Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-2004 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLLCAI_L: Commissioners Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair lohammad Garakani ABSENT: None STAFF: Planner Livingstone Est Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF AI_LL(; IANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 2004. (APPROVED 6-0-1, UHL ABSTAIN) ORAL Cott I ~ I v ~ i CATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this ugend a. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Comm fission may instruct staf f accordingly regardingOrai Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTI ~'G AGENDA Pursuant t~~ CC o~~c rnment Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 20, 2004. REPORT 01= APPI:,~I_ RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (l~) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). In compliance ~t~ith the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clcrh at (408) 868-1269 or ctderh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangernents to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CONSENT CALENDAR - Nonc 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. L APPI_LCATION #04-078 (397-04-003) -CAMPBELL, 14725 Sobey Road; -Request Design Rc~~icw Approval to build a new 650 square foot detached secondary unit with a one car carport in approlimately the same location as the previous unit. The height of the structure will not elcecd 15 feet. The gross lot size is 76,040 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. UoxN LI~~~~~~cs~roNF) (APPROVED 7-0) 2. APPLICATION #03-217 (503-15-065) -HOUSE, 13313 Old Oak Way; -Request for Grading over 1,000 cubic yards to restore and re-vegetate the hillside terrain of an old quarry, and approval of a 15-foot tall accessory structure to be used as a horse stable. The lot size is approximately 12 acres and. zoned Hillside Residential. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 7-0) DIRECTORS 1TL'M - Earlier this month the City Council appointed six Saratoga residents to act as a citizen advisory committee for the Land Use Element update. Staff is in the process of setting up the Committee's first meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS - Nonc COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on Apri121, 2004 ADJOURNMENT AT 7:45 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would lilac tc~ receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato a.ca.us • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2004 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-078 - CAMPBELL Item 1 14725 Sobey Road 2. Application #03-217 - HOUSE Item 2 13313 Old Oak Way SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 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 May 12, 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 underPlanningCommission direction to Staf J: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 20, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the Ciry Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.caus. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Ciry 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 appeaz and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public heazing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public heazing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Sazatoga 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 #04-078 (397-04-003) -CAMPBELL, 14725 Sobey Road; -Request Design Review Approval to build a new 650 square foot detached secondary unit with a one car carport in approximately the same location as the previous unit. The height of the structure will not exceed 15 feet. The gross lot size is 76,040 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) 2. APPLICATION #03-217 (503-15-065) -HOUSE, 13313 Old Oak Way; -Request for Grading over 1,000 cubic yards to restore and re-vegetate the hillside terrain of an old quarry, and approval of a 15-foot tall accessory structure to be used as a horse stable. The lot size is approximately 12 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM Earlier this month the City Council appointed six Saratoga residents to act as a citizen advisory committee for the Land Use Element update. Staff is in the process of setting up the Committee's first meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on Apri121, 2004 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 9, 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 plannin saratoga.ca.us ! Qa ~e MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 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 and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Schallop and Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of Apri128, 2004. i Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 28, 2004, were adopted as submitted with corrections to pages 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16. (5-0-2; Commissioners Schallop and Uhl were absent) 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 May 6, 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 May 12, 2004 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 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 feet. 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. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow a new two-story residence on a vacant lot. The home would have a maximum height of 26 feet and consist of approximately 5,200 square feet, including garage. The materials include tan stucco and a red the roof. The architectural style is Italian Renaissance with the entrance accentuated by columns. • Described the lot as 47,000 square feet within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. • Informed that no trees are proposed for removal while one Oak tree is proposed for relocation on the property. • Stated that initially staff had concerns regarding several of the proposed architectural features, believing that the design lacked integration into the hillside. The fire turnaround was troubling for staff. Since that time, the applicant has addressed several of the architectural features and alternatives have been found for the fire turnaround. • Said that after driving throughout the area, staff found that there were several two-story homes. Additionally, staff feels that not even asingle-story home could preserve the views to the north. • Recommended approval with conditions. An alternative to approval this evening could be to refer the project back to staff for further work. • Added that staff has forwarded copies of all correspondence to the Commission regarding this project. Commissioner Zutshi questioned how the natural grade for the site is determined. Director Tom Sullivan that to measure the natural grade, one takes both the high side and low side at the building's edge and averages the two. Commissioner Zutshi asked how the three-story element could be justified. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that initially staff had the same concern. However, technically, according to Code, if 80 percent of the basement is subterranean, as is the case with this project, that area is not counted as a story. Reminded that while this is a hillside lot it is not zoned as Hillside Residential. Commissioner Zutshi asked if a geotechnical report has been prepared for this project. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes but that it had not been included in the report. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the City's Residential Design Guidelines apply. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 3 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. • Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff and the applicant had evaluated alternative building pad locations at all. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the stairway feature goes up to the roof over the second floor, as it appears to do. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied correct. Commissioner Rodgers asked if that deck area would also be considered a floor. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no, Commissioner Hunter asked why there is no landscape plan provided. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the applicant refused to provide one despite her having requested one continually during the review process. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Commission typically requires a landscape plan during the Design Review process. • Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied absolutely, adding that unless it is done at that time, landscape plans don't often trigger public review. Commissioner Hunter asked if staff did not feel it had the "teeth" to require this landscape plan from the applicant. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the applicant would be limited to the scope of work for which they receive an approval by the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan said that the landscape plan would need to be brought before the Planning Commission at a later date. Commissioner Hunter said that she would like to see this requirement for a landscape plan inserted into the Conditions of Approval. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Jim Stroupe, Project Architect: • Informed that the roof deck has no walls and an open railing. • Stated that if he had been told he should not come before the Commission without a landscape plan, he would have provided one. . • Added that their plans for the landscaping are depicted on the site plan itself. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 4 • Said that they plan to remove the natural grasses on the site since 1VIr. Ho is allergic. They will replace them with an alternate native grass to which Mr. Ho would not be allergic. Additionally, • they will plant four fruit trees beyond the rear terrace and plant annuals near the front entry. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Jim Stroupe about interactions with the back neighbors. Mr. Jim Stroupe: • Reported that his client, Mr. Ho, had met with the Herringers regarding screening for privacy. • Added that Mr. Ho had shown his plans to all the neighbors. • Assured that Mr. and Mrs. Ho are happy to plant trees as necessary to mitigate privacy impacts for the Herringers. • Pointed out that Mrs. Priscilla Ho has resided in Saratoga since the 60s. Mr. and Mrs. Ho have lived in Saratoga since the 90s. They are not new to the area. • Advised that the house would not be visible from Sobey from one direction and barely visible from the other. • Acknowledged the concerns over loss of privacy by the rear neighbors. • Requested revisions to the Conditions to allow the planned 2,712 square foot open terrace that is proposed as impervious hardscape. Additionally, they want to move the wrought iron fence back to the necessary front setback in order to keep it at its current six-foot height. • Reminded that they would not be removing any major tree but would relocate one Oak tree. However, their Arborist has told them that there is a low chance of survival for that tree. Instead, they ask that they be allowed to remove that tree outright and replace it with a similar tree. • Expressed that they appreciate Christy's help in working with Fire so that they would be allowed to . have a circular turnaround in front. They are proposing to place a fountain in the center of the turnaround. • Said that they have made many modifications per the requests of Christy Oosterhous, which have greatly improved the design. • Advised that they have tried to minimize the amount of grading and that the only retaining walls are near the Oak at the drive. They have tried to keep the drive at grade. • Pointed out that no garage is visible from the front of the house. • Explained that his clients had asked him to design a home with large level floor areas, with no steps or split levels. An elevator is provided. He has designed a fairly thin house that wraps around the site. Commissioner Hunter asked whose bedroom is located on the second floor. Mr. Jim Stroupe replied that this would be the master bedroom. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the purpose of the sundeck. Mr. Jim Stroupe said that this rooftop deck feature was a specific request of Mr. and Mrs. Ho. Commissioner Zutshi asked 1VIr. Jim Stroupe how big the basement would be. Mr. Jim Stroupe replied 2,000 square feet, adding that there was no basement space beneath the garage, • living and dining rooms. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Hunter asked for the ceiling heights. • Mr. Jim Strou a replied 10 feet, 10 feet 6 inches for the second floor. P Commissioner Nagpal thanked Mr. Jim Stroupe for the time spent at the site visit. Asked what efforts have been made to integrate this project into this hillside and whether any alternative building site area on the property had been considered. Mr. Jim Stroupe replied no, a second building site was not considered. This is the only logical place on a hillside that is quite steep. They must locate this house at the top of the site to build this home as Mr. and Mrs. Ho want. Commissioner Nagpal questioned why other possibilities were not considered for the placement of the house on this property, as she wants to have some understanding of the flavor of where they were coming from. Mr. Jim Stroupe: • Said that an important feature was a useable rear yard. • Stated that he had told Mr. and Mrs. Ho that the best place to build is where they are proposing. It would be worse if they tried to place the house on the far side of the hill. If it were placed lower on the property, more grading would be required and they have tried to limit grading as much as possible. • Reminded that the cut for the basement is not considered grading. • • Assured that they have tried to meet all requirements under the Residential Design Handbook. • Restated that they are willing to plant screening as necessary. • Pointed out that Saratoga is one of the only communities in the area where a country setting can still be found. Chair Garakani questioned the disadvantages of grading. Mr. Jim Stroupe: • Said that they would be cutting off three feet in the terrace area to create a flat area. The rear yard area offers views of the hill. • Said that contours and retaining walls would be required. • Said that they did not want to place the garage so that it faces the front of the house. Additionally, the garage has been placed at the same level as the main living area to avoid steps when bringing in groceries into the house from the garage. • Added that if the house were to be lowered on the site closer to Sobey Road, they would not have any views of the hillside. Mr. and Mrs. Ho have bought this property for views of hillsides. • Assured that the main level of the house needed to be where it is. • Restated that they have met all design standards and almost all policies. • Reminded that the house wraps around the hill and is long and thin and that they are close to meeting 90 percent of the City's standards. . Commissioner Rodgers stated that Policy 2 requires integration with the hillside so that a house does not interfere with a ridgeline where other folks can see it. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Jim Stroupe disagreed that their house is located on the ridgeline. Commissioner Nagpal said that it does indeed seem to be on top of the hill. • Mr. Jim Stroupe argued that what they are proposing is exactly what is asked for in Design Guideline Policy 2, adding that no one will see this house except for two rear neighbors. They are not precluding views of the mountains for others. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there are major ridgelines in the City of Saratoga that are prominent from the Valley floor. This is not a ridgeline but rather a hilltop. Mr. Jim Stroupe pointed out that Policy 4 calls for plantings along a property line to mitigate privacy impacts. Added that there is an approximate 80 foot setback from the homes below. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the existing ranch house was built in the 1940s and does not impose on the ridgeline. She asked how tall the rooflines would be. Mr. Jim Stroupe replied 24 feet, 9 inches with a 100 foot rear yard setback. He added that they are happy to install screening trees but that it may be better to figure out where to plant these trees once the house is built. Mr. Jeff Ho, Applicant and Property Owner: • Expressed concern about the questions to consider relocation of the house on the site. • Pointed out that they went through an extensive process with the City and that they were • encouraged by the City to move as little dirt from the site as possible. • Added that this process has already taken 18 months. Commissioner Hunter explained to Mr. Jeff Ho that lots of letters from his neighbors have been received that have indicated concerns. She added that the process would be faster if no concerns had been raised. Commissioner Nagpal expressed her regrets that Mr. Ho feels he has undergone a bad experience with this process. Added that just because there is a large house next door does not mean that he can do the same. Mr. Jeff Ho said that he was influenced by the neighbor's house. Commissioner Rodgers said that she was glad to hear that the architect feels this design has been improved due to staff recommendations. Asked for information about the plans for the sundeck. Mr. Jeff Ho explained that he and his wife had seen many sundecks in homes in the Tuscany region. They wanted to recreate that. Explained that they have decided to build an ADA compliant house for his wife, who has had a number of back injuries over the years. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Ho if he had considered aone-story design. Mr. Jeff Ho ointed out the high cost of the land. P Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Zutshi said that the deck could be dangerous. • Mr. Jeff Ho agreed that a deck could be dangerous. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Ho if he would be willing to remove this deck. Mr. Jeff Ho replied that he is flexible within reason, explaining that he has lived in Saratoga for 20 years and wants to be a good neighbor. However, he also knows that he cannot please everyone. Commissioner Rodgers suggested the elimination of the stairway leading to the deck. Mr. Jeff Ho pointed out that the deck is small, only five feet by six feet. Mr. John Herringer, 18803 Hilltop Way, Saratoga; • Advised that he and his wife, Eileen, oppose this proposal. • Urged denial of this project as currently designed due to this house being a massive two-story that is out of scale, lacks integration into the area and provides significant interference in his privacy. • Said that the project is out of scale with the neighborhood since others are single-story homes. This homes' maximum height is 26 feet, even though it is located at the top of a hill. • Said that this project violates regulations and does not follow topography. • Said that privacy impacts should be resolved with the design of the home and not be mitigated after construction with landscaping to ensure privacy. • Stated that this home should blend in and not project out from the hillside. The structure should be • located in such a way as to minimize impact. • Stressed his belief that this design violates City policies. • Restated that two-story homes are not a part of this direct neighborhood. • Suggested that the charge of the Planning Commission is to enforce the City's Residential Design Policies. • Urged the Commission to deny this project as proposed, requiring the project to limit its height, incorporate into the hillside, be placed lower down the hill and with the provision of a landscape plan. • Informed that Mr. and Mrs. Ho had told him that they like to use a telescope to look at the stars. • Stated that his backyard is his private sanctuary. Chair Garakani asked Mr. John Herringer how many of his concerns he had shared with the applicants. Mr. John Herringer said that they had shown him their plans in November and asked him to sign a form indicating that they had done so but that the plans were not discussed in detail. He reminded that policy states that landscaping is not supposed to mitigate privacy impacts. Mr. Ian Crayfield, 18070 Hillside, Saratoga: • Expressed his opposition to this proposal for four reasons: loss of privacy, bulk, failure to conform to Design Guidelines and no overall landscape plan. • Said that he had moved his pool to avoid impacts down the hillside and instead placed it in a valley . where only one neighbor can see it. • Assured that he is not planning to replace his grasses although he is sorry if Mr. Ho is allergic to it. • Said he is sorry that they want a flat house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 8 • Stated that minimizing visibility impacts from Sobey is not important since many large homes are visible along Sobey. • • Informed that he has spent two and a half years landscaping his rear yard and has done everything possible to make his property non-invasive to his neighbors. However, with this project, his deck and pool area privacy would be destroyed. • Said that the 26 foot height and bulk of this structure concerns him. • Stated that no natural screening is possible. It would take 40-foot high trees right next to this house. • Said that several requirements under the Residential Design Guidelines have not been met. The house does not minimize the perception of bulk. With no landscape plan, it does not integrate with the environment. The minimum fence height is not met. The project does not avoid interference with the privacy of neighbors. The project does not preserve views and access to views. • Summarized his recommendation that this project be sent back for reconsideration to come back with something that results in less of an impact on the area, impact Sobey Road rather than the rear neighbors' properties. Ms. Priscilla Ho, Applicant and Property Owner: • Said that she grew up in Saratoga and is very familiar with the community. • Stated that their home as designed goes around the contour of the property. • Added that they like light and did not want to build into the side of the property. They are actually 35 feet off the top of the hill and the garage comes around to the side. Mr. Jeff Ho, said that while they have done everything possible to work with staff, they might not have met all requirements. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearin for A enda Item No. 1. • g g Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that she feels for Mr. and Mrs. Ho as she has been through this process herself. • Pointed out that planning staff and the Planning Commission have different perspectives. • Told the applicants that the Commissioners are their neighbors and volunteers. • Said that despite what the Architect is saying about grading, she still sees lots of trucks leaving this site with soil from the basement. • Questioned the belief of the Architect that Saratoga easily accepts mitigation of privacy impacts with trees. She added that this is not the message of the Commission but rather landscaping to mitigate for privacy impacts is a last resort and not a first line of defense. • Said that the house needs to follow the contours, minimize bulk and use muted colors. • Stated that she does not know how she feels about Sobey Road. • Stressed the importance of providing a landscape plan. • Suggested the elimination of the staircase to the top deck. • Said when comparing front versus back property impacts, the impacts from the front would be less than to the back. • Said that she thinks this would be a better project if compromises were reached. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she has many of the same thoughts. . • Expressed concern about the sunroof as this feature adds a third story that will overlook the neighbors and is at maximum height. There are three neighbors directly behind. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 9 • Said that this is not a great precedence. • • Agreed that following the contours is important. • Stated that since Sobey Road has big, grand and ostentatious homes, impacts would not be as great as they would on the rear neighbors. • Said that her preference would be to have the house lowered on the back and terraced down the hill. • Reiterated the need for a landscape plan as she does not want to approve this project and see things coming in later. • Suggested the inclusion of fire-resistant native trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that there is existing policy requiring drought tolerant material but not fire resistant. Commissioner Rodgers said that she would like to see that requirement included. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that it is difficult when a vacant lot is developed within an existing neighborhood. • Pointed out that the two houses on either side are well integrated into the hillside. • Said that this design has to go back for further study and be located lower on the hill. • Agreed that there is not a problem with the house being visible from Sobey as it is preferable to the impacts on the rear neighbors if it were to be placed right at the top of the hill. • Agreed that screening would be difficult because of the topography. • Said that the stairway to the roof is difficult for the neighbors to accept. • Added that she is unsure how to obtain fire resistance in landscaping. • Stressed the importance to putting more thought to screening and dealing with the neighbors' concerns. • Reminded that this is one of the last lots in this neighborhood to be developed. Commissioner Zutshi: • Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Hunter. • Said that this project has a big impact on the neighbors and that the staircase with a landing on the roof is not private for the rear neighbors. • Expressed concern with the idea of fencing higher than 6 feet. • Said that something must be done before she can support this project. • Pointed out that dirt must be removed anyway from the site for the basement. Chair Garakani: • Clarified that the applicants are not asking for fencing above 6 feet in height. They just propose to move their existing 6-foot wrought iron fence so that it falls within the required setback to allow it to remain at the 6-foot height instead of being lowered to 3.5 feet as required where it is currently placed. • Agreed that the project requires more study and that the staircase to the roof deck is an issue as the neighbors would suffer a loss of privacy as a result. • Said that balancing interests must occur and that the height should be reduced. Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded that the 1,000 cubic yard limitation for cut is for the Hillside District and that this property is not zoned Hillside Residential. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 10 Chair Garakani suggested that the applicant work further with the Planning Department. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern about the visibility of a red the roof and suggested that a tan the would integrate better with the environment. Chair Garakani proposed that the Commission give further instruction to staff. Director Tom Sullivan assured that staff has plenty of information and suggested that the Chair poll the applicant to determine if they prefer an outright denial or a continuance. Chair Garakani reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 and asked the applicant his preference. Mr. Jim Stroupe said that they prefer a continuance and said that they would incorporate all concerns and ideas raised this evening by the Commission. He added that it is very easy to understand what is wanted. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a Design Review request for a new house to be located at 14289 Sobey Road (Application #03-054) to a date uncertain, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi NOES: None • ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 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) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that both the Planning Commission and Council heard concerns that were raised by a resident as a result of noise impacts from a standby generator. Both the Commission and Council decided that a specific Ordinance regarding placement of such a generator needed to be developed. • Explained that this would be added to the Accessory Uses and Structures and would also regulate the placement of HVAC units. • Suggested adding text, "A noise assessment study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for all proposed generators." • Pointed out that Saratoga's requirements are more stringent than other communities. • Added that a Use Permit would be required for placement of an emergency generator and that these units could not be located within a required setback. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the word "setback" be added to the end of the sentence reading "No...required front, side and rear yard." Director Tom Sullivan explained that since the sentence begins with "no," the word setback is not required. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Ordinance covers just noise or also fumes. Director Tom Sullivan replied it was just noise. The whole complaint was based on noise. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this applies just to residential zoning. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Garakani said that he felt this Ordinance amendment is good. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter said that this was fine with her. Commissioner Zutshi asked how this requirement would be advertised. Director Tom Sullivan said that an announcement could be printed in the Saratogan. Commissioner Hunter asked if neighbors would be notified of a potential installation. Director Tom Sullivan said yes. The processing requires a Use Permit. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Application #04-096) to regulate the placement of standby or emergency generators and heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** NON-PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 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) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 12 Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission study the Arborist Report and provide guidance regarding the proposed site plan in relation to impacts to trees. • Said that the applicant is proposing to construct a new home. • Stated that the Arborist Report recommends a revised home footprint to protect three trees while the applicant wants to adhere to their plan. • Added that this is a non public-hearing item tonight. • Said that she was available for any questions. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the Arborist is recommending removal of Trees 15 and 16 in lieu of Tree 4. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out Trees 8 and 9. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that these are Cedar trees and that the house would be close. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the Arborist is recommending revised plans to 20 feet. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the plans show a distance of 12 feet and that a pier and beam foundation could be used. Mr. R. Gudapati, Applicant and Owner, 19170 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that their plans have been revised so that their home would be 12 feet from Trees 8 and 9 and that they also changed to a pier and beam foundation. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Gudapati if he agrees that these Cedars serve as a nice barrier between this house and the neighbor's. Mr. R. Gudapati replied yes. He advised that six Cedar trees would stay on the property. Commissioner Hunter asked about the two California Buckeye Redwood trees (Trees 15 and 16). Mr. R. Gudapati: • Said that he would like to retain one but remove Tree 16 as without that removal they would not be able to construct a decent house. • Pointed out that this is a multi-trunked tree, a triple Redwood. • Added that there are a lot of trees at the back fence to buffer noise. Commissioner Zutshi asked what would replace Tree 4. Mr. R. Gudapati said that they plan to replace it with four 36-inch box Oak trees. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Gudapati if his Arborist is expected this evening. Mr. R. Gudapati: • Replied yes, their Arborist was expected to arrive any minute now. • Advised that Tree 4 has a rating of less than 50 and that the canopy of that tree is off to one side. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 13 Mr. James Scott, Certified Arborist: • Said that Tree 4 is healthy in color of leaves, size and distribution. However, there is an asymmetrical crown that leans over the existing structure. The growing point grows over the roots. • Added that this condition often results in summer branch failure. When temperatures get over 85 degrees, branches can just give way. • Cautioned that anyone visiting the site should use care as there is one branch of concern on one of the Cedars that is in danger of falling. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. James Scott whether the removal of the leaning portion of this tree would allow the rest of the tree to compensate. Mr. James Scott said doing so would be in violation of ISA regulations as it would equal the removal of more than twenty percent of the tree. Commissioner Hunter again asked if the tree could compensate once cut back. Mr. James Scott said that it could result in lots of new shoots and put the tree into growth mode. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. James Scott about the plans for pier and beam foundation near the Cedars. Mr. James Scott said that this is a good idea. • Commissioner Na al ointed out that the Cit Arborist recommends a 20-foot distance while the gP P y applicant is proposing a 12 foot distance. Mr. James Scott: • Stressed the importance of construction fencing for two-thirds of the drip-line. This is needed to prevent storage, walking over, etc., and should equal a 14.5 foot vertical clearance. • Added that if this area must be crossed over, it must be mulched with eight to ten inches of wood mulch. Additionally, during the summer months of construction, a watering program must be enacted that provides 75 gallons per tree every ten days to help relieve stress. Director Tom Sullivan advised that these requirements are in the City's Ordinance as well as within the recommendations of the City Arborist. The City's regulations go beyond ISA standards. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Arborist James Scott for coming this evening. Commissioner Zutshi stated that she did not mind the removal of Tree 4 as long as it was going to be replaced. Commissioner Nagpal said that she prefers to maintain Trees 15 and 16 and have the applicant mitigate Trees 9 and 18. Commissioner Rodgers said that she agreed that Tree 4 is not worth keeping but that Trees 15 and 16 are worth retaining. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 14 Commissioner Hunter: • Said that Tree 4 is young and located in a shady area. • • Agreed that the Buckeye Redwoods and Cedar are superior trees to keep. • Expressed support for keeping the house where the applicants want it and to utilize the pier and beam foundation. Chair Garakani pointed out that this is a long lot with a lot of trees and that he does not mind losing Tree 4 to accommodate this house as long as it is replaced with four 36-inch box trees. Commissioner Nagpal thanked staff and the applicants for being so pro-active. Director Tom Sullivan said that he believes that there is sufficient consensus and guidance from the Commission to move forward. Commissioner Hunter thanked Mr. James Scott for his expertise. *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS • Heritage Preservation Commission: Commissioner Hunter advised that she was able to attend the recent Heritage Preservation Commission. Road Maintenance Committee Chair Garakani advised that he and Commissioner Nagpal participated at a recent Road Maintenance Committee meeting. This Committee is trying to find a way to get public help, perhaps even a parcel tax, to cover costs of road maintenance. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that all property taxes paid by Saratoga residents does not come back to the City. Director Tom Sullivan reported that the City receives about 3.5 percent. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that schools get the greatest percentage. Commissioner Zutshi advised that other cities get a larger percentage, like 6 percent. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that Saratoga is not a full service city as it contracts out for Sheriff and Fire services. Added that the State of California has recently taken funds away from cities. Chair Garakani said that another meeting is pending of this Road Maintenance Committee. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 15 • Commissioner Hunter reminded that the City used to have a utility tax that has since expired. COMMUNICATIONS Minutes from the City Council meeting held on Apri17, 2004. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • C7 • • • ITEM 1 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: App # 04-078/ 14725 Sobey Road Lyle Mosher/Color and Geri Campbell John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner~~~, May 26, 2004 397-04-003 Department Head: __. ; Q 500 FT R4D0.1S AROUND14725 SOBEY RD ,___ ®14725 SOBEY RD ~ _ - ~~`~.~ i '~. ~1 ~ Q PROP~TiES WfTHIN 500 Ff I 1 1', ~ ~~I -.._ SIN~IN6 HII~ W ~ A/ w ~ / F SOBEY. ~~AKS G! __ _.__' ~I ~" ~\-~-_ 14725 Sobey Road ~oo~o~. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 04/01/04 04/30/04 05/12/04 05/06/04 05/20/04 Request Design Review Approval to build a new 650 square foot detached secondary unit with aone-car carport in approximately the same location as the previous unit. The height of the structure will not exceed 15 feet. The gross lot size is 76,040 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1-40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application for Design Review with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. Neighborhood Notification forms 3. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Notice Labels 4. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • • ~®~~ File No. 04-078;14725Sobey Road • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 76,040 gross square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 12% GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading will be required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Main House Footprint Driveway, Patios, Pool and Walkways Secondary Unit Carport TOTAL Main House First Floor Main House Second Floor Well House Sub Total Secondary Unit 10% add TOTAL Front Rear Left Side Right Side Residence Detached Garages C:UNyDocumcnts~Dcsign Review 04~Solxy Road 14725 Staff Repo.doc Proposal Code Requirements 23.5% Max Allowable 35% 3,503 sq. ft. 13,486 sq. ft. 650 sq. ft. 231 sq. ft. 17,870sq. ft. 26,614 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 3,423 sq. ft. For the District is 2,003 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft. 8o sq, ft. 6,490 sq. ft. 6,520 sq. ft. 650 sq. ft. or with a 10% increase 7,140 sq. ft. 7,172 sq. ft. Min. Requirement 200 ft. 30 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 200 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 26 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. V®~~OO~ File No. 04-078;14725Sobey Road PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to build a new 650 square foot detached secondary unit with aone-car carport in approximately the same location as the previous unit. The height of the structure will not exceed 15 feet. Zoning Code Section 15-45.060 states that whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square feet Design Review is required. The proposed project currently exceeds 6,000 square feet and therefore requires Planning Commission review. The secondary unit is a permitted use and only the design of the structure is subject to Planning Commission review. The exterior finish will be a fieldstone siding. The roof will be a gray slate tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. The applicant is currently in the final phase of construction of the new main residence. As part of the project, which was approved by the Planning Commission in July 2001, the applicant proposed removing the existing secondary unit. The existing unit was removed and now the applicant has submitted this application for a new unit to be built in approximately the same location as the previous structure. As part of the secondary unit the applicant is requesting a one time ten percent increase in allowable floor area based on a deed restriction that only allows the unit to be rented to below market rate households. The deed restriction also allows the Community Development Director to wave the garage parking requirement and allow the second unit to use an open parking space or carport. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. Polity 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed structure will be only 15 tall and completely finished with a stone siding that will blend into the surrounding landscape and break up the facade of the building. The structure is also over 200 feet from Sobey Road and located on a parcel with existing mature landscape screening. • Polity 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a natural stone siding for the exterior of the structure that will help blend the structure into the hillside. The dark slate roof will blend in with the dark green canopy of the Oak tree. • C~ivlyDocuments~Design Review 04~Sobcy Road 14725 StaFf Rcpo.doc €~U~04 File No. 04-078;14725 Sobey Road • Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privary" The proposed project will protect the privacy of adjacent properties with its large lot size. The proposed project will only have one small bathroom window facing the closest property line to the north and a building height of 15-feet. • Polity 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed secondary unit has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing a carport for the secondary dwelling unit. The applicant's main house has afour-car garage 984 square foot garage. The site also has ample open parking in the driveway areas. Trees There is one large Oak tree on the site that may be impacted by the development. The tree protection plan, sediment and erosion control plan all part of the original plan for the main house. The City Arborist will continue to provide monitoring of the tree protection measures through the building of the new secondary unit and completion of the existing main house. Fireplaces No fireplace is proposed for the secondary unit. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. Two of the adjacent neighbors made comments on the Neighbor Notification form provided to them by the applicant. One comment was concerning the length of time and noise from the existing construction and the other was about the proximity of construction to the creek. The applicant has addressed both issues with the neighbors. The creek/drainage swale next to the secondary unit is not a protected creek. • ~Q~~aS C:Vvlylbcumcnts~Design Review 04~Sobey Road 14725 Staff Repo.doc File No. 04-078;14725 Sobey Road GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will be located in an isolated location and surrounded by existing and proposed trees thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will be monochromatic earth tones that will be non-reflective and blend the proposed house into the hillside. The proposed house will be compatible with the nearby main house with the same stone siding. Housing Element Goa12 Encourage the construction of housing affordable to lower and moderate-income households and increase affordable housing options. The proposed project is consistent with this goal in that it is proposing a deed restriction that only allows the unit to be rented to below market rate households. CONCLUSION The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minim~e the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood and main house. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. The proposed secondary dwelling unit also meets all requirements in Section 15-56. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • C:UvlyDocuments~Design Review 04\Solxy Road 14725 Staff Repo.doc ~~~o~ • Attachment 1 • 0®~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Campbell; 14725 Sobey Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval to build a new 650 square foot detached secondary unit with aone-car carport in approximately the same location as the previous unit. The height of the structure will not exceed 15 feet, which is the maximum allowed height without Planning Commission approval. Zoning Code Section 15-45.060 states that whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square feet Design Review is required. The proposed project currently exceeds 6,000 square feet and therefore requires Planning Commission review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of construction of a new secondary unit is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code • (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: • Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed structure will be only 15 tall and completely finished with a stone siding that will blend into the surrounding landscape and breakup the facade of the building. The structure is also over 200 feet from Sobey Road and located on a parcel with existing mature landscape screening. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a natural stone siding for the exterior of the structure that will help blend the structure into the hillside. The dark slate roof will blend in with the dark green canopy of the Oak tree. • Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The proposed project will protect the privacy of adjacent properties with its large lot size. The proposed project will only have one small bathroom window facing the closest property line to the north and a building height of 15-feet. ~of~~~ . • Polity 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. • Policy S, "Design for Energy Efficiency"The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed secondary unit has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high- energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies and Goals: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will be located in an isolated location and surrounded by existing and proposed trees thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will be • monochromatic earth tones that will be non-reflective and blend the proposed house into the hillside. The proposed house will be compatible with the nearby main house with the same stone siding. Housing Element Goal 2 Encourage the construction of housing affordable to lower and moderate-income households and increase affordable housing options. The proposed project is consistent with this goal in that it is proposing a deed restriction that only allows the unit to be rented to below market rate households. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: ~~J~09 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped April 1, 2004, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following: i. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. ii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 4. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 5. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 6. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 7. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hadscaped area. 8. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. • ®~01U 9. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 10. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 11. The height of the structure shall not exceed 15 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 12. The applicant shall be responsible in contacting the City Staff to make arrangements for the City Arborist to be on site during critical construction activities that may impact any protected trees on site as determined by the Community Development Director. 13. The applicant shall record a deed restriction for the secondary dwelling unit that restricts it so that it may only be rented to below market rate households prior to Building Permit issuance. CITY ARBORIST 14. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated October 30, 2001 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the . construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note 'to remain in place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 15. Review of this development proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain of fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the building Department all applicable constructions permits. 16. The fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants which are spaced at the • required spacing. ~~~~~1 17. The applicant has indicated that an approved, residential fire sprinkler system and Early Warning Alarm system are to be installed in the building. A State of California Licensed Fire Protection contractor and electrical contractor shall submit three sets of plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their respective work. CITY ATTORNEY 18. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of May 2004 by the following roll call vote: i AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~~~12 • Attachment 2 r ~~ ~O~®13 • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: I ~ ~d' PROJECT ADDRESS : ~ I ~~Z~J `~ I?O~ Applicant Name: C4LM A~ LEI ~~'1I~~ L~Z~~ ~ Neighbor Name: ~. ~~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to.the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be add ss by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I . understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): c~ ~ _ ~ ~, ~. Neighbor Address: 1~6 0 (',~~,n ~ <~~~.~ , Signature: Neighbor Phone #: ~~" ~6 ' C15~ Printed: ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~-~ t. fl©~oi4 r~ L...J • • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: (~ ~~' PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ I ~7Zr/ ~D~ Applicant Name: 041,!'1 a-dc. CSI ~I ~~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to.the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT bave any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I bave issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, bave not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): !~'~~Yi,T ~ ~r ~r~'„~ 2~~fr-t.~~, L~ J ~ ~ ~~. _ ~. J f Neighbor Name: ~ (~~ F ~cc ,l~~f~~:;-~- `" ~~ ~. ~. Neighbor Address: ~ Lv ,7 h. ~~ ~,~~' ~~ ~~ ~~'~~ ; ,?_, Neighbor Phone #: X i~' l l i~ ~- J Signature: Printed: ~. J 0®E~~15 Attachment 3 • ~D~-~1016 • City of Saratoga • Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 26`h day of May 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. App. NO. 04-078 (397-04-003) -CAMPBELL, 14725 Sobey Road; -Request Design Review Approval to build a new 650 square foot detached secondary unit with a one car carport in approximately the same location as the previous unit. The height of the structure will not exceed 15 feet. The gross lot size is 76,040 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a . decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising onl}~ those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. john F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 • 0®~01'~ • • smecv Ro Q 500 FT RADIUS AROUND14725 SOBEY RD 14725 SOBEY RD Q PROPERTIES WITHIN 500 FT siRCir~ wu w _ OMEGA W CNF5IER-AV A/ w SOBEV OAaS CT 1E W ~` ` E S ONES7ER'AV -- w000BABn cvvev vM R MAROOS Ev R1 --_ - • ARBOUDO Ww 0 150 300 450 600 750 ft I smeEr~m I I I RA~~ 14725 Sobey Road ~~~o~g • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 6th day of May, 2004, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application 14725 Sobey Road; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the r~ LJ OHO©~.y addresses shown above. • • CAMPBELL, COLM & XIE, LIAN S & JIALING GERALDINE APN 39704027 APN 39704003 1221 MARTIN AV 1894 DRY CREEK RD PALO ALTO CA 94301-3044 • SAN JOSE CA 95124-1005 APPLEBY, BERND & MARRIOCK, MICHAEL ETAL BRADEN, CHARLOTTE CHRISTINE F APN 39704029 TRUSTEE APN 39704028 14710 SOBEY RD APN 39704030 14720 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6234 14700 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6234 SARATOGA CA 95070-6234 PIETROBONO, RALPH & YU, SHELLEY M & ARTHUR Y LUNDIE, MARTIN J & AMANDA GERTRUDE C TRUSTEE APN 39704037 J TRUSTEE APN 39704036 14680 SOBEY RD APN 39704042 14690 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6234 14750 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6234 SARATOGA CA 95070-6234 REINHARDT, RICHARD W & MOSTOWFIPOUR, TOMPKINS, W W & DABNEY M CATHERINE A TRUSTEE ANOOSHIRAVAN APN 39704067 APN 39704043 APN 39704065 14740 SOBEY RD 14660 SOBEY RD 14851 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6234 SARATOGA CA 95070-6234 SARATOGA CA 95070-6235 DION, CAMILLE N & GENEVIEVE E TRUSTEE APN 39704078 3160 E DESERT 1NN 3-518 LAS VEGAS NV 89121-3875 ALBERT, FRANK & PATRICIA APN 39704079 19016 SPRING BROOK LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6241 HAYASHIDA, GEORGE M & JOY A TRUSTEE APN 39704080 4808 OLD STUMP DR NW GIG HARBOR WA 98332-8899• GERA, MARKO & KLARA APN 39704086 19136 SPRING BROOK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 CARINE, THOMAS A & NINA A RAJU FAMILY 1999 REVOC TRUSTEE TRUST TRUSTEE APN 39704084 APN 39704085 19001 SPRING BROOK LN 19015 SPRINGBROOK LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6241 SARATOGA CA 95070-6241 GERA, MARKO & KLARA APN 39704087 19136 SPRING BROOK LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6241 GERA, MARKO & KLARA APN 39704088 19136 SPRING BROOK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 POWELL, DENNIS D & CHERYL D APN 39704095 14659 CHESTER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5670 MACDONELL, GREGORY S & TENNANT, R. ALEXANDER & SLOAN, DANIEL & ELLA E JENNIFER D PATRICIA I TRUSTEE APN 39704096 APN 39704097 APN 39704100 14617 CHESTER AV 14565 CHESTER AV 14701 SOBEY OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5670 SARATOGA CA 95070-5670 SARATOGA CA 95070-6143 NIUHAWI, GEORGE J TRUSTEE SMALL, DAVID K & TRUDY V TASHJIAN, ZAVEN & NINA APN 39704101 TRUSTEE APN 39704104 14707 GYPSY HILL RD APN 39704103 14564 CHESTER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6141 14520 CHESTER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5668 SARATOGA CA 95070-5668 BHEDA, HEMANT & MONISHA DHOLAKIA, SURESH K & GOLDMAN, JOSHUA C & TRUSTEE ANJANA S • JUDITH M APN 39704112 APN 39704113 APN 39704114 14812 GYPSY HILL RD 14766 GYPSY HILL RD 14720 GYPSY HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6100 SARATOGA CA 95070-6100 SARATOGA CA 95070-6100 0®~®~ HARRIMAN, EDWARD S & ' DEBORAH A TRUSTEE APN 39704115 72 GYPSY HILL RD TOGA CA 95070-6100 • KULAKOW, ARTHUR J & SUSAN M TRUSTEE APN 39704116 14622 CHESTER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5669 MAK, ALBERT Y & LAURITA N TRUSTEE APN 39704117 14660 CHESTER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5669 BORTFELD, ROBERT G & BORTHWICK, BARBARA F WHIMS, JAMES L & BRIGIT M SUSAN L ETAL TRUSTEE APN 39704118 APN 39704119 APN 39704120 14820 SOBEY RD 14840 SOBEY RD 14800 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6286 SARATOGA CA 95070-6286 SARATOGA CA 95070-6286 LUCZO, STEPHEN J TRUSTEE APN 39704121 14810 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 • • pp©021 • • ~1 airucM[rl • uwviwoMm'wor NY[ • 1vM Ni17 Mp1YM n 11 r7 '•.rP~l~+l.'S O•abd JJ90S GZL41 [ Y A 1 J 7 1 1 N J Y • ~., y1 II.iJ~f I~JJ ~, I~~yW~~~~Myy~ uJ. llNfl %NI-n~rl7 1-z-~rGN~'>aS ~! Y C ~y ia. _ '~~ ~ qg. s-° w¢at!i~i ~ iii ~~~~ fft~ ~~ ,, m _ :.:, , _' ..,° ~ .. !~ - - ~11~1l~~; ~i~I~f! ~~~~~! ~~ ~ ~ ~ -Ct3-_ ;day • ~~ ~ 7 =mow x~ ' ~ ~ I r ,.... .......... ...... ..... ..... - ...,.... .,.... .. ...... t]Y~ ~. ~ a ~, y gr i ~~ 3 E .I ~~ x4 N ~~ ~ ~~ __ a,r~~ ~agoS e ~o ~ 1,1 ~~ ~~ ~ ~__~ ~_l~ ~~ 1 III ~ ~~ ~ ~ ?~~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. I ~' l;~ ' ~~ 1 /~ ~ ~. 1 e/ ~l / ~~ li~l 1 ~; U ~ ~~ ~ _ ;; ~ I ~- 'fit, ;i~~ ~''' I ~~ 1 ~~ ~n • _ -_ _ ___ ~ ~ {~ ~ sNOU.~n<a..~1 ~' !'~'1d ~1.IS ~ a ~ ~ a s ~~ ~ ~ _ w ~ ~ : _ ~ ~4 Q ~ F- i ~~ T ~~ N ~~ __ ___ - ~ n ----- p • ~ °~6 . ,~ ~~ 0 N ~ p E J ~ T 8 0 M d H N L r .t ~~ ~~ t ~ b~ ~ ~ ~ vf b 3~ ;~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~ ~ ~s y ~ s ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~. ~r ~~ :" ~€ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ a.. ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ' ~ . 7~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ . ~ ~$ .. __. _.. •. __., .. 1,.._ C OfIFN1110 M • a1NVI MW 1VJ'n a rm • AVM NilO M o111M fl l l ezcrl ab ~ ' ~ r n i ~~ i 1 w ~ w r ~ ,~o~rs ~ Tl~Cll^I:/,7 l~'3~ ~"'~' ~I'10> o ~ ~ ~ g a,. yINI7 ~NI'1'1~MG] 1r1~ClN~J~ ~"If1CI~M~S~ fl,Jld z1Gb'I,~ N d~ ; 3 ~ ~ ~ a s N N In o N~ol~.r o A r N N 'V n L} d 1 M ~ ~ ~7~~ ti A k d1 a a i a i i ~~ p p p p 0 p i ~~ i i i ~ ~ i h i M a y i ti ~ N ~ M ~ t~ i i s ~ s ~ ~ ~ ! ~~~; A A A ! 6 A ~~ 4 ~ ® ~ ® ~ 1- V _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Mo-~~+ ~ ~ ~ C y' ~ S U` w z E w a w x w ~ iu Nc ',:~ t f~ ,1 ( v ~ m m g 1°yy' ~ eta ,~~ ~ o r~ f1T `~ ~ u~ `S ~s r~ p' p p ~ V ~ - N to + o ~D F [`}` N b Z U w 00 g~ QQ ! ! ! ICI Nail. ~~~i •s;z •I Ci s;r ~ IC b ~ o ~ m {N ~ 2S 'a o 'o ~~p ~~11'~~ ~~~ ~ 8~ ~ ~ a I ~6 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ S 1~N , b ~ ~ I ~ , ~ ~ rl--- ~,~ ~\ i Il ~ s • ~ I `k \ / yo-. ~ ~~ ~ -~ '~ ~ B~ ~ II _ Le ~ I ~ i ksrt I ~ ~ ~- .o ~ -s '9 1 ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ** fA ! ! .p ,~ ~ r J LL~ p ,p d~ o .T! J ~ 0 = ~ ,n 0 r ~ i ~ N 1 i + N .} i J ~ ~ „, t t ~ QQQ 1 U ~i o o o ~ >s ~ o o ~ _- g ~; ~ ~ - ~. - __- ~ /V /~) Y 1(f ~ f ~I _ ~ I N o ~ ~, ~f A ~O -- ~ I ~l -•n ,C. ~ I I~ t. •O.L ~N ~ 3 g w y a o y~pj, ~. 9~~~1~ 9S i I m~ 9 ~ ~ ~ 1 lL ll ~ ~ ~~ 6~ j ~ ~ ~ $ - w i3 I~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ y~~ ~ 4pf y~ d •Nil nL;•J a xCRiL ~I~Z "~II_ ~ • Cif (d~~ y- 8 lV p ~ - N wl v V\ •DI •igy N 3 ~ ~ J r. r ~ ~k ~ ~ ~ n~ a:- Z "1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ J ~ C I ~I ,. ~~ -~ ~~ ~~~ ~= a ;, ~ - ~Z ~ ~ ~ ° 1 ~ i ~ o l ~ x ' i ~ ~ r ~ ~ $ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ $ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ $ $ g ~ S ~ "' ~ ~ ~ $ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = 5 ~ z u ~ j ~ ' ~~~ ~~~ € ~~¢ a~~~a~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ k ~wy ~w1 N ~ k v~ 5 `o m a m~ R 8 ? a 1 ~i ~~ $ z t ~ 9 :~ ~~ ; ~~ '~ ~o ~ ~~ ~~ o E ~~ ~ ;~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~k ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~~~ 1 • ITEM 2 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: App # 03-217/ 13313 Old Oak Way Applicant/Owner: David House Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner ~~ Date: May 26, 2004 APN: 503-15-065 Department Head: Q 500 ft radius around 13313 Old Oak Way ® 13313 Old Oak Way Q Parcels w ithin 500 ft of 13313 Oki Oak Way ~~ ', `~ N '~ WC} E r, ~ ~..._.. r.. __. ~ -~ .; ~- __ __ i _,, t `~ ~l ~.~ - ~~ .., b~ .. _ . ., ~.~,.,. ~ / ` ~~` . . ~ -, y __ ~~~ .~~ r ~ ~ ,,, - _ p. ~~ ~, __ 0 "250 500 ~5Q ~1000;'I~15tt#f r ~~ % ~Y ~~ '~ _. ~ ~~ i .~. .. l ire ~. \. \ ~ ..~. ~ I N'~~ q.+~ ~~' ~~~'~~ ,, ~ ~° !_ ~, ,~ ~: - y~ ~~~ ~ , ~~- ,, ~ , ; ,. ~~ ~. . , ....._ - =, 13313 Old Oak Way 000001" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 09/23/03 03/02/04 05/12/04 05/06/04 05/20/04 Request Approval for Grading over one thousand cubic yards to restore and re-vegetate the hillside terrain of an old quarry, and Design Review Approval to build a new 15-foot tall accessory structure. The gross lot size is 12.12 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application for Design Review and Grading over one thousand cubic yards with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. Letter from applicant 3. Photos of removed rubbish 4. City of Saratoga, Notice, Noticing Affidavit and Noticing Labels 5. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • • ~~~~ File No. 03-217,• 13313 Old Oak Way, House Property STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: HR Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 12.12 Acresgross/11.962 Acres net or 521,064 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 44% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant has received geological clearance and will be required to obtain a grading permit. The applicant is proposing 5,377 cubic yards of fill and 585 cubic yards of cut in addition to using 4,792 cubic yard of fill from the new homes currently being constructed on the parcel and adjacent parcel. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed horse stable is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single- family residences. The grading is exempt pursuant to Section 15304 (c) filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site. Proposal Code • Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 2.52% 25% or 15,000 sq. ft. Building Footprint which ever is greater Driveway, Patios, Pool and Walkways 11,845 sq. ft. Stable 1,320 sq. ft. TOTAL 13,165 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Main Floor 4,130 sq. ft. Lower Floor 3,774 sq. ft. (Wine Cellar) not (102 sq. ft.) counted TOTAL 7,904 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Minimum of 50 Front 700 ft. 30 ft. ft. from property Rear 200 ft. 50 ft. lines forstables Left Side 400 ft. 20 ft. Right Side 85 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 24 ft. 26 ft. Detached Buildings 15 ft. 15 ft. C:\MyDocuments\Grading over 1K\Old Oak Way Quarry Staff Repo.doc ®V ~~ File No. 03-217,' 13313 Old Oak Way, House Property PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting approval for Grading over one thousand cubic yards to restore and re-vegetate the hillside terrain of an old quarry, and Design Review Approval to build a new 15-foot tall accessory structure. The quarry is no longer in use but the damage to the natural terrain and rubbish left behind by previous property owners is substantial. The applicant has already started removing the tons of old cars, cement, and assorted debris from the quarry. The grading permit is required to reshape the hillside to a more natural slope. Staff has allowed the applicant to place the dirt removed from the construction of the two homes up hill from the quarry into the project area. Allowing this reduced the amount of trucks required to off haul the dirt and then bring it back for the restoration project thus significantly reducing impacts to the neighbors and existing roadway. The Design Review entitlement is required to allow the horse stable. The stable is designed with only two walls so it does not count as floor area. Unlike the recently updated R-1 zoning, the HR zoning only allows accessory structures to exceed 12-feet in height with Planning Commission Approval. The applicant is proposing a 15-foot tall stable to allow height for the horses and an adequate pitch to the roof. Horse stables, with up to two horses, are a permitted use with a horse license. The horse license requirement has been included as a condition of project approval. The proposed exterior finish will be horizontal wood siding with a composition shingle roof. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. In addition to the proposed grading on the applicant's property, the applicant will provide some additional remedial grading to the Garrod's property located uphill from the project site. The applicant has been working with his neighbor and has included this for informational purposes only on his proposed plans. The proposed grading on the neighboring property is necessary since it is uphill from the proposed project. The grading on the neighboring parcel will not exceed 1,000 cubic yards. Design Review The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Polity 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed stable will be 15-feet tall and located at the bottom of a canyon. The applicant is also proposing to line the stable with 24-inch boxed trees and hydroseed the hillside. • Polity 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the applicant is using horizontal wood siding for the exterior of the stable and installing trees around the site. The stable will also be painted with brown earth tone colors. C:UvlyDocuments\Gtading over 1K\Old Oak Way Quarry Staff Repo.doc ~~V VO~ File No. 03-217,• 13313 Old Oak Way, House Property • Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privary" The proposed project will protect the privacy of adjacent properties with its isolated location and large lot size. The applicant will also provide an extensive landscape plan. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The accessory structure is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. • Polity 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed stable has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The structure will not be completely enclosed and will only provide minimal shelter for horses. Grading over one thousand cubic yards Zoning Code Section 15-13.050 states that the combined cut and fill of any grading shall not exceed one thousand cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission upon making all of the following findings: • The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The proposed project meets this finding in that the majority of the grading is for the restoration of the hillside from the years of being used as a quarry. Some of the grading will also be for access to the site. The Fire District is requiring improvements to the existing dirt road that leads down to the stables. • The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected The primary reason for the project is to return the area back to its natural landform and re-vegetate the area • The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain The grading for the quarry restoration project will return the hillside to its natural terrain repairing areas of erosion and re-vegetating the hillside. • The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. The proposed project meets this finding in that the majority of the grading is to restore the original architectural beauty of the hillside. • The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. The increased grading is necessary to correct the prominence of past construction that disrupted the natural rolling hillside with large cuts into the hill. The restoration will improve the erosion of the hillside by reducing sharp man made cuts into the hill and re-vegetating the area. • C\MyUocuments\Grading over IK\Old Oak Way Quarry Staff Repo.doc 00~ ~5 File No. 03-217,' 13313 Old Oak Way, House Property No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. The primary purpose of the proposing grading is to restore an old quarry to a natural hillside. No residential structure will be part of the proposed project, only a small horse stable. Trees The Ciry Arborist has inspected the site and found no protected trees in jeopardy from the proposed grading. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. The Trails Subcommittee has indicated interest in perusing trail easements with the applicant as part of this project submittal. Staff feels the nexus needed for negotiating trail easements on the applicant's parcel would be better addressed during the right-of-way abandonment that the applicant is working on. This issue was also brought up during the Design Review hearings for the two homes currently under construction. At this meeting it was recommended by the Planning Commission that if the Ciry Council decides to abandon the right-of-way, the applicant would become responsible for the property. In exchange for the property the applicant has prepared a draft agreement with the City that will provide a trails easement across the applicant's parcels. The abandonment of the right- of-way and negotiations for the trail easement would be part of a separate application with the City Council. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Polio Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed restoration of the hillside will protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The improved drainage and repair of the eroded areas, along with the planting of new trees will preserve the area and improve the visual character of the canyon. HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMITY Ecology 4.0 Revegetategradedireas as soon as feasible with nativeplants. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that includes a mixture of native plants to be planted on the slopes. The plantings will include jute netting in areas with slopes greater than 2.5:1. The proposed plantings will act to revegetate the area and assist with storm water runoff. C:\MyDocuments\Grading over IK\Old oak Way Quarry Staff Repo.doc ©~~~~ File No. 03-217,' 13313 Old Oak Way, House Property • CONCLUSION The proposed project is designed to conform to the City's policies and satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height, impervious coverage, and findings for Grading over one thousands cubic yards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Grading over one thousand cubic yards and Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • U C:\IvlyDocuments\Grading over 11C~Old Oak Way Quarry Staff Repo.doc O~/ ~/ v V r ~ Attachment 1 C, ~Q~~S • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA House; 13313 Old Oak Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Grading over one thousand cubic yards to restore and re-vegetate the hillside terrain of an old quarry, and Design Review Approval to build a new 15-foot tall accessory structure. The gross lot size is 12.12 acres and zoned Hillside Residential; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of construction of a new horse stable is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The grading is exempt pursuant to Section 15304 (c) filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site; and • WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Grading Approval over one thousand cubic yards, and all of the following findings can be made in the affirmative: The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The proposed project meets this finding in that the majority of the grading is for the restoration of the hillside from the years of being used as a quarry. Some of the grading will also be for access to the site. The Fire District is requiring improvements to the existing dirt road that leads down to the stables. • The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected The primary reason for the project is to return the area back to its natural landform and re-vegetate the area • The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. The grading for the quarry restoration project will return the hillside to its natural terrain repairing areas of erosion and re-vegetating the hillside. • The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. The proposed project meets this finding in that the majority of the grading is to restore the original architectural beauty of the hillside. LJ ©~~~':~ The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding • views or from distant community views. The increased grading is necessary to correct the prominence of past construction that disrupted the natural rolling hillside with large cuts into the hill. The restoration will improve the erosion of the hillside by reducing sharp man made cuts into the hill and re-vegetating the area. No building site shall begraded so as to create a flat visiblepad surrounding the main residential structure. The primary purpose of the proposing grading is to restore an old quarry to a natural hillside. No residential structure will be part of the proposed project, only a small horse stable. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review Approval, and the following findings have been determined: • Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed stable will be 15-feet tall and located at the bottom of a canyon. The applicant is also proposing to line the stable with 24-inch boxed trees and hydroseed the hillside. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the applicant is using horizontal wood siding for the exterior of the stable and installing trees around the site. The stable will also be painted with brown earth tone colors. • Poli 3 "Avoid Inter erence with Priva "The ro osed ro'ect will rotect the rivac of • 9' ~ f ry P P P J P P Y adjacent properties with its isolated location and large lot size. The applicant will also provide an extensive landscape plan. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The accessory structure is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficienry" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed stable has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The structure will not be completely enclosed and will only provide minimal shelter for horses. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review and Grading Approval, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed restoration of the hillside will protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The improved drainage and repair of the eroded areas, along with the planting of new trees will preserve the area and improve the visual character of the canyon. • 000010 • WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review and Grading Approval, and is consistent with the following Hillside Specific Plan Policies: Ecolog~4.0 Revegetategradedareas assoon asfeasible with nativeplants. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that includes a mixture of native plants to be planted on the slopes. The plantings will include jute netting in areas with slopes greater than 2.5:1. The proposed plantings will act to revegetate the area and assist with storm water runoff. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of David House for Design Review and Grading over one thousand cubic yards, has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped May 14, 2004, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The final landscape plan submitted during the building permit plan check review will need to meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 15-47 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. . ®~®~~~ 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 7. The applicant shall apply for a Horse Permit per Section 7-20.220 (G). 8. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 9. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 10. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 11. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 12. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the . responsibility of the property owner. 13. The height of the structure shall not exceed 15-feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. Public Works 14. The applicant shall retain the services of a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Geotechnical Engineer to provide appropriate recommendations and geotechnical design criteria for the proposed construction. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer also shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the proposed grading and drainage plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for associated facilities and structures) to ensure that the grading activities and drainage modifications are appropriate for the site conditions, and do not contribute to adverse offsite impacts. As part of this work, the geologic and geotechnical consultants shall perform the following work: 15. An original, engineering geologic map and cross sections should be prepared at an appropriate scale (e.g., 1" = 40'). The map and cross sections should extend beyond the planned limits of construction as necessary to ensure that offsite conditions have been considered with respect to the proposed grading and drainage modifications. As is • consistent with standard engineering geologic practice, the map and cross sections Q~~~i~i should depict the following features and conditions: the extent and probable thickness of earth materials (fill, thick colluvium, landslides, and bedrock), natural and artificial slopes and slope profiles, orientation of underlying bedrock, and locations of existing and proposed improvements. 16. It is not anticipated that subsurface exploration will be needed; however, the project geologic and geotechnical consultants will need to be on-site during construction in order to observe, monitor and evaluate grading activities (see the following item). 17. The project geologic and geotechnical consultants shall provide general recommendations regarding the need for re-grading, removal or stabilization of existing cuts and fills. The consultants should assess the potential instability of slopes that will be affected by the proposed construction. Slopes with a potential for instability should be identified, with general recommendations provided for mitigation (or for further investigation, if needed). The seismic setting of the property should be considered in the slope stability evaluation. 18. The consultants should evaluate the drainage conditions on the property, particularly with respect to the proposed improvements. The consultants should provide general drainage recommendations, so that the City, owner and contractor have an understanding of the impact that the proposed construction will have on downstream drainage. Remedial measures should be considered that do not increase peak discharge. The area is highly erodible and surface channels are likely to be prone to obstruction from soil erosion and landslide debris. Drainage improvements should incorporate measures to prevent or accommodate a significant amount of material (soil and landslide materials, vegetation and debris) that will likely continue to be eroded and transported to the drainage channel. 19. The results of the plan review, along with technical drawings and evaluations noted above, shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of permits. 20. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for the keyways and subdrain trenches. 21. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 22. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. • ®()003 23. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 24. Fire Department access to the building is not acceptable. See note 3below. (CFC 902) 25. Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. Access: Plans show a trail to access the horse stables and riding area, approximate distance is 1,000 feet from the paved access road. If the proposed use is private horse riding then the trail shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet wide with aone-foot shoulder on each side. If the proposed use is public horse riding then the trail shall be a minimum eighteen (18) feet wide with aone-foot shoulder on each side. 26. Trail surface shall be engineered to support the weight of emergency vehicles weighing up to 35,000 pounds and maintained throughout any weather condition. 27. Unobstructed vertical clearance shall be not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)Provide aturnaround at the end of the trail with a minimum 34-footoutside radius or an equivalent as approved by Saratoga Fire District. 28. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by Saratoga Fire District, minimum area is 40 feet by 48 feet. Details shall be • shown on building plans. CITY ATTORNEY 29. 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 Ciry's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. ~~~~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of May 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ArrEST: 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 Ciry Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ©+O(1~g~ • Attachment 2 • OOU01~ 1 a ~~ ~ August 18, 2003 Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner CITY OF SARATOGA 13?77 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 RE: Old Oak Way APN: 503-15-065 (pending) Quarry Restoration Project Dear john: I believe that Jeff Berg from The Steinberg Group recently discussed with you my desired plan to clean up and restore the quarry to a more natural setting as a part of the overall development plan for my Properties. Unfortunately, this azea has been a dumping ground for past owners and an eyesore for almost 50 years. As you probably remember from our site tour in April, over the past year I have removed a lot of debris from the quarry floor including abandoned appliances, broken concrete and asphalt, . old wooden and steel pieces, old water tanks, pipe, etc. The site still contains many azeas where earth has been piled and shaped in unnatural ways during the quarry operation, leaving unnatural ridges, mounds and slopes. There also exists a major flooding problem. that occurs from storm drainage during heavy rains. I would like to remove the~existing slope `benches', returning the slopes to a more natural shape and to re-grade the quarry floor to protect against flooding, raising it above the flood plain. We also would like to use the excavated material from the Cargill and Olsen residences as part of the plan This would also limit the number of truck trips down Old Oak Way to off-haul the excavated material, something that I know my neighbors will appreciate. I have included a schematic grading plan prepazed by Westfall Engineers, which includes the estimated quantity of earthwork and a few photographs of the project area. Please review and notify me of the appropriate City application process. I would like to start this project as soon as possible ff you have any questions, please call me at 650-810-1003 (office), 408-867-5414 (home) or 408-49?- 4499 (cam. I may also be reached via e-mail at dave@davehouse.com. ,flly Yo , David L. House • CC: Mr. Jeffrey T, Berg, TSG Enclosures ~~~~Z~ • Attachment 3 ~o~®~;S • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 26`h day of May 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. App. NO. 03-217 (503-15-065) -House, 13313 Old Oak Way; -Request for Grading over 1,000 cubic yards to restore and re-vegetate the hillside terrain of an old quarry, and approval of a 15-foot tall accessory structure to be used as a horse stable. 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 ]united to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information • to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 C7 ~0~~~:9 U ~_J 13313 Old Oak Way • ~0~~20 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) 1, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 6th day of May, 2004, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of • the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property uv~ithin 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application 13313 Old Oak Way; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. • J n ;- . - ohn F. Livingston AICP Associate Planne ®®U®~1 HOUSE, DAVID L APN 50312041 13340 OLD OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 WILLIAMS, PHILIP C & DEBORAH L APN 50315060 21272 CHIQUITA WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4259 HABIB, GERARD J & MICHELLE E APN 50315052 13341 OLD OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4253 HABIB, GERARD J & MICHELLE E APN 50315062 13341 OLD OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4253 r] BAUER, BENNETT J & GOODFELLOW, FRED W EHRSAM, WILLIAM A & CYNTHIA L APN 50356007 ESTHER M APN 50356006 13478 OLD OAK WY APN 50356008 13492 OLD OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4207 PO BOX 8018 SARATOGA CA 95070-4207 INCLINE VILLAGE NV 89452 MCGUFFIN, JAMES O & NANCY RIGG, CARL W MORRIS, ALICE J L APN 50357002 APN 50357003 APN 50357001 13385 OLD OAK WY 13427 OLD OAK WY 13363 OLD OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4253 SARATOGA CA 95070-4206 SARATOGA CA 95070-4253 T DENG, GE & PATRICIA W GR.ENS, WALTER B & DORA B JOHNSEN, ROBERT L TRUS APN 50357004 APN 50357005 ETAL 13439 OLD OAK WY 13451 OLD OAK WY APN 50357006 SARATOGA CA 95070-4206 SARATOGA CA 95070-4206 13463 OLD OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4206 PEI, SHIYOU & JIELIN APN 50357007 13485 OLD OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4206 MOSTAAN, PARVIZ & FARZANEH APN 50378035 20720 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4251 MOSTAAN, PARVIZ & FARZANEH APN 50378038 20720 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4251 NEOGY, RATHIN & GERALDINE G TRUSTEE APN 50378031 22665 GARROD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 SAFAI, MANSOUR APN 50378036 21789 VILLA OAKS LN SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 MOSTAAN, PARVIZ & FARZANEH APN 50378033 20720 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4251 MOSTAAN, PARVIZ & FARZANEH APN 50378037 20720 LEONARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4251 • ®~}~~~ r~ . Attachment 4 ~1 ~~ 00~?023 ~' ~ uµ yam;*a~ ty '"~, ' i 3 '"i~I.~f4~~ K` `~u ,~f , ~ ~ f _. .Y. ~;.~ rk. i°'±~a'~" i ,:-,. . - ~i~ar'9 ;.L;s ,~~ __~~;; Ste?:" ~^` ., ~6y , ~,'.' l' p ~ s i c y ~ :~ ;. T v •~~_ i i`A a OOU024 000025 • 0 Q m J U • O ~n J Q W Q C W m Q ~~ ~n W ~~ W ~~ ~_ U Z_ Q Q U 0 0 m c~ w z_ x a CO z w o ~ N ,~ O ~ o N ~ o rn x i 0 U M ~ ~ _ O ~ p o ~ W ~ Q N ~ ~ Y O O E 3 3 3 • O Q w H ¢ rn 0 op °v c~ ~~~ °' ¢ v a ¢ U ~ ~ o N c o0 ca o ti ~ to v Oa ..a ~ aY o~ O ..L ~ r~ r ¢f S w ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ J b ~~ ~u u{' W y r--- ° -------------T -----------------~ i i ~ ~ i ~ i i i i i i ~ i i i i i i i i i G g z a a w a"a b~' ~~ a ~ a ~ c~ z 0 d W a w W a z 0 a w a w H O z 0 w a w H x O z s Q a R a $ a ~ p 6 ~56~ E'cs~ }}EE !~~ ~ ~ 7~ 6 ~ • ~ ~ ~ ? a6 ~ ~ ~ ~$yy ~ f°'E5 N R I ~I N~~ ~a~~ a x~ OQ _ o ~~ ~ 00 ~~ ~~ ~Q ~ ~o ~ o ~ a eo ~` ~~« ~r o` ps E o ea`em ^~o^ > rN ~`oo z <~ro yUuf u~ ~ ~ OeNb > pp p e ONN OptlO G Cm0 p~N~'l ; O •00 elprr p p^~ OJNN ; ~ _O C p C 'C C a 3 i c u i • • ~~ a~ J o 8 ~~ ~~ ~` a g ~ Y 1 A ~~~5 A ~~ ~~11 ~ ~ r- ~~ ~ -~ ,~~ \ ~~ \ ~ ~ ~ \ ~~ ~ ~ A~~\ ~ ~~ ~' ~ . ~ ~, ~~ ` 1 -- ---- ` ~ -- ~ -_- -- - -~/ _- W u W S 1~ N O ~ / ; /; ~ ~ - Z v~ ;~ ~ i~ j ~ ~ :~/ , ~ ~2 ,// ~ /~ ~ ~ '~ 'j ~ - A ' ~ \ i ~ o> ~ ~ Q %// i i WA ~' i ~ ~ ~ / .i ~~ ~` ' ~ ~ ~ / / ~ ~~ l ~ era ~ ~ ~ a r '~ / ~//% I y i p ~ J ~I ~' ,> ~% ' `. ~ , s ~\ ~ ~" .--~ ~\ 6 N U ll ~ ~ 1 W ~ ~ ~, cn `, ~~ I ~ ~ ~;` ~ ~ `~ ~ \~\~~ ~1 ~ ~ ~, ,~ \ 1 ~ ; ~ ~~ i a~, \ ~e Y \ ~~ \~`-- ~ ~- ,;_ f ~~ ~'!/,/, ~~, ~~ l ~~ ~% e ~ ~ ~ ~ m _ U / ~ N ~' O ~ m ~~~ ~ o ~~ ~~ =~ ~~, W W° ~ /~ , ~ Z ~'/ '-' a ~o a Z~ N W J ' ~ -~ a~ / ~m r ~~~ ~ 3 ~~ w /` / ~ y/ O -C~V f g / / n a W U K m / / S } U / J / W R' Y F ' / Ol A „~' -~-- ~ ~ / '/ W W ~- U N • • • Z Q L U ~ Z w o ~ ., ~ O Z Q ~ p 'a. O _ O ~ tZ Z (n t ~ =J ~ - M ° Z U ~ J ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ m W W' ¢ Z _ W (n W Z ~ ~ Q x ~~ m Z ~ O w J U Q W U J~ O O Q O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ 3 N o aJ w0 a /,' w L7 Q O w = dv xw u~ v7 U 4_ •- Z U N ~ Z ~ C 7 N>~ Q ~ U w O x Z ~~o W ¢ 2~ m W d° U 4 ~p~~ 7 ~ ~ H~ W~ O Q ~ a w U z- m 0 O O L ~¢~ W ~ ~ ~ ° >-~ wa Zvi Z ¢zc~ ~ ~ ~ ~--_ a xw w~ ~ /~,1< WAY -~ 0 3~~ z ~ LJ o a ~ O ~ m J o Q-~~-- ~ O O ri ~ ~ ~ O = w '-'-' Q J ¢ G j' W ~ ~ 4j J w L J O N W 1- U J ~ F- d (Y O O ¢~~a~ ~ ~ ~~ w3 ~~ x~~ Yz ~~N x C~ wa rro ~~ v~ z \~/. a - ~ 1 Y N 1- l i ( N d d Q O ~ K ~' w - w Z V ~ O ~ OZ O ~~ N Q r']~~ ~ H ~ U w O liJ Z I..~ J N // W uj ¢ LL ~ C1 ~ O¢ >- // m Z ~wZ ¢cn ~ -J W J J~ O Cn J ~ /// _ ~ O O N~~ p W V7 ~ J Q~ Q J S / //~ 1-1" N w0 ~ ~ W ~ONm w `' ~ / / ~ ~UV ~vi ~OwFw-- J ~ ~o l.iJ Q ~ ¢ -~ (r x x ¢ ~ // ~ O Z¢ Q O w ~ w N ~ w OZ w N U ~o O O 1' I // z~z >-~¢~ ww¢Q No O Z w~UV CD CO ? \ ~ 00° z a x ow °w~ Q ~ ¢ S~UF~ <J- 'cY Z!' ~\'~ 1 Z wUO ~OZOW~YQ C7xZ T m amwlwi N N w:v \~~); / ~ ¢z? ozfz QY Wow ~ ~a i z r I Z z /~ ~ / o ~° O w a w c n w o o w o W I Q Q O W N S x _- W d CZl /n W~ ~~ ~/ J VI LL Q Y Z~ ~- Z v U ~ N W W V J a W U F- S W ~- S e w=~ ~~~ 1 w ~ ' 7Ji1j~~~ ¢ w / , . Q lyJj ~ F- ~ ,. O F- ~ w Z ° ~ w w ~ ~ ° 1 C V] ~ lI/ -~ l } U ¢ Q = m ~ ~ p u) p ~ m ~ O ~ ZO ~ Z J Z p // = z Z Z N J O ~ Z z Z Q Q Z¢ 2 ~ Z Y i/ W d _ Q S w - N ¢ ~ '' ' W H J ~ ~ = Q 0 (n > ~ W > ~ J V1 F- Y w Z Q 1-- ~a(n~ r-mw Qx0~OwO~a d~~ 1 W ? O Z Q¢ N J W Z~ S O Z F- ¢ (n (/1 ~ 1 \ ° ° w W I - ~ 1 ! 3a~~ ~ _ , ~ 1 -, ~' ~. \ -, I I 1 '1 I i ~ , \ 1 ~, i ~ _ ----- -- j 1 1 i ', - --- -- - ~\ ' I 1- ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ --- ~ - -~- . ~ ! ~ - -- _ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ r ' ~ ~ i ~1 ~ ~ f \ 1 _- i ,, , ~ I ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ / ~ ~ I ~ ' ~ I ---------- -- :~~ \ V ~ \ / E '. 1 __ ~~' /~ i I ~~ ~ ~ I / -/ ,~~ ,' ~' I , ~" , ~ ~ / ,' ; ` ~ I ,; 1 ~` ~~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ l ~ J~ I ~ I ~`, ~' J ~"~ ~ ~~ 1 i ~ i I ~ i~ i ~ r i/ . r 1 ~ ' ~i11 ` 1. . \\ ,~1 11 w, - y, ~ (, (' - -- J/ / L, ~ # ~ ~ ~ /~ / ' ~I %/ 1\ t ~ ,1 ~1 .1 _ _ ~ v i ~-------- ! / % ~ r r .o of 1 ~ `~' / ~ ~-" ~ i it ~~ it l ~1~ ~ 1 ~ " /~~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ l -- ~~ ~ it ~i I r ~ ~ 1`--~~- ~ .' I - -~ I '~ O ~ --1.-z I I 1 / - / / W ! / ~ I ` >T` , i ~/ I--ate} 1 ~ W ~- / ~ / ~ 3 ~ k3~ - I'n i /' ~~ ~~,. ., ~, o ~ / ~ / /- ~ -- - ~ , ~ --- ~~/ /C7 I ~ //1 ~~'-'"3 0 `/~ r Spa ~ o ~ ~~ I r ~ i - ~ ~ • • L QY Q £ 'R ~- a E ~~63 ¢e i~~~ ~ E ~ ~ g ~~ i ~j E ~~~t ~ g S G ~E t 5 Asia. R 6~E, ~ sl' 1 - .E ~ O VJ 3~~ Q O ~~ ~~ T ~I ~~ ~ ~ ~ N w Q g VVV~ `~ ~o a D so- of-x E s~om °mo.- u > fN ~~O° t ~~f OI ~(JNb ` •Uu'.~ i~°O. e ~ONN O~OO ~. o•oo oo~~ N ; 3 ONff OJN _O 0 c c c • a • 5 i • ....