tree removal permit is DENIED for the following reasons: W 't,. .. • Attachment 2 • Qo~~Q~ • ~3.: . #~~~~ ~~ ARBOR RESOURCES :- ~- ~¢OfESS.COnCLL Qj"2170'LLCtdlti!'GQL C~:Oniil~tin9 ~i' 'GEE C:CL'lE October 7, 2003 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 03-217; Wang Property at 19932 Merribrook Drive, Saratoga Dear Christy: I have reviewed the Tree Removal Permit Application #03-217 dated September 9, 2003, which requests removing five Coast Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) from along the northeastern property line of the above referenced site. Note there are six Coast Redwoods of ordinance size along the row rather than five shown on the application. Their approximate trunk diameters, from southeast to northwest, are as • follows: 34, 18/4 (two trunks), 16, 34, 25 and 21 inches. Each tree appears vigorous and in stable condition. No signs of the dieback as indicated on the application were observed. Based on my inspection and the "reason for removal" specified on the application, I find no apparent reason for their removal. I believe proper pruning (i.e. compliant to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture standards) can help minimize any risk(s) the trees may present at this time. Sincerely, David L. abby, RCA Consulting Arborist • P O. Box 25295. San Mateo, California 94402 ~ Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 c Faa: 650.654 3352 t Licensed Contractor #796763 o©~{~~~ • Attachment 3 ®~®©Q~ a '. • ~,~' Z/ ~ • .i.: el 5'c~ ) ~,~~ ~,,;,~~- THIS BOX TO BE COMPLETE ~~, `'-~- BY THE CITY C ERK 7 `~ `~` °' `' DATE RECEIVED: ~ ;~~~'~~ ~~. ,,~, DATE: '= 43 ~ HEARIN J S~ .%' ;r ,,.,,~ ~~ x FEE: RECEIPT # ~^ ©I ~ <•.,,: \l~ \ 1!"~ _tli O`h ~~ ~.J CIT~I OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL APPLICATION This two-part application must be submitted to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070, by 5:00 p.m. within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. [,iU 1'1 • Appellant Name: Address: Telephone #: ~~Yl' i ~~Y~ i; ~C ~ ~+' c ~-~~- ~6~ Naive of Applicant (If different than Appellant): ~~N # ~~3 ~~ ~~~ Project file number and address: ~ r~ ~ G'~s Decision being appealed: -- Grounds for appeal (letter may be attached): U'3-~7 r~ . Appellant s Signature Date (Please do not sign this application and the attached authorization until it is present at City offices) 0~~~.~ • Project :19932 Merribrook Drive Grounds for appeal 1) According to the inspector, Jeff Britton, these five redwoods look rather healthy. I am not sure why the owner feels these trees are dangerous to neighbor's home. 2) These redwoods are located near a very steep slope. I am afraid removing five mature redwoods will cause erosion or even landslides. 3) These five beautiful redwoods and the surrounding trees have created a very scenic environment. Preservation of such beautiful environment is necessary for maintaining the property value. • • ~®~®~.© r-~ . Attachment 4 • ®©®~~.~. ®09Z 5 aase~ ' [AO & MENG TANG 9826 MERRIBROOK DR ' ARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ;ARATOGA CA 95070 STEWARD 19822 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 DARLENE G & GLENN GRANT 19814 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 s~aq~~ ssaappy ®Jl2l3/~t~ ~(/ - KELVIN & DZUNG WRIGHT 19818 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 GLENN D & DARLENE GRANT 19814 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 OHN L & SHERRY MCCOLLUM SHERRY H & JOHN MCCOLLUM ROBERT L & LOIS RUSSELL .9810 MERRIBROOK DR 19810 MERRIBROOK DR 19806 MERRIBROOK DR ;p,RATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ZOBERT L & LOIS RUSSELL LINDE