Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2004 Planning Commission PacketITEM 1 ~~ • t REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-254;14289 Sobey Road Type of Application: Design Review Apphcant/Owner: James Stroupe, Architect Priscilla and Jeffrey Ho Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner Date: May 12, 2004 APN: 397-03-004 Department Head: it ~R ._ ___. E.,~, I `•,~ . ~. __ .~ ~ ~ `: ~~~. \ ,, / `~ /~ I\ -~ `~ ~Wrpa ~... ~,, "-- . / ~"'~ -~~ ~ 'I _ _ _ . ~ _ ,~ ~,vw ~-- ~ ,~__ W ,< --.-~ ~ Tew.~s~ew~ --~ II - ~ I I ~ ~ . / L - --r ~ __ ~ ~ __ ~ ,_ __ _ , i w ~ e I I I i sa ~. _ ~ __ ~ ~ `` ~. ~ . - I -- -W E f . ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ J. _ i ; -. . .. ~ ~ s d t__ ~----: _: -, I 0 200 400 600 800 1000 k -_. ~_1 14289 Sobey Road /~ ~ Roject Site Panels wghin 500 ft 0®~~®~ Application No. 03-254; 14289 Sobey Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 11/12/04 Public hearing conducted: 05/12/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new two-story residence and basement on a vacant lot. At maximum height the proposed residence will be 26 ft. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,230 square feet. Materials and colors include a tan stucco exterior and red the roof. The gross lot size is 47,045 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the analysis and conclusions made by staff which have resulted in a conditional recommendation of approval. Notwithstanding, the Planning Commission may decide to refer this item back to the applicant for restudy of the issues raised in the staffreport or to deny the project as presented. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Arborist Report, dated November 28, 2003. 3. Mailing labels for project notification. 4. Applicant's neighbor notification. 5. Rendering of proposed residence. 6. Story Pole Legend. 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • ®~U©~2~ Application No. 03-254; 14289 Sobey Road • • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1 40,000 GENERAL PLAN: Residential Very Low Density Maximum Dwelling Unit Per Acre 1.09 MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 47,045 square feet SLOPE: 22% Average Site Slope 18% Slope at Building Site GRADING REQUIRED: 389 Cubic yards of Cut 745 Cubic Yards of Fill ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction of a new two story residence 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 tan stucco exterior and red the roof. OOf~403 Application No. 03-254; 14289 Sobey Road Proposed Lot Coverage: 33% Residence 3,305 sq. ft. Driveway, 6,833 sq. ft. Covered porches 536 sq. ft. Open terraces 2,712 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 15,386 sq. ft. Floor Area: Residence First Floor 3,306 sq. ft. Second Floor 1,924 sq. ft. TOTAL 5,230 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front 130 ft. Rear 100 ft. Right Side First Story 25 ft. Second Story 36 ft. Left Side First Story 20 ft. Second Story 42 ft. Height: 26 ft. Lowest elevation pt. Highest elevation pt. 538.25 Average 547.25 542.75 At the topmost point of the structure 568.75 Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 35% Maximum Allowable •i 5,298 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement 30 ft. 60 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. •i ~0~®~ Application No. 03-254; 14289 Sobey Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new two-story residence and basement on a vacant lot. At maximum height the proposed residence will be 26 feet. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,230 squaze feet. Materials and colors include a tan stucco exterior and red file roof. The gross lot size is 47,045 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. Existing residences in the project vicinity aze predominately lazge-scale stucco two story homes especially in the neazby area of Emerald Hills Court. Lot sizes in the azea are typically one acre or more. The architectural style of the proposed residence closely resembles the Italian Renaissance as described in "A Field Guide to American Houses." Identifying features of both the proposed residence and the Italian Renaissance style include low pitched, hipped roofs, roof typically covered in ceramic tiles, upper-story windows smaller and less elaborate than windows below, commonly with arches above doors, first story windows and porches; and the entrance area is usually accentuated by classical columns or pilasters. A relatively small portion of Italian Renaissance houses have unbalanced, asymmetrical facades such as the proposed residence. Many Italian Renaissance houses have two smaller wings at either end of the facade with a recessed central block in-between. Among the most characteristic details aze recessed entry porches and full-length first story windows with arches above. Arborist Report The Arborist Report, dated November 28, 2003 details project impacts on the existing trees. One tree, a healthy, 9-inch diameter, Valley Oak (#12) will be relocated on site. The azborist has made several recommendations to reduce significant impacts to existing trees. The azborist recommendations have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. Neighbor Notification The applicant has submitted documentation that several neighbors have reviewed the plans. The applicant's form did not solicit concerns from those who signed. The neighbor documentation provided by the applicant is attached for your reference. The applicant was unable to contact the property owner who resides in the adjacent one-story residence to the north (14251 Sobey Road). Staff Concerns with the Proposed Project - A) Lack of Integration into the Hillside Staff was initially concerned with the design of the proposed project; however, most of the design issues have been clarified, revised, or defended by the applicant adequately. Two outstanding design issues remain involving a lack of integration of proposed residence into the hillside and the interference with views of an existing adjacent residence. Staff requested that the applicant revise the design to follow the hillside contours, merge the building into the hillside, and terrace building floor levels so that they follow the natural slope. The applicant refused. In light of the existing large-scale two story residences in the ©~~®os Application No. 03-254; 14289 Sobey Road slope. The applicant refused. In light of the existing lazge-scale two story residences in the project vicinity staff could not defend requiring a redesign of the proposed residence. If the Planning Commission determines the project should better illustrate the "Design Review Handbook Policies and Principles" for hillside development the Planning Commission may refer the project back to the applicant for restudy. B) mew Interference The proposed project will likely block entire views of the hillside as currently seen from an adjacent one-story residence. Ultimately, staff came to the conclusion that even aone-story residence would block the entire view of the hillside and that in order to preserve views for the adjacent one story the proposed building pad might require relocation. If the Planning Commission sees fit they may refer the project back to the applicant to explore relocation of the building pad or other options which might preserve the views of the adjacent one story residence. C) Fire Department Requirements Staff was also concerned about the aesthetics and impervious consequences of a large concrete turnaround and retaining walls. The turnazound was proposed by the applicant to provide required access by the fire department. The 40 feet by 50 feet turnaround would have been 2,000 square feet of concrete and would have included three five-foot successive retaining walls. Staff requested that the applicant meet with fire department to see what alternatives might exist to avoid the lazge concrete azea and retaining walls. The applicant did not pursue the fire department as planning staff requested; therefore, staff met with the fire department to discuss alternatives. Staff inquired if the circulaz azea in front of the residence would serve as adequate fire department access. The fire department confirmed that the circulaz turnaround would meet the fire department requirements. Staff presented the elimination of the fire turnazound to the applicant. The applicant agreed to eliminate the turnaround, but requested that a smaller area be utilized by the owners for guest pazking. The proposed pazking azea is approximately 20 feet by 20 feet or 400 squaze feet and includes two 5-foot retaining walls. The turnaround was eliminated and the guest pazking azea is located on Exhibit A. As the conditions of approval state vines and plantings shall cover the two 5-foot retaining walls. As an added benefit, aneight-inch oak will be preserved which would have otherwise been removed under the proposal for a separate fire department turnazound. D) Lack of Details Provided by the Applicant Staff has repeatedly requested more details from the applicant on the proposed project. Pertinent details aze missing including landscape plantings, landscape structures, retaining walls for the driveway, retaining walls for future reaz yazd landscaping, entry elements such as pilasters, entrance gates, and fencing. 00~0~~ Application No. 03-254; 14289 Sobey Road Due to the slope of the project site it is likely any reaz yazd landscape plan which includes gazden structures, hazdscape, and/or a pool will require terracing and retaining walls. The topography of the site lends to the entire reaz yard area being highly visible to neighboring homes. Additionally, the front yard slopes steeply upwazds from Sobey Road; therefore, making the entry elements and details even more critical due to their location above street level. Additionally, staff has repeatedly requested more details on these items. The applicant has refused to provide them. Design review decisions made by the Planning Commission and the recommendations made by staff aze based on the information presented. Altering the .scope of work of the proposed project subsequent to the public hearing is not acceptable. The applicant refused to provide details on the fencing and entry gates. Therefore staffwould like to take this opportunity to state that front yazd fencing shall not to exceed three feet in the front yazd setback and the entrance gates aze not to exceed five feet in height in the front yazd setback. Additionally, side yazd fences shall not exceed six feet in height. Staff has given the applicant ample opportunity and notice to present detailed information for review and approval by staff and the planning commission; therefore, ANY AND ALL future additions to the project will require review by planning commission which will take months to process and will require additional fees. If the Planning Commission sees fit they may wish to refer the item back to the applicant for more details. Desi n Review )~ndin s g g 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: • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • The natural landscape will be preserved with no reaz yazd landscaping proposed (including neither hazdscape nor structures) the site development plan is in keeping with the natural rural atmosphere of the low density, hillside residential azea. Additionally, the site is to be reseeded with native grasses and wildflowers. • The project, as presented, has minimal visual impacts to Sobey Road as there aze no driveway retaining walls, minimal entry elements aze proposed (see cover sheet detail C), and the site is to be reseeded with native grasses and wildflowers. • The second story elements aze recessed in several locations. • Materials and colors aze earth tone and will blend well with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include a tan stucco exterior. ~~~©~~ Application No. 03-254; 14289 Sobey Road • Due to large lot sizes (generally one acre or more) unreasonable interference with privacy can be avoided. • Due to the proposed building pad location the hillside views of one adjacent residence will be impacted. One solution to preserve the neighbors views is to relocate the building pad of the proposed residence as a proposed one story would also eliminate views of the neighboring property to the north (14251 Sobey Road). Ultimately, staff came to the conclusion that even aone-story residence would block the entire view of the distance hillside for the adjacent one-story and that in order to preserve views the building pad might require relocation. • One 9-inch Valley Oak tree will be relocated on-site following the recommendations of the city arborist. Conclusion As background information for the planning commissioners, staff requested that the applicant redesign the seemingly "three story element" on the front facade (see sheet 8, figure A, Exhibit A). This request was declined by the applicant. The municipal code does not consider the exposed basement area to be a "stor}~' because at least 80% of the basement area is completely underground; therefore, the exposed areas are not considered a story and the entire basement is not counted as floor area (MCS 15-06.090). The applicant has been put on notice that the proposed 6-8 foot wrought iron fences (see note on cover sheet, Exhibit A) are not in compliance with the municipal code. The architect has informed staff that the owner will request approval from the Commission for front and side yard fencing at a proposed fence height ranging 6-8 feet. Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny any request for fencing which is not in compliance with the City's municipal code. Staff recommends the applicant refer to Municipal Code Section 15-29: "Fence Regulations." Reluctantly, staff recommends approval. Hesitation on the part of staff is due to the lack of integration of the proposed residence into the hillside, interference with views, and lack of details which staff suspects will surface at a later time and may undermine the findings for approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Overall, staff concluded a recommendation of approval would be appropriate based on compatibility with similar structures in the area, close resemblance of the proposed residence to an authentic architectural style of Italian Renaissance, because measures taken to preserve views for a neighbor property may overly burden the applicant by requiring a relocation in building pad, and lastly the applicant has been put on notice that any changes to the project will require planning commission review. • ®®~Q®~ Application No. 03-254; 14289 Sobey Road Under these conditions staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed project. The Planning Commission may also consider referring the application back to the applicant to restudy any or all of the issues raised in this report by staff. In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 03-254 by adopting the attached resolution (see attachment 1). • • 0©~~Q~ • Attachment 1 • o®~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 03-254 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ho; 14289 Sobey Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a new two-story residence and basement on a vacant lot; 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 single family residence, 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 asingle-family home; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • The natural landscape will be preserved with no rear yard landscaping proposed (including neither hardscape nor structures) the site development plan is in keeping with the natural rural atmosphere of the low density, hillside residential area. Additionally, the site is to be reseeded with native grasses and wildflowers. • The project, as presented, has minimal visual impacts to Sobey Road as there are no driveway retaining walls, minimal entry elements are proposed (see cover sheet detail C), and the site is to be reseeded with native grasses and wildflowers. • The second story elements are recessed in several locations. • Materials and colors are earth tone and will blend well with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include a tan stucco exterior. • Due to large lot sizes (generally one acre or more) unreasonable interference with privacy can be avoided. UO~~.1 Due to the proposed building pad location the hillside views of one adjacent S residence will be impacted. One solution to preserve the neighbors views is to relocate the building pad of the proposed residence as a proposed one story would also eliminate views of the neighboring property to the north (14251 Sobey Road). Ultimately, staff came to the conclusion that even aone-story residence would block the entire view of the distance hillside for the adjacent one-story and that in order to preserve views the building pad might require relocation. • One 9-inch Valley Oak tree will be relocated on-site following the recommendations of the city arborist. 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 03-254 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Vines and plantings shall cover the guest parking retaining walls. These vines and plantings shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 2. ANY AND ALL CHANGES to "exhibit A" shall require Planning Commission review and approval. The Planning Commission's decisions are based on the information presented. The applicant has had the opportunity to present details at this time and declined; therefore, any deviation form the approved scope of work shall require Planning Commission review. Additionally, the applicant has been put on notice this will require additional time (possibly months) and additional fees (approximately $1,500 deposit) for processing. 3. The proposed color is of an earth tonality for example a brown, beige, or tan and not a pink or orange color. 4. The applicant shall refer to the municipal code section 15-29 on "fences." The fences on "Exhibit A" are NOT APPROVED and are NOT in compliance with the Municipal Code. 5. The landscaping as described on the cover sheet under "Landscaping Notes" shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. These include but are not limited to replanting the entire front and rear with drought tolerant native grasses. 6. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. ©~f~©~~ 7. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated November 28, 2003 as a sepazate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 8. 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 aze per the approved plans." 9. A grading and drainage plan combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all stonm 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. 10. The applicant or their designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. 11. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved. 12. The center of the circulaz paved area at the front of the residence shall be a hazd surface so that the circular element meets the fire department turnazound requirements. CITY ARBORIST 13. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report dated November 28, 2003 shall be followed. 14. Prior to Final Building Inspection, the Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, the planting of any required replacement trees, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. CITY ATTORNEY 15. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must commence within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. C~~~~.3 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 12th day of May 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 • 0~®®~.S ARBC~ RESOURCES ~ ~tOf612lOnQ.L OgtDO'[L¢U.L~LLtQ.L C.:On4U.lttn9 & ~tac C.:d.tL A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 14289 SOBEY ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: HO APPLICATION #: 03-254 APN: 397-03-004 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A November 28, 2003 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.654.3352 Licensed Contractor #7967®®®1,~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 28, 2003 • SUMMARY The proposed project exposes 14 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage or removal. One relatively small Oak tree (# 12) is proposed for removal. Mitigation includes relocating this tree to an alternate location on site. The proposed grading must be revised to promote the survival and longevity of trees #1,' 2 and 13. Setbacks for grading and equipment are 10 feet, 20 feet and 12 feet, respectively. I also suggest the portion of utility trenches within 30 feet of tree trunks #3 and 5 is redesigned along the driveway's north side. A bond amount of $17,223 is recommended for compliance to these recommendations. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with developing a proposed single-family residence on a vacant lot at 14289 Sobey Road, Sazatoga. This report presents my findings; provides mitigation for trees being removed or damaged; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters, as well as the recommended tree protection fencing locations are shown on an attached copy of the Plot Plan (dated November 12, 2003 by Quintessential Forms, Moraga, CA). For identification purposes, round metal tags containing numbers that correspond to those shown on the attached plan were attached to the trunks of trees #1-10, 12 and 13. Note trees #11 and 14 were not shown on the Plot Plan. Their locations were added and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. FINDINGS The proposed project exposes 14 trees regulated by City Ordinance to development impacts. They include 7 Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), 4 Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia), 2 Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata) and 1 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata). Ho Property; 14289 Sobey Road, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 1 of 4 00®~~,~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 28, 2003 Trees #1, 11 and 14 are located on adjacent properties. They were included in the inventory as their root zones and canopies are at risk of damage from development activities. Tree #12, a Valley Oak with arsine-inch trunk diameter at 54 inches above grade, is proposed for removal to accommodate constructing the proposed driveway. Based on its exceptional condition, I suggest the tree is relocated to an alternate location on site. Tree #2 is expected to be severely damaged from the proposed grading design for the driveway. To achieve a high assurance of this tree's survival, the plans should be revised to show no grading within 10 feet of the tree's trunk. Should a retaining wall be used to achieve this, I recommend the wall be of a pier and beam design with no excavation between the piers. Tree #13 is also expected to be adversely ai~ected from grading activities. I suggest no grading is planned within 12 feet of the trunk. There is a row of seven Eucalyptus (trees #3 thru 9) located along Sobey Road neaz the property's south end. Trees #3 and 5 will sustain the greatest root damage from constructing the proposed driveway and trenching for utilities. To minimize the impacts, I suggest the portion of utility trenches within 30 feet of their trunks is planned along the driveway's north side. • RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below aze intended to mitigate foreseeable damage from implementing the project as proposed. Modifications to the plans reviewed may necessitate their revision. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any demolition, surface scraping, clearing, grading or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be located as shown on the attached plan and be comprised of five- to six-foot 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 until final inspection. 2. All construction activities must be conducted outside fenced areas shown on the attached plan (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but aze not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, clearing/grubbing, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. Should access on the neighboring northern property be required, fencing shall be established along tree #14's outer canopy. Ho Property; 14289 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 0000 ~.8 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 28, 2003 4. Revisions to grading for the driveway are suggested to promote the survival and longevity of trees #1, 2 and 13. No grading (meaning both soil fill and excavation) or equipment use shall occur within 20 feet from tree # 1's trunk, 10 feet from tree #2's trunk and 12 feet from tree #13's trunk. 5. Retaining walls proposed beneath tree canopies must be comprised of a pier and beam design with no soil excavation to occur between piers. All fill behind the walls must be fully porous and contain no granite fines. 6. Unless otherwise approved, no grading or trenching shall occur beneath the actual, on- site tree canopies (their widths aze shown on the attached table). 7. From Mazch thru September, supplemental water must be supplied to trees #1, 2 and 13 every two weeks. The suggested application rate is 10-gallons per inch of trunk diameter applied by soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface beneath mid- to outer-canopies. 8. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site which allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath hazdscape must be labeled for safe use neaz trees. 9. All pruning must be performed under supervision of an International , Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standazds established by the ISA. Information regazding Certified Arborists in the azea can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa-arbor.coin/arborists/arbsearch.html. 10. Prior to pruning, the limits of grading should be staked on site and reviewed with the grading contractor. Requirements for required tree clearances should also be reviewed. 11. The pruning of tree #2 must be limited to achieving the minimal driveway clearance. Cuts shall be smaller than 2-%s inches in diameter and no more than 10- to 15- percent of the total canopy shall be removed. 12. The wrought-iron and other perimeter fencing proposed within fenced azeas must be installed manually. 13. The root collars (defined by a distinct swelling at the base of trunks) of trees #1 and 2 must be cleared to minimize the risk of infection by various root rot diseases. The procedure must be performed by either a tree company or landscape contractor familiar with the process. Damage to the trunk must not occur during digging. 14. The utility trenches proposed along the driveway's south side should be redesigned to be no closer than 30 feet from the trunks of trees #3 and 5, and 15 feet from tree #2's trunk. Ho Property; 14289 Sobey Road, Saratoga City ojSaratoga Community Development Department Page 3 of 4 ~~~~~.9 • David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 28, 2003 15. Stones, mulch or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from • the base of trunks. 16. Irrigation shall not be dug beneath tree canopies. Irrigation beneath canopies must be comprised of a drip type system and shall not spray beneath Oak canopies. 17. Lawn must not be installed beneath Oak canopies. Plant material must be of low water use and comprise no more than 20-percent of the dripline. A publication of compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation at 510/763-0282, or a-mail: oakstaff@californiaoaks.org. 18. Bender board shall not be installed nor should rototilling occur within the fenced areas shown on the attached plan. 19. All pathways, patios and other landscape features proposed beneath canopies must be established on existing grade without grading cuts or root cutting. 20. Tree # 12 should be relocated to somewhere else on site rather than cut down. The work shall be performed by a professional tree company experienced with tree relocation. A permanent watering system of drip or soaker hoses shall be installed to promote its survival. All recommendations provided by the tree company for post- transplant care must be carefully followed and include the installation of an irrigation system to supply water to the root zone area by means of soaker hoses or other practical device. TREE PROTECTION BOND The combined value of inventoried trees is $35,760. To promote the protection of inventoried trees, I suggest a 100% bond for tree #12 ($3,800) and a 35% bond ($13,423) for all other trees. The appraised tree values are presented on the attached Tree Inventory Table. These values were calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`" Edition, International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of Plot Plan • Ho Property; 14289 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 00~©~ ~;~... ' - ARBO RESOURCES ~ ~t0 f61bL0I2a.L Ogt~Otl¢liLtU.tQ.L C.:OY111L~~1n9 & ~t66 C.:LitL TREE INVENTORY TABLE v n ~ ~ ~~ ~3 ~ F ~ U C ~ .+ h ~ .. ~ ~ S « TREE ~ ~ ~ a U ~ ~ ~ b ~ g ~ ~ ~ .~ ' ~ ~ ~ > ; ~ ~ '^ NO. TREE NAME ~ ~n ,., ~n Coast Live Oak 1 ( ercus a 'olio 14.5 12/10.5 20 40 75% 50% Fair Hi 4 - S6,900 Coast Live Oak 2 ( ercus a ri olio) 1 S - 15 25 l00% 75% Hi Hi 3 - 55,200 Blue Gum 3 (Fuca tus lobules 29 - 70 60 l00% 50% Good Low 2 - S900 Blue Gum 4 (Eucal tus lobules 12 - 50 30 100% 50% Good Low 3 - 5200 Blue Gum 7 (Eucal tus lobules 22 18/11 90 50 100% 25% Fair Low 4 - 5290 Blue Gum 8 (Eucol tus lobules) 22 - 90 50 100% 50% Good Low 4 - S540 Blue Gum 9 (Eucal tus lobules 26.5 - 90 55 l00% 25% Fair Low 4 - S690 Valley Oak 10 ( ercus lobata) 7 5 30 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 5 - 52,100 Monterey Pine 11 (Pines radiata 24 - 45 50 75% l00% Good Hi 5 - 51,820 X X Valley Oak 12 ( ercus lobaw 9 - 35 25 l00% 100% Good Hi - X $3,800 Coast Live Oak 13 ( ercus a 'olio 10.5 7.5 25 25 l00% 50% Good Hi 3 - S4,O10 Coast Live Oak ( uercus a 'olio 25.5 - 35 45 100'/0 75% ('good High 4 - S14,800 X X lab: l~ld! Sabry Rod, SoaMp Rep~djor: Cby oJs®doda ~4 D~P~~~+~ Aspsal br: DetiilL Brbr, RG "°"`021 -+ h+ • i V z__ ~ ~ V Zyy 0~ a 0 8 ~ -~ L ~ s , ~ ~ , Z `\~ _ ~ ?98i ~~ ~ \~~ ~ ~~ ~ G a I d~ ~ .. ~ N ~ -t~~y, ~ i ~ yy ~ n ' ~O \~~\ Zak: ~~ a.~ ! ~9.R ~ `°~~~° ~ \` A ~ 3 ., I~ ``~ ~y ~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ o' ~\\`\~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~>~ ~ 5'(Sb f ,, ~.~ ~ ~ _ N ~ ~ ~~~` ~ ~~'9e \ ~ F+ \ O ~ ~+' \ .. ~ 'z R\ o ' ~M --~ r W `~ r, ~. ;m. ~' ~ ~. i ,~. ;.~ . 1~ _~ TF 1T, ~ (..~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ H CrJ O ~~ H A z ~ ~~ x A ~ ~` f' r. i `` Z? ~, ~\ D . ~o~ w ~ ~ ,j ~ ; *^ ~ I~ _ ~m `~ ~~ N yY `1 .Z i~ ~G'a r N \\ .~ .. •i • •i :I • Attachment 3 • ©®~®23 Jam Free Printing ~ vvww.avery.com ~ A~~® 5160e Use Averya TEMPLATE 5160a ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY STEPS, STEVEN C & DIANA K 14136 ARCADIA PALMS DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5616 MACFARLANE, EMERY B & OLGA S TRUSTEE 6 CLIPPER WY NEWBURYPORT MA 1950 WILLIAMS, EARL R & RAE E 14092 ARCADIA PALMS DR ' SARATOGA CA 95070-5616 BALLON, SAMUEL C & PAULA 14070 ARCADIA PALMS DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5616 GIANIMONA, LUCILLE G TR TRUSTEE 14251 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5605 DONOVAN, RUSSELL T & HARRIET P 14275 HILLTOP WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5629 FAIItBAIRN, DOUGLAS G & PAMELA TRUSTEE 14253 HILLTOP WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5629 SPAUNBURG, JOEL R & PAULETTE 18860 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5639 FEEMSTER, JOHN R & PHYLLIS D TRUSTEE 18800 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5664 HERINGER, JOHN N & EILEEN J TRUSTEE 18803 HILLTOP WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5629 COSTA, EDWARD A & JANICE L 14419 EMERALD HILL SARATOGA CA 95070-5604 BLAKE, ROBERT & MICHELLE F TRUSTEE 14394 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5633 CARIlVE, THOMAS A TRUSTEE ETAL 14187 SOBEY MEADOWS CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5636 HO, JEFFREY M & PRISCILLA L 12790 WOODMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3815 MOORE, PATRICK J & BARRETT O TRUSTEE 14133 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5605 SUTTON, JIlVIMY A & NANCY C TRUSTEE 14231 HILLTOP WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5629 REED, DAVID G ETAL 18801 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5638 ASHJAY, JAVAD & MITRA 14403 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5607 CRAYFORD, IAN S & JULIE 18807 HILLTOP WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5629 JAHANIAN, PARIBORZ & AZITA 14482 EMERALD HILL SARATOGA CA 95070-5673 SHENASA, HOSSEIN & NAZANIN 14233 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5631 PORTNOV, MIKHAIL & LANA 14141 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5605 TRAN, THINH Q & HANH TRUSTEE 14341 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5675 OSHIMA, SATOSHI & SUMIKO 14137 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5605 ORGAN, DONALD V & KAREN M 18843 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5621 EZEKIEL, SAMUEL H & MELANIE 18850 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5639 SCHNEIDER, RUSSELL T & MAUREEN B 14425 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5607 SUEN, FRANK F S & MING DUAN 18840 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5639 CREMONA, RUTH H TRUSTEE 14416 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5633 FALCOCCHIA, GEMMA TRUSTEE ETAL 14275 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5631 ®~~~2~ ~ J1213nV-09-008-1 ~ ®09L5 31V1dW31 a/Gany ash ®09L5 ®JlZ13At/ 1`Y%J wo~tiane•nnnnnn ~ 6uiiui~d aaa~ wed Jam Free Printing ~ vvww.averycom ® • Use Avery• TEMPLATE 5160• ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERV® 5160 SHAHABI, SAIID & MAHNAZ 14307 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5631 DIMUCCI, VITO A & BETTYJANE TRUSTEE 14343 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5631 4 QUARTERS INV CO 14377 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5631 WALKER, NELSON L & MARY A 14415 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5631 SILVER, JORDAN R & TANIlVfY 14138 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5606 • DONZELLI, ROBERT H & SHIRLEY W 14268 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5606 SAKHUJA, SHASHI B & MANJU 18692 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5663 DONOVAN, WALTER E & MARII.YN J 14226 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5606 ~~~~25 A213nd-09-008-L ~ ®09L5 31V1dW31 ~ and ash ®09L5 ®A2J3/~\i/ ® wo~iGane•n~uu-nn ~ 6ui;uiad aa~~ wed Attachment 4 • ®~~~2s To Whom It May Concern: This is to aclanowledge that I ~ ~Q Cr a..1~o~~ of .~ Ig $ °~ N ~~ ~~oa ~ Ry have reviewed the drawings submitted for planning review of the Ho Residence of 14289 Sobey Road. My signature below does not indicate my approval or disapproval of the plan. ~a Ct ~ (~ do v ~ O 3 Si ed /date • ®~0~2'7 s ~ To Whom It May Concern: This is to acknowledge that I ~ o ~. of have reviewed the drawings submitted for planning review of the Ho Residence of 14289 Sobey Road. My signature below does not indicate my approval or disapproval of the plan. . ~~ 1 ~ Si ed /date • ~~~~28 s • To Whom It May Concern: This is to acknowledge that I ~_~R-~~S 1'I t~f ~ ~~ic-~-.~/ of 143 4' ~~°`~ ~ ~ave reviewed the drawings submitted for planning review of the Ho Residence of 14289 Sobey Road. • My signature below does not indicate my approval or disapproval of the plan. Signed /date ®~~~29 i ~- To Whom It May Concern: This is to acknowledge that I ILIA-21 ~-.y -J ~-/~ N G- of • 1 ~I Z 2 to S a B ~-~ R o A ~ have reviewed the drawings submitted for planning review of the Ho Residence of 14289 Sobey Road. My signature below does not indicate my approval or disapproval of the plan. -~ a`~/ Signed /date • ~~~~3~ • • Attachment S ©0~~1 • Attachment 6 • 0~~~33 -u wn ~v++oz es awn si wuoi O c~yil+a~c 1~311H~MY -~ N ~d J~~ oeosa•wo~wa'~a..s PW R~Vo6 anH aauap~saa oFl saw• ~.~r,s • • ~a~~a~~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani ABSENT: Commissioners Schallop ~ Uhl STAFF: Planners Oosterhous &z Vasudevan, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of Apri128, 2004. (APPROVED 5-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 6, 2004. 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 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 - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #03-254 (397-03-004) HO, 14289 Sobey Road; -The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new two-story residence on a vacant lot. At maximum height the proposed residence will be 26 ft. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,230 square feet. Materials and colors include, a tan stucco exterior and red the roof. The gross lot size is 47,045 square feet. The property is zoned R-140,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (CONTINUED S-0 FOR REDESIGN) 2. APPLICATION #04-096 (CITYWIDE) A Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment that regulates the placement of standby or emergency generators and the placement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. Generally, the amendment would disallow the placement within any required setback area. (TOM SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 3. APPLICATION #04-019 (397-09-009) GUDAPATI AND MEKA,19170 Monte Vista Drive; - The applicants request that the Planning Commission review the City Arborist Report prepared for this application and provide guidance on the design of the proposed home. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (CONSENSUS FOR APPLICANT TO REMOVE TREE #4, AND PROCEED WITH THEIR PROPOSED SITE FOR THE NEW HOME FOR FUTURE PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Meeting on Apri17, 2004 ADJOURNMENT AT 9:20 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 26, 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, May 11, 2004 -12:00 noon PLACE: Ciry 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, MAY 12, 2004 r~ Rou. CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA Application #03-254 - HO Item 1 14289 Sobey Road 2. Application #04-019 - GUDAPATI &x MEKA Item 3 1910 Monte Vista Drive SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site ~~isits to properties which are ne~~~ items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site ~~isits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. ]t is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are im~ted to join the Committee at the site ~~sit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site ~~sits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony }•ou may wish to give should be sa~•ed for the public hearing. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of Apri128, 2004. 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 regardingOral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 6, 2004. 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 participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.caus. 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 - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #03-254 (397-03-004) HO, 14289 Sobey Road; -The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new two-story residence on a vacant lot. At maximum height the proposed residence will be 26 ft. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,230 square feet. Materials and colors include, a tan stucco exterior and red file roof. The gross lot size is 47,045 square feet. The property is zoned R-140,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 2. APPLICATION #04-096 (CITYWIDE) A Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment that regulates the placement of standby or emergency generators and the placement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. Generally, the amendment would disallow the placement within any required setback area. (TOM SULLIVAN) NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 3. APPLICATION #04-019 (397-09-009) GUDAPATI AND MEKA,19170 Monte Vista Drive; - The applicants request that the Planning Commission review the City Arborist Report prepared for this application and provide guidance on the design of the proposed home. (LATA VASUDEVAN) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None ATIONS COMMUNIC WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Meeting on April 7, 2004 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 26, 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 a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us D~ ~e MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, Apri128, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of April 14, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 14, 2004, were adopted as submitted with corrections to pages 1, 2, 7, 13, 14 and 18. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Zutshi 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 Apri122, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-049) - AUUellant DUVALL, Site Location - 18325 Swarthmore Drive: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to DENY a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 Swarthmore Drive to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (TOM SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM MEETING ON APRIL 14, 2004) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that at the last meeting, the Commission continued this item and asked that specific information be provided by the City's Arborist including providing recommendations for types and locations of replacement tree; whether the removal of this tree would harm the second nearby Redwood tree and whether the raised curb can be removed without further damaging this Redwood tree and a timetable from Mrs. Duvall for improvements if the Tree Removal Permit is approved. • Described the newest Arborist Report in which the Arborist recommends one 48-inch box tree as a replacement, planted at least 30 feet from the existing Redwood. Elm or Oak trees are named as possible replacement species. The City Arborist states that the removal of this tree would not adversely impact the second nearby Redwood tree. Additionally, the rolled curb could be removed without impacting this tree. There is the potential for additional curb and gutter damage within another 10 to 15 years. Overall, the tree is rated as being in good condition and the appraised value is $18,700. Replacement values were provided in the report. • Reported that Mrs. Duvall has asked for a two to three month time frame. • Explained that a letter from PG&E to Mr. Corson has been provided as has a letter from Mrs. Duvall indicating her position. The Commission has been provided with copies of the previous staff report and attachments. • Advised that the staff recommendation has not changed. • Suggested that the Chair reopen the Public Hearing and that new information be addressed this evening. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Redwood tree is considered native to the area. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Redwood is native to California but not indigenous to the flatlands of Santa Clara County. Commissioner Hunter asked whether a Redwood tree is held in greater esteem than a Chinese Elm. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, it is per the Tree Ordinance. It is one of approximately 11 trees called out. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that while the Ordinance does not state whether any of the tree species listed are native to the area, except for the Redwood, the others are native species for the area. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Jim Dillinger, Applicant's Representative and Tenant, 18325 Swarthmore Drive: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 3 • Stated that he is speaking on behalf of Mrs. Duvall and himself. . • Said that he can see that the Planning Commission takes this issue seriously and thanked the Commission for that, adding that he is impressed with the demeanor of the Commissioners. • Said that he has some concerns as a result of the previous meeting. One is the statement that trees are an asset and not a liability. • Agreed with that sentiment but added that is some instances, some trees can be a liability. • Reported that Mrs. Duvall has the desire to remove this tree, a decision that was based on advice from two certified arborists. As a responsible homeowner, she applied to the City for a Tree Removal Permit. • Pointed out that the options offered by the City's Arborist are only temporary. • Disagreed that the letters from Mrs. Duvall's arborist were not professional. Rather they were simply follow up letters to Mrs. Duvall for her personal records. She submitted them with her request for a Tree Removal Permit simply as substantiation of her request. These arborists are qualified and have been around for a long time. In fact, their license numbers are lower and therefore longer held than the City's Arborist. • Said that the newest report provided by Mrs. Duvall's Arborist addressed the concerns the Commission might have. The final conclusion was that the only viable long-term/permanent solution is removal of this tree. Anything less is simply a temporary solution. • Expressed concern with the City's lack of desire to deal with the street issues for two years. That street will be significantly more damaged in two years time. If the City waits, it represents negligence whereby people can get hurt. • Reminded that if the tree is retained, the roots on two sides (driveway and street) will be impacted. • Suggested that even cutting the roots on one side makes the tree's viability questionable. • Said that no one would be able to find an arborist that is willing to guarantee that this tree won't fall over if its roots are cut. • Countered the comment made by one person that standing water is a fact of life by saying this does not include large puddles of water that are the result of the uprooting of a street by a tree's root system. This puddle creates a very real problem both with mud and the potential of mosquito infestation. • Stated his opinion that the purpose of the City's Tree Ordinance is not to stop homeowners from being responsible but rather to stop the arbitrary removal of trees. In this case, Mrs. Duvall is trying to be a responsible and good citizen by removing all liability and all danger to the public. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the two arborists who provided Mrs. Duvall with reports were also providing estimates for removal of this tree. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no. They were only asked to provide Mrs. Duvall with advice on what to do with this situation. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jim Dillinger if this arborist is here this evening. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no, the cost to have an arborist in attendance at this meeting would be $150 per hour. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jim Dillinger how long the driveway has been in this condition. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied that it appears about 10 years per the PG&E letter. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Nagpal asked if any interim measures were attempted during that 10-yeaz period. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Jim Dillinger about his liability concerns as a renter of this property. Mr. Jim Dillinger advised that he had discussed the condition of the driveway when he initially spoke with Mrs. Duvall about renting her property and he was told that she was making every effort to remove the tree and repair the driveway. Reminded that he currently pazks his truck to prevent people from tripping. Stated his concern that if someone were to trip and fall, he would become involved in liability issues. Mr. Tom Morman, Coldwell Banker, 12029 Sazatoga Sunnyvale Road, Sazatoga: • Identified himself as a real estate broker for Coldwell Banker who worked with Mrs. Duvall for yeazs. • Said that he is here to speak out on her behalf. • Stated that some flexibility is required when problems like this come up. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Tom Morman whether the replacement of the concrete driveway with pavers and the retention of this tree could enhance the value of this home. Mr. Tom Morman: • Stated that a mason has told Mrs. Duvall that this tree must be removed for the new driveway. • Pointed out the conflicting azborist reports. • Said that property values are in the eye of the beholder. • Said that a mistake was made in placing this tree too close to the driveway. • Advised that he made a similaz mistake in the 1970s and wonders if the current owners of that property are now faced with a similar dilemma. • Expressed his hope that, as a government body, the Planning Commission will be flexible. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Morman whether he believed that the property value would be reduced with the retention of this tree. Mr. Tom Morman replied that it would depend on the buyer. With conflicting opinions, he would recommend the removal of this tree. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Tom Morman whether he is saying that a buyer would want to buy certainty. Mr. Tom Morman replied yes. Ms. Christa Werling, 2847 Gazelle Drive: • Identified herself as a friend of Mrs. Duvall. • Said that she has azguments on the criteria. • Said that there is necessity for this removal based upon damage. The reason given to deny this removal is that there are alternatives available. However, of the two options offered, one offers a 10 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 5 to 20 year solution while the other offers a 15 to 25 year solution. It is unreasonable to offer such a short-term solution. • Described Criteria #4 (number of species, size, location, etc). Pointed out that removal of this tree is not expected impact the viability of the second nearby Redwood tree and that there are other healthy and large trees available on this property. • Pointed out that the property value of where this tree stands is impacted. If that tree stays, this situation would have to be disclosed upon sale of the property. • Regarding Criteria #5, she advised that poor long-range planning took place when this tree was originally planted in this location. • Regarding Criteria #9, which pertains to economic enjoyment of the property when no feasible alternatives to removal exist, said that the alternatives offered are not practical or permanent. Mr. Drew Kelly, 5790 Hillbright Circle, San Jose: • Identified himself as a Mechanical Engineer for PG&E. • Explained that he wrote one of the letters from PG&E and became of friend of Mrs. Duvall's after he had done that letter. • Stated that future growth of this tree will destroy the future driveway. • Questioned the charge of lack of maintenance regarding this tree, saying that no maintenance could have been done that would have prevented the growth of this tree. • Cautioned that the unintentional message to Saratoga's residents is "don't plant trees." Commissioner Hunter asked about the potential impact on utilities if too many trees are removed, increasing energy use to defray the loss of natural shade and cooling provided by trees. Mr. Drew Kelly said that he supports conservation of trees located in the right place on a property. That is a great thing. This is the wrong tree in the wrong spot. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is cause for the removal many trees due to their proximity to gas lines. Mr. Drew Kelly replied that this is the largest tree he has ever seen on top of a gas line. This is not the ordinary tree situation. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Drew Kelly to explain the scope of his duties for PG&E. Mr. Drew Kelly advised that he is the Gas Distribution Engineer who provides technical support for the entire Santa Clara Valley area. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Drew Kelly whether PG&E has a program to evaluate trees in relation to gas lines. Mr. Drew Kelly replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Drew Kelly if his letter on PG&E letterhead is personal or professional correspondence. Mr. Drew Kelly replied that it is based upon his individual evaluation on PG&E letterhead. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Olegario G. Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Reported that this tree has been damaging this driveway for over 12 years. In the last 8 to 10 years or so, the driveway has been cracking and buckling. • Advised that he has resided on this street for 42 years. • Said that this problem could have been resolved years ago when the driveway first cracked and began lifting up. Mr. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for spending the time to deal with the issue of this tree. • Pointed out that the City's Arborist gave Mrs. Duvall several options to repair her driveway. and that nothing has been done over the last year to resolve this situation. Since that time, the City's Tree Ordinance was adopted to help protect the City's tree canopy and culture of what our town represents. • Provided photographs of Redwoods in the City that are located near hardscape. • Said that her father has an Ash tree and has had to do water, sewer and driveway repairs over the years. • Suggested that thinking outside the box should occur in solving this situation. • Said she was available for any questions. Mr. Karl Clemons, 18349 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said he is an eight-year resident of the street and that he is in favor of keeping this tree. • Pointed out that the Tree Ordinance is now even tougher than it was when this Tree Removal Permit was denied on appeal a year ago. • Advised that mosquitoes travel 12 miles or more and that there are other sources of mosquito infestation than a puddle on this street. • Said he had made a suggestion to Director Tom Sullivan via an email message that the slab is pulled up to see what is going on beneath. Right now, there is a great deal of speculation. This might save Mrs. Duvall money in the long run using these viable alternatives to removing this tree. • Reminded that Redwood trees intertwine their roots. • Restated that he is in favor of keeping this tree if at all possible. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Clemons if he were a tenant of Mrs. Duvall. Mr. Karl Clemons replied no, he is a homeowner on this street. Ms. Nancy McGuire, 18336 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Reminded that at the last meeting, she heard hysteria of the potential of exploding gas lines. However, since that time, a letter from PG&E states that there is no eminent danger and that they are continuing to monitor the situation. • Assured that she can sleep without fear. • Said that Redwood trees are stable and sturdy trees and that having these two close together enhances their strength as their roots intertwine. • Reported that the objective Arborist's report (the City's) gave a 100 percent stability ranking for this tree. There is no liability to Mrs. Duvall, only if gross negligence occurs per one insurer he questioned. • Pointed out that the four households closest to this tree are the ones who have been fighting to retain this tree over the last 1.5 years. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 7 • Said that it is reasonable to expect the property owner to maintain the property. • Said that it is not unusually to call Roto Rooter every six months or so to deal with roots that interfere with sewer lines. Additionally, she herself experienced a rat infestation and learned that these rats were accessing her attic from a nearby Oak tree. However, she never considered the removal of this tree as a solution to the rat problem. • Stated that Mrs. Duvall is within her rights not to maintain her property. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Sazatoga: • Reported that he has provided documents pertaining to the insurance liability issue. • Advised that he spoke with both an attorney and an insurance agent. • Stated that it is nonsense to say that nothing can be done to correct this situation. Rather a property owner must deal with problems early on. • Pointed out that he has a crack in his own driveway and it cost only a couple of hundred dollars to correct. • Said that if a tree falls onto his house, his insurance pays the costs. • Stated that the issue is the tree and not the driveway. If Mrs. Duvall's driveway is repaired, her insurance company will be happy. • Said that staff was being generous in saying that Criteria #5 and Criteria #9 were met. • Said that two Redwoods planted near each other are more stable than one standing by itself. • Reminded that the Tree Protection Ordinance was cazefully crafted and that if the cost to retain this tree is not exceeding its appraised value, the tree should be kept. • Restated his opinion, given at the last hearing, that this tree needs and deserves the protection by the Planning Commission. • Agreed that trees aze assets and not liabilities as expressed by Commissioner Uhl. • Asked the Commission to implement the Ordinance with respect to this particulaz tree. Chair Gazakani said that one could understand the reasons Mrs. Duvall states for seeking removal but what is a reason for keeping this tree. Mr. Tom Corson said that he has watched numerous trees get destroyed over the yeazs. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Tom Corson if he enjoys looking at trees. Mr. Tom Corson replied yes. They provide enjoyment, seclusion and beauty. This tree is irreplaceable. Mr. Jim Dillinger, providing rebuttal on behalf of Mrs. Duvall: • Said that while the use of pavers is recommended in the Arborist's Report, at this point with this mature tree, this is not recommended per Mrs. Duvall's azborists and mason. • Said that the PG&E letter says "no problem." However, there is a problem and it is not just today. PG&E says they will watch it but since PG&E is operating under budget constraints at this time, if there is no problem today they will not fix it today. While the problem is not eminent, it is a less than desirable situation. • Stated that this tree should not have been planted in this spot 43 years ago. Mrs. Duvall should not be penalized for an inherited problem. • Pointed out that her original request for a Tree Removal Permit was approved by staff and later appealed by Mr. Tom Corson. Mrs. Duvall was not able to attend the original appeal hearing as she was at UCLA undergoing heart surgery. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 8 • Argued that Mrs. Duvall has been trying to deal with this for a long time. While the City wants to wait before allowing the removal of this tree, this Redwood tree will continue to be a problem until it is removed. The City's Arborist has not provided a single viable solution. • Stated that the City Arborist was given specific mandate and his report does not represent an unbiased recommendation. He only answered the specifically asked questions. • Reported that the City's Arborist told him that if this tree were his, he would take it out. • Countered that Mrs. Duvall's arborist gave an unbiased opinion and that it is not fair to impose this burden on Mrs. Duvall, to make a homeowner spend money needlessly. • Said that while a tree is an asset, this specific tree is a liability. • Stated that he cares about the entire situation, the tree, the street and the driveway. • Said that he would not want to try to buy this home from Mrs. Duvall until this is solved. Chair Garakani asked if Mr. Dillinger has looked at the price of removing the roots and fixing the driveway per the City Arborist's recommendations. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied that Mrs. Duvall has not sought specific bids yet due to the uncertainty of the recommendations. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Dillinger if he could provide an estimated cost. Mr. Jim Dillinger said that his guess would be approximately $5,000, adding that he has worked both as an insurance agent and contractor in the past. Commissioner Rodgers said that the City's Arborist was given the charge to find options for this tree. Mr. Jim Dillinger said that with this appeal, the City's Arborist was instructed to report back as to whether cutting the roots is viable and if so how to go about doing so. In conversation with this Arborist, he told me it would be gone if it were on his property. Mr. Mark Beaudoin: • Said that he is an Arborist. • Stated that this is a policy issue. • Described an urban forest as consisting of a mixture of young, mid-aged and old trees. • Said that if a mistake has been made in locating a tree, a lot of trouble occurs for the owner to remove that tree. It becomes safer to not plant trees at all, especially Oak and Redwood Trees. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter asked staff for clarification on the instructions provided to the City Arborist. Commissioner Uhl also questioned the instructions given. Director Tom Sullivan said that the first instruction, with the original report, was to investigate the Urban Soils Replacement Process and to develop alternative methods of replacing the driveway while saving the tree. The Arborist was not specifically asked if the tree should or should not be saved as staff had made the decision to retain the tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 9 Commissioner Uhl said that a legitimate concern exists regarding future liabilities. Is there any advice regarding the future removal of this tree. Director Tom Sullivan said that the criteria, as it exists today, does not say that a feasible alternative has to last forever. The property owner can apply again but that it would probably be in another 20 years. Commissioner Schallop asked if other alternatives could be more long term. Commissioner Uhl suggested that a 10 to 20 year solution is a long time and reminded that there is no stability issue with this tree. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that there is some uncertainty about the impact of root cutting and that it is unclear how long this solution will last. • Pointed out that using pavers is more expensive than concrete. • Questioned what message this sends to the community. • Said that one reaction might be that property owners might cut down a tree before it becomes protected. • Advised that several people from the community approached him following the last hearing on this tree saying that the City's position does not make sense. • Said that this must be looked at from a practical standpoint. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that 10 years have passed and that many driveways are doing well despite nearby trees. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that there is no way to know if 10 years from now this owner might have to come back as these proposed repairs have a potential lifespan of 10 years. • Pointed out the new issues brought forward today, the tree replacement recommendation, the impacts on the adjacent Redwood Tree and the impacts of replacing the rolled curb and gutter. • Said it is important to balance the impact of cost versus certainty of the solution. • Stated his agreement that this is an exceptional tree but planted in the wrong location. • Expressed concern that this issue devalues being a property owner in Saratoga. Commissioner Uhl asked where financial liability comes to play in the Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan replied under Economic Enjoyment and Use of the Property (Criteria #9). Commissioner Schallop reminded about the significant cost differences between cement and pavers. Commissioner Uhl questioned when the cost is too great. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is important to determine whether the preponderance of criteria does or does not support this request. Commissioner Uhl said that there is no evidence that financial liability supports removal of this tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 10 Chair Garakani reminded that the estimated cost of root cutting is about $5,000 and the cost to replace the tree would also be about $5,000. Therefore, there is no financial issue. However, Mrs. Duvall is very frightened about this situation and the potential of this tree falling over. The picture shows a puddle of water and roots tend to grown toward water sources. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the City Arborist's report says that rolled curb and asphalt can be removed and those roots trimmed whenever necessary. Commissioner Uhl asked the difference in cost to fix versus remove the rolled curb and gutter. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that the applicant was not asked to do so. It would be an unfair burden on this applicant. • Stated the importance of using the same criteria for an existing tree on a developed property as for a property slated for new construction. • Provide his rundown on the required criteria. • Criteria #1 -Condition of Tree -There is nothing to say that this is not a healthy tree. • Criteria #2 -Necessity of Removal -The driveway is damaged. The solutions include grinding down the roots and putting pervious pavers down for a new driveway. The questions raised include length and certainty of this solution and the cost. • Criteria #3 -Topography -Agree with staff that this is not an issue. • Criteria #4 -Number of Trees, Species, Size, etc. -Agreed that this is an exceptional tree that stands out. The City's Arborist has established a replacement value. • Criteria #5 -Age and Number of Trees the Property is Able to Support -Agree that a replacement tree would be required if this appeal is granted and the tree removed. • Criteria #6 -Alternatives -Agree that there are alternatives available. The question is whether it is appropriate to mandate alternatives where certainty and cost are in question. However, they may be abetter trade off than removal of the tree. • Criteria #7 -Contrary to Purpose -This is a policy question. When the tree is destroying the driveway, the potential tradeoff to removal is replacement. • Criteria #8 -Any other Information -New information has been provided, including competing PG&E letters, potential gas line impacts and a staff report that is no longer accurate. • Criteria #9 -Economic Enjoyment -This is hard to apply. It is a tough call and somewhat subjective. • Stated that on balance, he is not comfortable that these criteria can be met. Commissioner Hunter advised those in attendance that the Planning Commission is appointed and has to this point spent 10 hours on this matter. If each Commissioner gives their own evaluation of the required criteria, this could run hours longer. Chair Garakani pointed out that this is the first Tree Removal Permit request under the new Tree Ordinance and is a sensitive issue. The Commission will learn from this process. Said that trees are here to serve human beings. This represents an unbalanced situation as some enjoy this tree while others suffer as a result of this tree. The question is how to balance the issue. Commissioner Nagpal said that she has issue with the economic issue and pointed out that Mrs. Duvall did not raise this. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 11 Chair Gazakani agreed that Mrs. Duvall is most concerned about liability. Commissioner Nagpal: • Provided her itemized list of issues that she came up with while reviewing the report. • Stated that the gas line issue no longer concerns her with the most recent PG&E letter. • Identified the second issue as being the potential for people getting hurt on the driveway. • Said that it appeazs that Mrs. Duvall has not looked into the Arborist's recommendations. • Stated that she is inclined to support the City Arborist's recommendations. In the face of competing azborist reports, she would support the City's Arborist. Commissioner Schallop asked whether the limited scope in the instructions given to the City's Arborist changes that opinion. Commissioner Nagpal: • Replied that she has no problem with the instructions provided to do whatever necessary to save the tree. • Stated that this is a policy issue and it is important to address policy regazding existing trees as well as trees to be removed to allow new construction to occur. • Said that she had been concerned about cutting roots on two sides. • Disagreed with the Applicant's azgument that this is not a great species. • Said that Mrs. Duvall's liability argument is solved if issues aze fixed. • Stated that if this were her own driveway, she would have tried to fix it yeazs ago. . Chair Gazakani: • Said that the purpose of the Tree Ordinance is to preserve trees. • Pointed out that he helped to write this Ordinance. • Said that not only older trees but also young trees aze important. • Expressed concern that perhaps one message inadvertently being sent is to cut trees before they get too big to be able to cut. Commissioner Uhl reminded that this tree could be cut at a later date. At this time, none of the findings can be met. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that it is a valid issue to investigate how trees aze viewed during construction review. • Stated that it would be worth another discussion to look at this Ordinance. • Said that she believes that Mrs. Duvall is trying to do the right thing but that the City's Arborist is telling us that the tree will be stable if certain steps aze taken. Chair Garakani asked at what cost would removal be preferable to retention. Commissioner Nagpal replied when all criteria are considered. Chair Garakani reminded that Mrs. Duvall is scared. • Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Mrs. Duvall has owned this house for yeazs. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 12 Chair Garakani said that the Planning Commission is trying to determine what is fair to this homeowner, her neighbors and the community. Commissioner Uhl said that the message being sent out to the community is that trees aze an asset in Saratoga and that everything must be done to save trees. Driveways are a liability, not trees. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this same request came to the Planning Commission a yeaz ago and that no efforts have been made since. Commissioner Uhl stressed the importance to demonstrate economic impacts. Chair Gazakani pointed out the costs of replacement and to fix the street. Commissioner Uhl said that he was not sure the Commission could impose the street repairs on this property owner but that there is nothing to support removal at this time. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that there is an appeal process available to Mrs. Duvall whereby she can go before the City Council. Commissioner Schallop said that if appealed, perhaps Mrs. Duvall would be provided some counsel by the City Council. Commissioner Rodgers: • Stressed the fact that it is unlawful to remove a protected tree per the Tree Ordinance. . • Said that if the nine required criteria could be met, than a permit can be issued for removal of a tree. • Said that the Commission denied this request last year. • Said that the balance starts with preservation of trees. It is up to the property owner to prove the necessity of tree removal. However, if alternatives to removal aze available, those alternatives should be defined. • Said that the cost is not just the driveway repair. • Reminded that no one says that this owner cannot come back in the future. The denial should be without prejudice. • Said that the original request stated a fear of tripping on this driveway. It is clear that this driveway has to be replaced. The gas supervisor with PG&E says that this tree is not a problem. • Pointed out that the City's Arborist says if the roots aze cut, this tree will be stable. However, if future damage occurs, this owner can reapply. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission denied an appeal and upheld the Administrative denial of a Tree Removal Permit (Application #03-140), without prejudice to allow the property owner to reapply in the future if conditions change, on property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Garakani and Schallop ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 13 Chair Garakani advised that this request has been denied and that Mrs. Duvall has 15 days to appeal this action to the City Council. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-041 (APN#393-36-026) WU/CHEN, 19708 CHRISTOPHER DRIVE: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story home and construct a new 4,492 square foot, two- story home. The parcel is zoned R-1-20,000 and the General Plan designation is RLD (Residential Low Density). The height of the structure is proposed to be 25.86 feet. A two-car attached garage with a two-car carport is proposed for the site. The existing circular driveway is to remain and the swimming pool is to be demolished. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking to demolish an existing two-story home and construct a new 4,492 square foot, two-story home. No trees are proposed for removal and the impervious coverage totals 46.3 percent. The existing pool is to be removed. • Stated that the new home will include a slightly expanded footprint and a maximum height of 25.5 feet. • Said that the neighborhood consists of a mix of one and two-story homes. • Advised that the minimum setbacks are exceeded. • Described the architectural style as being Contemporary. The design is consistent with the Design Guidelines and staff recommends approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff had any discussion with the applicant about being at the maximum lot coverage and if the applicant might be willing to give up any square footage. Planner Ann Welsh replied that staff had not discussed a reduction. If necessary, the applicant could possibly reduce the second floor. Commissioner Hunter questioned categorizing this home as being a Contemporary architectural design. Planner Ann Welsh agreed that this design is hard to categorize. It fits into the general category of Contemporary design with its simple lines, not a lot of ornamentation and the scaled down entrance. Commissioner Hunter agreed that this is a simpler design that is not ornate. Commissioner Uhl asked how tall is the existing home. Planner Ann Welsh said she did not know. Chair Garakani, upon hearing a cell phone ring in the audience, asked staff what the general rule is for cell phones. . Director Tom Sullivan replied that they should be turned off during public meetings. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 14 Commissioner Zutshi asked if there have been any additional communications with the neighbors who had concerns about this project. • Planner Ann Welsh said that she spoke with them today and they aze still concerned with the sale of this home fitting into the neighborhood. She went out and verified setbacks with them by measuring them out. This will be a lazger home than the neighbors' but is similar in height to the two-story home, located two doors down. Chair Gazakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Dick Fang, Project Architect: • Said that he is representing the property owners. • Described the lot as 20,000 square feet with an existing 2,800 square foot home. The existing height is 22.5 feet. Two big maple trees will be retained and the driveway will be curved azound them in order to preserve them. • Described the second floor window placement and said that existing on-site screening trees exist. They aze not removing any trees and tree protection fencing will be installed during construction. The gazage door will be side facing and therefore not visible from the street. The driveway leading from the existing driveway to the new gazage will be interlocking pavers. • Said that the house will consist of concrete shake tiles that aze flat rather than curved. Their color is neutral. • Stated that this design is not contemporary but more Mediterranean. • Said he would be available for questions. Commissioner Hunter con ratulated Mr. Fan for usin aside-loadin aza e, which will be a real g g g gg g asset to this house as it makes the front of the house more attractive. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this would be atwo-caz gazage. Mr. Dick Fang said that it would be a two-car gazage with atwo-caz carport. Mr. Phillip Wu, Owner/Applicant, 19708 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has followed the City guidelines in designing his home and met with neighbors to show them the plans. • Stated that no issues were raised and that he hopes the Commission will approve his application. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this house would be the lazgest on the street and whether any consideration has been given to reducing the size while still meeting his family's needs. Mr. Phillip Wu replied that the house next door is about 3,100 to 3,200 square feet. The other homes, which were constructed in the 1956, aze by today's standazds small and out of date. Reminded that the City allows up to 4,500 square feet on a parcel this size. Chair Garakani said that if the City allowed for a larger home, he would want more square footage. Commissioner Nagpal asked if his was currently the tallest house on the street. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 15 Mr. Phillip Wu advised that there are approximately five homes on this street. Three are two-story and two are one-story homes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the new home would be three feet taller. Mr. Phillip Wu replied yes. Commissioner Hunter said that she thought his home was one of the prettiest houses when she first saw it 22 years ago. She added that she thinks it is beautiful now and asked if there are any other Mediterranean style homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Phillip Wu said that in terms of function, his current home is pretty old. There is no dining room and the staircase is close to the front entrance and is too steep. Said that he has the right to keep or change this home. Commissioner Hunter agreed and said she had just wanted to state it is a pretty home. Mr. Jim Stillman, 19740 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Said that this is a neighborhood with different style houses. • Said that there are two other homes of this same style so there will still be others left like it. • Informed that he looked at the plans today and find it to be a nice design that will fit in nicely with the neighborhood. • Said that he talked with Mr. Wu and hoped that there might be some latitude to change materials. Chair Garakani said that normall the ro'ect must match the color board approved with the project. Y P J Mr. Jim Stillman said that he recommends the use of brick instead of stone. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Jim Stillman if he has any concerns about bulk. Mr. Jim Stillman replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jim Stillman the square footage of his own home. Mr. Jim Stillman said his home consists of about 3,000 square feet on a quarter acre. Mr. Dick Fang, Project Architect, said that the stone they are proposing is a unique thin material that is not too different from brick. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Zutshi said that the too likes the side facing garage and said that this project is fine with her. Commissioner Rodgers said that she likes the smaller scale entryway. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 16 Commissioner Uhl expressed appreciation for the preservation of trees and for the use of pervious surfaces on the new portion of the driveway. Said that bulk had concerned him but does not appear to be an issue with the neighbors. Commissioner Hunter said that this is the beginning of a Mediterranean phase in the Golden Triangle Area. She added that she appreciates the side-loading garage and is okay with this project. Commissioner Nagpal said that she echoes what has been said and was also concerned about size. One positive is the fact that this is a corner lot that is larger. Said that instead of brick, as proposed by a neighbor, she prefers the stone proposed by the applicant. Chair Garakani said that everything looks good and that there are plenty of trees. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new two-story residence on property located at 19708 Crestbrook Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-218_(APN# 503-13-067) WILLIAM WAI YAN HO, Mount Eden Road, South of Villa Oaks Lane: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 29.28 acres property into five clustered lots with an average lot size of 1.73 acres. The remaining 19.49-acre portion of the property is to remain in open space with a pedestrian, equestrian trail winding through the open space. Access to the property is to be via a cul-de-sac, which egresses onto Mount Eden Road. An emergency access road is proposed from Vista Regina Road to the cul-de-sac. The property has a general plan designation of RHC (Hillside Conservation) and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential District). (ANN WELSH) Assistance Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is proposing to subdivide a 29.28 acre lot into five lots, clustered in a 10 acre area, with the remaining 19.49 acres to remain open space with a pedestrian and equestrian trail. The lots would range from one to three acres with average slope of 21.8 percent. There is a Riparian Corridor on the property. • Said that there is no public road access and that a 60-foot easement road accesses the property. • Stated that the Zoning is Hillside Residential, which requires a reduction in lot size. The five lots would require 14.3 acres of open space. The applicant proposes to provide 19.49 acres, which is greater than required. • Explained that clustering these residential lots reduces the impervious coverage and no single lot can be smaller than 20,000 square feet. Eight lots could be developed so this project is less than maximum. The fact that no residence may exceed 7,000 square feet will be addressed during Design Review. • Said that the use of cluster lots results in the preservation of natural terrain. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 17 • Said that during the site visit, some of the Commissioners requested that grounds for denial be . provided. Said that in order to deny this request, the finding must be made that the Tentative Map is not consistent with the General Plan and/or Specific Plans; the design of the Tentative Map must be inconsistent with the General Plan; the site must be found to be physically unsuitable for the type of development proposed; the site must be found not suitable for the proposed density; the development must be found to likely cause environmental damage and likely to cause public health damage. • Advised that staff does not believe those findings can be met for denial as there has been considerable geotechnical review of this property. • Added that the Hillside Specific Plan allows clustering as long as sufficient open space is provided. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked if all findings must be made. Director Tom Sullivan said that to deny, only one finding must be made but with specific reasons. Commissioner Hunter expressed concerns about the volume of water in the Riparian Corridor. Planner Ann Welsh said that each property owner is required to retain water runoff on site. A condition of approval requires compliance with C-3 requirements that address retaining water on site. Commissioner Hunter said that including large basements with the corresponding soil removal sounds like setting this area up for disaster. Director Tom Sullivan re lied that the Basement Ordinance re uires eotechnical re ort to ualif a P q g P q Y property for a basement and reminded that the concrete used for a basement actually helps to stabilize an area. Chair Garakani asked if the maximum square footage of 7,000 square feet for each residence includes the basement space. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. Basement space is not usually counted. She reiterated that the City has to comply with C-3 requirements as best as possible. She said that a geotechnical engineer and designer of water retention systems would design a system for this site. Thirty acres should be able to retain the storm water from five houses. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern for development of property that ranges from 21 to 36 percent slope and said she believed that the higher end was considered not developable. Planner Ann Welsh replied that it is the three-acre parcel that has the 36 percent slope but that there is a development area that would be less than that on the property. Commissioner Uhl asked if the actual homes would go through Design Review. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes and said each lot would also go through an individual geotechnical . review process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 18 Commissioner Hunter asked whether this property was previously determined to be not acceptable for development. Planner Ann Welsh said that a previous owner had a hard time getting the geotechnical approval but it was for a larger project with eight lots. He sold this property to Mr. Wu. Commissioner Uhl asked if geotechnical review would be based upon specific design of each home. Planner Ann Welsh cautioned that there is a certain entitlement to build on an approved lot. Commissioner Nagpal: • Thanked Planner Ann Welsh for the guidance on denial findings. • Asked about traffic analysis and suggested that it include both an expanded area and weekends. • Said that she would like a better understanding of the geotechnical issues and that she recognizes that the owner has done additional borings and geotechnical studies. • Questioned whether approving these lots would create stability issues for other surrounding properties. • Asked if a Biological Resources Survey has been done. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. Commissioner Nagpal: • Suggested that such a survey be sought, as there could be sensitive issues there. • Asked about the Cultural Resources and about the Geotechnical, including whether they would have to go into bedrock. Planner Ann Welsh replied that they would have to. Commissioner Nagpal asked about indirect and direct impacts on the Riparian Corridor. Planner Ann Welsh said that Commissioner Nagpal is asking for a lot more data, which would require an Environmental Assessment. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is looking for embellishment in a couple of areas, particularly Biological Resources. Commissioner Rodgers: • Asked if the proposed fill area includes anything near the Riparian Corridor and, if so, what the potential effects might be. • Pointed out that the road over the property is fill and that the emergency road should follow the natural contours of the land. • Questioned the impacts on the stream. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Planner Ann Welsh for the quality of information provided. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. . Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 19 Mr. Maurice Abraham, Planning Consultant/Applicant's Representative: • Said that they have tried to create a development that fits the unique chazacteristics of this site, that respects the existing topography and geographical constraints as well as relating to its neighbors and preserves open space through the cluster concept. • Advised that they have worked with City staff and neighbors, including holding one neighborhood meeting. In addition, Mr. Ho met with individual neighbors. Some concerns were expressed but most have been supportive. They were surprised at the small turnout at the Community Meeting so they also did a second mailing. They have refined their plan based upon feedback. • Added that the Marineros still have significant concerns regazding access. Other than that, they have addressed neighbor concerns to staff and neighbors' satisfaction and staff is recommending approval. • Gave a PowerPoint presentation that included: an overview of the site, project specifications, photo simulations and architectural concepts. • Showed an aerial photo to indicate the site boundaries as well as a slope analysis map, whereby they have tried to keep the development in the flatter azeas of the site. The open space azea has had a considerable number of slides or potential slide areas. Of the existing trees, they are proposing the removal of 18, 13 of them Eucalyptus. Two Coastal Live Oaks will be relocated on site. • Provided project specifications as follows: 29 acre lot; 5 homes; 1.7 acre average (minimum being 1 acre and largest lot being 3 acres); 19 acres of common open space. • Showed a Tentative Map of the proposed lots, including emergency access and private access. • Advised that a small area requires grading with cut and fill equaling about 11,000 cubic yards. This equals about three inches off the entire 29 acres. • Showed conceptual building elevations for the five residential lots and photo simulations of how these homes would be visible with and without landscaping at 15 years' growth. • Reminded that the site is not visible from the road and that there would be an emergency access road off Vista Regina. Commissioner Hunter asked if these homes aze proposed as two-story. Mr. Maurice Abraham: • Replied that they would be two-story homes that are stepping downhill while the front elevations would be single-story. • Thanked the Commission and said he hoped his presentation was helpful. • Stated that the Marineros' concerns include safety, visibility, traffic, noise and headlight glaze. They would like access to Mt. Eden Road eliminated completely but this is not likely. • Said that he believes the revised entrance location is an improvement as it is safer and removes fewer trees. • Added that he understands the Marineros' concerns regarding safety. • Said that he hopes the Commission agrees that access from Mt. Eden is the most logical and approves this project. • Advised that the project architect, Jeff King, is also present this evening. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the fill and the connecting emergency road, which she said seemed close to the Riparian Corridor. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that it has been revised from the original. They have pulled it up and added retaining walls. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 20 Commissioner Rodgers asked how close to the stream Mr. Maurice Abraham said that he would have to have the Civil Engineer figure that out. Commissioner Rodgers asked how tall the retaining walls would be. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied five feet maximum. The constraint is that they must meet up with Vista Regina. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the emergency access road must cross the creek. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied no. Chair Garakani pointed out how on-coming cars are coming uphill and therefore speed up. They would have to slow down to turn onto the site. Asked if there would be some area onto which they could pull off the road in order to slow down and turn onto the site. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that they could try to do that. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the 11,000 cubic yards of cut and fill includes the basements. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied no, just the subdivision itself. It does not include the grading on the five residential lots. That will be determined as the specific homes are developed. It does include the roads. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out the gate included on a picture and asked if this would be a gated community. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Chair Garakani said that a gate creates concerns about safety when leaving Mt. Eden Road. Planner Ann Welsh said that the gate could be set back from Mt. Eden Road so that more than one car can be off the road. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that the gate could be moved back. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern about a gated community. She said that she likes the concept of cluster houses with the open space but asked how pedestrians and equestrians would access the trails. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied that access is from Mt. Eden Road, uphill from the entrance road and not gated. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there would be room for parking. Mr. Maurice Abraham said three spaces but not large enough for a horse trailer. This is not an i appropriate place to create a trailhead. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 21 Chair Garakani asked if this trail is connected to another trail. Mr. Maurice Abraham said he was not sure but that he didn't see a trail. Planner Ann Welsh reported that there are some missing links and this would not be a contiguous trail. Commissioner Nagpal said that she thought that a biological survey to look at wildlife in the Riparian Corridor would be important. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that that have not done so but would if required by the Planning Commission. Reminded that it is larger than required by San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Commissioner Nagpal: Said that a survey should establish that there are no species to be concerned about. Asked if there is any issue with the Cupertino Sanitary District, other than the fact that they can accommodate sewage but not storm water from these properties. Asked if the identified landslides are active or ancient. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied both. He said that two would be stabilized. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this project would exacerbate conditions on or off site: Mr. Maurice Abraham assured that the geotechnical study was pretty extensive. Commissioner Rodgers asked how the swampy area near the Mt. Eden access would be handled. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that the access misses the swamp area. If they have to relocate the entrance, they may get into that. If so, they would have to put in sub-drains. Commissioner Hunter asked about the access easement. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that both are just on Carstin property. Commissioner Hunter asked if this property is landlocked. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that there is a 60-foot easement for a road. Chair Garakani asked if the water retained and detained would be enough for an irrigation system. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that could be looked into but added that they plan to use drought tolerant and native species. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the plants would be fire resistant. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied he was not sure but that they would be deer resistant. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 22 Mr. Jack Daly, 21931 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Expressed appreciation for how Mr. Ho has designed the trail system and all the open space. • Said that he has concerns about looking onto 7,000 square foot homes, specifically on Lots 1, 2 and 3, where he envisions a wall of concrete or stucco. • Stated that one option is to allow less than 7,000 squaze feet. Another option is to allow fewer lots. • Reiterated that this is his biggest concern. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jack Daly how lazge his home is. Mr. Jack Daly replied that there are two houses on his lot, one is 2,000 squaze feet and the other is 1,000 squaze feet, as well as a horse facility for a total of 3,500 square feet. Mr. Till Guldimann, 21891 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a neighbor to Mr. Jack Daly. • Thanked Mr. Ho for keeping everyone informed. • Stated that he has two basic concerns. One is the potential for landslides. If the geologist is wrong and a house slides downhill, what happens? Who is liable for cleanup? The second concern is the fact that today when he looks at the site, he sees nature. In the future will he see start-up castles? • Asked that the size of these homes be contained, as he is appalled at the idea of 7,000 squaze foot houses. Commissioner Uhl asked about the size of houses. Director Tom Sullivan said that nothing sets that up. The zoning simply addresses the maximum. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the size of the homes could be limited as part of this approval. Director Tom Sullivan said that this limitation would have to be justified. Commissioner Hunter expressed support for one-story homes that aze built into the hillside, earth colored and blending right in. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that Mr. House's house was built on the downhill side and is two- story. These are things that can be part of the conceptual requirements. Commissioner Hunter said that she agrees that these are tall castle sized houses proposed. Mr. Jeff King, Project Architect: • Introduced himself and said that he is available for questions. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Jeff King if he is aware that houses should be blended into a hillside and not stand out. Mr. Jeff King replied absolutely. He added that 7,000 is based on lot size and determined by Code. However, it is not practical to build houses that big. In reality, they would range between 3,500 to 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the designs shown aze very obvious and visible to neighbors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 23 Mr. Jeff King said that they are simply trying to show variety to be consistent with Saratoga guidelines. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Jeff King if he would be comfortable with restrictions to 3,500 to 5,000 square feet. Mr. Jeff King said that he would defer that question to the owner but that it seems reasonable. Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that his property abuts the southwest side of Lots 2 and 3. • Said that he is experiencing contained enthusiasm about this project because of a two-lane road that will run along their backyard as well as concerns about noise during construction. • Advised that they have resided in this home for 28 years. It is a rural community and they have large animals, a burro and lamb. • Expressed concern that future neighbors will complain about their animals. • Suggested a disclaimer on the deed so that the buyers must acknowledge that this is a rural community with large animals nearby so that they don't complain once they move in. • Said that he is concerned about people staring down into their yard from the road and about noise during the construction phase. • Requested that prior to construction a solid wall be built along the property line to mitigate noise and hazard to their animals. • Questioned the heights of the building sites on Lots 2 and 3. . Director Tom Sullivan said that the top of the hill is about 760 feet. The midpoint on the two lots is 720 to 725 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. John Keenan how large his property is. Mr. John Keenan replied three acres. Planner Ann Welsh advised that one Condition requires that a revised landscape plan with buffering and fencing be provided. Mr. John Keenan said that a wood fence would not cut it. He is requesting a masonry or solid wall to act as a sound barrier. Ms. Hazel Marinero, 22501 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that her property is directly opposite the proposed driveway, where Mr. Carstin allowed an easement. • Said that Mr. Huerta has not yet given consent for the second easement. • Said she cannot understand why the driveway would be put there, as this is a dangerous part of the road. • Asked what kind of gate and how it would be opened and closed. • Pointed out that there are four cars for their family. They have problems getting in and out of their driveway onto Mt. Eden Road. • Said that this is a landlocked piece of land and that this is not a good location for the entrance to that land. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 24 • Suggested further studies for a safer location of access. • Advised that weekend traffic is much heavier than weekday, including bicyclists and those . accessing Stevens Creek Dam. • Said that she has provided a letter outlining concerns for her family and the public and that the major concern is safety. • Stated that when they moved in, this was a rural area. • Expressed concern about the aesthetics of having a road entrance across from their home. Chair Garakani asked Mrs. Hazel Marinero if they have a gate at their access. Ms. Hazel Marinero said that they do. It is difficult but they use this driveway because it is the existing entrance to their home. They left room for two cazs to be off-road. She questioned how the open space would be accessed. Chair Garakani asked Ms. Hazel Marinero how their gate works. Ms. Hazel Marinero replied that right now it is a manual gate. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Hazel Marinero what mitigations could be done to alleviate her concerns, be it driveway improvements or landscaping. Ms. Hazel Marinero said that her home fits into its environment. They have a 3,000 squaze foot home with a pool and barn. She cannot envision what could be done that would work but that she believes more thought needs to be given as to where access can go out. Mr. Ernesto Marinero, 22501 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that it is impressive what Mr. Ho and others have gone through but said that zero consideration has been given to the dangers of accessing this property. • Reported that he bicycles through the azea with his dogs, which is already a challenge. • Said that this proposal would worsen the situation. • Explained that he works as a physicist. • Requested that a more thorough consideration of site access be done. • Said that he is pleased to hear of other residents' reservations with this project. • Stated that it must be determined how to best blend this project into the area, taking safety into consideration very carefully. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Ernesto Marinero if he has looked at other alternatives for access road. Mr. Ernesto Marinero said that it is not his job to do so. He prefers not to give his private opinion. Chair Garakani said that other options have been looked into but found not to be possible and that Mr. Marinero's suggestions would be welcome. Mr. Ernesto Marinero suggested Villa Road. Chair Garakani pointed out that there is a landslide there and that the land is very soft. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 25 Commissioner Hunter agreed that it is the responsibility of Mr. Abraham to figure this out. Ms. Anne San uini 14087 Loma Rio Drive, Sarato a: Q g • Identified herself as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Trails Subcommittee. • Thanked Mr. Ho for working with us to develop a trail, saying that she appreciates what he is doing as well as the Planning Commission's support of this effort to develop trails. Commissioner Uhl asked Ms. Anne Sanquini if their feedback has been incorporated into the plans. Ms. Anne Sanquini replied yes and said that they appreciate that fact. They are looking for ways to get dedicated trails and easements. Commissioner Rodgers expressed her appreciation for Mr. Ho's efforts too. She asked if this would be an isolated trail. Ms. Ann Sanquini replied that there is public access from Mt. Eden Road and over time efforts will be made to talk to neighbors to see if more connector routes are possible. Mr. William Brooks, 20230 Merrick Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he is a member and citizen volunteer of the Trails Subcommittee. • Said that this would be a significant trail line. • Stated that he has one safety concern relating to the driveway, where the existing trail will cross. • Advised that a smooth surface and metal hooves are not compatible and encouraged some consideration to the asphalt swath (about 8 to 10 feet wide) where the surface could be roughened to accommodate the horses. Mr. Maurice Abraham: • Said that the 7,000 square foot limit is a maximum square footage allowed derived on a formula. The homes are probably going to be between 3,500 and 5,000 square feet. • Agreed to Mr. Keenen's request for a deed restriction to disclose during the sale of these lots the fact that there are large animals in this area with the corresponding noise. • Said that they have no problem adding screening landscaping to protect privacy and prevent people from looking down onto the Keenen property but said that they have a concern regarding use of a masonry wall as it seems out of character. However, they will work out whatever is the pleasure of the Commission. • Stated that he understands the safety concerns raised by the Marineros. • Pointed out that in designing intersections like that, they are at the optimum spot of coming in outside of a curve while the Marineros come in on the inside of a curve. Commissioner asked whether this is where the Eucalyptus trees will be removed. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied yes. He added that traction in the pavement can be worked out to satisfy the needs of the horses. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Apri128, 2004 Page 26 Director Tom Sullivan said that the staff has heard the concerns of the Commission and suggests that a Study Session be set. When it is time to continue with the public hearing, another notice will go out to the whole neighborhood. Mr. Maurice Abraham asked if they would be participating in this Study Session. Director Tom Sullivan said that Study Sessions are still public meetings. Commissioner Hunter explained that the Study Session format is more informal. *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Memorandum regarding noticing requirements: Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City is following procedures as prescribed by State Law. The City must use the Assessor's Roll for addresses of property owners. Commissioner Uhl advised that he would be absent for the next meeting on May 12`x. COMMUNICATIONS Minutes from the City Council meeting held on Apri19, 2004. AD.TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • C~9'~L£'SD6 ~ ~ ~~ p~Q~89Q~g~ OI ~ -~s w+a ~a reaz I,-~d 'o~+n ti00'£o'L8£ NdV ocoss eiwo-!I~J 'eeovd.s ca.r ~aawanoci'+~ ~~ IUD (yaldM~s~a C1r+I `dlda j~~r'gi~ P~21 ~qoS ~e8z~l ocuuwars 1~311HJ?N N'°'~ ~°`~ eauap~sab OH ~,igarn 1LtiDiHs ~_ ~ ~~~ ~c ~ ~ k N x ~~, ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ s ~ ~i{ C ~ 1-_ LL LL ~ I } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ .N :~ ~ ~ ~ =Q ~ ~~ R ~ _o e;~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ J g~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~QC ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a~ppp pp~ ~ ~ 'S R . .~. F v.~ 1 ~ ~ o ~: s o `. N ` [. ~ Q ~ o ~~i F _ ~ Ff Q U z ,,,,~ ~. ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~_~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ N - ~ V~ ~ V~ J t~ a ~ ~ ~ ~~- $~ .~ ~~ $ ~~s J ~~ ~~ ~~ _ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~~ ~~~: a LL~ . $~ ~. a ~ ~~ 4 ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ,~ ~, \ ~ h ,\ ~~ .Q \ ; H ~~1 \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ h f ~ ip ~ \ \ \ t~ ~ ~ \~~ ~\~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ \ ~ 9515 _ y I 1 \ \ r ~ ` \ \\V'1 \ no ~ \ `` h ~ ~ \\ ;~ '"~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ \\\~ ~\ ~ ~ ~ ` N \ ~ ~ _ . flZN ~ \ ''b 146 t ~ ~ ~ 1~ ., ~~, s \ N\ ~~~ ~' ~ ,? ~ a r T .~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ ro 0 ~~ ^~ ~ u N '~ _ ~ ~ J ~ ~ S ~ R ~~ ~~~~~ n ~ ~ .a ~~ ~~~~~~~~ - r m t~ v. ~ r dJ ~i 0 • • • fig -~4~.sb~Zl agy.iwaes £Z'C9'91£'SZ6 9cs-e v~ 'mow tt~ ~+a ~v woz Muwj MN~p 1~3UH~2A/ (v~/ic1 ~7.ItrIWd vr-e ~JrviQ*dzl°~ 06aD 896 80f O I ~p ~oo-so-ces Ndv OL046 e! 'e6o~eieg Ada ~°Q°s crul ~Uap~saa OH ~vwrc+ 19ar+s r~ ~, \ \. ~~~~ ~, ~ J" ~ ~ r; ~\ \\ ,, . _ , ,. ,, s ~ ~. ~ ~ ._ ~,• ~ ti. .. ~~ ~ \ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~. \ ~~, ~~ ~- w ~ \ ` _ ~ .\. '~' `- \ ~ '_ ~~ ~ \ \` ~ ` ` .J ~ \ ` ~`I \ ~_ - ~ s ~ _ ,` -- \ ~ ~ ~ ~, tffi.,:. ~ ~- , ,~ 4s _ ~~~r ~ r r ! ~- _ "~ ~ ' ~ - __ ~~ `~ ~ `~ \ ~ ~ ~ .. \ ~ ~ ~1 \ \ ~ \ L4 X ~ ~ \ ~ 58 ~ ~ 1 ~. \. .. s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ,, ~~ ~ ~~ ` ~ ~~ ` ~ o ~~ ~. ~~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \ \\ ~ ~~ .~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ \ ` \ ~ \ M \~ _, \ ~ N ~" \ \ \ _ ` ~P \_\ 'C \ 2 ~~ ~o ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ 0 t c ~ ,4 °4 ~ r +` ~ ~~ ~ s ~ ~ ~~ O ~~~~~~ i~~ ~~` ~ ~ ,~ z ~ ~ 0 C N g~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~' ~~_~ ~ ~ ~~~ i~ s ~ ~ ~ N ~~ NMI ~ ~ Fo~`~ oFh r '' ~~ ~ N r N 0 ~~~¢~ ~31a4` w~ ? ~~ ~~~ ~~~ o ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ z ~~ ~~~~ o ~~~~ ~I ~) 0 _1 A V • • • G46~'«r y(~0 WV ~N OVI ~ OI its ~o ~v rasa ocoss epuo~rys~ `.eons 4,ooi ~a~+aa+ zi wLOd ~ (yd'lc} '1.eMr~.~3J-I H7L1~ Peoa ~s ~8~1.1 Qa~wa,~,-~ 1~311H~2N I ~~~~ J.Sz~I~ eauapisaa off -~~wrn 1~~ns „o .;~ ~`'/ . ~ \ ~ jv f ~ ,: ,, ;~ g ~ ~. i ~ ~ \ ` ~ ~ ~' i ~~ ~, \~ ~ ~ \ ~~~ ~' ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ i \ ~ ~ .r ~/, ~ i 3 / \i I B=~ T .~ ~ \ (n I f ! ~ ~ ~ '~ - - ~/ -- I i,~ ~ ~ r---~ ~ F-n I `.~ i n ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ i i _Q 0 0 Q~ ~, ~ \~~,~ n ,u -o ~\ i~ ~~ , ~\ o 0 ~~~ >; ~ ,~ i ~ ~~ , o g ~, ~ ~ 'I. _ VN / I ! ~\ ~ / ~. \ ~\ i~ ~ ~ 0 O i / ~ I~-~ ~ `F ~ - II \ _ ~ ~f ~ ~~ r S ~Y i !~ S 3 4 ~I // \\ I = ~ I ', s, ~ ~ J I / ~ \ / ii v i~ / I ~--- y.as ~ -._ _~, ~ ~ I + ~ ~ ' I .-____ ~ &~ N 1 s 4 .a --~__ i _2p~ 1 s - ~- - .,° "~ 62 QIr ~o M • > ~ ~ ~ • ~', ~I ~Mx i V` 0^ C' '0 S ~~ 9S'i41611J '~~Y~1 ti0Q'£o-L8£ VNdV O~ ~ Ct7L 'YiWAnq-+ 21 fly eM~O ~V 1ROZ ~~~ ~ '1~n1~311 rrrz}~d ~~ OLOS6 B!~!R'J `sEole~eg ~a ~5 G9Zb) _ vs~uNQns 1J311HJ2~V 71c~'1~ oro'J~s a~uepisaa off ~}3gwnr 1~ns .~ ~~T ,> c/ ~ 7,,' f `~ //i D .~~ 6- ~I ~ o. yE a-SI ~~ ~ ~~ , „ • • • ~Si4td1/J'~~MI ti00~0-LB£ NdV ~~ ~ Sal 71B9wHro('+21 -~s w~a ~v woz fLLUOj ~ ~ ~dnl~ X11 rrrdd ~~ ocoss ~ 'sewe~~s PpZ! ~QoS 6Qtbl a3~.~~n5 1~311H~ZiV ln3w~s~ e~ueptsea off zl9vHnN la~~ ., P ,c ~A M ~I ~I~ v -~75L • -. • • 1x4M ~ baioY~l f00-£0-L8£ NdY v T. v Hwy ~"'~^q" ~ t I ft! WK7 ~V f90Z • OL048 'e8otae$ ~ ~~ NMN~b ~i~ ~~ P~ZI ~S 6stN a~~l limns 1~311H~2dV aouapisaa o ff a~-+nr ~+s ~- ~- 0 t- • • • sQSfe v~ '•~ow too-co-csE Ndv "~ ~° ~ ~s w~a ~v -eoz ocoss '~~~s L £a~rL '71ea+~rq~+ zi wood ISO Sroll~~ ~Nl4~lnq PeOb ~S 6ati.l osy.iuq~s 1~311H~2lV a~uap~saa off ~N~ ins _~ J 4 7 1 ~_ S 0 +~} _ t 0 ~~ • • • 94S~ VJ '~~W 11x1"tiU-Lfiti Ndd ocoss ~! 'eewe~s v i ~" ~`~`~°~" ~~ t~s ~+a ~v raoz i11O~ '° 5~+~1~•~r3'~~ 7/or~131~~ a~a~s `sctl Q~1J11N9n5 1~31lHJZIV 15~rtLn~ ornd 15~+~~N sous isa o P. 21 H ~ 13~ris II, N _ ~ ~ '~ N N t • • ' ~I ~ Ni i ° $ ~ ~~ o ~o ~ m -~ ~~~ 2 ~ N ~ Ez Q ~- W N ~ LL~ ~I ~ i i y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J Q a ~ a.~ ; ~ I~' 0 ~g ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~~ ~1 j~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~~~ Y ~~' ~ !ifs 5 ~~Y ~ ;~ ~~~ o ~ ~ ~ _' '~ ,~ J ~ 'I W >~ ~ ~I ~ ~ - ~_-- ~, ; ,. \\ M ~' ~Ir 1 ~~ I 1 I A ' ~ 1 i ~ ,, i ~ I ~'i C ~. ;.';~ ~ U1 h "- I I i `~ p~ ZJ .~ J ~~ x~ i _ _.1 ~ ~~ -.~ ~ G ~ y;' .== ~; ~' ~ ~ , o ;~ ~ _ - ~ ~ ~ a v ~`_ ~ ~~%! ~~ - w ' ~ ., Y~~ F' M 7 _ V, ~ f •~ `\ .~. ^ ~ Y u.l 1 • ~ [, I, ~I ~; ~I 1 ___l Q U r w z 0 Z • 0 £Z£9'9L£'4Z8 949f81fJ ~~~W pBZp'69Q'901r t00 £p-L8£ NdV O1 do gorrL yeow~a+ 'tl f Li M!K11~sV 1902 su,a~ RED srall~r~~ ~a~>~1~~ OL048 e!woy~le~ 's0o~e~ P~2! ~S 64L61 03111{-19n5 1~311H~21V 1s3r~ arm 1s~M+unc~ e~uaptsab off ~~, 1~~,5 1 ~~ ~~ ~~ 4 OL !- Z 0 ~ 0 ~_ ~ ~~ ~I I 1 ~~ ~~ k~ ,~ .~ ---~ ~r f i - - - W( d F~- w 0 Y Q • ~ ~ • t~ ~ • ~I! II I I CZ£~'9[C'4Z8 assre v~ '•~ow ~~~ ~+a wo.v reoz wawa cmz aas I 1~311H~ S.(vo~J-.s-~~~~d~ ~~d oszo•eee•9of -oo-£o-ce~ nidv OL046 B1~/IIrJ 'eBoas~eg Pia ~s Geibl a~uac~sa~ ou of ~ O -ae9w~ 1~rfs ~~ r~~~ ~~ ., ~~ o r ~~ n ~~ i~ a~ ~I ii M m T _„ s a r r - ~p~ i t Q ~ r r - o ~ o~~od~c°--a ~ o~ N a w 1 ~ r _~- ~ 1 X w w C' ~ N ~- ~. ~ i^ ~ 1 r Y`~O 3~_ f'f ~r P - N w~ T N J r W 6` ~_ `~ ~ N ? N f C p F ~ m ~n n n ~~ ~~ oN H N N `~ ~7 y' N ~ ?~ M N n a a Y w `~ ~ ~ N ^ _`~ ~ J X ~ 'f N 1t~ e~ N T * w ) x * * * N y~ V. ~ _~' ~ U~F-> >3XYNSd~~Y~1~~= N a S T N 4 O N y~ ~ N M M h dCf r _ 42grPd ~v ,tic ~•® ,_xyyJ1 _ " a o i~ N ei '~1 - N N N r~ r d J' ~.. N y, Y? * y~* *• N N N* M* N X N N~ y' N « ~ ' • ~ ~ ~ roor-spa (eor) xc~ Door-spa (eor) •• ~ s~~•s!syv~~~ ~r ~s 'soy •a~s rve ~o +~+ns Dear Al II~YYO __1 (~ ~ ~~ ~r,K pq~y Lv0 vnNao~nv~'voolvavs X00-£0-16£# Nd~d dVOb A380S A3nbns o ~IHdV21JOd01 ~ ~ ~ ~ e k ~~. o ~ a ~ °_ ~ ~r b ~y ¢~ ~ ~ •~ r~ "~o ~ s ~ U ~~--~= ~ ~ px a~ 6 a x i -' U ITEM 2 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: 04-096 Location: CITYWIDE ' Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: May 12, 2004 APN: N/A Department Head: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Both the City Council and Planning Commission have given direction to Staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment that addresses the placement of standby or emergency generators. Staff is also requesting that the placement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment be dealt with at the same time. A Use Permit will be required for the installation of generators. For both pieces of equipment the placement in required setbacks is prohibited by the proposed ordinance. The following bold italic text is the proposed addition to the Zoning Ordinance. Article 15-80 MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 15-80.030 Special rules for accessory uses and structures in residential districts. (k) Emergency or Stand-by Generators. No emergency or stand-by generator shall be allowed in any required front, side or rear yard. AU emergency or stand-bygenerators shall be required to meet all applicable requirements of the City Code including Article 7-30 concerning Noise. Outside a required front, side, or rear yard, an emergency or stand-by generator may be permitted upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. Any application for such a permit must be accompanied with information from the manufacture documenting the noise generation characteristics of the generator. This restriction shall not apply to generators for which the owner provides evidence of installation prior to July 1, 2004, provided, however, that removal of non- conforming generators may be required as a condition of approval for any design review application involving expansion or reconstruction of more than SO percent of the main ~~~~. dwelling. (1) Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) mechanical equipment. No HVAC mechanical equipment shall be allowed in any required front, side or rear yard. HVAC mechanical equipment shall be required to meet all applicable requirements of the City Code including Article 7-30 concerning Noise.. This restriction shall not apply to HVAC equipment for which the owner provides evidence of installation prior to July 1, 2004, provided, however, that removal ofnon-conforming HVAC equipment may be required as a condition of approval for any design review application involving expansion or reconstruction ofmore than SO percent of the main dwelling. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance by adopting the attached Resolution ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution • • 00t~02 Attachment 1 • OQ()003 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received City Council direction to develop an Ordinance Amendment to regulate the placement of Emergency or Stand-by Generators and the placement of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning equipment; 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 City has met the burden of proof required to support said Ordinance Amendment, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed Ordinance amendment regulating the location and noise emission of Emergency or Stand-by Generators and Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning equipment (HVAC) is in accord with the objectives of the City of Saratoga General Plan wherein it is stated that the Noise Element of the General Plan states, "The Noise Element is intended to be used by the community in the goal of preserving the quiet residential rnvironmrnt of Saratoga by conditioning noise to levels that are compatible with existing and future land uses, and by preventing increases in noise levels where noise sensitive land uses are located." The proposed Ordinance amendment regulating the location and noise emission of Emergency or Stand-by Generators and Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning equipment (HVAC) is in accord with the objectives of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance in that in 7-30.010 (Purposes of Article) declares the following "This Article is adopted for the followingpurposes: (a) To protect the citizens of the City from excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community subject to regulation and control by the City; (h) To maintain and preserve the quiet residential atmosphere of the Ciry; (c) To implement thegoals andpolicies contained in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan; (d) To establish noise standards for various land uses and activities within the City; (e) To prohibit noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of a neighborhood or causes discomfort or annoyance topersons of normal sensitivities." NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the proposed amendments the following is hereby recommended to the City Council: That Article 15-80 MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS of the 000004 Saratoga City Code sections are amended to read: Article 15-80 MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 15-80.030 Special rules for accessory uses and structures in residential districts. The following special rules shall apply to certain accessory uses and structures in any A, R-1, HR, R-OS or R-M district: (a) Stables and corrals. No stable or corral, whether private or community, shall be located closer than Eifty feet from any property line of the site, or closer than fifty feet from any dwelling unit or swimming pool on the site. In the HR district, no stable or corral shall be located closer than fifty feet from any stream and the natural grade of a corral shall not exceed an average slope of fifteen percent. (b) Swimming pools. No swimming pool or accessory mechanical equipment shall be located in a required front, side or rear yard, except as follows: (1) A swimming pool and accessory mechanical equipment may be located within a required rear yard, but no closer than six feet from any property line. Any portion of such swimming pool that is located outside of the rear yard shall comply with the side yard requirements for the site. (2) If the required minimum side yard is more than ten feet, accessory mechanical equipment may be located within such side yard, but no closer than ten feet from the side yard property line. (c) Recreational courts. Recreational courts shall comply with all of the following restrictions, standards and requirements: (1) The recreational court shall not exceed seven thousand two hundred square feet in area. (2) The recreational court shall not be illuminated by exterior lighting. (3) No direct opaque screening shall be utilized around any portion of the recreational court. (4) No fencing for a recreational court shall exceed ten feet in height. (5) No recreational court shall be located in a required front yard or any required side yard. Such courts may be located within a required rear yard, but no closer than fifteen feet from any property line. (6) The natural grade of the area to be covered by the recreational court shall not exceed an average slope of ten percent, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15-70 of this Chapter. (7) The recreational court shall be landscaped, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Director, so as to create a complete landscaping buffer from adjoining properties within two years from installation. In addition, a bond, letter of credit or other security, in such amount as determined by the Planning Director, shall be furnished to the City to guaranty the installation of the landscaping improvements in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. (8) The recreational court shall be designed and located to minunize adverse impacts upon trees, natural vegetation and topographical features and to avoid damage as a result of drainage, erosion or earth movement. (9) The recreational court shall be designed to preserve the open space qualities of hillsides, creeks, public paths, trails andrights-of-way on or in the vicinity of the site. (d) Enclosed accessory structures. No enclosed accessory structures shall be located in any required yard of any lot, except as follows: (1) Upon the granting of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to Article 15-55, cabanas, garages, carports, recreation rooms, hobby shops and other similar structures may be ~~0~~ located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each three feet of setback from the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within the required rear yard. (2) Subject to approval by the Community Development Director, garden sheds, structures for housing swimming pool equipment and other enclosed structures of a similar nature, not exceeding two hundred fifty square feet in gross floor area, maybe located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed six feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional foot of setback from the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within the required rear yard. This subsection shall not apply to any structure intended or used for the keeping of animals. (e) Unenclosed garden structures. Subject to approval by the Community Development Director, unenclosed garden, ornamental and decorative structures such as gazebos, lattice work, arbors and fountains may be located no closer than six feet from a side or rear property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional foot of setback from the side and rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within a required side or rear yard. (f) Solar panels. Subject to approval by the Planning Director, solar panels not exceeding six feet in height may be located within any portion of a rear yard. (g) Barbeques. Permanent barbeques, such as those constructed out of brick or masonry, may be located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed four feet in height. (h) Accessory structures in R-M district. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, accessory structures not exceeding fourteen feet in height may be located in a required rear yard in any R-M district, provided that not more than fifteen percent of the rear yard area shall be covered by structures, and provided further, that on a reversed corner lot, an accessory structure shall not be located closer to the rear property line than the required side yard on the abutting lot and not closer to the exterior side property line than the required front yard of the abutting lot. (i) Referral to Planning Commission. With respect to any accessory structure requiring approval by the Community Development Director, as described in subsections (d)(2), (e) and (f) of this Section, the Director may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for action thereon whenever the Director deems such referral to be necessary or appropriate. (j) Modification of standards. The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify any of the regulations set forth in subsection (d), (e), (f)or (g) of this Section pertaining to the size, height or required setback of an accessory structure in a side or rear yard, through the granting of a use permit for such accessory structure pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. 71.86,1990; Ord. 71.98 413(a),1991; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992; Ord. 71-183 41,1998) (h) Emergency or Stand-by Generators. No emergency or stand-by generator shall be allowed in any required front, side or rear yard. All emergency or stand-by generators shall be required to meet all applicable requirements of the City Code including Article 7-30 concerning Noise. Outside a required front, side, or rear yard, an emergency or stand-by generator may be permitted upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. Any application for such a permit must be accompanied with information from the manufacture documenting the noise generation characteristics of the generator. This restriction shall not apply to generators for which the owner provides evidence of installation prior to July 1, 2004, provided, however, that removal of non-conforming generators may be required as a condition of 000006 • approval for any design review application involving expansion or reconstruction of more than 50 percent of the main dwelling. (l) Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) mechanical equipment. No HVAC mechanical equipment shall be allowed in any required front, side or rear yard. HVAC mechanical equipment shall be required to meet all applicable requirements of the City Code including Article 7-30 concerning Noise.. This restriction shall not apply to HVAC equipment for which the owner provides evidence of installation prior to July 1, 2004, provided, however, that removal of non-conforming HVAC equipment may be required as a condition of approval for any design review application involving expansion or reconstruction of more than 50 percent of the main dwelling. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, May 12, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission ~~Q~ • r~ ~J • ITEM 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Lata Vasudevan, AICP ~/ Associate Planner DATE: May 12, 2004 RE: 19170 Monte Vista Drive, Application #04-019 -Request for guidance based on review of the City Arborist Report The attached Arborist Report, dated February 17, 2004, recommends that the submitted plans for a new home at 19170 Monte Vista Drive be revised to save a Coast Live Oak (tree #4) and two cedar trees (#8 and #9). The site plan for the proposed home is attached. As indicated in the attached letter, the applicants, Roshan Gudapati and Krishnaveni Meka, would like to adhere to their original plans and present materials in support of the removal of tree #4, as well as a viable option to build closer to trees #8 and 9. At the meeting, Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider the attached items and any comments by the applicants and provide guidance as to whether the submitted site plan needs revision based on potential impacts to trees. This issue is presented to the Planning Commission as a non-Public Hearing item. The complete set of plans will be presented at a later date as a fully noticed Public Hearing item for Design Review approval. Attachments: 1. Letter from applicants 2. City Arborist Report dated February 17, 2004 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Plan of allowable building area based on comments stated in City Arborist Report • ~o~~l • Attachment 1 0~-00®2 Ma 3 2004 r~ Members of the Planning Commission CS /2 y J ~ ~ /~ 0 f~ City of Saratoga ~J 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Ar ~ 4 ZQQ4 Saratoga, CA 95070 CIT}' pF Re: Issues with Arborist Recommendations ,'^AA,I ~,T ~~ ~~~ ~~,~. 19170 Monte Vista Drive Application No. 04-019- Design Review Dear Members of the Planning Commission: The planning staff reviewed our application and is asking us to revise the plans according to the Arborist recommendations in the report titled "A Tree Inventory and Review of the Proposed New Residence at 19170 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga, California". We are able to meet with all the recommendations except for Item-1 and Item-2 of the report. According to Item-1 of the report, we are required to revise the plans so that tree #4 remains on the property. According to Item-2, we are required to revise the plans to set back the home at least 20 feet from the trunks of trees #8 and #9. When we first bought the land in May 2003, what we liked the most about it were the many trees on the lot. When we were considering the design of the home, the factors we looked at were the • following: 1. Save as many of the trees as possible. This includes preserving a row of trees in the middle of the lot, the row of cedar trees in the front and trees around the perimeter of the property. 2. A single level home, with a nice flowing plan that allows plenty of light and ventilation in the living areas. 3. An elevation that is not imposing and at the same time would complement and add aesthetic value to the street and the neighborhood. 4. Have a nice sizeable backyard. 5. Minimize the noise from highway 9, which is on the southern (rear) side of the lot. We took a considerable amount of time of over 7 months in coming up with a design of the home to make sure that we have the best possible design taking into account the factors mentioned above. We chose to go with the courtyard style property, which blends in well with the other beautiful homes in the neighborhood. We have the home set back from the street a little more than the usual in order to place it between the rows of trees in the front and middle of the property and there by preserve as many of the trees as possible. We believed that this design while preserving many of the trees would enhance the aesthetics of the beautiful Monte Vista Drive, which has many joggers and walkers go by. We also met our wonderful neighbors on the street and showed them the plans and they were very pleased with the plans. The design that we came up with for the house and the subsequent iterations would allow us to comply with all the city Arborist and Planning Staff recommendations with the exception of Item- 1 and Item-2 of the Arborist report. Our architect has prepared a drawing exhibit A, illustrating the buildable area showing the setbacks required based on the arborist recommendations, specifically Item-1 & Item-2 of the Arborist report. Even though the house is already setback considerably to be behind the row of cedar trees in the front, we seriously considered the options 00003 of moving the house or redesigning. Moving the house back is not an option, since even after removing trees # 15 and # 16 as the city's azborist suggested location and setbacks of trees # 12 and #13 would not allow us to move the house back. As can be seen from the setback envelope in Exhibit A, even a complete redesign is not practical without seriously compromising the design, layout and aesthetics of the property. We consulted a qualified azborist's opinion about tree #4 (Item-1) and setbacks required from trees 8 and 9 (Item-2). We even sought a second and third opinion about tree #4. Every azborist that has looked at the tree commented that it was a very odd looking coastal live oak tree. The opinion of all the arborists is that the tree has a unusually tall trunk and doesn't have the form that is typical of a classic coastal live oak tree. Even though we would have loved to save tree #4 (Item-1), considering the fact that the tree doesn't have the form of a classic live oak and the restrictions that we are posed with, we request your consideration in waiving the Item-1 of city Arborist report. In lieu of allowing removal of tree #4 we propose to plant four 36" box healthy oak trees on the property. Regarding the setbacks from trees 8 and 9, we understand that with the appropriate foundation (pier and beam foundation) a setback of 12 feet would be adequate to ensure the protection of cedar trees 8 and 9. We also checked with the planning staff about it and they agree that pier and beam foundation could be generally used in such cases. We would- like to emphasize that we like trees and we sincerely put in time and effort during the home design process to save the maximum number of trees and still have a design that meets our needs and fits in with the neighborhood. We believe the impact on the existing trees would be minimal with the proposed home design. We aze also committed to taking good care of the trees on the property during construction and after. We request your consideration in providing us waiver of the Item-1 and Item-2 of the Arborist report and allow us to progress towards getting a building permit. Thank you for your time, Yours sincerely, (~"~)~~ Ill. Roshan Gudapati and Krishnaveni Meka Cc: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Lata Vasudevan Martin Oakley Douglas R. Koch • ~®~~~ • Attachment 2 • ~~~~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 19170 MONTE VISTA DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWiVER'S NAME: GUDAPATI 8~ MEKA APPLICATION #: 04-019 APN #: 397-09-009 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Frtutvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered ConsultingArborist #399 Certi,~ed Arborist #WE-4001A February 17, 2004 Ull ~~~, ~°~ i~ L` J EB 1 9 ?Op 0 4 crty ~ OFSA ,„ RAT ~ U P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.335] Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 X00006 David L. Babby, Registered Co»sulting Arborist February 17, 2004 • SUMMARY The proposed project exposes 22 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage. Trees #4-6, 14 and 17-19 are in conflict with the proposed design and will require removal. I find the removal of all trees but #4 suitable for construction of the new home. Rather than remove tree #4, I recommend the option of removing trees #15 and 16 be allowed. In the event this occurs, the home must remain at least 20 feet from tree #4's trunk and 15 feet from tree # 13's trunk. Trees #10 and 11 are Eucalyptus in poor condition and their removal is also proposed. I recommend this be allowed. Replacements equivalent to the value of trees being removed are recommended. The tree protection bond is required to equal 100% of the trees' appraised value. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the • potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to demolish an existing single-family residence and build a new one with a basement at 19170 Monte Vista Drive. This report presents my findings; provides measures for protecting trees planned for retention and mitigation for trees being removed; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets 1 (dated 6/24/03) by Dunbaz and Craig, Sheets 2 thru 6 (dated January 2004) by Oakley and Associates, and Sheet 7 (dated 1 /3/04) by Koch & Associates. A copy of the Site Plan (Sheet 1) is attached and shows each tree's location, number and canopy perimeter. ~ Tree #14 was not shown on plans reviewed. Its location has been plotted by me on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. For identification purposes, metallic tags having engraved numbers corresponding to the numbers shown on the attached map and table were attached to each tree's trunk. • 'Please note the canopy perimeters shown on the Site Plan and Landscape Plan are not shown in their entirety. All references to canopy size within this report refer to the `Canopy Spreads' shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table. Gudapati & Meka Property, 19170 Monte Yista Drive, Saratoga Page 1 of S City of Saratoga Commu»ity Development Department . ©000'7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 17, 2004 FINDINGS • Twenty-two trees regulated by City Ordinance are exposed to being impacted by the proposed home and driveway design. They include one Apple (# 18), one Arizona Cypress (# 14), three Blue Gum Eucalyptus (#5, 10, 11), four Coast Live Oaks (#4, 6, 12, 13), three Coast Redwoods (# 16, 19, 21), six Deodar Cedars (# 1-3, 7-9), one Incense Cedar (#20), one Modesto Ash (# 17), one Norway Spruce (#21) and one Horsechestnut (# 1 S). The proposed design requires the removal of trees #4-6, 14 and 17-19. With the exception of tree #4, all are assigned a low or moderate suitability for preservation and their removal is appropriate. Tree #4 is an 18-inch diameter Coast Live Oak in overall good condition and assigned a high suitability for preservation. As such, its retention is recommended and the proposed home design should be constructed no closer than 20 feet from its trunk. As an alternative for retaining tree #4, I recommend tree # 15 and 16 be allowed for removal to construct the home in their location. These two trees are assigned a moderate suitability and their removal would not be a significant impact. Trees #10 and 11, Blue Gum Eucalyptus, are proposed for removal. These two trees have been previously topped and subsequently have poor structural integrity. I encourage their removal. • The proposed home design will severely impact the health of trees #8 and 9 (even with the use of a pier and beam foundation). By protecting tree #4, the impacts will become only minor. If tree #4 were removed, the home must be designed no closer than 20 feet from the trees' trunks. The landscape design must be revised to show the driveway no closer than eight feet from tree #20's trunk and the lawn no closer than eight from tree #1's trunk. There are a significant number of additional trees along the southern and eastern property boundaries that could potentially be impacted. I do not anticipate they will be impacted provided protection fencing is established no closer than their outermost canopy edge. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. I recommend the plans be revised so tree #4 remains. In doing so, I recommend the home is established no closer than 20 feet from its trunk (south and east sides). Should trees #15 and 16 be removed, I recommend a setback of at least 15 feet from tree #13's trunk. ' 2. To achieve a reasonable assurance of survival for trees #8 and 9, I recommend the • plans are revised to show the home setback from their trunks by at least 20 feet. Gudapati & Meka Property, 19170 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Page 2 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department 0008 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 17, 2004 • 3. Where beneath a tree's canopy, the building shall not exceed more than 12 to 14 feet in height. 4. The driveway should be redesigned to be closer than eight feet from tree #20's trunk. In addition, the lawn must be placed no closer than eight from tree #1's trunk. 5. Digging for the foundation beneath tree canopies must be performed manually. Any roots having diameters of two inches and greater that become exposed and require removal shall be cleanly severed neaz the cut soil line. The freshly cut root end shall be immediately covered with a plastic bag secured by tape or a rubber band. 6. Tree protection fencing will be required and shall be installed prior to any demolition, surface scraping, grading or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot 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 until fmal inspection. Tree protection fencing will be delineated upon futwe review of the revised plans and may require being established in at least two separate phases. 7. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching, • storage and dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 8. The Topography Map for this site must be reviewed to identify the location of the existing hazdscape features. This is necessary to fully determine the impacts to trees and to effectively identify the location of protection fencing. 9. The existing pavement and foundation beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be removed by first being broken into small pieces using a jackhammer. The pieces should then be manually placed onto a loader than must remain on hazdscape at all time and off unpaved soil or roots. Where hazdscape is removed beneath a tree's canopy, the exposed azea shall be immediately (within one hour) covered with afour-inch layer of/z" to'/." size wood chips that must remain moist until the overlaying materials are laid. All wood chips must be laid and removed manually. 10. The proposed driveway and curb beneath tree canopies shall be established on top of existing grade and be pervious. Soil excavation or root cutting shall not occur. Additionally, compaction of the existing soil surface shall not be compacted, however, the subgrade materials can be but not by more than 70- to 80-percent. 11. All underground pipes and irrigation lines planned for removal beneath the trees' canopies should remain buried and cut off at existing soil grade. 12. At the start of grading (during the months of Mazch thru September), supplemental water shall be supplied to all inventoried trees. The water should be applied through Gudapati & Meka Property, 19170 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Page 3 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~o~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 17, 2004 soaker hoses placed beneath mid- to outer-canopies at a rate of 10 gallons per inch of • trunk diameter every two weeks. 13. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides/pesticides used beneath canopies must be labeled for safe use near trees. 14. Any existing plant material planned for removal beneath tree canopies must be either cut to grade or manually pulled from the ground. 15. Lawn or other frequently irrigated plant material shall not be installed beneath the Oak canopies. For all other trees, lawn shall not comprise more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. Irrigation must be directed away and not spray within five feet from a tree's trunk. 16. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from trunks. 17. Where beneath tree canopies, the lawn border shall be established on top of existing grade (i.e. no soil excavation) and bender boazd must not be used. 18. Irrigation trenches planned parallel to a trunk shall be no closer than 15 times the diameter of the closest trunk. Irrigation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart • at the canopy's perimeter. Where these guidelines aze not applicable (such as neaz the southeast portion of the property), the irrigation device must be placed on top of existing grade. 19. The irrigation plans should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to implementing. 20. The pruning of trees must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standazds established by the ISA. Information regazding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. TREE REPLACEMENTS The combined value of trees being removed shall be replaced with new trees having an equivalent value. The replacement tree values and sizes are presented on the `Replacement Tree Values' chart shown on the pages of the attached table. Acceptable replacement species include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasir~, Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Big Leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Coast Redwood (Sequoia • sempervirens). I recommend the species and size of tree is shown on the Landscape Plan. Gudapati & Meka Property, 19170 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Page 4 ojS City ojSaratoga Community Development Department DOU~1~ David L. Bobby, Registered ConsultingArborist February 17, 2004 In the event that the necessary amount and size of replacement trees cannot be reasonably installed on site, the outstanding value amount shall be provided to the City for deposit into the `Tree Fund' (see the City Tree Ordinance, Section 15-50.150). TREE PROTECTION BOND In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of the value of retained trees is required to promote their protection. This amount can be provided upon review of future plans. The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`'' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of Sheet 1 (Site Plan) • • Gudapati & Meka Property, 19170 Monte Yista Drive, Saratoga Page S of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department 0000311 - ARBOR RESOURCES • Professional Arboricultural Consulting 8c Tree Care • TREE INVENTORY TABLE v .. ,. .. " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w Q ~ ~, O TREE ~S ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~g ;~ g ~ > ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ° a NO. TREE NAME -~ 5i ~ -~ ~ ~ a Deodar Ceder 1 Cadres deodaro 23 - 60 65 100% ] 00°Yo Good Hi 3 - S7,800 Deodar Cedar 2 (Cadres deodaro 19.5 - 60 65 100% 100% Good Hi 3 - 55,700 Deodat Cedar 3 Cadres deodaro 20.5 - 60 50 100% 100% Good Hi 3 - S6,300 Coast Live Oak 4 ( uerrus a ' olia l8 - 35 60 75% 100% Good Hi - X S6,500 Blue Gum Eucalyptus 12, 11, S Fuca tus !obelus 8, 8 - 40 25 75% 0% Pout Low - X 5120 Coast Live Oak (Quer,cus agrijolia) 12 - 35 25 100% SO% Good Moderate - X S2; Deodar Cedar 7 (Cednat deodaro 12 - 55 30 100% 100% Good Hi 3 - S2,160 Deodar Cedar 8 (Cadres deodaro 20 - 55 40 100% 100% Good Hi 1 - 55,100 Deodar Cedar 9 (Ceders deodaro 26.5 - 55 50 100% 100'/o Good Hi 1 - S8,600 Blue Gum Eucalyptus 10 (Fecal tus lobules) 23 - 40 30 75% 25% Fair Low - X 5230 Blue Gum Eucalyptus I1 (Fecal tus lobules 34 - 45 35 100% 259~o Fair Low - X S560 Coast Live Oak 12 ( emus a ' olia 19 - 30 50 75% 100% Good Hi 3 - S7,200 Coast Live Oak 13 ( ereus a ' olia l0, 8 - 35 35 100% 75% Good Hi 2 - 53,540 Arizona Cypress 14 (Cupressus arizonica) l2, 1 l - 35 30 100% 75% Good - X X 52,720 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES l S- allon = 5130 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box ~ 55,000 32-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 51 S 000 1eb: 1!171 Mewu Vo/r Diirt, S~~erp PrspnrclJfir: G~q ojSoeerp Gw~uwrwi(v Derdgwewt DsOoowo~t A~silr: D~rilL Bn-ir RG Frbrr~y l f, ?IPI U~012 •I . - ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care ~ TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ ,. ~ :, , .. o ~ 3 .. 0 3 -- ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 0 ~ ~~ F ~ v~ j ~ ~ Rl C~ ~' a ~ ~ '' TREE ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ c ~ $ b ~a ~ ~ l, ~ a ~ ~ ~ y ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' c NO. TREE NAME Common Harsechestnut 12, 7, 6, 15 Aescu/us hi taman S, S 4, 4, 3 20 35 100% 50% Good Moderate 1 - 55,900 Coest Redwood 17,16, 16 (Se oia sem rvirens 8.5 - 35 30 100% 50% Good Moderate 2 - 57,100 Modesto Ash 17 (Fraxinus v. Zvlodesto 24 - 40 40 7S% 25% Fair Low - X 590 Apple 18 (Halos lvestris 20 20 35 75% 25% Fair Low - X 53,040 Coast Redwood 14, 11, 8, 7, 7, 19 (Se oia sem rvirens 10, 9 6 SS 25 l00% 2S% Good Moderate - X 54,850 Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decur-rns 15.5 - SO 25 l00% l00% Good Hi 2 - 53,750 Coast Redwood Zl (Se oia sem rvirrrrs 6, S, 4 - 20 25 l00% 50% Good Moderate 3 - S1,080 Norway Spnu:e ~ Picea a6ies 8.S 6.5 - 30 20 l00% 75% Good Moderate 3 - 53,110 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES I S-gallon = SI30 24-inch boot =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 53,000 32-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 51301 Jd: 1lJ71 A1rwM YYaM!)rirt, Strome AyerdJir: ~0' ol~+se Cweaawi0' ~t+~ ~P~+u »y.~.~r y: nt~L B.Iy, RG Fse.~ J~ sMv ®00013 R~E~I08pfC8 FOR ~eo~awu avawrwa~ a aau~axw~: a~sscw 19170 MONTE VISTA DRIVE, SARATOGA Sile Address: 19170 Mont Vito Drive. Sarra[a PfJ~(g: Ciy of Saralopa Canmuniy Develapmenl Depanmeld ~: Map idrnrifies ?? pees of Ordinance sin. Canopy prrimelm arc appro.¢imnr. Map lus bern educed in au and is nul l0 scale. Q[1t: Febrwry 17. ?U01 ~I.' 'J7w -5a6~ ~ 7¢00• ie ~~ ?~ Ir ~_______--_ ~' ~ />twOM 1 s ^~ I 1 I ... ry f~ ~ fiilis/ gitoE N ro ..x ~~;. ~ J~s• 15' . • -=k _`''~ \ I' _a°' 7 ~ . ' 16 ~• `---___ mnc, ~ ~~ I I~ I I I I I I I I II I Ire[ N v n•awc I LOT l0 1e•••t nw .. nnr ' W-- M-17 E~1$ ~I Prepared By: ~I ~ _ ~ ~ ARBOR RESOURCES I r J I IrIJI..lrrr/ Arlrrlerlrrral Crrsrlllr[ d Tree Gt. I / -.O. aa. 7119! • sr awao. CA . 9N07 I + ' -loe~ 1a101 u47771 . Frril: n0asawm•~nrlalaial ~ L 7[ ~ v • •~~l I __ ~~ ~ ~:y ` ~ \ I , `~ ~M ~ C ~ o --~ ~~c VlGINITY MAP 000014 ~/~,,~ ~ o G ~ ~~ ~ FF~ W ~ 0 -0 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ,Fi ~~ff d < ~~ T ie MM ~ g ~G W-~y ~ F nmo V ~ os~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ N ~~ g~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 33 J'~ 6f o ~ ~ ~ m ~~ Z ~. ~ ~ j d ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ 3~ ~ ~~ W ~~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~~ p~L~~SS{ W ~i ~ 10 -~ = ~ _ 8 gy 9 Y ~ b~~ < ark s ~ s ~ ~ ~ S _ e~ ~ f { i C O i k ~ ~~~ ~~o~ $a Y ~~ nI~Q dsSln-~yN~~ T - <<~~~ ~ ----- ~ 1° - - - _- - =.n.: ~:.,,. .,, ...:,~.. ,. . ,:.;.,.. ~ . ' ~ map -- 1 - - - ~. .1~--0" /°" _- e - %vM~ is ~3 -_ -- ~ - ~~ b ~ t ., ~pW p ;'7 n (~ ~ h H N Z ~ ~ 0 h r F ~ ~ ~__ m ~~__ . aN N8 3~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~<~ ~~~s ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~g ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~^~ ~~c~ ZpZa y~a~y~ n ~`<W ~ p ~~~~< ~5;~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ $:~~ ~ 3 m ~• ~ /,ILC u: ~ i O S ~ I N ~ ~. ~ ~ • i ~j ~~. ~ Z ! r \~ w. __ ~Tr~~ --- J,I ~ a r- - J.~~ u:. 1~ ..vW ~~~ a I } 8 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ tl e `~~ ~ ~ e ~ ,~, ~ *• ~'f-543 ~~~ ' ~~ ~i I 1 ~ ~ ~ 8g 1 ~ ~ l ~x N o ~ ~ ~ / `" ! / ~ ~ I, /y~ / 'Y r .~ ~ ~ -54a-__. C ~ ~ ' ~~ '~ ~ F~~ I • ~Q 't ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ i i i -~ ~ i/ a r ~o -t ~ 1 ie' ~ ~~ oof H 1 ~ i ~ 1 ,l ~/ ,, E ~s ~! i t ;elll e ~ ~ ~ s s .m .o O •~ Si ;r~ranbvy~~ ,~OR « Y~ ~ f ~' ,~ Nd yJ?Q~~G ~ ~ _ ~$ A o l ~ x f a; ~~s JeOb t~ N3~/ ~ • S~' a' ~ s O ~ I H ~ s~ N Y Q W 4 t Q .2 V ~-~ 1, ~ I ---- -----~ i t_~ ~ ~~ ; ,, rn i.~ o _ o ~ _ -_ __ ~ i m~ _ r _' ~' - . ~a ~ ~ - f a## ~* ~'i~~~~fi <~ ~~~a~~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~~ ~~n s~~t~a~;a~ 7sFN~~~ a p Co ~ '~ ~y~~{~ii 5~~~~r~g~i ~~~Wa`~ ! ~ o ! 5~ f~~ ~~;iif 5 ai ~~~ •~ ~ ~ 3 54 is ~~~f~~k~ 8 >> ~ _ ~ a ff} 8~ d =s ~# ~m rb~°: I -~ < g d ~ • • ~ µ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ / ~ S ~~ ,~ :, ~ z / ~ . - Z w off ~~ ~° o W oC o~ ~~ ` o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' gee p~~ ~Q ~ '/ ~ z ~ ~~ I Wo '~ ~ "' O W ~ ~3 Q W aC to {~ ¢ w ~ ~ ~ I g '~~ ~ '/ha ~ Qi w o'c Q ~ .-~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ I 1~ ~ ~+ . f • ~ / ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~o ~`• ~ ~ + Y ~ t • O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ O Z ~~ ' ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l1 ~ tD W .p', l~ r ~ ~ ~ 1F N • i ~ ~ ~E } ~ ~ ~ V Q ~ v W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' s2 ~ Y ~ / ,. ~~' Q i ~ o I o _ r ~ 7 O ~ ~ _ J ~ -~ t ~ ~ Y (~ ' j ~ pp'9Z _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~5a51 v A i - ~`~ - ~ ( ~, ~, ,` O N ~ ~ m l~ o ~/~ ~ ~ p ~~ ~~ - - ~ ~-' ~ Y I' ~ ~ r . ~-~ N ;+ of ~Q ~: N _ __. N ~ ` ~, ~ ~+ ~ m ° O N 1 ~q ~ ~ ~ _ O ~ ~ - ~ ao +~ J `~' `~ ~ ~ # T S N ~ ~ o - ~' ~ ~ 'V ~ ~ j '~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ ~~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ \ _ ~ ~ \ ~ ` c. ,_ .I ~~ ~~Y I ~~ \ N ( I 1 ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Y ~ ` C~ \ a0 Q ~- ~ Y ~' -- r ~ _ MINUTES y SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL APRIL 7, 2004 The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a Joint Session with the Saratoga Historic Foundation in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The following Saratoga Historic Foundation members were present: Executive Director April Halberstadt, Willys Peck, Don Armstrong, Lyn Johnston, Warren Heid, President Bob Loudon, and Ron Hagelin. Mr. Louden noted that he was the current president of the Historic Foundation. Mr. Louden stated that in 2003 the Foundation completed the addition on the Museum and have plans in process to upgrade the McWilliams House. Mr. Louden stated that the Foundation now has a full half-time curator and an executive director. Mr. Louden stated that their mission is to preserve the history of Saratoga, make it available to the public and promote it. Mr. Armstrong stated that the Museum now has everything indexed in a computer database, which is available for the public to use. Mr. Armstrong reported that a local realtor is creating a series of postcards using old photos from the Museum to promote his business. One side of the card will be a brief history of Saratoga and the other an advertisement for his business. The post card is also free advertising for the Museum. A discussion took place in regards to the Arthur Mintz photography studio that recently went up for sale. The discussion continued to find ways to preserve the building by contacting the property owners and suggesting they donate the building to the Historic Foundation. Councilmember Kline stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission should look into the building and check to see if it's on the City's Historic Inventory List. Council discussion in regards to historic landmark designation for the five properties owned by the City: Book-Go-Round, Warner Hutton House, McWilliams House, Museum and Hakone Gardens. Ms. Halberstadt suggested that the City attend a State Historic Foundation meeting, which are held quarterly. The Foundation might be able to help the City through the local process Ms. Halberstadt pointed out a few of the Museum's processions such as the diary of the Brown family and two paintings of John Brown. which were painted by Sarah Brown. Also, a gold nugget ring owned by the Cunningham family along with family pictures. Seein a char a in the ethnic back ounds in the community, Ms. Halberstadt stated that g g 1'T the Foundation is looking into starting an educational program for the local schools. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked the Saratoga Historic Foundation for participating in ' tonight's joint meeting. A discussion took place in regards to mold in the McWilliams House. Ms. Halberstadt informed the Council that the Museum would soon be putting together a permanent showcase for Native Americans. The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 6:30 p.m. ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 P.M. Conference with Legal Counsel -Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case). Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Escamilla (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 1-03-CV-00531) Name of case: Saratoga Union School District v. City of Saratoga (No. CV803595) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (6`h District Court of Appeals No. H023549) Name of case: Calvello Electric, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV 812704) Name of case; Residential Development Group v. Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 103CV0] 1391) Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager & John Cherbone, Public Works Director Employee organization: SEA Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager & Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Employee organization: Non SEA Members Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: SMO 2 MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 u.m. • Mayor Waltonsmith reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Counci] meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Norman Kline, Nick Streit, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner John Cherbone, Public Works Director Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR APRIL 7, 2004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of April 7, 2004 was properly posted on April 1, 2004. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS Robert Louden, President/ Saratoga Historic Foundation, stated that the Saratoga Historic Foundation met with the City Council prior to the meeting to discuss accomplishments and future plans of the Foundation. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Waltonsmith announced that the City is advertising for volunteers to participate on a citizen advisory committee for the General Plan Land Use Element update. It is anticipated that the committee will meet over atwo-year period with monthly or bi- monthlymeetings. Interested persons should contact the Community Development Department for more information Mayor Waltonsmith announced that the Parks & Recreation Commission has two vacancies and the Youth Commission has 10 vacancies. Deadline to turn in an application is April 30, 2004. CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. COMMENDATIONS FOR OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendations. Mayor Waltonsmith read the commendations and presented them to Mary Arm Henderson, Betty Peck, Norman Koepernik, Willys Peck, and Sandra Dodge. lB. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE FOR THE ARTS, HERITAGE PRESERVATION, PLANNING, & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolutions and administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-029, 30, 3l, 32 MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS APPOINTING NEVV COMMISSIONERS TO ARTS, HERITAGE PRESERVATION, PLANNING, & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to the new commissioners. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING MARCH 3, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KING/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 3l, 2004. • MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4 2B. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 2004 ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KING/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 31, 2004. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. KING/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED S-0. 2D. BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR ONE LOT LOCATED AT 13800 PIERCE ROAD. OWNER: THOMAS WALKER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution granting final building site approval. TILE OF RESOLUTION: BAS 00-003 KING/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL BUILDING SITE AT 13800 PIERCE ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • 2E. WILDWOOD PARK WATER FEATURE APPROVAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to enter into a Profession Design and Building Agreement. KING/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH INTERPLAY DESIGN. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2F. AGREEMENT AMONG SILICON VALLEY ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY (SVACA) AND ITS MEMBER CITIES REGARDING PURCHASE OF THOMAS ROAD PROPERTY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize City Manager to execute agreement. KING/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SVACA. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. REQUEST TO CHANGE LIBRARY COMMISSION MEETING TIME • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve request. Vice Mayor King stated that her only concern in regards to changing the time is it might rule out future candidates that could not attend afternoon meetings. • Councilmember Streit pointed out the Heritage Preservation meets in the morning. Mayor Waltonsmith stated that the Arts Commission meets in the afternoon. Councilmember Kline noted that the JPA and most Library Commissions throughout the valley usually meet in the morning or afternoon. Councilmember Kline noted that he supports the Library's request to change their meeting time. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the time could be changed and if it doesn't work out change it back. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that the Library Commission sees the time change as a way to draw a new audience. KING/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CHANGE TO THE LIBRARY COMMISSION'S MEETING TIME. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H. MILLS ACT PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve contact. . KING/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE MILLS ACT CONTRACT. MOTION PASSEDS-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 03- 269 TO CONSTRUCT A 302.5 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO A HOME AT 14403 SOBEY ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing and adopt resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained on February 25, 2004 the Planning Commission approved a 302.5 square foot addition to a home with the condition that the existing perimeter fencing -including but not limited to the stucco wall base with wrought iron, iron gates and trellis - be brought into compliance with the City Code Section 15-29 and other codes prior to final inspection approval. . 6 Planner Livingstone explained that the applicant is now appealing condition of approval #1 and would like to obtain approval for the 302.5 square foot addition, • and maintain the existing perimeter wall with wrought iron above, iron gates and trellis. Planner Livingstone briefly explained the background of the project. Councihnember Streit asked if the City could prove that the fence wasn't built prior to 1987. Planner Livingstone replied that the City had one building permit on file that approved a aft wall. Councihnember Streit asked if there has been any complaints from the neighbors. Planner Livingstone replied that there have never been any complaints regarding the fence. Bill Gates noted that he represented the Ashjay family located at 14403 Sobey Road. Mr. Gates stated that he was present tonight to request that the permit be approved with out the condition attached. Mr. Gates stated that there are three important things to point out to the Council this evening, reasons they fee] the fence should not be changed: • 14403 Sobey Road is not a reverse corner lot -the fence requirement not • exceeding 3 feet doesn't apply to this property. This is the only lot in this area designated as a reverse corner lot -when actually al] the lots are the same. It is not fare to demand that the fence be changed after the property owner received approval for the Planning Department and it has been up for many years. The Ashjay's have spent over $100,000 on the fence. What evidence does the City have that the fence located at 14403 Sobey Road, isn't the same height as in 1987. (Mr. Gates submitted statements from several neighbors stating that the fence is the same height prior to 1987). Mayor Waltonsmith asked Director Sullivan to explain "reverse corner lots". Director Sullivan explained "reverse corner lots" and stated that the Ashjay's property is a reverse corner lot and so it the one across the street. Councihnember Kline stated that corner lots are considered special lots in most cities, most of the time variances are granted for these types of lots. Councilmember Kline asked if this property owner has asked for any variances. Director Sullivan replied no. • Councilmember Bogosian stated that he isn't seeing the nexus between the fence and the trigger that is requiring the fence to be removed. Councilmember ' Bogosian stated that this is a beautiful piece of property and will support overturning the Planning Commission Councilmember Streit stated that he has a multiple of reasons to overturn the Planning Commission: • Beautiful piece of property, owners have done a great job of landscaping and remodeling the property • Several permits that show the fence is approved • No proof that the fence wasn't the same height in 1987 Councilmember Kline stated that he would support overturning the Planning Commission's decision. KLINE/STREIT MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE MIXED USE STANDARDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing; Grant first reading; Direct staff to place the matter on the next agenda; adopt resolution granting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-026 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan on February 25, 2004 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mixed Use Standards implementing Program ] .2 of the Housing Element of the General Plan. Director Sullivan explained that the City's Housing Element contains several housing program, one of the program is Program ] .2: Amend Zoning Code to Implement a Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The action that is proposed would start the formal preparation of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to implement the Program 1.2. The areas that are suggested to be studied relate to the development standards. Referring to the Mixed Use Standards the Planning Commission was directed to study, Director Sullivan pointed out that in order to accomplish the development standards several individual amendments to the Zoning Code must be made. Councilmember Streit asked who would have the discretion in regards to the height of sound walls between residential and commercial properties. • 8 Director Sullivan stated that it is mandated in the code that commercial property owners have to build sound walls if their property abuts residential property. The maximum height of the sound wall can be up to l 0 feet. Director Sullivan stated that he also has design authority of what those walls look like Referring to the proposed Section 15-58.20, Councilmember Streit pointed out that it states that smaller mixed-use project, 9 units or less, must pay an in lieu fee for park construction, in larger projects, 10 units or more, useable open space will be provided. Councilmember Streit asked if a project of ] 0 or more units could be given the option to either pay in lieu fees or provide open space. Vice Mayor King stated that she supports Councilmember Streit's suggestion. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the pubic hearing and invited public comments. Seeing none, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. In regards to Councilmember Streit's request, Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she agrees with him but would also like to add something in that section stating that when determining the option of in lieu fees or open space that available park space around the area be considered. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he supports Mayor Waltonsmith request KINGBOGOSIAN MOVED TO GRANT FIRST READING AS AMENDED; DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE THE MATTER ON THE NEXT AGENDA; ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS BUDGET STATUS REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca stated that the City anticipates no further adjustments to its 2003/04 budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. Director Baloca explained the City's third quarter budget adjustment reconciled he projected loss of approximately $576k of its current year VLF revenue stream. which is considered a backfill gap to be repaid in 2006. Director Baloca stated that a]] current year adjustments have left the City's Economic and Operating reserves intact. • 9 Referring to the 2004-2005 Operating Budget process, Director Baloca stated that it would reflect the following highlights: • The Governor's proposed expansion of the ERAF shift of local property taxes to support school funding where an additional $156k is permanently lost beginning in FY 2004-OS in property taxes • The accounting for the '/4 cent triple flip • Contribution of 4.35% for the Employee's portion of PERS ($200K) • Negotiated employees agreements and the rising cost of benefits • The negotiated Sheriff's Office contract Director Baloca briefly explained the future milestones of the State's budget process. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Director Baloca for his report. 6. GRANT WRITER SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a profession grant writing service agreement with Randall Funding & Development, Inc. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist explained that at the March ] 7, 2004 City Council meeting staff was directed to perform reference checks on Seigler Associates and Randall Funding & Development grant writing firms and to perform demographic analysis on cities similar to Saratoga in an effort to determine how similar cities meet their M grant writing needs. Analyst Bloomquist stated that he conducted reference checks on both firms by contacting the references listed on the RFP. Most references responded, and the overall level of satisfaction for each firm was high. Analyst Bloomquist stated that staff performed a search of all cities in California demographically similar to Saratoga utilizing data from the 2000 U.S. Census. Analyst Bloomquist explained the results noting that in most cities staff acts as the grant writer. Analyst Bloomquist stated that most cities contacted do very limited grant writing. When grant funds are solicited, they are typically non-competitive grants for relatively small funding awards. Analyst Bloomquist stated that staff also contacted neighboring cities and staff also acts as the grant writer. Analyst Bloomquist concluded that each firm is nearly equally qualified, however staff recommends Randall Funding & Development, which has a local office, appears to be more aggressive/proactive, and has an excellent tract record of winning competitive grant dollars. After reviewing the comparisons, Councihnember Bogosian stated that the City is taking it's chance hiring a grant writer because there is no guarantee that the city will receive any grants. l0 Analyst Bloomquist stated that Randall Funding has stated that they can design their program to meet any cities needs. Vice Mayor King asked if other non-profits in the city could use the grant writer. Concerned with the lack of money for matching funds, Mayor Waltonsmith asked if the City would have control over what grants are apply for. Dan Randall, CEO/ Randall Funding & Development, stated that the first thing his company would do is a needs assessment. Referring to Mayor Waltonsmith's question, Mr. Randall stated that they do not apply for grants without their client's written approval. Responding to Vice Mayor King's question, nonprofits can use their services, although it's up to the City. Mr. Randall stated that his company has 68-professional grant writers and several contract grant writers they can hire if needed. In regards to other groups using the City's grant writer contract, Councilmember Kline asked who pays the fee. Mr. Randall stated that the City should have policy guidelines regarding other parties using the contract. Councilmember Bogosian stated that if the City Council approves the contract, clear use polices should be written. Councihnember Kline stated that the City should have done this years ago and noted that he would support the monthly fee option. Councihnember Bogosian requested that a status report in regards to this contract be brought back to Council in six months. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to draft a set of guidelines regarding grant writer services and return in six months with a status report. KING/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSION GRANT WRITING SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH RANDALL FUNDING & DEVELOPMENT, INC USING THE "MONTHLY FEE STRUCTURE" PROGRAM OF $3,000 FLAT MONTHLY FEE FOR THE REST OF FY 03-04 AND DIRECT STAFF TO BUDGET THE FEE II\'TO THE 04-05 BUDGET. MOT10N PASSED 5-0. • NEW BUSINESS 7. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD "GATEWAY" IMPROVEMENTS - APPROVAL OF CORNER ENTRY REDESIGN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Gateway entry redesign plan. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone presented that background of the project noting that after the initial conceptual design was completed, it was discovered that the owner of the Union 76 was not the owner of the real property. Director Cherbone stated that over the past six months staff has been discussing the project with the owner of the real property, Berto Development. Director Cherbone noted that Berto Development indicated that in the near future the current use of the property may change and that the conceptual design of the corner entry would be too cumbersome for the small parcel. Director Cherbone stated that basic design changes were discussed, which was agreed to by the property owner. Director Cherbone explained the changes noting that the requirement to reduce the size of the corner entry area eliminated the proposed water feature, although there is still sufficient room for all the other amenities planned for the area. Director Cherbone pointed out that the reduces scope of work frees up approximately $200,000 for City Council consideration on other improvements and amenities such as art, which has strong interest form the Arts Commission, the Kirkmont Traffic Signal, an improvement supported by the surrounding neighborhood but not in the current project budget, or additional options as directed by City Council. Director Cherbone explained the City's design consultant, Steve Kikuchi, began working with the Arts Commission to develop the design for the entry. The proposed design plan uses an arch as the main theme. As a substitute for the water feature, the design incorporates a place for art. Vice Mayor King asked if there's been any thought that this setting could be used as another place for a holiday tree. Director Cherbone noted it could be a site for another holiday tree all that would be needed are lights. Councilmember Bogosian asked who came up with the arch. Tracy Halgren, Chair/Arts Commission, stated that the Commission looked at the original conceptual designs and comments submitted by the neighbors and business owners. Chair Nalgren stated that the arch was a feature everyone agreed upon. The new design will allow the City to showcase a piece of art, if there are funds available. 12 ' Director Cherbone noted that this design could be mirrored to a smaller scale for other entries of the City in the future. • Vice Mayor King asked if there would be lights on the corner. Director Cherbone responded that the lights on the trees similar to Blaney Plaza and lights on the arch. KING/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE GATEWAY ENTRY REDESIGN PLAN. MOTION PASSEDS-0. "GATEWAY" ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 -PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving the Engineer's Report & Resolution of Intention. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-027, 28 John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone stated that the two resolutions on tonight's agenda must be • adopted to continue the process initiated on February 4`h for annexing the "gateway" area ofSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road to the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1. BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-l ANNEXATION 2004-1. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR LLA-1 ANNEXATION 2004-05. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9. COMMUNITY-WIDE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that as part of the discussion of the new Standardized Emergency Management System (BEMs) Multihazard Functional . Plan adopted by Council on March 17, 2004. Council expressed interest in further discussion of community-wide emergency preparedness. 13 Assistant City Manager Tinfow briefly pointed out the related activities, which are already underway and highlighted possible activities that could be added. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that a list of local stores in the immediate • area be available to the public to assist them in an emergency to obtain supplies. Councilmember Kline stated that marketing, public relations, and the practice is what the City should be concentrating on in regards to emergency preparedness. Vice Mayor King suggested that the Public Safety Commission be directed to talk to other cities in regards to emergency preparedness. Councilmember Kline noted that he's been on the Council for over a year and has never has any emergency training. Councilmember Bogosian noted that public safely should be the Council's number one priority. Councilmember Bogosian volunteered to prepare recommendations to Council for emergency preparedness. Consensus of the City Council to support Councilmember Bogosian offer. Councilmember Streit noted that he doesn't feel the City has done a good job to communicate with community in regards to a major earthquake or fire. Councilmember Streit stated that the City should develop a flyer explaining to the public the basic plan for different types of emergencies. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Waltonsmith had no reportable information. Vice Mayor King reported the following information: City/School Ad-Hoc Committee -the SUSD has been discussing changing the start and end times of all the schools. Parks and Recreation Commission -preparing for the joint meeting with the City Council on April 17, 2004. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information: Heritage Preservation Commission -was successful in obtaining funding from the County for the McWilliams Nouse renovation. Councilmember Kline had no reportable information. Councilmember Streit reported the following information: Vision for Saratoga AdHoc -will be presenting a status report to the Council on April 17th ]4 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS • Councilmember Bogosian requested that staff be directed to test for mold in the McWilliams House and the Museum. Councilmember Kline noted that he supports Councilember Bogosian's request. Vice Mayor King requested that an agenda item be brought back to Council in regards to insurance and contract status of nonprofit groups who use City facilities. Councilmember Bogosian stated he supported Vice Mayor King's request. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None OTHER None ADJOURNMENT Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. and noted that the Council • would reconvene in the Administrative Conference Room to continue Closed Session. There being no further business Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk l5 • •