~ X W z 0 Q ~ O ~~^ VJ ~ Q ~ ~ N O ~- U~ ~ ~ = Q O ~ J O w 0 U Z 0 O C3 Q Q M O ~ r ~ Q O ~i LYNN N~iNN `~~'~N X ~~a~g ~'~~ ~ ~tl w Q ~ ~ _ ~a ~ Q '~ Z N 6~~g Z ~ ~ ~ ~cZ ~ ~ Z ~rrtl U ~ ~ ~ ~~ C ~ g ~ ~ it r S 000 8 RR ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Sao ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ m <~~;o <m~e g"1 ~ --<~c~~~ .J .i ~ n n r d a '~ ~~~ 8~ r^ 3 R H Y IlJ nx~ o~~~g~~$~m ~g n~n~~"'~"'"'~ $r~:rR w___ n _~, ~ 0 ~,~ssssssmsmsssos88 w ~~as§s~~~~~ ~~~ros o °~'~ J m ~ Q m~asax~~~~~ ~ ^~~ ~ ~ ~ w wwZ J ~ ~ ~c`"ic°'i c~i cv', c`4 u°~+°t-i f~ivvGi,G CJ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3; w w w w 3 3 3 3 ;~ $ r. oS=anon ^ ~~~ vri i Y ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ i °0 i $ii ~8 i ~~ g i z ~+ ~ z z a m $x$^aaq~m~~~~em - m Q w ~~~~~~~sa~~~,~ ;~~ Z i J W j '.n r J ~ Na pe / ~N Z 1 3 ~ (~ °' ' ^ h ~ .,_ V / 2/M _• ~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~~ -o Q= ~ p L ~ Y ~O 7 7 Q 1°eg e~,~ ~~~ $~fi S J~ f ~5a~ ~ E6 ~.ega ~6~j ~ ~d~s ~~~ o ~~ a~~~ ~~ ,b l'Z if I ~i .. . Z Y ~ U r a w S `~ ~ o z ~ n z o "~ i m ~ OF HOUSE ~.P~O S,i~~~ L1 ~! ~2 f6 J j l ~ ~ i SQ~ r • - o £ 1 ~ ~ ~ I £I I i ~ c 7 z ,,J 1 CLJ i •~ (~ F-- N (/1 W W 1 1 ~ J ( Ova a w h O 2 !; i s ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ z ~ % - ~ ~ m ~ Q % O (V ~ Y ~ Z I f (~ ~~ a3 Vl O ~ /N / / Q (] I I 1 O 1 ~ I jl N (~ r~ / /' ~ Q / / ~ ~ 1 Q 1 J Y fi ~ I ~ ~ ; Q0212~d0 ~0 SaNVI r t . ~ z ~ W s ~~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ $ x ~ eo- x e o~- ~~ E JS~ ~ ~~ =m s Q~ T~ _ d c^ m oS ° o Q ~ ~~ ~8 ~ ~~ ~~ RR ~ mm e ~W mo~ C om << wUmm o O ~~ $~ ~ 4 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ eUv'.N a eo >SAm e e $ =emm eemm ONN Daoo C Z U W ~ R ~ ~ti ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~S Rq a ~ Cmm ~ eoc o~NlO ~ ~" ; ; ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~~` ~`~' ~ ONf• OJNN ; ~ pa[ a ~3 ~~ ~~~ a ~~~ gyay(( ~R ~ adz" h~~ . -° ~$~ ~~g ~e7S z§g YE~~ g ~3~ a_~ ~^~` c e G c c c V C Q • • • O Z F- h ~ ~ O W V ~ a 2 N Ir O A , Z fd e Z Q W J ~ ~ ~ Z ~ o= ~ A Q H Q ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ Z Q Q ~ J L'f U Z° N ~, O r ~D ~~ 0 V / ~ O O r W~ O~ W~ Zaj ~~ Q ~ r1 u L.J o a Z~ W N a J J ti a~ ~~ ~m ~e w' 3 W J a m F Y W d' Q _ Y W iQ PI A U H W W I w W • • • 0 z z ° w m a ~ w " x ~ N v G 00 ° 3 .o U '~ '= °w a O V a L E N ° Q°~ r E oD '-`~ p a ~ a a U ~ ~ ° w = gp - L ° uo ~ o c - p ' F-ro ~ V1p ` ao ~°w ° v i~ o ~ c,.v w u ` c~ E a°o E w E ° n- `~o° ~ ~' o° .LO ` Y. p w a w z w o 0 ~ ~ ~~? ~ a~ u, La~ n .Y !^c~ ~ >, vc €n rnoy°O- t~~ nh ° aQ boo a x w °w c U ~$ 0« o D geo 7 y ~' ov v uo -_ v ~p ~ ° u ° n y-~~, ~ r m az In >U W7° T Zm o m ° UO.p o U n LoE~ ~,. w u o>~ wo `a 4 o Eo ° c dE'D f o oO$v~ -- o"~ 0 O t m a z : z~ a w pin por a as m Q x n Z uc ° ~uc nY ` ~ a o~ „ -«o Y r no sOO uuu~i ~z `ucro°rv o o vw v o ~~ ~ on a ~i Nz? w ° ~~ a~~ E wavio Q W o nn m °£ o° _ ... o c~ n .. ~3 .. c u v°, ~~ « ~ Q 1 „ . 'o n a N o xaw w~G o a i W N m p Q a m p J ~o "~m oa ~ - _ T ~i°no , >,°op m t°oa v x ~o ~w aJ aaw w Q ow ~ E~°° ~ ~ Y° c FF °> c°y 3 ~: a,~°r ° 3W aai i~ aW'nw U « E w.uo -' u ° uo~"° oon ° a E oy~5 m > uo°ro N j0 U~r~ ~- W¢ N a ai n ~ a o ~ n v `- ~ ooo., o °~° w_;. c n ° o ~ " ° o °°o u ~ ,v o ,[•T °,.~n o ° n-mrn „ a c "' °' ° I ow ~ ~ > J ° w ~za p~ z°o4 ~'~ ~ a ~-' am " O _ ~ . o rt ? w a u- o " n o $~ Eo E r €° L ~ ~« :c .. m>.ov _ wii n 0 v c .- `ou rvo c~n> $ ~ 0 ~ z u ~n ~ - xooci R'' Fo Fo ~nw uw Nzo a° ~ ° ° ~ Q Q iSa o oiwr~iO :rQaa ~ P =gin E~ r o ao `o ~' 0 moo " °o u ~o a°cipDO o 0 a ° w , „ o. rv o~~ ?~ ow~a ~ ~Q u o >0 oo-u$, E 5 5B nv. a o °E °ocv 8° ~ ~a ~ °n°m nu°m `uD ~ a p- °aZ m°~>a° ° a~ ioo m >~Qw O Q fr° c w ao ~ c°ab~ ` ~ o a3 oP -°o a~~'N ° no €c ~a~E~ o°c ~~ a 8 J °w Fxn nzw aipZao © = rc N G y Q °o ~, .. F - O nn - p~ o~ n a ~ ~ m o 6UN O° i 3 w ~~ a " =v i ~aww U N UamZ N W w LL. W Vl rv V ~ u O i byp n> •° E °u 'O " a «p .i~. P- O 0 y ~«~• r O ~o0°n ._ V n Zy°~ Zp K mNI- mJp-'N Jr VI J4 Z~~m N O iL O m b ` °Y w ~ an-- - ~ u r° oa uN ~' ~ y w~$v °n J 0 a0a° N OW< Y G o m « = u8 E'g d v ~ o° ° u p6c°~ ° ~ E`ooyv o .. . ¢ Orc ~ aNOa maim,,, a w a ~.~ Z $ a m «v . c~~oc ~ ` ~~u- n° nc ox - -w ono' n cm - 3~.Y~ ooN OV° c =° ~ u ZaO mwr °fn a° b mrcaa~u zm~k=w Q a ~ £~ n°o ~ n V mo ~ _x ~v as . ° 0 oc0 0 c ~' - m w'~ Z ~ ornu np`oo = }v nu ° Z w p aoJ Zm zvy~~ °NVxi1J z aFJa2 ~03~0 rJK /~~ Z IL Q i ~° ° °-o°oao = u~ «~ ti -oe ao =o`S -_ v °°~` .Ea o pWij~~FUj Wmww QQ~m NN m v~ jJ g o ~u v ._ w .°. c >. a~~.io $o n,. ~o ..mE wT °, _. c' ;u~ °r o v > Wern~ ~ a ~ >, °o "S or n,. ~ z o o a o mu v~JZO >J~y~~ ~~Ja ° ~nw sa ~aa a ce F ° o~°n a~ o oon u =P E o.. n~a~ o °.i o$- r ou .o nn urn. ~ e Pia ~r °,- a z z ° wONa ~ o in o~~o~am"'am-'go,°.? 2 5 0 a P.. ~- C =o ~ ° ~ .R ~~°p °~~ < yv0 cy w_ ~ V 1O u € OD-~w S av~~ o O> U ° O rQ Uw py j aWOW aa~-~~m O~Q ~Z aN Z .~. in z° a>, ~u « ~ a riE nF'o n~ v._.a V r~.. a ~o~i~ rno m.60 m+ .- P crn_n; n ~°n w aV •- rv u•i v~d~aa muFm?p U Z ,~ H ° VI ~ o W o o - W Zu H a 1 ''1 w _-_ L! o Z a a 1 W^ a ~ z 1 J a Q w w '^~'^ m V/ e W~ -- - 3 .. ~ I 1 m N m W K J a [° > u J a x F ~. ~ ~ 'n \ O O o N \ V z o n Q N. i - ._ u - F a r ° W Z N ~ ~ R a ~ O O a u u n z a n Q W r a OW 2> J a N W ~ .. N o C] ~ U W u a Z W ~ O a n ° ~ p z a i W in ° m a - ° w o_ o w w w ~ g ~ „ z m ci ~ dOi ~ w ° a Q I ~ ~ ~^ z $§ >i ~ C~ Cti ° w ~ w F g 00 ~ ~ a ~ - - - fUN ~ ~ ~ i I II II ' z ~ ~ a u 1 I .~ S U U r W p ~ o a z u > _ ~ ~ (n ~ ~ a w a w _ Z U n H W U Z O _ I ~•-I r-1 _ ~ a > 0 N z U ~ m O _ _ WW _ Q a Y -~ i ~ N ~ JJ as iii 5 ~ VUU m ~ a m - UU ~ moa ~ n3ia o V)(/1 ^~: " min in°z -- J ' Z U a N z= ~~° J QQ d - .°_ '' w~ -~n oowFa V' !`~ ~ V4 ~ FF W QOjYr~aW x ~~ b _ ~ sz ~WNw~ ~ ~ ~N ~~~ I- v n~rgL u" y ~ ww~ Q ~~o a~'~Za= 0 S W °O~ E u -: cai ria6ori 0 z ~ • • d = Z a' a ~ ~ W V y ~ T S 4 N U V _J Q W ~ ~ W ~ O O F ~ Q > O ~ I- ~ w w O Q J d A a 0 (~ U W Z N ~~ U H o ~ U . m ~•, a cn o ~~ .~\ } Ws ~~ U W Z Z a U W r-i a a ~ ~ Z rc m W W '~ > ~_ `~ w W -I ' N , • (7 .Z. Z_ V' Z . ,;; Q \ J H x ~.~j, Z J ~ ~; ~ ~ Q F ! i0 r 1'1• /L Z ~~ m ~ l~ L.L r ^ Y ~ ~ `~ ~ 3 o W N a a ~ ~:. ~ ~~ - U Z ` ~ OC F ,_ x = Y ~., N N ~ ~ Z •~t~ 0 o°c ~ ffi ~ ~~ ~ ! W ~ U °~ W ~~ ~ W W _ ~ ~ W ~~ J a Z Q m J U ~ Q a ~ ~ Y F WA f a p M Ng o ~a i u Y _ Y yR~ _ Q Z W _ W l7 Y V Q N W A N O U R y W W T /1/ Q a J l,j~ q 1y 4 O EI ~ ~~ W.J. O ~ O P( J ~~ ~~ ~ ~ m Q ~ J n ~-., W ' w = VJ W 3 ~ ~~ J Qa, u 3 ~ /~ a N Vl ~- ~ 3 °~ ' ~~ U W J ~ W V ~ Z W JI Y ~ a g U z ~u 7j ao O I "' a ~~ a~ ao a oa aW W $ ~W as maw i W H Q (p Z ~ • • ' MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL APRIL 21, 2004 The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a Joint Session with the Pazks and Recreation Commission in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The following Parks and Recreation Commission members were present: Chair Greg Gates, Vita Bruno, Logan Deimler, Anne Sanquini, Tom Soukup, and Staff Liaison Cary Bloomquist. Chair Gates highlighted the PRC's accomplishments such as park renovations and trail improvements throughout the City. Chair Gates noted that in 2004-OS the PRC would do the following: • Continue to support the City's ongoing DeAnza Trail Task Force. • Present trail signage proposal and installation • Create and publish a City Trail map • Actively pursue new trail developments • Continue to manage Trail Maintenance Matrix • Continue to work with the Sazatoga Retirement Community • Kevin Moran Park - develop a plan for unused space • Gazdiner Pazk -development of a BMX azea • Skate Pazk - find a location • Dog Park -review needs • Use Fees -review fees • Events and Community Involvements -become more involved and hold events at various pazks • Master Plan -Open Space Element will be integrated into the Pazks And Recreation Element • Update Trails Master Plan • Update Parks Master Plan In regards to the Saratoga Area Pazk Map, Commissioner Bruno provided copies of the map to the Council pointing out that front shows site locations and the back of it lists the amenities at each park. Commissioner Bruno noted that most residents don't know that there are so many parks in the City. Commissioner Bruno explained that the PRC would like it to go in the next Sazatogan and be posted on the City's website. Consensus of the City Council to support the PRC's request in regards to the Sazatoga Area Park Map. Councilmember Streit suggested sending the map to all of the schools in Saratoga. • Commissioner Sanquini explained that now that all of the trails have been identified in the City the PRC would like to implement a trail signage program. Commissioner Sanquini noted that the PRC would like to place 10 trail signs; five of the signs would replace old signs already in place. A discussion took place in regards to trail rules. City Attorney Taylor noted that the rules would be addressed in the Trails Master Plan. A discussion took place in regards to the placement of signs in the various neighborhoods. Consensus of the Council to make sure it is a public process. Consensus of the City Council to direct the PRC to concentrate on finding flat grass and trails. Director Pisani noted that when she attended the CPRS conference she spoke to employees of the City of Campbell who suggested that the City of Saratoga partner with them in their new skateboard park. They asked that the City of Saratoga donate the equipment to them and they would allow Saratoga youths to use their park for free. Chair Gates also noted that the City of Campbell has requested that the West Valley Cities donate $25,000 per city to develop a Dog Park off of San Tomas Aquino Road and Highway 17. Chair Gates noted that the City of Campbell offered to attend a Council meeting to provide the Council with information regarding their proposed park. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked the PRC for attending tonight's joint meeting. The City Council adjourned to the Volunteer Recognition reception in the Theater's lobby at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council 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 Cherbone, Public Works Director Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR_APRIL 21, 2004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of April 21, 2004 was properly posted on Apri115, 2004. • 2 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cheriel Jensen stated that she recently sent a letter to the City Council and wanted to make sure they received it. Mayor Waltonsmith responded that the Council received her letter in their mail. Patricia Bailey, Chair/Heritage Preservation Commission, explained to the Council that the HPC recently denied a request from Mrs. Bensen, a local business owner, to purchase a fresh flower urn to be placed below the Memorial Arch. Chair Bailey noted that the HPC wanted Council support on their decision. Chair Bailey also stated that the HPC requested that the City Council make every effort to preserve the Sam Cloud Barn. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO HEAR CEREMONIAL ITEMS BEFORE THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF • Consensus of the City Council to support the HPC's decision in regards to the request from Mrs. Benson. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Waltonsmith announced that there are ten vacancies on the Youth Commission, two vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission and one vacancy on the Public Safety Commission. Deadline to submit an application is Apri130, 2004 by 5:00 p.m. Applications and information can be found at www.sarato ag ca.us or call the City Clerk's office at 868-1269. CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1 A. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF JUNE 2004 "SCLERODERMA AWARENESS MONTH" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge proclamation. Mayor Waltonsmith acknowledged the proclamation. 3 1B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF APRIL 18 - 24, 2004 "NATIONAL VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Waltonsmith read the proclamation and presented individual commendations to several volunteers who donated time in FY 03-04. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS Greg gates, Chair/PRC, noted that the PRC meet with the City Council prior to tonight's City Council meeting to discuss accomplishments and future activities. Evan Baker, Chair/ Vision AdHoc Committee, stated that last year after several community meetings the City Council formed the Saratoga Vision AdHoc Committee. Mayor Waltonsmith appointed Vic Monia, Dick Allen, Michael Byrd, Doug Robertson, Nick Streit, Kathleen King and himself to the Committee. Mr. Baker stated that the report this evening was an interim report. Mr. Baker briefly explained what each member would be presenting this evening. Vic Monia, Vision AdHoc Committee member, thanked the Council for setting up the Committee. Mr. Monia stated the AdHoc's charter was to find out what kind of community the citizens of Saratoga want to have. Mr. Monia stated that during the • AdHoc's deliberations they discovered that the City has severe shortfalls in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) and Pavement Management Program (PMP) funds. Mr. Monia stated that the CIP is short approximately $1 million and the PMP is short approximately $2 million. Richard Allen, Vision AdHoc Committee, stated that the AdHoc Committee has looked at several revenue enhancement alternatives. Mr. Allen briefly described why the City's financial health has declined. Mr. Allen stated that so far the City Council has been very prudent, but it is time to generate revenue. Mr. Allen stated that the AdHoc supports a Utility Users Tax (UUT) on the November 2004 ballot. Mr. Allen stated that a UUT would only need 50% voter approval to pass. Mr. Allen stated that the City had a previous electric and gas UUT of 3.5%, which ended in 1996. Mr. Allen stated that if a 5% UUT was passed it would generate an approximate $3.265 million annual revenue enhancement Doug Robertson, Vision AdHoc Committee, stated that according to an assessment of City infrastructure, prepared by the Department of public works, the City's annual operating need for maintaining existing infrastructure is approximately $2.7 million. The City is currently operating with an annual shortfall of $1 million, which includes $850k for street maintenance and repair, and $150k for sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Mr. Robertson noted that the current backlog of deferred infrastructure maintenance was determined to be approximately $16.6 million, with $10.5 million of that amount attributed to the deferred maintenance of City streets. 4 Councilmember Bogosian asked how the Committee would argue to the community that ' the City needs a WT and convince the community that it would go to the critical needs of the streets. Mr. Baker responded that as a fiscal conservative he would say unless we fix the problems now the cost to fix it later would be prohibitive. Mr. Baker also noted that the community does not know enough about the financial condition of the infrastructure and the City to gain their support. Mr. Baker stated that Committee doesn't think the tax needs to be restricted. Mr. Baker stated that the Committee is recommending that the Council go forward and place a 5% WT on the November 2004 ballot. Mr. Baker stated that the Committee is asking the Council for permission to hold community forums in order to get a feel for the level of support for a WT and allow them to send out a mailer to all citizens in Saratoga with the Committee's findings. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked the Committee for all of the work they have done. Councilmember Streit stated that he also thought about how the City would restrict the money, but now he sees that there are going to be more needs such as public safety. Councilmember Streit stated that if we don't start now future Councils would be dealing with a crisis. Councilmember Streit stated he fully supports WT. Vice Mayor King stated that citizens don't understand how small the City's budget is. Referring to all of the funds the State takes away from the City of Saratoga, Vice Mayor King stated that the City has to develop some way to bring funds into the City without the State being able to touch it. Councilmember Bogosian asked at what level can the City use public funds to participate in placing a WT on the ballot. City Attorney Taylor responded that the City could use public funds to collect public input and educate the public, but cannot use public funds to support passage of the measure Councilmember Kline noted that he supports the Committee moving forward with getting the facts out to the community. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he cannot argue with the numbers presented tonight, but is uncomfortable with an undesignated WT. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he doesn't trust future Councils to use the funds properly. KLINE/KING MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADHOC'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED TIMELINE; APPROVE THE ADHOC TO HOLD COMMUNITY FORUMS: AUTHORIZE THE DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION TO THE. COMMUNITY THAT SUMMARIZES THE COMMITTEE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. MOTION PASSED 5- 0. n 5 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A. STATUS OF VTA REORGANIZATION -JOE PIRZYNSKI, BOARD VICE CHAIR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Mr. Pirzynski was unable to attend tonight's meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 9, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KING/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2004. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSTAINING. 3B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. KING/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3C. ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE MIXED USE STANDARDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant second reading and adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 230 KING/STREIT MOVED TO GRANT SECOND READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3D. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION N0.03-269 TO CONSTRUCT A 302.5 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO A HOME AT 14403 SOBEY ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-033 6 KING/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION N0.03-269 TO CONSTRUCT A 302.5 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO A HOME AT 14403 SOBEY • ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3E. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING VTA'S RECOMMENDATION OF A SOUTHERN GATEWAY INTO THE BAY AREA FOR THE PROPOSED CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 3F be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would not support this resolution without further information and requested a presentation from the VTA and the Sienra Club. Councilmember Kline noted that he concurred with Councilmember Bogosian request. Consensus of the City Council to remove the item to a future agenda. 3F. LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1; • PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION FOR FY 04-05 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolutions. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-035,036 KING/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FY04- 05. MOTION PASSED 5-0. KING/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3G. CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR STREET SWEEPING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve one-year extension with Los Altos Garbage Company. KING/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE ONE-YEAR EXTENSION WITH LOS ALTOS GARBAGE COMPANY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7 3H. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 APPLICATION FOR THE QUITO ROAD SIDEWALK PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. . TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-037 KIN/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FISCAL YEAR 04-OS TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PROJECT FUNDING. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS 4. BUDGET STATUS REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca explained that the City continues to anticipate no further adjustments to its 2003/04 budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. Director Baloca noted that the City's 2004-OS Operating Budget is underway and an early Budget Study Session has been scheduled for Apri123, 2004 and the Finance Commission will review the City Manger's proposed budget on May 5, 2004. Director Baloca highlighted significant budget impacts that will be addressed during the initial presentation of the proposed budget. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Director Baloca for the update. NEW BUSINESS 5. COMMISSION RECOGNITION DINNER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Ann Sullivan, Secretary to the City Manager, presented staff report. Secretary Sullivan explained past practices of the Annual Commission Recognition Dinner. Secretary Sullivan stated that based on the number of participants for the past four years the average cost of this event has been 8 approximately $9,000. Secretary Sullivan noted that due to budget constraints staff researched alternative venues. Secretary Sullivan explained the alternatives. Councilmember King suggested that staff contact Villa Montalvo and the . Mountain Winery and see if they could offer the City a lower bid proposal. Consensus of the City Council to proceed with the annual Commission Recognition Dinner at the Saratoga Country Club. 6. VILLAGE FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Danielle Surdin, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Surdin explained that in an effort to help Sazatoga's struggling downtown Village Commercial District, the City Council approved $50,000 for FY 2003- 2004 to fund a Village Facade Program to spur private investment. The Village Ad Hoc Committee was asked to oversee the creation and implementation of the program. Analyst Surdin explained that the Facade Improvement financial assistance would help business owners acquire new awnings, signs, exterior painting, etc. • Analyst Surdin stated that the Village Facade Improvement program would offer financial assistance to local business owners with property owner approval, or an interested property owner on a matching grant basis. The City will reimburse the applicant 50% of approved project expenses up to a max of $5000. All eligible applicants will have facade improvement projects that will be noticeable from Big Basin Way. Analyst Surdin noted that any facade improvements that occur in this program will have to meet applicable codes, ordinances/statutes and requirements of the City of Sazatoga, and will be reviewed by the small facade improvement committee. This committee could include a representative from our planning department and our code enforcement officer. Analyst Surdin explained the application period for the matching grant program begins July 1 of each year, and remains open until all City funds have been expended or committed for the current fiscal year. Project cost approvals are limited to a maximum of $5,000 per project, and no single property owner may receive more than 33% of the funds appropriated for this program in any one year. Many property owners have multiple business tenants on a single pazcel Analyst Surdin explained the two program options: 1) Program Administration Option A: • • Program would be administered by Staff and renewed yeazly through the CIP Process 9 Village Ad Hoc Committee will review each project request and ' recommend project approval to Council Staff would provide updates to Council on all grant recipients • progress 2) Program Administration Option B: • Program would be administered by Staff and renewed yearly through the CIP Process • Staff Facade Improvement Committee (committee could consist of one staff member of the planning department, public works department, and our code enforcement officer) would make administrative decisions on all potential grant recipients with no additional Council approval • Staff would provide updates to Council on grant recipients and their progress Councilmember Kline noted that once one facade is improved the other merchants/owners would follow. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the City talked about a forming a Redevelopment Agency which is suppose to take care of blight in the Village. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the Council should have a say in who gets the money. Councilmember Kline responded that this program would help enhance the . Village. Councilmember Kline noted that $50,000 is not going to fix much to improve blight, but would allow business owners who would normally not be able to afford a new awning. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would feel more comfortable setting aside this money for a program that would generate tax revenue for the City. Vice Mayor King stated that the Village has very few vacancies, this program will help make what's there look better. Councilmember Streit stated that the Facade Program is another tool to improve the viability of the Village. KING/KLINE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE VILLAGE FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM USING OPTION B FOR IMPLEMENTATION. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OPPOSING. 7. WILDWOOD PARK WATER FEATURE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to enter into a Professional Design and Building • Agreement with Inter Play Design. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. 10 Analyst Bloomquist stated that on August 6, 2003 the City Council approved the ' design plans for Wildwood Park, which included a water feature element created by Interplay Design. Analyst Bloomquist stated that since that time the water feature has been slightly modified. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the Wildwood Park Task Force and the Parks and Recreation Commission approved the changes. Analyst Bloomquist described the elements of the new water feature for Wildwood Park and noted that it would take approximately 12 weeks for delivery and installation. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the total water feature project cost should not exceed $22,575, with funding available from the current CIP. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL DESIGN AND BUILDING AGREEMENT WITH INTER PLAY DESIGN. MOTION PASSED 5-0. REPORT ON COSTS INCURRED FOR ABATEMENT AT 14660 QUITO ROAD, SARATOGA CALIFORNIA (ESCAMILLA - APN 407-14-004) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm the report on Costs of Abatement Incurred for the Abatement of Nuisance at 14660 Quito Road; adopt resolution confirming report and authorizing special • assessment and other actions for recovery. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-038 Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained the relevant background on the procedures to be followed in order to recover the City's costs incurred for abatement at 14660 Quito Road, Saratoga. City Attorney Taylor stated that it is recommended that these proceedings be conducted as soon as possible following the abatement in order to ensure that the appropriate lien or special assessment is promptly placed on the property. City Attorney Taylor stated that following final action on the Report by the Council, the City should pursue a special assessment to recover the costs of the abatement. This is accomplished by transmitting a copy of the Report confirmed by the Council, together with a copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council, to the County Tax Collector. The Resolution submitted for the Council's consideration authorizes and directs the City Manager and the City Attorney to take all actions necessary and convenient to impose and collect a special assessment for the abatement costs and to provide at least constructive notice of the assessment against the subject property. City Attorney Taylor An Itemized Cost Statement is attached showing the total cost of abatement proceedings as $19,583.66. 11 BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AND ADOPTING COST RECOVERY REPORT FOR THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES LOCATED AT 14660 QUITO ROAD (ESCAMILLA - APN 407-14-004). MOTION PASSED 5-0. AGENCY ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Aran Waltonsmith reported the following information: Hakone Foundation Liaison -May 22 & 23, 2004 Hakone Festival Saratoga Historic Foundation -May 18' 2004 the City and the Foundation is co- sponsoring apresentation on the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. Vice Mayor Kathleen King reported the following information: Chamber of Commerce -Assistant City Manager Lorie Tinfow and Economic Development Coordinator Danielle Surdin gave a presentation in regards to the proposed Redevelopment Advisory Commission. Councilmember Stan Bogosian reported the following information: County HCD Policy Committee -Project Match house sold in Saratoga. Requested that the City help them find a new home in Saratoga. Councilmember Norman Kline reported the following information: Library Joint Powers Association - Measure B failed -next meeting JPA will start to look at ways to make cuts. Councilmember Nick Streit reported the following information: Santa Clara Count~Valley Water Commission -continued discussion in regards to the discrepancy in rates between the North and South. West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association -the JPA's contract with Green Valley Disposal will expire in February 2007. The JPA has started the process anticipating a competitive bid process. West Valley Sanitation District -started budget process. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested the staff start education the community on the proposed RDA. Responding to Councilmember Bogosian's request, Councilmember Kline noted that Vice Mayor King announced the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life on May 22 & 23, 2004. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None OTHER None • 12 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 9:50 p.m. ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION 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 MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION Mayor Waltonsmith reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting 10:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • 13 ~i • •