J & HENDRIKA VAN DER LINDE J & HENDRIKA VAN DER 19806 MERRIBROOK DR 19802 MERRIBROOK DR 19802 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 LEUNG & HELEN LAU 19798 MERRTBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA CA 95070 BEATRICE F SCHMIDT 19794 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STEPHEN & FARAHMAND BRADFORD 19790 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 BEATRICE F SCHMIDT 19794 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 HUNG-TZAW & CARROL 19786 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ATKIN QUENTIN H & SHIRLEY FRANKLIN P & EUNICE CHUNG 13680 ROSSMERE CT BURDEN 13668 OLD TREE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 13685 ROSSMERE CT ' SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SOON Y & TSAI POH , MICHAEL S WRIGHT ROBERTSON 13662 OLD TREE WAY 13654 OLD TREE WAY ~ 20673 RICE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 GERANIOS KUO-CHI & CHIA CHIEN BRODMAN 13634 OLD TREE WAY 13620 OLD TREE WAY 3033 DRY CREEK RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ! SARATOGA CA 95070 NAPA CA 94558 JOHN E & NANCY HOWE BLESCH STEVEN I & DEANNA BE~ ]3590 OLD TREE WAY S3ARAOOGA CAE 950 0 S3ARATOGA CAE 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ®~o®~+, e _ -- --_._.._. __- ,~~,s1aaUS Paa~ u}oowS Smooth Feed SheetsT"' ~AMDARSHI 13540 OLD TREE WAY TOGA CA ~HI W & SABRINA SUNG 19991 MERRIBROOK DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070 3HIE-REI & CHIA-LI HUANG 19947 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CHENG-WEI & CHUANG CHEN 19901 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 GL-ENFORD V DENNEE 2265 EL CAMINO REAL 3 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 PING & YUFEN WANG 19932 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIAM R & JULIETTE WHEELER 19976 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ERIK & JEANNE FABRICIUS 19896 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 A-DESAI 1 5 LOMOND CT SARATOGA CA 95070 JASON Y & CHANG TANG 20021 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 KEITH & ELIZABETH MELBOURNE 19977 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN C & PENELO CHRISTOFERSON 19931 MERRTBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN D & IRIS NELSON 19887 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CHAFFIN 19871 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STEVEN B & MARY KETCHUM 19856 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 WATE T & JOHANNA BAKKER 19948 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MARIE K HAMILTON 19994 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 YUNG-LUNG & CHIOU WANG 19880 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 NAN B ROOK 13576 LOMOND CT SARATOGA CA 95070 Use template for 5160® BUELTEMAN 20007 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STEVEN V & DONNA LEANDRO 19961 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 GILBERT L & NANCY VARNELL 19917 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN D & IRIS NELSON 19887 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 FRANK Z & GWEN ZHAO 19857 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SHAU-MING & YONG-CHWEN LUN 19894 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIE M & SARA ENGLISH 19960 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 FREDERICK S & MAY LIN 19912 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ANDERSON 13561 LOMOND CT SARATOGA CA 95070 LIAN & PING YAO 13560 LOMOND CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ®®©~'~~ -//_,`~ ~.~r~~Yo /address LabeE4 Laser 5160 Use template for 5160® j Smooth Feed SheetsT"" HIRLEY A BREHM LEUNG KEN K & YALI LIU AEMAR DR 19816 BR 9848 BRAEMAR DR 19832 BRAEMAR DR . GA CA 95070 ,ARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATO ~' .'AW-JU LOIU JOHN F BULT R 0 A R A JAMES & AZITA ASHE R 0 0 A 9 9791 MERRIBROOK DR ;ARATOGA CA 95070 950 O CA A ARA OG S 5 0 O , 9 A AR.A OGA C S QUO W LEE IIZWIN H & MARION WENTZIEN DONALD A & PENELOPE CARR X9799 MERRIBROOK DR 19801 TOGRA~A09 0 OT SAARA OGA~CA095070T 3ARATOGA CA 95070 SARA WILLIAM G & MARIE SCOTT V 07 MERRIBROOK DR B9811 MERRIBROOK DRP~ 19805 MERRIBROOK CT 198 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 YUWEN & CHEN HSIA WEN L & YU CHOW JAMES C HUNTER 19825 MERRIBROOK DR PO BOX 700675 13620 HOWEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SAN JOSE CA 95170 SARATOGA CA 95070 HOWARD B & CONSTANCE BURGER PETKOVIC HOWELL 2 N SANTA CRUZ AVE 13591 OLD TREE WAY 13605 OLD TREE WAY ~ LOS GATOS CA 95030 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ALBERT & JANE KERST JAMES & LINMEI CHIAO lYUH-ZOEND &RHES ~- A EI LIAO 13621 OLD TREE WAY 13635 OLD TREE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SAR.ATOGA CA 95070 ALEXANDER LWI DAVID E & MARY ROBERSON 13673 OLD TREE WAY 13681 OLD TREE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 RICHARD R & REBECCA PATRICLA R & ROBERT BEYER 1046 1PBIG BASIN WAY EONS ALLEN 13670 OLD TREE WAY 13678 OLD TREE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 PARVIZ & AZITA KWON JOSEPH J & E FITZSIMMON~ GHAFFARIPOUR 20487 CHALET LN 14611 BIG BASIN WAY E 13765 HERITAGE CREEK CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 OQ®©~,,~ ~ ~~c~ s ~ ~r~C, Smooth Feed SheetsT"' ' iLENFORD V DENNEE ~ '.2~5 EL CAMINO REAL 3 ', iANTA CLARA CA 95050 KENNETH D & PAULA dVALLACE ?O BOX 963 3ARATOGA CA 95071 SCVWD SARATOGA CA 95070 • • Use template for 5160® MICHAEL & JENNIFER STEINBERG 19956 BARONI CT SARATOGA CA 95070 GLENFORD V DENNEE 2265 EL CAMINO REAL 3 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 ®~~®~~ ~,\ ,~~Ek~~® f~ddress Labels Laser 5160® ITEM 5 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. I Location: 03-226 14350 TAOS DR. Applicant/Owner: RAHIM Type of Application: Modification of Approved Plans Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP ~ Community Development Diru,c-t'or Date: December 10, 2003 APN: 397-16-128 _ _ - _ _ _ ~ 500 foot Buffer i ~_ w 500 ft Wt~ce Area ____~ I - ~ ~- _ QQ> (~ 14350 Taos L7 ~ ~~f Y V C PdfCeIS _„„.„. ~~0109°11 _,,,,, _„~~, _~, _ _ _ oc ~ Btreet_I~mes _,~.._... _._.._.._.., hytlro ,, ~ ebb -1- `~ - ' ~ >.,~--.;-=~ °° ~~~. :, .---~`-'bs'~w ~?~ ---' ~~ ~~ _ t~. ~ ~" ~` v~~ i W E ~ ~ „ __ w.. ~~ _~ _~.~ _. _'~~ ~ s ~~, _~--~ ~ ~ar~OUg~a~-- ._ r "/ , ~ ~. l'"~ ~""•. € YOi~^ ~ 0 200 '400 600 '~ 800 1000 ft p ., ~ . / ~ - ~ - - - -, ° ? i ,~ \ ~ ~ ~ San Morcos _..-, -~ ~ . ,v r ~ - - L.--,...,~..,.....~......_....» _.._. _ f _ Sdn AAarms~ , _ ~ ~~- i - ~ ~C4 ~ / ~ \ \~ ~ ~ ~\ _ ' ~ ~ ' Versaltes- ~ Mra}~' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ Burgundy Wcy, Ui ..--J ~ ~- ~~~ \ Tom- _ _ ~ .~ .- . _"-_'_ G 1 r v,. ~ - ,~~ ~ ,' % f - - - I ,'"_~_ :nom. ~ ,'~_ s' ~ I-_ -f ~ ~'--- '~ i ~~ f ~ ,i ;' 14350 Taos Drive ~Q~~Q~ CASE HISTORY Application filed• 9/20/03 Application complete. 10/21/03 Notice published• 11/26/03 Mailing completed: 11/26/03 Posting completed' 11/26/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ DISCUSSION The applicant requests approval to modify the exterior materials and details of a previously approved Design Review project. Design Review #Ol-Oll was approved on July 25, 2001 The dwelling has been completed at this time. The Staff Report and Resolution are attached for the Commissions reviev~~. The applicant has also provided photographs The applicant desires to eliminate architectural details such as stone veneer, window fenestration and other architectural details. The applicant posted a $25,760 Bond m order to gam occupancy of the dwelling while the request for a Modification to an Approved Plan goes through he process. This bond guarantees that the exterior materials will be installed if the Commission denies the request On each Resolution of Approval the following paragraph is provided to ensure that the applicant understands and agrees to the Conditions of Approval. "This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, m 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." Please note that on 7/30/01 the applicant signed the Resolution agreeing to the Conditions of Approval. Removal of all of the exterior detailing leaves the structure inconsistent with applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines. In particular, Policy #1 Technique #3• Use materials and colors to reduce bulk. This technique suggests using different materials to soften the elevations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the request with finding by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Correspondence 2. Photos 3. Plans • ~~~'~©'~ . RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA RAHIM;14350 TAOS DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application from RAHIM requesting a Modification to an Approved Plan for the Design Review that was approved for 14350 Taos, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly nonced Public Hearing at which nine all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following finding has been determined That the proposed elimination of all of the stone veneer, v~~indow fenestration and other architectural details causes the project to not meet the criteria listed in the Residential Design Handbook consequently Design Review Finding 15-45.080(f) Design policies and techniques can not be made m the affirmative . Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section L After careful consideration of the proposal to allovti~ a Modification to the Approved Design Review No. 01-011 is denied. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, December 10, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • Secretary to the Planning Corrunission ~~~~~~ • Attachment 1 • ~~~~~~ • • July 17,~OD3 To: Saratoga Planning_ Department From: ~t~o~nrs~hury ~ f2ahim • Subject: Minor changes to the plan in 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga This is toinfolm yoL thatvve.are.planrsing_a_small~aci~l_rhangeio~e_backsit~e of the building in the property: the plan shows a stone facade at some places on this side.~~nc~ this portion i~_no~ v~iblefrom the rs~ad, we erenot~utting this stone fagade. The house already looks beautiful with the painted walls there; in fact it looks leers busy, therefore more elegant.~inoe~his dDe~ not have~ny effect on the architecture of the house viewed from the road, I would request your urgent apprs~v~l fo the change. Secondly, the panel configuration shown on the garage door was the artist's conception ~f ~nchat if shoulsiJos~k like 1Nhsn wQ searched for the gage doer, this was the closest that we could find. More importantly, the garage door is not visible from the outside_ once again, this has no impact on the architecture 9f the house as viewed from the road, Finally I would like to emphasize that we have done everything possible to follow the planning department's recommendation throughout the ~rojeci. 1 would therefore urge that you would approve both these minor changes. Please note that we have already sold our previous home ~n Saratoga, and need to move into this property within the next two weeks. Therefore your immediate attention to this will be appreciated. If there is any way that I could help expedite the decision, you may reach me at (408)530-6259. Thanking you, Chowdhury F Rahim 14350 Taos Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 • ~~~'~~ To Planning Department City of Saratoga RE: 14350,Taos Dr., Saratoga, CA 95070 Enclosed are a few letters our neighbours have written to support us on the issue that is slated for public hearing on 12/10/03.. Chowdhury Rahim Selina Akhtar. Dec 2, 2003 • [~6[~~I~~ ~IfIlI;~_ DEC p 3 2003 U_ CITY OF SARATOGA ~~nena>>N)TV nE~F1 npMF~•~ ~~~~~~ To: Saratoga Planning Commission, City of Saratoga ' Subject: waiver of stone facade and other recommendations at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga We support our neighbors in the waiver of the additional stone fagade and other changes that the city of Saratoga wants to be done in the back of the house at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga. These changes are unnecessary, and would make no improve~rent to the neighborhood. .~ ~~~~,/ Signed: Jam- ~l ~ ~ ! C" ~~. ~ ~ ~~L ~L' ~`f i /~(~~'f • { s ~.-, Address: /~r ~~ ~ ' ~~ c. ~~- ~;. ~~ ~ r~ ®~~~~~ To: Saratoga Planning Commission, City of Saratoga ' Subject: waiver of stone facade and other recommendations at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga We support our neighbors in the waiver of the additional stone facade and other changes that the city of Saratoga wants to be done in the back of the house at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga. These changes are unnecessary, and would make no improvement to the neighborhood. R` Signed: i ,~ Address: ~. Deepa ]}-engar ]=1200 Shady Oak Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 • • • ~'Q~~QB To: Saratoga Planning Commission, City of Saratoga Subject: waiver of stone facade and other recommendations at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga We support our neighbors in the waiver of the additional stone facade and other changes that the city of Saratoga wants to be done in the back of the house at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga. These changes are unnecessary, and would make no improvement to the neighborhood. / ~ ~ ~ r3 ,,~ ` n ,% ~r ~,, Signed: ~ , /'~, • Address:. ~ ~ zc~c~ l ~~=~-u~ ~~~-~ c~~C~ ~~0~d ~~~~~~ To: Saratoga Planning Commission, City of Saratoga ' Subject: waiver of stone fagade and other recommendations at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga We support our neighbors in the waiver of the additional stone fagade and other changes that the city of Saratoga wants to be done in the back of the house at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga. These changes are unnecessary, and would make no improvement to the neighborhood. / v ~, j? t'r~~ ~t-->~ / c>ca~ i / ' Signed: ,f~f~~' ~ ~~~~~/;,~~~~. ! ~ C ~' ^ , s Address: %Lf~3~ ~° T~rr's_ JAL` ~'`~ ~i~~%~ 7 ~ ~i~ .7 ~~~~~~® To: Sarato a Planning Commission, 9 City of Saratoga ' Subject: waiver of stone facade and other recommendations at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga We support our neighbors in the waiver of the additional stone facade and other changes that the city of Saratoga wants to be done in the back of the house at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga. These changes are unnecessary, and would make no improvement to the neighborhood. Signed: ~ . ~~ ~~`~ ,f-~~ ~~'~-~~' Address : ___---- • ~~~~~.1. To: Saratoga Planning Commission, City of Saratoga ' Subject: waiver of stone fagade and other recommendations at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga We support our neighbors in the waiver of the additional stone fagade and other changes that the city of Saratoga wants to be done in the back of the house at 14350 Taos Dr, Saratoga. These changes are unnecessary, and would make no improvement to the neighborhood. ` '~ ' ~ ~ Signed : ~ ~~ ~~,° ~ .~; ~<--~~-~ C ~ <_~~, ~~, / ~:.., ,% Address: % ~ r ~;~`~ ,`~; ~:-~~~' ~~'=~ . r ~: ~~ ~ ~ ` ~~ ~. , C, • ~~~~~ • Attachment 2 • ~~~~~ a f \ 9°F ~ v 9'l~' y ~. _ /uC'"~ - ~' 1.1 ___ ; '~. - ~M :_. ~ _ M~~ ~ ~ u ~_ _ - --_ - _. _._____ ~..a-. - -____- ,~ --- -.. , ~ aF~ rF w ~~ ,• ?~ ~ ~~,~ ~;, `- c.- ~ ~s " d y _ f +` if j s ' ~ ~ ~ . ~~ j ~ ~ ~ . ~ ---'4 -- ~. s~ ` ~~` _~ { ~ > ~ ~, ~. _ :. ~~ .;;~ ~~~ :~ t' ~~.+~r~ } f ~! j F ~ ~~~w ~ ~ ~_ F • ~~~~~~ S • ~ ` ~ '~: t! ._ ~ ~G t .~ „_ ~_. -_ ~9.. i® 4~, f, a - --F ii~~ ~.~ ~~ ~~ 11 ~f ~7 ~1 1~ ~I ~-~~ ., 1; ~~~ -. - -~- • _~ . ~. " -~ i ~-~~ r- e .- { `~ 3 1 ~~... ...:' .. i ~.. ~ ~ ~ , ._ _ ! ~ ~f x ~~~ Jy .~ t1 1. i '. _!I .:j..:1 4' < S E: W ~~ ~~ ~ - ~, ... ._ ~~~ ~~ 1j •~i ~~ ~ i t: ~, '..... ~~~ ` , ~ ~ .:. ~M r w ~ ~ ,~ i ~ > ~ I -, A ~~ ~ `,z'~ 3 _ . _.. i ,ya. , iM ~7M 1 ~ <'~ y 'T ~3. k, YL ~~ i h' iy C 1 ~ 2~ kY. r~ 3' ) '~ il' . 3 o a '~ z . y;. .ti~'r. , ~ , ,~ ., ~- 1.k ~:. ~F ~ ~ M+ ~ ~ ~ ' .} . j ~ f + _ r « .2 ..1 --nw : ~ 'fi'4- S ~ .k ° ~ ~ _ ~ y.+ r ,: ..FPM ~ t ~ ~ i1Y ~ •Y~ ~ _ f ~ ,~. .L..~ ~ Y~ti~,~ 13~ ~ y ~ ~.i~S~Y~kIT~~ ; . .. ~ ~ ~~ r f}-- ~~' ~~~~ • • '~ ~£h Ll .~ ~.~ ~$ I!~x,; ~~ ;~ I~ I ,i ~~8~~~1 ~ D ~~~~~[ SEP 2 5 2003 '' CITY OF SARkTU;;q ' ~t~ani@n'r~i t1GVrl nr~,,. t i FINISHED GRADE -J & NATURAL GRADE `v v / I J, ~ ~ F `~ v ~ ~~ 1 ':wo t- -3 ~ I ~ ~ w. l~~ FlNISHED IRADE --~ , 6 NANRAL GRADE ! NOTE: ALL ROOF PITCHS F ~ ~ I TO BE 8.12 U O.N ~ i + ~ I ~ ' F -f ~-'~ (-~ -~ l i 1 l ~L.EVATION LEGEND b _ ~ ~i, FAUX SLATE ROOF - FTE2EFREE OR E(YJAL ~ ®~ ~ ~ Q ExTEWOR STONE VENEER. ~-~~~~p F ~ ExTERIOR stucco. , (J}} m+>>.. o~C ~oAA DtS ~ooo Q~EA~,AeED ~ I I ~ FAUX LIMESTONE TRIM AND SURROUND. ~~ ~}oc~,o ~ I NORTH ELEVATION (~ i 8X REDWOOD CORBELS. FRONT SIDE 1/4'=1'-0" ® ~ 2X6 REDW000 WINDOW SILL 1 ' ' ~ - - (~(cn ~ C}~}, o ®pA,11.,~,Cea~t~J~T ll ~ 1 CUSTOM WOOp GARAGE DOORS (~ ~D WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS -1AARYIN OR ~ ` r1 1 rnooro r_++rrrDC nnwurnrv+m L~In ACAMDDDYCC ~i~tl' 1 YVi I~ ~S i D~"(VCk` ~~ ' I i -~ 3 so , ~ ~ ~ T~-os I' SPrd~f~~OGf~~ ~ 9~~~0 • ,. f, - ~ 9 a ' ' ~ I ~ ~~ i ~ ,I ~~~~ • k~NA~IURGRADE ear TIP. J ~ ~ ~ ~~ O° 2X10 REDWImD HOR2oNTAL BAND ++ `STUCCO COVERED FOAM EAVE MOLDINGS. is STONE CHMINEYS WITH CCPRER CHIMNEY CAPS. u IiTTXC`VENTS +Q 18' D1A. COPPER EkEBROW ATTIC VENTS, IYP. , (~E ROOF PLAN) i ' • • FlNISHED GRAC~ & NATURAL GRADE WEST ELEVATION NOTE: ALL ROOF PiTCHS TO BE 8:i2 Lt.0.N. RIGHT SIDE 1/4"=1'-C" J II 1 v roux ~LarE ` Y , = - '; ... - ~ . ~ _ - .. ~ Q EXTERIOR 5 Q EXTERIOR S ` ~ a _ - ~. FAUX L1ME5 . . . „ = . ' - ~ ;$X .CORBEL' ."• - = ' _ ~ 2X6 WINDOI ' - i Q WOOD GARS .. ` - ~ ~ WOOD WIND - UAL. EQ QQ COPPER GU t0 2X10 HORIZ 11 STUCCO CO 0" PEAK OF ROOF A MAX. 12 1z STONE CHIN - 13 18" 01A. CC _,._ ~ 13 ,1 (SEE ROOF PLATE ~ UPPER .FLOOR 2 -UPPER FLOOR , >` PLATE tt ` ~ eLL1LL11J L L`~~J eC~!1FJ1.1 )` F.F,~ MA[N 'FLOOR I . ~ ~ 7 ~ flNISrfE(}' GRADE `flNiSNED GRADE ' ~-. 3 8 ~• - ~ g ; - - 38 & NATURAL' GRADE ~ & NATIIRAI GR • "NOTE; ALL ROOF PITCH3 =g. ~ :E_-~S~ :~~..._~Vr4TtDN ~- ~ : ~ TO eE a:~2 i~.o.ra. ~ - . • . ~ - • ;LEET° SIDE - ~ - - ~ - - ,. - ... .. ,- ,. • , ._ >. - • •. .. '' ~ - _.. ~_-- .-..~ , . __..._ ..___-_ - ... - - - .r....- - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - • ,